Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Wesley)

Hello, glad to be a part of this. I am deeply interested in Ford vehicles
(escpecially the EFI ones) since my business revolves around them. I own C &
M Racing Systems and we manufactuer electronics to tweak the EEC, plus alot
of other electronics products for the Ford EEC computer. I know the system
inside and out so if anyone has any questions of why things don't work (like
installing a 160 degree thermostat), or diagnostic questions, please feel
free to ask. As for what Ford products I own, well, I have an 89 Taurus SHO
that is one of the countries quickest (and fastest...13.3 @ 110, 173.5 top
speed), 88 Turbo Coupe and a 86 XR4Ti both of which are running mass air
instead of the old vane meter system. Hope to be an active participant...

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Robert King)

>
> Hello, glad to be a part of this. I am deeply interested in Ford vehicles
> (escpecially the EFI ones) since my business revolves around them. I own C &
> M Racing Systems and we manufactuer electronics to tweak the EEC, plus alot
> of other electronics products for the Ford EEC computer. I know the system
> inside and out so if anyone has any questions of why things don't work (like
> installing a 160 degree thermostat), or diagnostic questions, please feel
> free to ask. As for what Ford products I own, well, I have an 89 Taurus SHO
> that is one of the countries quickest (and fastest...13.3 @ 110, 173.5 top
> speed), 88 Turbo Coupe and a 86 XR4Ti both of which are running mass air
> instead of the old vane meter system. Hope to be an active participant...

Glad to have you! I'm sure I'll be asking a LOT of questions since I'm
replacing the engine in my '88 GT this winter or spring.

Perhaps you cansettle a discussion I've been having with some fellow
Mustang owners I have at work. I converted my Speed Density system over
to Mass Air about 6 months ago. Since then, everything has been fine.
The plugs look fine, the engine runs fine (doesn't knock any more or
less that it always has,) the quarter mile times and speeds are the
same, and the milage is perhaps a bit more (5-10 miles per tank on the
aversge.)

The discussion arises because I installed an ECU from a 1991 49-state
Mustang with AOD into mine with a 5-speed. They think this was a bad
idea. I don't think its affecting anything.

Secondly, and more importantly, I instaled a "70mm" Cobra meter on
the car and I'm still using the stock 19# injectors. All my friends
say the Cobra meter is calibrated for 24# injectors. If that's true,
then I should be running lean at WOT and knocking like a son-of-a-bitch
at WOT. I'm not, and the plugs don't show I'm running lean.

I say the Cobra ECU is calibrated for 24# injectors and that both the
stock and Cobra air meters are calibrated to the same spec and that
installing other air meters that are "calibrated" for other injector
sizes are simply faking out the ECU, who still thinks there are 19# (or
24#) injectors installed.

What do you think?

- -- Robert King

P.S. I have 7000 miles of drag racing and daily driving on the car since the conversion and, as I said, everything looks and runs fine.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | "Dulce et decorum est en |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | medio coitu mori" |
| (email redacted) | -- Nelson Rockefeller |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here ain't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

(email redacted) (Mike Wesley) writes:

>>so if anyone has any questions of why things don't work (like
installing a 160 degree thermostat), or diagnostic questions, please feel
free to ask.<<

Alright - let's talk about the 160 thermostat.

I have a 93 Cobra with a 160 thermostat and heve heard many arguments against
having one. I have hashed this out on CIS with some very in-depth
discussions and interesting thoughts.

The sum of the discussions, is that there still seems to be a lack of hard
data on the subject.

I am under the impression that the engine doees not go closed loop til 182 F.
I also have (at home - not here) a listing of the ECT resistance values at
various temperatures. We even postulated adding a resistor in parrallel to
the ECT to fool the computer into thinking it was at 180F when it was
actually at 160F. This appears possible, but would probably cause
cold-driveaway to suffer.

I also have Probst's Book on EEC-IV and foubnd it to be good beginner's
reading, but lacking in hard data.

Here are my thoughts about the 160 stat:

1. Improve underhood and air inlet temperature, colder air charge, less
detonation tendencies.

2. Lower head temps, less detonation tendencies.

3. Above allow for advancing timing slightly.

4. For WOT performance, I can find little argument against the 160F
thermostat, as the engine goes OPEN loop anyway and uses perrformance lookup
tables.

- ---------------------

How can this hurt the car?

1. If engine always runs open loop, it can run too rich:

a. causing fouling of the plugs
b. increased emissions
c. decreased mpg.
d. cat damage. (dog - too! <g>
e. increased engine wear - due to cooler operation.

These are all I can think of.

My problems with this:

1. I find it amazing that the EEC-IV doesn't have a timed over-ride to take
the engine into closed loop. According to Probst book, the emissions system
has a three minute timer on one of the O2 dumping systems (sorry - don't have
the book in fron of me) so as not to melt the cats if the ECT doesn't come up
to spec.

How can Ford be so concerned with the EPA and allow a $4 thermostat failure
to potentially ruin the emissions sytem, and pollute the air?

2. My experience with 160 stats have shown none of the horror stories
associated with them. I had an 88 GT previously and ran a 160 stat on it
(with speed density - no less) with no problem for 5 years. Both it, and my
current car pass emissions like they were running on H2O every time!

3. My currrent tank of gas in the Cobra (with 3.55 gears, and Flowmasters)
was 11.9 gallons - 211 miles (I didn't fill it up). Thats 17.6 mpg. Pretty
good, I beat a Buick GN (close race) on that tank of gas - not a lot of
highway driving either. I generally get 24mpg on the highway at 75-85mph. I
rarely drive 60mph, but in my 88 GT I had to follow a friend in a U-Haul
(governor set at 60mph) and averaged 28 mpg on a 700 mile trip through
mountains. Summary, my mileage is acceptable, by any standards.

4. I have checked plugs at 10k miles on the Cobra, and NO sign of fouling. I
checked the GT at 15k, put em back in and finally changed em at 30k even
though they looked fine to me. I have NEVER seen plugs look as good as the
ones in my Mustangs do.

So... I come to the conclusion that one of two things is happening:

1. The engine IS going closed loop, in spite of the ECT reading, or

2. The lookup tables that the EEC-IV is using, are very good and closed loop
is actually only required if there is a problem elsewhere.

Also, if I am not using proper emissions - why am I passing with FLYING
colors on every emissions test?

If the original benefits described above are accurate ( I would entertain
arguments against them) and I am experiencing none of e measurable negatives
(excluding engine wear, but my 88 GT had 55k miles on it at trade in and the
only thing broke, was 2 nd gear at 40k)
plus, I'll probably trade this car long before engine wear is a factor, then
why not run a 160 thermostat?

Also, if the engine doesn't go closed loop until 182F (I forget my source -
but it was a guy on CIS that had the ECT resistance values as well) then a
180 thermostat may have all the same problems of a 160 thermostat, without as
many of the advantages.

Finally (whew) I drive 2.6 miles to work - my engine is barely up to 160F for
a great deal of the driving I do. If the EEC-IV isn't equipeed to handle 160
operation, then my car isn't going to do well anyway!

Allen Frazier
Nashville TN

Climbing into Nomex suit now!

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Wesley)

>>
>> Hello, glad to be a part of this. I am deeply interested in Ford vehicles
>> (escpecially the EFI ones) since my business revolves around them. I own C &
>> M Racing Systems and we manufactuer electronics to tweak the EEC, plus alot
>> of other electronics products for the Ford EEC computer. I know the system
>> inside and out so if anyone has any questions of why things don't work (like
>> installing a 160 degree thermostat), or diagnostic questions, please feel
>> free to ask. As for what Ford products I own, well, I have an 89 Taurus SHO
>> that is one of the countries quickest (and fastest...13.3 @ 110, 173.5 top
>> speed), 88 Turbo Coupe and a 86 XR4Ti both of which are running mass air
>> instead of the old vane meter system. Hope to be an active participant...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Welcome aboard - and I have a question.
>
>1990 Ford Ranger 2.3 2 plugs per cyl. distributerless.
>
>Since it was new (now has 105K miles) it pings when the weather gets
>warm (aggravated at lower altitudes). I use a higher octane gas when it
>gets warm.
>
>I pulled the spout and checked the timing - static timings is at
>almost 20 deg instead of 10. (Checking our 86 T-Bird Turbo shows
>static timing at 10 deg as advertised).
>
>Any idea why the timing would be at 20 rather than the 10 speced.
>
>Any ideas welcome.
>Thanks
>Bill

Sounds like your PIP (crank) sensor is out of alignment. You cannot 'easily'
set base timing with that engine. But what you can do (kinda dangerous) is
to loosen the PIP sensor and while theengine is running (and SPOUT
disconnected), rotate the PIP sensor until you get to 10. Problem is you
have to puts your hands near moving pullies and things. You could lossen it,
turn it sligtly, tighten it start engine and check it, shut it off if not
good and do it again until you get to 10. The sensor could be bad also. We
did some work on those trucks and got an 8% torque increase by disabling the
exhaust side plugs and and upping the spark 8 degrees in the EEC software.
Ran pretty good.

Mike Wesley

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

>> Secondly, and more importantly, I instaled a "70mm" Cobra meter on
the car and I'm still using the stock 19# injectors. All my friends
say the Cobra meter is calibrated for 24# injectors. If that's true,
then I should be running lean at WOT and knocking like a son-of-a-bitch
at WOT. I'm not, and the plugs don't show I'm running lean.<<

According to all I have on the subject, there are a couple of factors here:

1. The Cobra pice doesn't flow all that much more than the 55mm piece
because of the air-diverter (the "wing" in the middle of the MAF). So you
aren't flowing a lot more air to lean things out to begin with.

2. The Cobra is apparently calibrated a little rich for this MAF and the
H.O. is a _little_ lean for it.

So I'd say you are just fine.

Allen Frazier
Nashville TN

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

>>Your last paragraph made me cringe though...I smell serious oil
dilution!<<

Don't worry too much, I run synthetic and change oil and filter religiously
at 3,000 miles!

Allen Frazier
Nashville TN

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Wesley)

>>> Secondly, and more importantly, I instaled a "70mm" Cobra meter on
>the car and I'm still using the stock 19# injectors. All my friends
>say the Cobra meter is calibrated for 24# injectors. If that's true,
>then I should be running lean at WOT and knocking like a son-of-a-bitch
>at WOT. I'm not, and the plugs don't show I'm running lean.<<
>
>According to all I have on the subject, there are a couple of factors here:
>
>1. The Cobra pice doesn't flow all that much more than the 55mm piece
>because of the air-diverter (the "wing" in the middle of the MAF). So you
>aren't flowing a lot more air to lean things out to begin with.
>
>2. The Cobra is apparently calibrated a little rich for this MAF and the
>H.O. is a _little_ lean for it.
>

The meters are different. They are rated differently (850 Kg/hr vs. 1050
Kg/hr) and they have different flow curves. Why it would work on some cars
is probably a function of stack-up of other parts. There was an article
written in the SHO Registry magazine about putting the Cobra 70mm (or the
T-bird SC, same meter) on a 3.0l SHO for a cheap alternative. The author
said since the SHO and the Cobra both had 24# injectors (which was wrong to
begin with, the SHO has 25#'ers and are calibrated in the EEC as 27#'ers,
BTW, the SHO and 5.0 Mustang meters are the same meter also) it would work
on the SHO. The meter worked on SOME cars. I hooked all my test equipment to
my SHO with the Cobra meter and the thing ran to the lean clip in the EEC
almost immediately. It would stumble, and lost alot of bottom end power.
Testing on another car showed it was working..not real great, but working
(kinda like a C&L/Vortec meter). By looking at the flow curves in the EEC,
the car will run lean since at a given voltage, the meter informs the EEC
that is has less air flowing into the engine, so the EEC delivers less fuel.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
Let's say the engine is at a constant RPM and using 70 CFM. Now in the 55mm
let's say 70 CFM = 1.5 volts, and the 70mm 70 CFM = 1.3 volts, when you run
a 70mm with the stock EEC, it will go through the lookup table and find the
CFM conversion for 1.3 volts which let's say is 50 CFM. The engine is still
at 70 CFM, but the fuel delivery rate is calculated at a 50 CFM
rate....lean. (these are not actual numbers, the EEC doesn't work in CFM but
it's easier to relate what's going on). Now why it might work is like I said
before..a function of stack-up, or differences in part variability all added
up. While doing injector flow work at Bosch, I found the Ford injectors to
have a 4% variablity..meaning the injectors can be as much as 4% off from
the rated 19#'s. get a high number of rich injectors and you see what I'm
talking about. Fuel pressure regulators also have variability. Some engines
from the factory idle at 39 PSI, some 41, some 37. Add a rich regulator to
the picture and things are looking better for using the 70mm. In most cases,
the 70mm will not work that good in a 5.0 with a stock EEC and 19# injectors.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Robert King)

> Let's say the engine is at a constant RPM and using 70 CFM. Now in the 55mm
> let's say 70 CFM = 1.5 volts, and the 70mm 70 CFM = 1.3 volts, when you run
> a 70mm with the stock EEC, it will go through the lookup table and find the
> CFM conversion for 1.3 volts which let's say is 50 CFM. The engine is still
> at 70 CFM, but the fuel delivery rate is calculated at a 50 CFM
> rate....lean. (these are not actual numbers, the EEC doesn't work in CFM but
> it's easier to relate what's going on). Now why it might work is like I said
> before..a function of stack-up, or differences in part variability all added
> up. While doing injector flow work at Bosch, I found the Ford injectors to
> have a 4% variablity..meaning the injectors can be as much as 4% off from
> the rated 19#'s. get a high number of rich injectors and you see what I'm
> talking about. Fuel pressure regulators also have variability. Some engines
> from the factory idle at 39 PSI, some 41, some 37. Add a rich regulator to
> the picture and things are looking better for using the 70mm. In most cases,
> the 70mm will not work that good in a 5.0 with a stock EEC and 19# injectors.

Looks like I'm one of the lucky ones. the car runs better that it
did with Speed Density with essentially no mods (OK, an K&N filter and
Flowmasters, but that's it - except that the intake silencer is removed.)
Given that I want eventually modify my engine (roller rockers, E303, GT40
heads & valvetrain,) What do you recomend I do as far as a MAF is concerned.
I want one that's accurate, and I've heard that some brands arn't as good
as others.

I may be adding 24# injectors as money permits, so
tunability/recalibration of the MAF may be an issue.

- -- Robert King



+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | "Dulce et decorum est en |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | medio coitu mori" |
| (email redacted) | -- Nelson Rockefeller |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here ain't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Bkelley writes:

>>The bottom line is that you lose power at those temperatures. The heat
that goes into the cooling system is lost power. You want the air coming
into the intake to be cool. You want the air to heat to approximately 300
degrees as it enters the combustion chamber. The lower the cooling system
temp, the more heat the cooling system will absorb (in pure BTU's, which
translate directly to lost HP)..<<

WHy do BTU's translate into hp - we are not really running a heat engine as
much as a _pressure_ engine. If an engine is at 200F and creates a downward
pressure on the pistons of say - 500 psi, or if it is at 160F and creates a
downward pressure of 500 psi, then there would be no difference - right?

Yes it is true that heat sent to the cooling system is wasted "energy", but
how were we using that energy to begin with. If you're saying that by
keeping the engine hotter, we will generate higher cylinder pressures, I
would like to know how. I would think that a specific mass of air/fuel
ignited by spark while @ 160F will expand just as much the same mass of
air/fuel ingnited by spark while @ 300F. The only difference is to achieve
the same mass, the air/fuel @ 300F is going to use up a lot more volume.

Which is my point, if I have a cooler air/fuel charge, then I get more mass
of air/fuel in the cylinder and thus more expansion - and more cylinder
pressure.

>>Smokey Yunick recommends a coolant temp of 210 degrees in his dated
_Power Secrets_. The physics of IC engines haven't changed since
then. 220 is even better, but doesn't leave much of a safety margin.
Talk to Roush, Katech, or anyone who builds race engines.

Walk down the hot pits of any TRANS-AM race just before the drivers
enter the track and look at their temp gauges.<<

Yes, but don't for get my earlier post. There may be advantages to running
an engine hot in theory. This theory can be put to better use in a TRANS-AM
race where sustained speeds are (what? - above 100?). Ram AIr supplies the
cool charge, allowing for the engine to be run a hot as the components will
allow, while still maintaing a cool charge.

On the street, in traffic, at a stoplight, or anywhere, we've (Mustangs
anyway) have a air intake hose sitting in the engine compartment - it's black
hose no less and it's absorbing engine heat. - which is an interesting
thought - would a white rubber hose be any advantage?

Regarding my earlier segment of the post:

>Also, if I am not using proper emissions - why am I passing with FLYING
>colors on every emissions test?

And your reply of:

>>Who cares?<<

I'm not sure how you mean this - if you mean who cares about emissions, I
don't want to get into that mess, but I don't. My point in posting it is to
say that it appears that my car _is_ going into closed loop and not running
excessively rich with the 160F thermostat, or the emissions would show
evidence to the contrary.

Allen Frazier
Nashville TN