×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
I am a electric / electronic / controls type, looking for data on the ECC IV/V primarily I am interested in the ECC models / ID's that have the capacity to do full sequentcal fuel injection. I have visted several sites and procured many ford manuals , but cannot get any definitive answers. It seems that  ford used " batch " , " bank " , and sequencal fuel injection , though , I have also found that several self proclamed "experts" do not know this. I am presently working with a 4.0 L ohv of 97 vintage in a 90 aerostar , and I want to move up to an ECC V that incorperates sequentchal injection. The problems I can see are to identify the ecc that does this and to find out if the original ecc communicates with the AWD transfer case control modual , if yes , in what fahion , and can the new ecc be compatible with any of the Aerostar AWD moduales?
After looking through several years of schematics for the Aerostar , no aperrent interface apperes to exist between the the ECC and Awd moduales but this can be deceptive due to the off and on use of digital com between moduals and the schematics are not allways complete. Further the schematics for many "EFI" and "SEFI" applications look to be the same in the areas of injecter wiring and sensor use. I hope some one out there has , or can direct me to , the information that I need to complete my research.
Thanks a bunch.
Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

So far as I know, and I have been out of the loop for a few years, up until EEC IV any commumication between the EEC and the trans was via the BEM (Body Electronic Module, ie the other computer, usually mounted in the dash, which controls all the boring things).

As of EEC V the trans functions can be integrated into the EEC itself.

Not all EEC Vs use SEFI, by the way.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Why do you care so much about getting sequential injection?

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

I presume because at heavy load at idle speed it's so much better.

Regards
pat

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

pat - is that in theory or in practice? I've been looking forward to SEFI for a while now, it seems to have made very little difference to our idle quality.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

In practice, towing speed boats up launching ramps at idle to stop the clutch from burning and to consider the safety of the crew guiding the boat into it's cradle.

I had an EA falcon, multipoint 5 speed "S" pack.

It had non sequential EFI, and simply would not come up the ramp at idle speed, ie loaded down to 600 RPM at a moderate throttle opening. The fact that it was overgeared (I think 3.5 low gear and 2.9 diff & 205 X 60 X 15 tyres).

A V6 VP commodore did pull the same boat up the same ramp at the required speed (ie walking pace)without slipping the clutch or stalling. The VP had a shorter stroke, and less displacement, but had a 3.08 diff and unknown low gear, and identical tyres. It had sequential injection.

When the Falcon failed, I used my daughters FI VW 1600 type 3. It also did the job. It was sequential EFI, and much lower geared, I think about 4:1 low gear and 4.125 diff, with 195 X 60 X 14 tyres, but it was less than half the displacement and 2.75" stroke vs 4" for the Falcon and about 800 Kg vs 1400 for the cars.

The said boat is probably about 1600 Kg wet on the trailer.

The ramp probably rises 15' in 80'.

I can get measurements on boat weight and ramp dimensions if you like

Regards
pat

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
Thanks for the returns. I am aware that most of the EEC V are not SEFI that is the problem I want to go there. Reson: better fuel control = better milage and better emmisions , this is considered on 2 levels 1) I am incressing the compression of the engine to between 10.1 to 10.2 , and 2) I want to dable with stratified fuel charge which allowes for better combustion and higher milage.
This brings me to the second part of my progect , the injecter drivers , I plan on puting a slave set of drivers between the ECC and the injecters that will force a much higher current for a very short time duration then a lower holding current. At injecter shut off time I intend to force a revers current , then a rather solid snubing , this I hope will reduce the "slugishness" of the stock injecters making them more acurate at idel and at higher RPM's. I realize that this will require substanchal re-calibration to the ECC tables to accomplish but it will be a lot easier if I start with a cpu that is at lest part way to my goal.
I will have several other issues to deal with like injecter size and fuel pressure , as well as , other "minor" problems , but I am realy looking forward to the challange.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Greg

Sorry about the disjointed previous post. I had several interuptions while I was doing it.

3rd paragraph about overgeared should have ended that being overgeared exasivated the problem.

The Falcon would hit back and stall if I didn't slip the clutch. The clutch would go up in smoke if I didslip it enough to do the job

The test is of course somewhat subjective as there are weight, stroke, capacity and gearing differences as well as EFI differences.

I always blamed the slightly rough idle and poor very low speed performance of the Falcon on the fact that sometimes fuel was injected against a closed valve, and the airspeed was to low to redisperse the feul enough to get a good stable reliable burn.

We got a considerable improvement out of the Falcon by increasing the idle fuel, but it then blew black smoke, used about 1-2 litres more per hundred Ks and almost certainly would have failed hydrocarbons emmissions.

As i say, all hyperthetical or non scientific testing, but it seems to add up. How important that particular set of circumstances is compared to the typical market useage is of course a up to you guys.

I don't mean to knock the Ford either. It was a lot of fun to drive, especially on windy roads (like The Great Ocean Road), and was one of the best designed all round rough and smooth road high performance touring cars i have driven. It had a few durability problems, but i believe these were mainly as a result of the EA being launched before testing and development was compleated.

The only design faults for the day and age that effected me, were to high gearing, and poor off idle under load performance of the engine and poor brakes.

Regards
pat

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

I'd blame it on being a ford!

Seriously, though I do not have much hands-on with SEFI, I have heard things closer to what Greg mentioned: Almost imperceptible gains to the user. And, once people decide to start "tuning" the ECU, they usually erase what little gains the factory engineers were able to make. I think SEFI does allow large emissions gains, but fewer HC's won't get you up the ramp any faster. I'd look at your engine's manifold design, gearing, etc, see if it was every really meant for low speed high load operation (which it doesnt sound like it was based on your "high gearing" complaint), and the extra gearing the VW had I'm sure helped a ton. As mentioned on other threads, more stroke does not necessarily equal more torque, so I wouldn't use that as a point of argument.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
Yo!
No offence intended but can any one answer my original questions or comment on any of the specifics of my progect?

1) Does any one know if the 02 tarus " SEFI " is really  sequential? (in that I expected that  sequential injection would also incorperate 1 O2 sensor per cyl , 6 in this case vs the 4 as seen in most of the newer ford EFI ap's I was hopeing that the newer 4.0L SOHC would use SEFI but I can't find any indication of that.

2) Does the final goal of statified fuel charge hold any promise for improved fuel economy ? performance ? drivability ? It to me that this method of fuel charge would allow mixture  levels similar to what exists in direct injected diesel engines where in therory at least the charge can be efficant below the ideal A/F raitio.
 
3) Does any one out there know or have sugestions for another ECC IV / V that are truly SEFI in nature?

4) Are there any advantages to the newer ECC's or have they reached the limit of the technology ?

An additional question - does any one know of any of the 4.0L OHV engines that use a dedicated " knock sensor " that is compatible to the 02 tarus EEC V ? or should I stay with the 2002 4.0L SOHC unit? ( which is at least shares a common block with the OHV )

Relative to the issue of very low rpm torque / performance
all of the discused items have effect on the apperant idle performance but 600 RPM? that is below most engines " free " idle speed certaily any of the vintage that would have efi type systems. The lowest I am familer with is 650 and most are 700 to 800 RPM your bigest problem was missapliction ( wrong gears ) the falcon was intended for milage , long winded shift points , and non towing applicatons It was built to satisfiy an American market that wanted a big car feel but improved fuel milage , rather high top end speed , without having to listen to a high RPM rackit , and do it all for a low cost in a high cost labor force , all in all a good trick.

Thanks Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Sorry for the digression, but I just followed the direction the thread wandered of on, but I am actually talking about an Australian Falcon, not the American one.

The EA was a uniquely Aussi product, and one of it's main selling feature was towing ability, and as nearly all of Australias population lives within a few hours drive of the ocean, and as the weather is mostly warm or hot, recreational boating is very popular, as are touring holidays with a caravan, so the ability to go slow under load at times, is an issue with quite a few owners.

Back to your original reasons for the thread, I am sure that many if not all sequential EFIs fitted originally on any production car only measure AFR in the exhaust after the group of cylinders come together in a common pipe. If there are more than one O2 sensor, it will be one for each bank, or before and after the catalytic convertor.

Regards
pat

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
I stand corrected and did not realize the modle of which you spoke. I was and am very much interested in the obtaining a source or the data on the EEC V ther seems to be very little information or understanding of its operation or codes and applications. Specifics are really hard to come by. Sorry about my abuptness.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

I am sorry, but I have no specific knowledge of the various Ford engine management systems. Greg knows more about that sort of stuff than anybody I know.

Regards
pat

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
I am back .... I was rather busy with business and finally decided to "re-get a life" so back to my hobby . Has any one out there heard or know of any of the ford EEC's use SEFI in there control algorithm? I am still very interested in finding what models (if any exist) use SEFI , to date I have found no one in ford , that will talk to me , that even knows it it was ever used. Most mechanics don't even know what it is , don't they teach any theory in their tech classes? None of the ford sites will even respond to my question.

Thanks
Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

The current model of the Australian Ford Falcon uses SEFI.

Also Explorer V8, also 2002 F150... and after that I got bored with looking.



Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

If you poke around long enough on the Web, you can find a complete schematic and a decently commented source listing for one or two particular EEC-IV models, none with SEFI.  The core chip is an enhanced 8096, if memory serves, and you can certainly find tools and data for the regular 8096.  You'll probably never find much verifiable info for the particular derivatives that Ford uses; I have no idea in what way they are customized.  Maybe an extra instruction or two, or an odd register complement.

But as long as you're going to build an external injector driver anyway, it should be no big deal to convert to SEFI in that box alone, without hacking the Ford ECU at all.  I.e., using something as simple as a PIC, get the commanded pulse width from the ECU outputs, pick up the crank signal elsewhere, and phase- lock loop your own SEFI driver in software.  Worst case, it takes you one crank revolution to get in sync, and that can happen during cranking.


Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
Greg:
Thanks for your response , where did you find the info on the ECC ? I was looking for a v6 type that employs SEFI , if you could guide me to your source I could get reasonably bored also looking into the available files.
thanks a lot.

Mike:
I have given some it thought and yup there are available tools out there to hack the ECC IV code ,--- V I haven't seen yet , in any case I would rather stick to the std unit if possible and deal with an adder chip that way I could just get a copy if mine failed when when I am "on the road".
but thanks for the suggestion.

Jon Russell

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Actually, this is embarrassing.  The computer on which I stored my accumulated EEC data has crashed, and of course wasn't backed up.  I'm still beating on it, trying to salvage what I can from the drive.

In the meantime, a Google search on "EEC schematic" in quotes will get you started.

Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

JonieR,
         I think that probably the only difference in the special 8086 is that auto manufactures use cmos logic instead of 5 volt TTL logic. Cmos has a much larger voltage range and allows connection with filtered 12 volt auto batteries while TTL does not.
                                    -elf

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Well, elf, you must be as old as me.  

I loved the CMOS of which you speak, the 4000 series, which could indeed run on high voltage, very slowly by today's standards, but it was too delicate for cars.  Remember that power amp, comprising what, 64 x 4049UB, paralleled by stacking the chips and soldering the leads together?  An April Fools joke that worked.

Today's cars use a lot of 5V chips.  Today's CMOS may run at 3.3V or lower, because using voltages higher than you need to establish reliable logic just charges up the chip's parasitic capacitance, which you have to discharge on the next change of state.  Lower voltage = more speed or less power.

The 8096 may be CMOS, but is definitely not an 8086; their architectures and instruction sets are way different.  An 8086 needs a couple dozen other chips just to get started.  The 8096 is very nearly a system on a chip.

