FORD ECC'S , APLICATIONS 1

[JonieR]

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

 

[GregLocock]

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

 

[Andy330hp]

Why do you care so much about getting sequential injection?

 

[patprimmer]

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

Regards
pat

 

[GregLocock]

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

 

[patprimmer]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[patprimmer]

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

 

[Andy330hp]

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.

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[patprimmer]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[patprimmer]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[GregLocock]

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

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

 

[elfgriper]

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

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