Bullet Bob wrote:

Day, what are you planning to do with the MS?  I might be interested in buying it if it will run multipoint.  Is that an SD system?

 

I am planning on selling it but not until I get the 351W running with the terminator X.  I have little doubt the TX will do exactly what I want it to, BUT I always like to have a backup plan.  The MS system will do ignition, transmission and the fuel injection.  It is extremely customizable... for me to customizable.  My kit is the MS1 and then I purchased the MS2 daughter card.  I upgraded it to control a Ford IAC.  I also have the relay board, stimulator board, the Ford CFI I rebuilt as a TBI as well as the relay to ECU cable and the USB adapter for the ECU.   If you are interested I would make you a package deal, but if not there is a good market out there for these parts and I can easily sell them.
 

Run the Ford EECIV system.  Its better than any aftermarket EFI that's reasonably priced.  The EECIV has OEM reliability, OEM troubleshooting, OEM parts availability, and legions of tuners on forums to help you when something isn't working right.

Aftermarket EFI changes constantly (the parts you have now may not be available in a couple years when you have a problem), manufacturer tech support is notoriously bad, and QC is nowhere near what it is for an OEM system. 

Self tuning, self learning, etc. only really works to a point.  They talk about this a lot, because its a way to put a customer's (who isn't familiar with EFI) mind at ease so they will buy something they don't really understand.  The EECIV system is also self tuning and self learning.  There's a world of difference between self tuning/self learning and optimized. 

You don't want to have to learn to tune EFI, but you're going to spend the time needed to learn how to install that system, and the time to research it.  Take that time and learn to tune.  If you know how to tune a carb, you can learn to tune EFI.  I'm not a fan of having things on my vehicle I don't fully understand.  You have an issue it becomes a case of being overly trusting in the code based diagnostics, or the default of blaming the magic box.  We got into this hobby to learn, to tinker, modify and experiment.  Don't stop now. 

Mach173 wrote:

I looked at this with the terminator stealth. It can Control the 4r70w. But it's rather pricey and I really don't Think it can compete with MPI. I ran the sniper for 2 years then the CPU cracked and I Went back to carb. I have a lot friends that have throwed away Holley and Went with the Edelbrock pro flo. Almost everyone say that it's a more stabile system. Again the edelbrock doesn't make anything for the 351c. Options would be to drill and weld in bungs int the airgap and by a kit for the 390/460 that use the sam Dizzy.But its expensive when adding it all together.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your comparison between Holley and Edelbrock is Sniper compared to Pro Flo?   Based on that assumption the pro flow setup is always going to be better because it's MPFI .  Its kind of like comparing a 200 I6 to a 408W stroker.  They will both fit between the frame rails and get the car moving but how effective they are at doing it is way different.  The lack of stability you speak of comes from the sniper being TBI.  Throttle body injection was not an OEM option fo that many years from all manufactures because MPFI is so much better.   I know a lot of people have had fantastic success with the sniper setup or some of the other options on the market but they are still limited like a carburetor by the flow issues that can cause unequal fueling at each cylinder.  That is Why I went with terminator X.  I am able to run MPFI with OEM Ford upper and lower (sort of would had to adapt for my 351W) totally customize it for my application, modify it in the future of I change something BUT the setup is simple and tuning is simple.

Bullet Bob wrote:

Having just completed my first venture into "tuning" I am fairly satisfied.  Actually, pulling the running data and reviewing that on the laptop really helped my understand what's going on.  I found that at WOT it was running 9% lean so a 30 second change cured that.  The crank pulse was too long and causing it to flood on warm start...couple of minutes later it was hot starting very reliably. 
Yes I now have engine trouble but that has nothing to do with the EFI.  The five or six hard pulls to 5K rpm caused major bearing wear but that's not due to the EFI but rather to something shutting off the oil.
My point is that I believe TKO is correct.  The Ford system is far and away superior to any aftermarket system, it just takes a little "book learnin'" to get it just right on a modified engine.
BB1
 

I don't think we can say that the Ford system is, "far and away superior to any aftermarket system​"  Has OEM proven itself to be reliable? yes.  Is it easy enough to setup and modify so that you do not need a degree in electrical engineering or computer science? Yes.  Can it be customized to handle most any application? yes, but at this point the learning curve goes up.  Is it modern technology and programming? No  It is a system that is 30+ years old and when it comes to electronics, the evolution of computers is rapidly changing and something on the market now is far superior to something that was on the market as little as 5 years ago let alone 20 or 30.  Because technology is constantly changing/growing TKO brings up a valid point that 3, 5 or even 10 years from now getting parts/support for this kit might be harder however the same can be said for the OEM Ford equipment.  Thats a big part of the reason I didn't go that direction, parts are getting harder to find and being technology based I am guessing fewer people will be running it because "better newer tech" is available. In fact that is exactly why the kit I am running was designed, it eliminates the Ford OEM computer on a Foxbody.  Terminator X has already been on the market for 3 years and is still going strong.  Will things change? yes. but I think Holley will support it for a long time, at least I hope they do  

 

TKOPerformance wrote:

We're all awesome at talking ourselves into things aren't we?  So maybe this is just how I talked myself into continuing to work with EECIV systems, but...