I just found a paper copy of a Ford ECU schematic, pasted up on four A sheets from a fuzzy low-res image.  I think the CPU chip says "8061", which I think is a special 8096 produced only for Ford.  There are only half a dozen major chips external to the CPU.  By far the biggest aggregate 'pin count' is in resistors, capacitors and diodes on the signals that leave the box, to keep the car's normal transients away from the processor.   VCC is +5VDC.  


Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

HI Mike,
          I missread 8096 as 8086, I'll go back to my corner now. I just remembered when the Industry (semiconductor) thought that converting to Automotive parts (CMOS) for lower power and highter Voltage would save them. Sorry if I have dragged this off track.
                     Thanks      -elf

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
This has gotten to be an interesting discussion , I do concur that the industry is using TTL types because they are more robust and would be (with their regulator ) more immune to to low voltage when starting on a poor battery , and noise due to higher current / lower impedance characteristic. They are also well understood , tested , have good availability in higher temp ratings , and have more stable compilers (unlike the MS and XX86 world ).
In any case I am still looking for data , I find a good deal on modifying / building and even layout for the board , but no data on model / application / implementation i.e. SEFI vs EFI-batch fire vs EFI-Bank fire. How disheartening.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

my 98' Explorer uses SEFI in the pushrod 4.0L and the O2 sensors are 1 per side. There reaction time allows the processor to identify a missing cylinder.

Ford started CFI in 1980, During the 90's, all systems went over to MFI. First used in 1986, SFI is now the standard..

Snapping the injector will gain you nothing as the chemical/mechanical systems have latency, which contribute to the closed loop algorithms. Latency is a practical component of  overshoot damping.

Yes, your EEC does monitor the AWD. One function is to retard the timing on clutch engagement, similar to the air conditioning load.

Your aerostar would be MFI (multi port).

A project that a couple of use are currently working on matches the 120 hp datsun 2000cc with the everpopular 2L dodge turbo and the Ford Escort EEC/SEFI. It's an easy system to 'apply'

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
AUTOMATIC2:
I feel a bit lost on your nomenclature could you define " CFI , MFI "?
As far as I can tell the aerostar used all "batch" , all injectors  are fired at the same time ( MFI ? ) until 97 which used "bank" where 1/2 of the injectors are fired at one time , at least this is how it was described to me for the 4.0L aerostar. I am aware that after the cam based timing sensor was added that the ecc now had the information to use SEFI but still many did not. I have an 02 Sportrac 4.0L sohc that is ECC V endowed ,has the cam timing sensor , and 4 O2 sensors , but may or may not be SEFI.

Your Opinion: I really like the way the AWD functions , but I want to change the trans. to the 5 speed from the existing 4 , it seems that the bolt pattern will match and accept the awd transfer box but I may have quite a challenge to control it from the ECC V ( via the existing control module ) The other possibility is to use the std electric shift 4X4 transfer box ( as used in the Sportrac ) and probably gain on the mileage side to some degree, What is your opinion?
You seem to be rather more knowledgeable than most on application / implementation ,do you have any sources that you can point me at so I don't have to keep pestering people for data and of course it would good to get reliable dwg's and data on both the existing system and the intended " graft " system.
Relative to the mechanical latency , from what research I have done and what I have been told the injector latency of the stock injectors is responsible for inaccuracy and reduced  efficiency at higher RPMs ( >4500 ) , while not debilitating below 6500 RPM it could use improvement and may be beneficial to mileage when towing and other times when operating at sustained lower gear operation.
Thanks for the input , I need it!
Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

CFI was the older central injector(s) mounted in the carb body. MFI was multiport, and was batched as you term it. Actually they were paired so two would fire at any time.

Sorry but I couldn't help on the swap consideration. Ford has used a combination of EEC/AXODE/PCM controllers on different vehicles. You can be sure that the EEC will be  programmed for any specific combination of motor/drivetrain.

The stock controller will cover a wide range of power/speed requirements very nicely. Closed loop is the ticket to get both the pull and mileage. You could alter your ratio mapping but you'll loose one over the other. Gearing and trans cooling are concerns there.

As for sources, I hate buying books (expense), dealers know dick (except that will be $90 for hooking you up to the scanner). Probst has some good EEC info, and the standard vehicle manuals have assorted clues in identifying implementation. Head down to the wrecker and inspect the different configurations to get an idea of control methodology.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
AUTOMATIC2:

In regard of the awd transfer case vs the fwd case I was curious as to whither you believed one one would provide nominally better mileage over the other , and how you would view functional advantages on over the other. I know that the cross application going to ECC V from ECC IV will be a challenge in regard of verifying any communications that may be present and whether it will , in fact , work (gee is it worth it ). From what I understand at this point the awd control module is stand-alone and does not interface the ECC IV at all , although I have been able to verify this.
I am not familiar with Probst as as a source , I will look for it on the web and see what I can find.
Thank you very much for your help.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

'Is it worth it' is a good question. Just to tinker with the systems is a hobby. When you need a core vehicle of a certian configuration/specification, I'd just trade in to get it.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
automatic2:
Yup I have to agree "EXCEPT" none of the small vans built today give the performance , carry , capacity , ..... that I need , and I am getting good mileage with outstanding longevity. I must admit I am doing more that "restoring" it but what the hey a guy has to have a little fun in life. My question was of your opinion on the comparison between the function / mileage factors of AWD vs FWD in this application just friendly conversation , sharing opinion , but I do see your  point.
Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Here in the States the EECIV was produced from 1983 to 1995. From the start, the system was batch fire in MPI configuration, until mid 93' then the system was converted to Sequential, they added a cam sensor, and one O2 sensor( for two total), and they used the delay between exhaust pulses to tell which cylinder the O2 was measuring, and adjusted the fueling accordingly.

I have a 91 Explorer, and also a 94' Explorer, the 91' is batch with EDIS and one O2 sensor. the 94' is EDIS with a cam sensor, SEFI, and two O2 sensors. Each Explorer has the EECIV computer, they seem to run identical. I believe the SEFI system was used only to satisfy tighter emissions rules in 94'. I also have a 96' Taurus with the 3.0, it has EEC-V and SEFI, with four O2 sensors, one on each bank, and one after each Converter. The reason for this is to measure the effectivness of the cats, not for tuning reasons.  

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

The AWD module does not interface with the EEC, It is a standalone module, with its own sensors and everything. it even runs independantly from the powertrain Module, which is really just a bank of relay drivers, that takes descretes from other controls, like the EEC for the transmission control, A/C and cooling fan controls,..Ect.

You could replace a batch EECIV with a newer Sequential, of course you would have to replace the engine harness, and also you need the eec wiring, as well as a cam sensor from the same engine, usually installed in the same place as the distributer was. Also you need another bung for the O2 sensor. Not all EEC has a knock sensor, batch or otherwise.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
eecscott:
Thanks for the input , just FYI the aerostar used eeciv in batch untill 97 when it went to bank and fast burn heads no dist on any I know of from 90 on.
Do happen to know a good source for electrical/electronic dwg's for the 90 w/digital dash , 94 w/o ,95 std dash aerostar, and say 2002 up 4.0 explorer ( it has the knock sensor ).
Again thanks for the help.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

JonieR,  Late getting on the board.
You original post is quite hard to follow with everything run togather and some areas unclear.
You have a large engineering job to work out all the requirments you might want to accomplish.   I would rethink the project.
There are a number of trucks that are V6 using SFI injection control.  93 EXPLORER Ca and 49 states, 93 RANGER, 92 RANGER/EXPLORER, 92-93 AEROSTAR,  plus others.
The Mustang 5L and many cars use EEC from 88 up are all SEFI with various differences in such parameters as auto /standaed shift, ignition timing aggressivness, control features etc.
All you need to do to see how the injectors are controlled is look at the electrical feeds.  If they are feed common power with seperate leads to the EEC, then they are sequencial control.
Controlling the drive train is still another matter so I can't point to all areas other than to say those vehicles that started to use the AODE and other versions on electric transmission control would get toward the control you are considering.
Not until about 2000 did the trucks really get into the drivetrain control with the 4r70w, 4r100 and other transmission types actually having relays and circuit boards  in the transmission with their own fault reporting codes and indication.
Knock sensor were used in the 85-87 trucks and some 4.6/5.4 OHC mod motors.
I do know a lot more about these systems but if you have to work out a system, I would not be able to tell in advance what you have to do in a specific manner.
I would think you have to set down all the issues that have to be addressed through interfaceing to the original design, then set about looking at what existing hardware and controls might be usefull.
Aside from the self satifaction of accomplishment, I would really rethink what your trying to do unless you have a great deal if time, money and patience.
These systems are complex beyond normal belief levels and is why the factory takes years of design and testing to be reasonably sure the public can use their product without undue reliability issues and then we still have problems with design issues.
For about the most information on these systems and how they work, try a book be Charles Probst SAE titled  FORD FUEL INJECTION & ELECRONIC ENGINE COTROL.  In this book you will find EEC drawings for all the vehicles up to 93 as well as discriptions of operation, operating strategies, test and other information to get you started in understanding before  doing.
Good luck.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Quote:

This brings me to the second part of my progect , the injecter drivers , I plan on puting a slave set of drivers between the ECC and the injecters that will force a much higher current for a very short time duration then a lower holding current. At injecter shut off time I intend to force a revers current , then a rather solid snubing , this I hope will reduce the "slugishness" of the stock injecters making them more acurate at idel and at higher RPM's. I realize that this will require substanchal re-calibration to the ECC tables to accomplish but it will be a lot easier if I start with a cpu that is at lest part way to my goal.
What you are describing is the way low impedance injectors are controlled, trying to drive a high impedance injector this way  is not feasable. change your injectors over to low impedance types if you wish to controll them this way.

actualy switching to a low impedance injector and a controll board to intercface from your existing ecu will quite possibly give you much bigger gains than switching to sequencial.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

As far as I know, most Ford EEC 4 & 5's used sequential injection from the late 80's on. I am pretty sure all the turbo 4's in the 80's used a sefi eec4
Tim

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

I think you are misremembering, and I wonder about your dates. EEC IV may have had the code for SEFI (I don't think it did, we didn't try it until EEC V), but either way very few programs implemented it even in the 90s.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Am I talking about the same thing? Ford injects the fuel right as the intake valve opens, SEFI. Ford had used this method on eec4's I was familiar with. That was why the wiring harness had separate conn's for each injector. Otherwise they would have tied them in banks or batches. Maybe we are talking about different things.
Tim

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

The eec's label on the units themselves usually say SFI on them. 92-up 3.0 V6 Taurus, 89-up SHO, 3.8L V6 1988-up, 90-up 1.9 Escort, 93-up Calif. Explorer 4.0L(49 States most likely added in 94-up) 92-up Aerostar/Ranger 3.0L 1988-up Ford Car 5.0L
Tim

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
I hate to disagree with some one in the automotive word , but I have 4 aerostar's 91 to 97 , the 97 is the only variant one. the 90 to 96 did batch injection , the 97 finally cought up with the rest of the 4.0L and it went to bank.
The only reson that I can figure that ford wired each seperatly was A) to diagnose a open injecter and because the drivers they use are for hi impedence injectors and canot handle the current of all at one or even 3 at once injectors.

I understand that some EEC IV do SEFI but not many , getting that info out of ford is like getting blood from rocks. I don't think ford has a tech site of any kind that is public access. I wish ford would go to lo impedece injectors , higher  fuel pressure ---- and get rid of the @#$%^&**((&*&%$ automatic door locks.

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

If you get rid of the stupid customers, we'll get rid of the door locks. We hate them too.

Yes SEFI is firing each injector in time with the valve (usually onto the back of the valve at idle). I don't know what continent you are on but I am very confident that for product developed in NA and AP that it was not much used, even in the nineties. We did find a few examples.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Hi Jon, what country are you in? I the info I provided was right out of the book from ford. There were not to many 4.0's sfi, but i dont know why you couldnt make the 3.0 sfi computers work.
Tim

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Again I dont know what country you are in but Napa used to publish very informative book on efi that listed all makes with pinouts and sensor specs.

