Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I stumbled on this in the ProM EFI support group on FB. When I was reading the posters issue I thought it was something isolated, until other people chimed in with the same issue.
Has anyone experienced this with their ProM system?
1053309
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I have not. Code 1102 suggests an issue with the MAF or the connection to the MAF. If that goes things aren't going to run right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
But he (and the others) were able to remedy the situation by simply uploading their tune again (or disconnecting battery for a few minutes). I find it hard to believe there would be an issue out there and it not have come up on here, but wanted to check to see if anyone has had such an experience.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
John Janek and I have had the Pro-M system longer than most and if there was a glitch we would have experienced it by now. The Pro-M Engine Management System(EMS) is very good and everyone is always so quick to blame the EMS when they have a problem. No one gives Chris Richards more headaches than me when it comes to his EMS. The first thing people need is to troubleshoot their problems when it happens. How many of those people have an MSD box and coil, how many of them didn't follow the instructions (skipping steps) when setting the system up the first time? Heck, the list goes on and on but without troubleshooting their problem who knows what it could be.

The gentlemen, who said he contacted Chris and is still waiting for an answer, I find that not to be the case. Chris Richards responds to his emails and telephone messages. As with everything that pertains to social media and the internet, take the information with a grain of salt and move on.

Thanks
Michael Plummer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I agree, and was surprised when I saw the comments on FB. I knew there were some long time users on here and is why I posted.
I have a complete system with the new add-on harness that I will be installing this winter.
And yes, Chris Richards is awesome when it comes to support. I have even had a conversation with via phone on a Sunday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Just because most people do not have the issue does not mean it is not a glitch with the Pro-M. This could be an issue with a specific revision, or a specific batch of ecus. It could be due to ProM getting a bad batch of chips or any number of components, it could be a code issue that only reveals it self under very specific situations as well. It could also be due to the user not grounding things correctly. There are a lot of variables that could cause it. If you are seeing multiple people posting about the same problem, I wouldnt take it with a grain of salt. I would take it for exactly what it is worth. A small number of people are reporting the issue. The question is how many cars are affected and what is actually causing it. I would keep an eye on the thread and see what comes of it.

This reminds me of when the AEM ecus came out for Hondas and DSMs. For years people were randomly complaining that their AEM ecu would turn on the fuel pump and open all injectors in KOEO situations. 99% of people didnt have the issue but there were people here and there complaining about it. There were people with really big injectors hydrolocking cylinders or filling intake manifolds with fuel due to the issue and for quite a while AEM denied there was a problem. Then magically there was a code update that fixed the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
You can't even rewrite a calibration unless the calibration being written is different. When you opt to Write, the system first compares what's in the ecu to what's going to be written. If it's the same thing, it tells you and stops the process.

We don't have all the information here. All we have is codes about incorrect fueling and a code that suggests a problem with the MAF. That is the obvious place (at least for me) to start.

However, I agree that there are a lot of variables that could cause it, and I'd be willing to accept that it could be any of them. However, when troubeshooting I like to start with what I think is the most likely culprit and work my way to least likely. I'd say a problem with the ECU is least likely. It's a Ford processor. Totally different quality tier than AEM.

If I remember correctly, this is the same Facebook poster that originally had problems because he was using aftermarket distributor parts - which Pro M explicitly tells you not to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
It sounds to me like he wrote the original tune back to the ecu. He said the only changes from the original tune were the initial setup changes. Wouldnt that mean it was different from the original tune? Forgive my ignorance.. I dont own pro-m so im not sure if the initial setup changes are static in the ecu or part of the actual tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I am having this exact problem. The car idles beautifully and drives good for about 10min then it goes bad. It has just shuts off as mentioned above and then will stall if I don't keep the rpm up. I also have trouble keeping the connection live with my laptop, some times some of the open gauges drop and sometimes the connection is completely lost. The laptop a brand new thinkpad so I don't think it should be an issue.

I have only driven the car once since sorting out some other issues but have followed the instruction and all of Chris's recommendations, upgraded fuel system, removed the CD box and aftermarket coil, MAF flowed by Chris etc. I will drive the car again today and better document the problem before going back to Chris for his help.

Car is a 95 and I have one of the first "new" harnesses with the supplemental harness included.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
It sounds to me like he wrote the original tune back to the ecu. He said the only changes from the original tune were the initial setup changes. Wouldnt that mean it was different from the original tune? Forgive my ignorance.. I dont own pro-m so im not sure if the initial setup changes are static in the ecu or part of the actual tune.
Yes. You're correct. I saw Ragtop's comment stating, "simply uploading their tune again" which suggested the same cal file. I reread the Facebook post and it does seem like this person flashed a different cal. But even that raises more questions. Why would this person choose to do that? Wouldn't the original cal be missing the corrected injector low slope values, desired idle speed, and other such user entered settings required to get the engine to operate correctly? What other changes had in fact been made to the original calibration that now got returned to original values? Were those changes erroneous?

As I stated, we don't have all the information. While not impossible, I think it's improbable that this is a Pro M issue. A loose connection in the harness to the MAF would be the most likely issue that falls under Pro M. Physical ECU is last.

Codes suggest MAF. History suggests a user that doesn't follow directions. Nothing there suggests a processor or code problem. That's the last place I'd look.

I hope you don't read this as an attack on you because it's not. I actually agree with a lot of what you said. I never rule out anything. I just order most to least likely. I think this statement jumps the gun though: "The question is how many ecus are affected and what is actually causing it." That makes it seem like you've concluded that it's an ECU issue. I'd rephrase to "The question is how many cars are affected and what is actually causing it." That includes all engine components, sensors, harness, the setup by the user, and the ECU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I am having this exact problem. The car idles beautifully and drives good for about 10min then it goes bad. It has just shuts off as mentioned above and then will stall if I don't keep the rpm up. I also have trouble keeping the connection live with my laptop, some times some of the open gauges drop and sometimes the connection is completely lost. The laptop a brand new thinkpad so I don't think it should be an issue.

I have only driven the car once since sorting out some other issues but have followed the instruction and all of Chris's recommendations, upgraded fuel system, removed the CD box and aftermarket coil, MAF flowed by Chris etc. I will drive the car again today and better document the problem before going back to Chris for his help.

Car is a 95 and I have one of the first "new" harnesses with the supplemental harness included.
Exact problem? Your car goes super rich and smells like gas unless you reflash the processor or disconnect the battery? Or your car just stalls when coming to a stop unless you feather the throttle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Yes. You're correct. I saw Ragtop's comment stating, "simply uploading their tune again" which suggested the same cal file. I reread the Facebook post and it does seem like this person flashed a different cal. But even that raises more questions. Why would this person choose to do that? Wouldn't the original cal be missing the corrected injector low slope values, desired idle speed, and other such user entered settings required to get the engine to operate correctly? What other changes had in fact been made to the original calibration that now got returned to original values? Were those changes erroneous?

As I stated, we don't have all the information. While not impossible, I think it's improbable that this is a Pro M issue. A loose connection in the harness to the MAF would be the most likely issue that falls under Pro M. Physical ECU is last.

Codes suggest MAF. History suggests a user that doesn't follow directions. Nothing there suggests a processor or code problem. That's the last place I'd look.