Truer words were never spoken.  It's so easy to look at all these systems, do all the research, make a decision and then hope it's the right one, especially when there are so many good options.

TKOPerformance wrote:

You can't compare the reliability of a 3 year old system to a 30 year old system.  The EECIV has proven itself in those 30 years covering billions of miles.  3 year old tech is just that, 3 years old.  I'd be surprised if all the systems they sold so far combined total a million road miles.  Any 4 EECIV systems still on the road probably total a million miles. 

You are correct there is no comparison there.  30 years reliability is far better then 3 

TKOPerformance wrote:

Computers being better really has nothing to do with the EFI getting better.  You don't need a fancy new computer to do it, and in fact, the more complex a computer is like anything else the more failure prone.  I've yet to see a problem with an EECIV system that could be made better by using a "better" computer, and I've used them on everything from mild to wild, including several non-stock applications that weren't even Fords. 
 

Components and software are better IMHO on new setups but there is nothing wrong with the OEM stuff so that is not much of an advantage.

TKOPerformance wrote:

I'm confused about your concern over parts availability too.  I can buy any part I need for an EECIV based system (I actually recently have as I've been doing my 89 GT).  Sensors are all commonly available.  If you want OEM Ford just check eBay if you can't find a Motorcraft part at Rock Auto.  Wiring harnesses are reproduced, and there are custom fits ones already available to fit the early mustang chassis (check Ron Francis).  This isn't changing anytime soon since the Foxes have become classics.  More parts are available now than 10 years ago, and look at the vintage side of the hobby.  Those cars can now be built from parts like a '32 Ford hot rod.  It's more likely the Fox parts availability continues in that direction rather than declines.  I've seen some engine swaps in Foxes, but most guys are still running an EFI 5.0, because that's part of what makes the car nostalgic for them. 

It's not a lack of availability its cost verses what you are getting.  I look at it kind of like a set of E7 heads.  There are lots of used options out there but why spend money on them and then invest more money into new valves and springs when you can get an aftermarket set of fully assembled heads for not much more comparatively and you get a bunch more performance.

Bottom line is there is nothing wrong with the OEM setup and I am not putting it down or putting down those running it.  For me I wanted something easily customizable, no learning curve, basically plug and play and the Holley setup met those needs the best.  Hopefully it works as well as I think it will and doesn't have issues in the future.

 

TKOPerformance wrote:

I'd be real careful banking on the new software being "better".  More user friendly probably, but better is a hard sell.  I'm not a software engineer, but a close friend is, and I've learned some stuff from him that really opened my eyes to that portion of the computer world.  Like with most things, the simplest solution is typically the best.  The problem is that in software that elegant solution requires substantial development time, and high quality personnel to achieve.  Properly developed the same thing can often be accomplished with 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of code. 

While that is again true I don't think that applies here.  Most software has issues and bugs to work out because it's an evolution of a previous version, and built in a rush to stay competitive.   this is purpose built software that is based on Holley's EFI system which has been on the market for quite a while.  Its not overly complicated and and has more features and options the the OEM stuff with less effort, that why I view it as "better".

It has been amusing debating this with you, we both have opinions, but neither one of us should really be debating this because neither of us have any experience with the other persons system.  In other words it's all us defending the system we "know" with little or no knowledge of the other system.  

I will report back when I have more results to share.
 

TKOPerformance wrote:

Ford had SEFI in '86 and MAF in '89. 

Actually Tom, I think Ford had the MAF in 88 in Calif.

BB1
 

There are three advantages I see for the Holley Terminator X compared to the OEM EECIV:
1. The Terminator X can handle boost out of the box if you want to upgrade from NA.
2. The Terminator X system can be used on engines other than a V8, such as a 6cyl or 4cyl, just change the parameters in the ECU.
3. Ford didn't make an EFI system for my inliine 6, but the Terminator X can be used on it (see 2 above).
 

Ford used the EECIV system on tons of 4 cylinders.  I have one running on a '74 BMW 2002ti, that also has a turbo, on the stock BMW 2.0 engine.  No, you can't use a V8 based system on a 4 (not easily anyway), but the 4 cylinder systems are plenty available and cheap. 

Ford also used the EECIV system on the 300 (aka 4.9) straight six engines.  When using the EECIV on non stock applications you just need to find a harness and ECU for the proper layout.  You can adjust wiring lengths of injector plugs to get the firing order right if needed.  Yes, there may also be fabrication if your engine did not have factory EFI ever (weld injector bungs into an intake, build a fuel system, etc.). 

As for boost, there are several ways to have the EECIV handle boost.  The concept of "boost" is actually unimportant.  The amount of pressure entering an engine is meaningless.  All the maters is airflow.  You just need an MAF that can handle the amount of airflow going in, and the corresponding fueling table in the ECU.  A stock ECU will handle some measure of boost just fine.  About 6psi (yeah I know there I go ignoring what I just said) on a typical setup on a 5.0 is about the limit.  There are chips and work arounds for it, but tuning is a better solution. 

Let's also be clear, I would NEVER chip an EECIV.  Chips are garbage.  One size fits all crap sold like patent medicine.  Its like swapping to a different carb because you don't know how to tune the one you have.  The EECIV can be tuned, just like any other aftermarket EFI, you just need the right software and knowledge.  The one trick is that if the BIN hasn't been cracked for your particular ECU you're going to need to make very good friends with someone who can do that, or you are DEFINITELY better off using an aftermarket system.  For typical V8 applications though that's not a concern. 

The 5.0 ECU would run a 5.8 just fine.  They have the same firing order.  There is enough margin in the tables in the 5.0 ECU to allow it to run larger engines.  I've started several strokers with untuned stock ECUs.  They run surprisingly well.  If the engine were close to stock it would probably run pretty good even during acceleration or at WOT.  Modified engines are the ones that most need help from tuning.  Camshaft LSA is the biggest thing that's hard to tune around if its too tight.  Any cam for an EFI application should be on a 112 degree LSA. 

Mach173 wrote:

Is there a software to tune right in the chip for EECIV from ford ? Or do you need to hack the chip ? Does it have to control timing, or can you skip it ?

Hahh... that's funny. I asked myself the same thing a decade ago. Still tryin' ta get my head around it.
Moates Quarterhorse for hardware, TunerPro RT for software .... then the steepest learning curve you've ever had.
It controls everything the ecu does, can't really change one thing without it affecting something else.
 

Last edited by 50vert (6/07/2020 1:14 AM)

There are two main ways guys go with EECIV tuning.  There's the Tweecer and the Quarterhorse.  The Tweecer is a good system, but its less user friendly that the Quarterhorse IMO.  A good friend uses the Tweecer with great results, but he has a masters in programming and another in electrical engineering.  Programmers tend to like open source software that is free, and that's why he gravitated to the Tweecer. 

I prefer the Quarterhorse from Moates.  Part of that is also that I used Moates products when tuning GM EFI years ago, so it was somewhat familiar.

You don't actually touch the PROM (commonly called a "chip", but its properly Programmable Read Only Memory) when using any tuning method for the EECIV.  Ford PROMs are not removable.  The idea that an actual part is removed and replaced comes from other forms of EFI (GM used this style). 

Instead, you are using the J3 service port on the ECU to effectively bypass the factory PROM.  This can be done with a preprogrammed "chip" that plugs in and uses a PROM on its board to do that task.  Systems like the Tweecer and QH have an EPROM on their board and an interface which allows you to make changes to the calibrations in the EPROM.  The "E" just means "erasable".  A standard PROM can only be programmed one time.  Changing the calibration means replacing it.  An EPROM can be cleared and reprogrammed essentially an infinite number of times.  This is one of the major advantages of the Tweecer and QH over a "chip". 

Now, to make changes you need to be able to modify the BIN.  The BIN is the actual information loaded onto the PROM that contains all of the calibration data for the vehicle in which the ECU was originally installed.  BIN is just short for binary, because that's how that information is stored, literally a bunch of 1s and 0s. 

Let's say you need more fueling to fix a lean condition.  You aren't going to be able to do that directly in the BIN, unless you are a serious programmer, and even then its going to take a long time.  To get around this you need two things: a user interface that allows you to change the BIN without having to speak robot, and an ECU with a BIN that's already been "cracked".  A cracked BIN is one that a programmer took the time to decipher and make modifiable through one of the user interfaces available.  All common performance oriented BINs have been cracked (5.0 Mustang and other applications, T-Bird Super Coupe, Lightning trucks, etc.).  Where you have an issue is if the ECU is for an oddball application where the BIN hasn't been cracked.  Your option there is to swap to an ECU with a cracked BIN, or beg one of the guys that can crack a BIN on one of the tuner forums to crack it for you. 

Long story short with the QH there are two programs I use, though there are others.  I use Binary Editor to datalog and make changes, and EECAnalyzer to decipher the logs.  All told both programs are like $150.  The QH is $250.

As for timing, the EECIV has complete control over timing, if you choose to use it.  If not you can opt for standalone timing via other means and let the EECIV just handle fueling, but in the end that's two things that need to be synched up without the benefit of common controls.  My choice would always be to have one system run both timing and fuel. 

Rudi wrote:

 Holy jumpin Jehoshaphat, am I ever glad my car has a carburetor.

 
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I couldn't agree more Rudi.

TKOPerformance wrote:

There are two main ways guys go with EECIV tuning.  There's the Tweecer and the Quarterhorse.  The Tweecer is a good system, but it's less user friendly that the Quarterhorse IMO.  A good friend uses the Tweecer with great results, but he has a masters in programming and another in electrical engineering.  Programmers tend to like open source software that is free, and that's why he gravitated to the Tweecer. 

I prefer the Quarterhorse from Moates.  Part of that is also that I used Moates products when tuning GM EFI years ago, so it was somewhat familiar.

You don't actually touch the PROM (commonly called a "chip", but its properly Programmable Read Only Memory) when using any tuning method for the EECIV.  Ford PROMs are not removable.  The idea that an actual part is removed and replaced comes from other forms of EFI (GM used this style). 

Instead, you are using the J3 service port on the ECU to effectively bypass the factory PROM.  This can be done with a preprogrammed "chip" that plugs in and uses a PROM on its board to do that task.  Systems like the Tweecer and QH have an EPROM on their board and an interface which allows you to make changes to the calibrations in the EPROM.  The "E" just means "erasable".  A standard PROM can only be programmed one time.  Changing the calibration means replacing it.  An EPROM can be cleared and reprogrammed essentially an infinite number of times.  This is one of the major advantages of the Tweecer and QH over a "chip". 

Now, to make changes you need to be able to modify the BIN.  The BIN is the actual information loaded onto the PROM that contains all of the calibration data for the vehicle in which the ECU was originally installed.  BIN is just short for binary, because that's how that information is stored, literally a bunch of 1s and 0s. 

Let's say you need more fueling to fix a lean condition.  You aren't going to be able to do that directly in the BIN, unless you are a serious programmer, and even then it's going to take a long time.  To get around this you need two things: a user interface that allows you to change the BIN without having to speak robot, and an ECU with a BIN that's already been "cracked".  A cracked BIN is one that a programmer took the time to decipher and make modifiable through one of the user interfaces available.  All common performance oriented BINs have been cracked (5.0 Mustang and other applications, T-Bird Super Coupe, Lightning trucks, etc.).  Where you have an issue is if the ECU is for an oddball application where the BIN hasn't been cracked.  Your option there is to swap to an ECU with a cracked BIN, or beg one of the guys that can crack a BIN on one of the tuner forums to crack it for you. 

Long story short with the QH there are two programs I use, though there are others.  I use Binary Editor to datalog and make changes, and EECAnalyzer to decipher the logs.  All told both programs are like $150.  The QH is $250.

As for timing, the EECIV has complete control over timing, if you choose to use it.  If not you can opt for standalone timing via other means and let the EECIV just handle fueling, but in the end that's two things that need to be synched up without the benefit of common controls.  My choice would always be to have one system run both timing and fuel. 

And that is where the terminator X is "VASTLY SUPERIOR"  If you look at my original post:

Daze wrote:

1.  I bought and built a Megasquirt kit back 15+ years ago and recently got it up and running.  It works well BUT I am not a tuner... I don't want to learn to be a tuner so I was on the fence about keeping it.

Highlighted section also applies to the OEM stuff

If the chips are crap then getting the OEM system to work in a non stock configuration is no longer simple.  Special software is required to tune it which is not cheep on top of all the other expenses of the system and special knowledge is required to use the software.  If I wanted to spend the time to become a tuner I would stick with the Megasquirt, it has a 15 year track record of working very well and is as good if not better than the OEM stuff.  I want plug and play, with a little bit of customization and neither the OEM setup or the Megasquirt fit that bill.

TKO You have spent all this time touting the benefit of the OEM system, and I will concede that it does work well when tuned properly but for those of us that don't have the time/ interest in becoming a tuner it is not "vastly superior" because it will will only work OK  without tuning in non stock applications.