question on A9L

All discussions about V8 Rangers

Moderator: MalcolmV8

Post Reply [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
gorgo
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:52 pm
SM: No
Location: OLYMPIA WASHINGTON
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

question on A9L

Post by gorgo » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:02 am

is the tune from year to year the same?
93 4X4 Long Box w/ 98 exployer 5.0, aod eld performer 650 carb
72 ford 3/4 4X4 HiBoy big block

broncobowsher
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:14 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by broncobowsher » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:09 pm

yes it is

User avatar
cgrey8
Supporting Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm
SM: No
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Post by cgrey8 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:25 pm

The A9L, A9M, A3M, A3M1, and A3M2 are all almost identical. There is a very small difference between each, but so small and minor that you'd never notice the difference from a performance standpoint because the differences are not related to performance.

I just looked up the differences and the 2 major changes are an EGR position sensor minimum voltage setting and an AC cutout on high ECT temp setting. All the other differences are system level changes that don't affect the way the engine is controlled.

The amazing thing is A9L's often sell on eBay for $100+, but A3M1 EECs can be found for $30-40 mainly because most people don't realize that these EECs are 100% interchangeable with A9Ls.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331, ported GT40p heads w/1.6RRs, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, ported Explorer lower, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, A9L w/Moates QuarterHorse, Innovate LC-1, James Duff traction bars, iDelta DC Fan controller

Admin of EECtuning.org

User avatar
MalcolmV8
Supporting Member
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:50 pm
SM: Yes
Location: Kansas City, MO
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by MalcolmV8 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:41 am

How about A9P? how different is that one? I believe that's the one I'm running in the blue truck.
92 302 Ranger - sold
94 302 Ranger AWD - sold
07 BMW 335xi - tuned, boost turned up, E85 - sold
04 911 TT - to many mods to list. Over 600 All Wheel HP on pump gas - sold
2015 Coyote - daily driver
03 Cobra - 2.3 TVS on a built 12:1 CR motor with ported heads, cams, long tubes etc.
MD Racing Lean Protection Module
E85

Tuned by MD Racing

User avatar
cgrey8
Supporting Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm
SM: No
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Post by cgrey8 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:28 am

The A9P is based on slightly older code (GUF1) so there are some differences between it and the A9L (GUFB). The A9P's brother EECs that are 100% interchangeable with it are the C3W and C3W1. They are to the A9P the way all those other EECs mentioned are to the A9L. Notice the codes GUF1 and GUFB. Those are memory strategy codes. All EECs following the same strategy can be loaded with the same parameters of any other EEC of the same strategy.

The A9P code is missing some idle control logic that the A9L has. And the settings in the code that's common between the two are fairly different. It's quite possible for someone to notice the difference between an A9P and A9L, but surprisingly MOST people with manual trannys don't. In fact, the only people that notice the difference are people with automatics that replace their A9P (tuned for automatics) with an A9L (tuned for manuals). What they notice is when they put the tranny in gear, the engine could stumble or completely conk out when the tranny loads up the engine in drive/reverse. With a tuning device, this is 100% tunable for in the A9L because the A9L has ALL the code the A9P has...just different settings/parameters.

The A9T is another EEC that follows the same memory strategy as A9P. The A9T was tuned for the State Patrol 5.0L Mustangs in the late 80s and early 90s. They are rich-tuned in Closed Loop, but at WOT run a bit leaner than stock A9P. The stock 5.0L GT EECs are notorious for being overly rich at WOT to the point of loosing power. Presumably Ford made the assumption that people would put mods on the engine and to be safe, it is rich-tuned...better to be too rich than too lean. Another benefit the A9T has over the A9P is a higher spark advance at WOT and non-WOT conditions. I have no clue what mechanical differences there were between the stock GTs and the State Patrol 5.0Ls, but the tune is certainly different and obviously directed to improve performance. The only non-performance difference in the tune is a slightly higher EGR flow likely to help with NOx emissions due to the higher spark advance.

Interestingly the A9L has a similar cousin EEC that follows its strategy called the X3Z. The X3Z is the EEC used on the 93 Cobra. It is NOT a direct drop-in for the A9L because of 2 very important differences amongst 100s of minor differences. The X3Z was tuned expecting 24lb injectors and a 70mm MAF which is the main reason it isn't a direct swap. But because it follows the same strategy as the A9L, you can load an X3Z tune into an A9L using the TwEECer or Moates chip.

One of the most interesting differences about the X3Z is it supports Decel Fuel Shut-Off (DFSO) where none of the Mustang GT tunes have this enabled. What this does is turns off the injectors when the RPMs are held high at closed throttle by a manual tranny. So for instance, if you have DFSO enabled and coast down a hill in gear, the EEC will literally stop firing the injectors so you burn no fuel going down a hill. This does create additional engine braking as compared to an engine without DFSO enabled. Higher compression and stroker engines experience a fair amount of additional engine braking, but on my stock Explorer engine, I barely notice it so enabling that feature for my application was a no-brainer.

That was probably way more info than you wanted to know, but there you have it. Any other questions? I can talk about this stuff from now on.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331, ported GT40p heads w/1.6RRs, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, ported Explorer lower, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, A9L w/Moates QuarterHorse, Innovate LC-1, James Duff traction bars, iDelta DC Fan controller

Admin of EECtuning.org

User avatar
MalcolmV8
Supporting Member
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:50 pm
SM: Yes
Location: Kansas City, MO
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by MalcolmV8 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:13 pm

Actually that was quite informative. So if I found an A9T it would be a direct drop in replacement for my A9P but with more performance in mind? I noticed you said leaner at WOT, wonder if that would be a problem since the Explorer motors have better heads and intake than the original GT motor those EECs were designed for.
Just pondering I'm not about to run out and make changes right now.
92 302 Ranger - sold
94 302 Ranger AWD - sold
07 BMW 335xi - tuned, boost turned up, E85 - sold
04 911 TT - to many mods to list. Over 600 All Wheel HP on pump gas - sold
2015 Coyote - daily driver
03 Cobra - 2.3 TVS on a built 12:1 CR motor with ported heads, cams, long tubes etc.
MD Racing Lean Protection Module
E85

Tuned by MD Racing

User avatar
cgrey8
Supporting Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm
SM: No
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Post by cgrey8 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:50 pm

For the most part, yes. If you run 92-93 octane and advance your distributor 4°, you'll be running about the same amount of advance as the A9T runs at WOT. The upside to running the A9T would be you don't have that advance at ALL conditions...just the harder throttle positions. And yes, the A9T would run WOT a .5 to 1 AFR points leaner which is what the C&L 73mm MAF tries to do. But as you found, it that can cause other problems. And if you find a cheap A9T, it might be worth picking up just to try it and see how it does.

Another option just to throw it out there is to buy a Moates chip and burner setup. With that, you could put the A9T tune into the Moates chip as well as modify most any aspect of the tune you wanted to using an unlicensed version of BinaryEditor. To do that would probably cost more than the A9T on eBay, but you'd have access to far more...such as disabling the Thermactor (smog pump). Moates chips also allow you to install 2 different tunes and flip between them on the fly (i.e. a driving tune and a NOS tune). And if you decided you wanted to do some MAF curve tuning, you could buy a Wideband to get your engine's AFR so you can adjust things a little closer. But I wouldn't expect major gains from that kind of tuning. If you were REALLY serious about tuning, you'd want to get a TwEECer RT, a Wideband controller/sensor, and purchase the software BinaryEditor & EEC Analyzer. Then you could not only change anything in the tune, but you could datalog the EEC so you can see exactly what the EEC is doing and adjust it to your heart's content.

With the benefit of datalogging, I run in my tune with the HEGO switch point voltage turned really lean so it runs the engine leaner than stock to pick up some fuel economy gains. But I've had to modify MULTIPLE things to keep the Closed Loop behavior from running it too lean and causing driveability problems. I can't say I've picked up massive fuel economy savings. But prior to my fuel economy tweaks, the best I could get was 19 MPG in the city with 92/93 octane. With these settings and using acetone on 87 octane, I can consistently get 21+MPG on my daily commute assuming I keep my foot out of it and drive light (no WOT, lightly speed up down hills and slightly decel up hills). When gas was $4+, that was a big deal. Now that gas prices are back down, I find I put my foot into it a little more than I used to. So I don't drive quite as conservative and instead enjoy the V8. Remember, ever since the truck has had the V8 in it, gas has been above $3/gal most of the time.

I just recently got an LC-1 Wideband and I'm using it to tweak out my OL/WOT AFRs. When I got the X-pipe welded in, I also had them weld in the bung for the WB sensor. I'm amazed the tune is as close as it is, but there's plenty of room for improvement now that I can see what the non-Closed Loop AFRs really are. Some places, the tune was set for 13.0 AFR and the WB confirmed that I'm getting low 12s and high 11s. Adjusting that up to the high 12s/low 13s range should pick up a little more power as well as not wasting as much fuel when I do go to WOT. Although if I had it to do over again, I'd work harder to find a bung location closer to the header than it is. There's a fair amount of delay between the HEGO and the WB at light load conditions. I think it's also getting some back flow from the CATs which makes the readings a little erratic. But at WOT, it's a bit more stable.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331, ported GT40p heads w/1.6RRs, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, ported Explorer lower, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, A9L w/Moates QuarterHorse, Innovate LC-1, James Duff traction bars, iDelta DC Fan controller

Admin of EECtuning.org

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable