ECM interchange for 1226870?
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: Renton WA
ECM interchange for 1226870?
Does anyone know if the 1227747 ECM will work for the 1226870?
I'm not at all familiar with the reasons why, but I suspect that the programming in the chips is at the wrong addresses?
Is each each set up to only read certain chips? This is only a guess on my part.
I'm not at all familiar with the reasons why, but I suspect that the programming in the chips is at the wrong addresses?
Is each each set up to only read certain chips? This is only a guess on my part.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ECM interchange for 1226870? (Duntov85)
The 747 is an option for an 84 but I would think you would want to go later ECM (faster) rather than a 84 Crossfire option like the 747.
As far as I know, the 747 is a MAP (Speed Density) input ECM and you need a MAF type 165 from an 86~89 or you can convert to SD with a 727 or 730. In most cases, the 86~89 is preferable for your year as less changes have to be made to ECM connections and retains the MAF setup but does away with MAF Burnoff Module.
Many different later year ECM's are available on Ebay all the time plus you can get them at almost any car parts store for about $100 with core or less.
The difference between the 85 and 86~89 ECM in processing speed is substantial and considered an advantage on modified cars.
HTH
[Modified by Mark84_L383, 3:39 PM 9/27/2002]
As far as I know, the 747 is a MAP (Speed Density) input ECM and you need a MAF type 165 from an 86~89 or you can convert to SD with a 727 or 730. In most cases, the 86~89 is preferable for your year as less changes have to be made to ECM connections and retains the MAF setup but does away with MAF Burnoff Module.
Many different later year ECM's are available on Ebay all the time plus you can get them at almost any car parts store for about $100 with core or less.
The difference between the 85 and 86~89 ECM in processing speed is substantial and considered an advantage on modified cars.
HTH
[Modified by Mark84_L383, 3:39 PM 9/27/2002]
