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

 

[elfgriper]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[automatic2]

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'

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[automatic2]

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.

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[automatic2]

'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.

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[eecscott]

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.

 

[eecscott]

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.

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[1Bluegrass]

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.

 

[carnage1]

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.

 

[optimum]

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

 

[GregLocock]

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

 

[optimum]

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

 

[optimum]

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

 

[JonieR]

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

 

[GregLocock]

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

 

[optimum]

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