Running a 165 ECM along side a 7427 PCM

[dave w]

This thread has some interesting information and debates.

I often wonder if the debate about which is easier to tune 1227165 (MAF) vs. 1227730 (Speed Density) is factor for wanting to use the 1227165?

Back in time, before TunerPro RT, the debate winner was for MAF. Fast forward to now, with Tuner Pro RT, the Speed Density is the clear winner of the 1227165 vs. 1227730 which is easier to tune debate.

The internet is filled with information about how MAF is easier to tune than Speed Density. It's interesting to point out, NONE of the MAF supporters mentioned or even referenced the tuning software used for tuning the MAF system.

[Fast355]

This thread has some interesting information and debates.

I often wonder if the debate about which is easier to tune 1227165 (MAF) vs. 1227730 (Speed Density) is factor for wanting to use the 1227165?

Back in time, before TunerPro RT, the debate winner was for MAF. Fast forward to now, with Tuner Pro RT, the Speed Density is the clear winner of the 1227165 vs. 1227730 which is easier to tune debate.

The internet is filled with information about how MAF is easier to tune than Speed Density. It's interesting to point out, NONE of the MAF supporters mentioned or even referenced the tuning software used for tuning the MAF system.

The 165 can run $12P MAP code as well but that is code developed off the Australian Holden 308 V8 application 808 ECM which shares its back bones so to speak with the 165. I find speed density much more accurate than those early MAF setups.

[steveo]

yeah definitely. keep in mind while GM was doing their early MAF systems, the Japanese were still using vane airflow meters in a lot of their cars. for their time they were very advanced. the history of fuel injection is a long and crazy one. participating in it on a running vehicle is like playing nintendo video games on a tube tv while the rest of the world has an xbox

[steveo]

.... of course i still play nintendo games and have never seen an x box. so if you want to play with old car computers, you are in good company. but lets not live a lie that some antique lean cruise routine is going to out-do a modern ECM somehow

[Fast355]

.... of course i still play nintendo games and have never seen an x box. so if you want to play with old car computers, you are in good company. but lets not live a lie that some antique lean cruise routine is going to out-do a modern ECM somehow

Agreed, especially considering the modern PCM also has an even better version of the lean cruise. With 8 coil packs there is more spark energy available to more effectively fire the leaner mixture as well. Could easily run 0.060" gapped plugs and have all the spark energy needed for that lower compression engine.

[Racprops]

Agreed, especially considering the modern PCM also has an even better version of the lean cruise. With 8 coil packs there is more spark energy available to more effectively fire the leaner mixture as well. Could easily run 0.060" gapped plugs and have all the spark energy needed for that lower compression engine.

Or I can add a MSD coil....or captaincy discharge system and do Multisparks for a longer duration.

The main advantage to all the newer stuff it it might last longer...and keep the smog better controlled, almost all these improvments ina STOCK car is to keep smog control, after all why the hell are not getting 40 to 70MPG??

Rich

[dave w]

Often the best plan for a project is low cost and simplicity. How much budget combined with technical skills. Often low cost and simplicity is a tug-of-war of compromises. OBD1 vs. OBD2 is a huge factor low cost and simplicity. If it was my 93 Custom Van I would likely keep the OBD1 EFI with some low cost modifications. There is a huge gap between planning a project and getting many miles of smiles. First comes the miles of smiles, then get more smiles per gallon.

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_01.jpg

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_02.jpg

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_03.jpg

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_04.jpg

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_05.jpg

94 Chevy C2500 5.7_4L80E_06.jpg