I hope you don't read this as an attack on you because it's not. I actually agree with a lot of what you said. I never rule out anything. I just order most to least likely. I think this statement jumps the gun though: "The question is how many ecus are affected and what is actually causing it." That makes it seem like you've concluded that it's an ECU issue. I'd rephrase to "The question is how many cars are affected and what is actually causing it." That includes all engine components, sensors, harness, the setup by the user, and the ECU.
Nah bro.. I see it as you providing info. Logically using the symptoms of an issue to determine the cause is the only way to do it. I agree, if there are a bunch of MAF codes i would start there too. I didnt look up the codes so I wasnt sure what they were. It could be as simple as an intermittent connection and the car cooling off enough or him even moving the wiring for the connection to work again. Replacing the tune could just a coincidence. Based on the way he described the issue it sounds like a MAF issue. Like you said, we dont know all of the variables. Often times people blame their ecu for a mechanical issue, especially when they are new to the tuning world or really arent mechanically inclined. I see it all the time. Im all for diagnosing an issue, not just blaming random parts. I, like you, try to be open minded and not count something out until i have actually proven its not that part. I also edited my post. I was not implying it is an ecu issue but I see how it came off that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I honestly think a lot of people give Chris grief because he finds problems with their cars and they don't want to hear it. I can say with 100% honesty that I don't think I've ever had a heavily modified car come to me that didn't have at least one thing done wrong. These include poor wiring, vac leaks, improperly set up PCV systems, improperly gapped spark plugs, supercharger pulleys aligned improperly, idles set up improperly, inadequate fuel systems (or just plain horrible ones), improper oil, junk sensors from discount auto parts stores that plain don't work right, junk distributors, charge tubing clamped improperly, MAF sensors positioned after crazy bends that introduce turbulence... and the list goes on. In the process of troubleshooting over the phone, Chris usually uncovers these very same things and tells the person to fix it. Fix what you know is wrong and then move on. Maybe it wasn't the exact cause of the problem that started the troubleshooting exercise in the first place, but it's a problem nevertheless that should be addressed. People should give Chris more credit rather than bashing him for uncovering their issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Yeah, I cant tell you how many of those scenarios I have seen. I worked at a couple shops and there were a lot of cars that were not well planned out. Most common was Mustang MSD distributors or aftermarket distributors in general, not enough fuel system, pegged mafs, wrong map sensors, bad wiring/sensors not communicating, and plug gap. Ive seen people remove sensors because they arent needed LOL. A lot of the other stuff you mentioned i have seen too. You dont see too many people using regular hose clamps for boost any more but that was a common one. I had to drop my plug gap more than I thought last time I was on the dyno. At 8 lbs it started blowing out spark up top. That is the first time I have ever had to go below .028 for the gap. Im still learning stuff. This year I learned all about O2 sensor placement and turbos and how to make my setup work better.

That reminds me of a funny story which is totally unreleated. My friend bought a 89-93, he did a "tune up" and then said it wasnt running the same. I went over to his house and looked under the hood expecting to see he had the plug wires wrong or something. I noticed it had a hose running from the baro sensor to the vacuum tree and then saw it had a MAF so I knew that was wrong. I removed and plugged the hose and told him to start the car, we drove it around and it ran perfect... He literally "fixed" something that wasnt broken.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
More information you probably didn't know about the Pro-M EMS.

Self-protecting processor: If the Pro-M EMS processor detects short circuits it will shut down that ECM driver if a short is detected. Of course, it will also turn on the check engine light, and store a code to direct you to the problem.

Self-diagnosing processor: The Pro-M EMS processor continuously checks itself for faults. No more guessing whether or not the processor is the source of trouble. These processors are extremely robust and have already been through the most rigorous testing in the industry long before going on the shelf, so the chance of ever having trouble with one is slim to none. But when doing diagnostics, wouldn't it be nice to know whether or not the processor could be at fault? No testing needed. If there is trouble, it will let you know!

Production quality processor: The Pro-M EMS processor is made by the same manufacturer who makes the processors for Ford (how nice) This is something you simply will NOT find elsewhere. The competition uses low production modules that cannot compare to the quality of the Pro-M EMS and do not go through the rigorous testing that the Pro-M EMS processors do. The Pro-M EMS processors have to meet the same quality standards that the OEM's do. They are built in the same plant, side by side with the OEM processors. NO ONE ELSE DOES THIS! Furthermore, the software and code is written by Ford contractors. Quite honestly, everyone involved in this project is absolutely the finest in their field.

I hope this helps
Michael Plummer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I believe the Pro-M ECU is based on the "Spanish Oak" ECU used in the 2005+ Mustangs (and probably other Fords). The OEM quality was one of the top things on my list when deciding on the ProM system. If you take the cover off the ECU it actually has a Ford logo on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,597 Posts
I have not. Code 1102 suggests an issue with the MAF or the connection to the MAF. If that goes things aren't going to run right.
I've had mass air codes pop up on me before. The cause was the 4-6 pin adapter and a harness that was too tight.

This was remedied by a motorcraft 6 pin mass air pigtail. You can also get them from Ron Francis wiring.

I'm not really a big fan of adaptors on anything. This includes the maf meter and fuel injectors. Just one more thing to cause headaches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I had a similar problem on the 2nd day I had the system up and running. The cause turned out to be: when I reflashed my processor with a different tune, I forgot to change the MAF transfer function values from english units to metric units. Once I corrected this, every thing was fine from then on. I also imagine the same thing could happen if you have multiple calibrations in the software and you are not running the tune that is open in the software. I made that mistake a few times also..Now review the transaction log before I do anything in the system just to be sure.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top