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Pinouts won't help if SEFI is not enabled in the ROM. That is done on a vehicle program by vehicle program basis, not a generational thing.


Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
Tim: I am in the USA , what I am spouting is just what I have learned the hard way and by speaking with the boys that have been doing the after market chip programing. Some of these guys know there stuff some dont ,I have been fotunate to get hold of one that really does.

Greag: I agree with you on most of your comments , is it REALLY true that auto door locks ,that you cant turn off ,is customer requested?? They would have to be lame or scared silly of driving in the big city , only two posibilitys I can figure.

I for one hate them and feel like finding the wire to the door locks and cutting it even if disabled the manual electric locks.

You sound like some one in side ford do you know of any ford sources of tech data?

Jon

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

Hi:

I have a 95 Ford Explorer, 4.0L, 2wd, with 4R55E tranny, with non reprogramable EEC-IV computer part number F5TF-12A650-ARC having calibration code 5-58B-R10.  I am getting a delayed tranny shift from 1st to 2nd and no engine braking when in manual 2nd.  3/4 Od light flashes and error code readout with analog vom gives me a code 646 (2nd gear ratio problem).  I did a stall test per ATSG and it passed the required spec rpm range (not over speeding or going under) in all shift lever positions.  Figuring the intermediate servo band is not being properly applied I have replaced a hard rubber seal intermediate servo piston and seal but it has not helped.

I downloaded a couple Ford TSB's off the adddata website and am a bit confused regarding the Ford TSB article 98-5-1 dtd 03/16/98.   Is says it might be possible to fix my tranny problem and eliminate the blinking light error code by replacing my F5TF-ARC computer with a later design, model F5PF-BRA.  Both old and new computers have same recomended calibration code.

I have been unable to locate any low cost (junkyard) F5PF-BRA's for my trial use in my vehicle.  No trouble at all finding the ARC's.  All the local tranny shops, with exception of Ford Dealer's shop, say they have never heard of a computer causing a tranny shifting problem.  However the local Ford dealer tech manager, after I showed him the TSB, says I should first change the computer before starting to look for problems inside the tranny.  Ford wants $ 275 for the BRA computer.  Sure wish I could find a used one for $ 75 or so.

Does anyone have any technical details on what could be occuring that the model F5PF-BRA (I am assuming it may be a later design) may or may not solve my tranny problem ?  I would like more info / knowledge before I under expense of having the tranny torn down or ordering a rebuilt tranny.  

And that brings up another question, if I put in a rebuilt tranny and the problem is in the old design ARC computer, will I have to get the latest design BRA computer to make a rebuilt tranny work ?

Comments appreciated....

Mark

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

The chip inside is an 8096, but not a generic one; custom microprogrammed for Ford and all that rot.  I am >>>GUESSING<<< that the ARC computer has a missing or incorrectly implemented opcode.

MAYBE you could accumulate a pile of ARC computers, really cheap, since they are clearly of no use to anyone.  Maybe you could eventually figure out what part of the ROM code is not working right, and implement a patch, e.g. doing the same operation with different opcodes.

If you can follow branches in 8080 or 6502 binary code from hex dumps, it might only take you a year to learn the 8096 instruction set and figure out the EEC's architecture and write the patch and test it.  If you're starting from scratch with embedded computers, figure ten years.

It would be quicker to befriend someone at a Ford dealer so you can get a better price, and if your time is worth anything, it would still be cheaper to buy the -BRA, even at retail.

I agree with the Ford tech; don't open the tranny until you've replaced the computer and not solved the problem.















 


Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

RE: FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS

(OP)
Holy COW !
I am notcertain that all of this is on topic but I agree with Mike Halloran on this one , did this unit ever work correctly?
with a TSB it may be fords bill not yours.

Jon Russell

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources