Gary Lewis

David - That is very true for when I'm "local". But, I have ~17K miles on the 2015, and almost all of the miles have been accrued elsewhere, like the trip the Grand Canyon with the boat, the trip to Florida to get Big Blue, and the vacation a year ago to Colorado. So I've used a wide variety of fuel in it, from pure gas when I can get it to ethanol-blended fuels when I can't. And I can't easily tell the difference in MPG. Having said that, I can tell a big difference when towing in the octane of fuel used. This fits with what the owner's manual says about fuel, as it suggests using higher octane while towing. I saw between 10% and 20% better MPG with 91 or 92 octane than with 87 octane, and while the math doesn't say that the increased MPG is a no-brainer with the additional cost, when you are getting ~10 MPG you'll pay the difference not to have to stop that often.

I think the only way to find out what pure gas does in your vehicle and your driving style is to try it. There are just way too many variables. This site says "The stoichiometric air-fuel ratio for pure gasoline is 14.7 approximately, and that of the ethanol-gasoline and butanol-gasoline blended fuel should be less than 14.7." So, to actually get a complete burn and attempt to use all of the energy in the fuel the AFR should be adjusted. However, it says later that "The oxygen in ethanol and butanol gives an additional assistance to achieve lean burning in the engine". That would suggest that you can run the AFR leaner on a blended fuel than you can with pure gas, so even w/o adjusting the AFR the engine should still run acceptably, albeit with less power. But, does the leaner mix offset the loss of power? In a carb'd engine the air/fuel ratio will vary by each and every vehicle as well as each and every day since the temp and barometric pressure will have changed. And, how far you are into the enrichment circuit will vary by driver and location - if not his/her mood. So, it is a very complex equation and can probably only be solved by mere mortals via empirical data.

I agree that we need a larger sample before making changes. However, it seems pretty certain that there's an alignment problem with factory instrument & fog lamp bezel alignment with the hole in the dash. Therefore, I'm going to do some more scientific measuring to see if I can ascertain exactly how far it is off. Back in a bit.......

I haven't sent them, and now I'm glad that I haven't as I found this in Cruzin's FAQ's: Since I'm probably a year from using them I'm thinking I'd better wait. But, I also found this, and since I have two sets of 8 injectors, maybe I can get them "matched":

Yes. But the instructions or measurements we give them on where to drill the holes will vary depending on where the studs are. So, it would be better to only have one version out there, and I think that one version should be "right" for the factory holes. (I'm being selfish as I have a factory instrument bezel with the holes, and may want to use it.) Also, look at the height of the fog lamp bezel vs that of the bead around the other switches. If we are changing, why not fix that?

Thanks, Jonathan. I certainly does feel good. And, with any luck the engine and tranny will be sitting in the frame for the show in Sept. And, I hope to have the Trick Flow intake plenums on the engine as well. Plus the front suspension back in so it is sitting on all four wheels.

That seems to prove it, although more pics would be appreciated. It does appear to be a mistake on Ford's part. Given that, it is time to start talking about how to fix it. But before we go there, if we are going to modify things from the original, and I think we need to do so, then why not make the height of the bezel match that of the bead around the headlight and wiper switches? As for how to fix the problem, my suggestion is to move the goal posts - I mean the studs. That way no change to the mounting holes will be required in instrument bezels that are already drilled. And, if a factory fog lamp switch is being used with the flat blade, the factory slot may be wide enough to accommodate the switch. However, for round switch arms I think the slot will have to be widened. But, since it hides behind the fog lamp bezel that shouldn't be a problem. I can do some more measuring today and see what I think the offset on the studs needs to be. And, if the factory slot looks wide enough - for a factory fog lamp switch. But, what other suggestions do y'all have?

The second char is always supposed to be a number.

I'd forgotten.

And make sure they show us the switch - just to ensure there isn't a dog-leg in the arm. In fact, as suggested, invite them here.

Thanks for the followup. Let us know how it goes.

Steve - I think Bill answered your questions (well done, Bill!), but I do have an illustration of the system on the website here: Fuel Systems/Fuel System Illustrations/1985 302 w/EFI. And I can look up the part numbers if you need. In addition, I have a book on Ford EEC-IV EFI systems, so there might be something in there if you need more info.

I'm not ready to change the bezel, but it wouldn't be hard. Perhaps we need two versions? However, let's hear from those that have factory installations or have created them to see if we are missing something.

Jonathan - I see how the lever is to the left, but it isn't as much "left" as I expected. In my mockup the lever was against the side of the slot, although my lever was thicker than yours. But, looking at the switch itself I see that the pivot is actually a ball instead of a pin. So your lever may actually be angled to the right as it could both pivot left/right as well as up/down on that ball. In any event, it isn't right and may well cause problems, both with the switch as well as premature wear on the rubber flap. As for the dash itself, the one I'm using for mockups is from an '82. And, get the FB guys to sign up here to discuss it.

I'm not a big fan of TBI. It is better than a carb in that it has the smarts to be able to adjust to altitude, temp, etc. And, it can tune the AFR somewhat, but it can't adjust cylinder-to-cylinder. And, on a log manifold like the 300 has the cylinder-to-cylinder balance can't be all that good. So I'm a fan of port injection since it can provide better balance between cylinders. However, within port injection there is batch-fire and there is sequential port injection. I read quite a bit about those approaches in a book at Barnes & Noble today. (I didn't buy the book as there wasn't much more than this one bit that interested me.) According to that author, batch-fire works well in steady-state situations. But it has to have the equivalent of an accelerator pump built in as the normal injection sequence isn't quick enough to ensure the engine doesn't stumble. And, when you chop the throttle there is frequently excess fuel in the port that can cause popping in the exhaust. So according to him some of the reason for sequential was for emissions. And some of it was for smoothness of operation.

I think that is the upper limit, like you said. That's probably the pop-off for the regulator on the pump. Then the Electronic Pressure Control unit, which is controlled by the PCM, regulates the pressure that goes to the clutches.

Huck was a heck of a good purchase! Well, I now have a "built" E4OD for Dad's truck. Picked it up from the tranny shop today. Here are the spec's, as best I can relate them from what the invoice says, but it is what I asked for: Pan: It has the deep 4R100 pan, which has a drain plug built in Gasket: It is the later model case with the reusable gasket Reverse Boost Line Pressure - 500: The line pressure has been set to 500 psi instead of 270 to ensure the clutches will lock up All of the upgrades, like the center bearing, steel clutch housings, HD pump, snap ring, etc Clutches: He put all the clutches in that can go in, and he used different brands of clutches in different positions as those are the ones he likes for that purpose Torque Converter: A B&I low-stall HD "bullet back" unit. Apparently that means it has an extra-strong case, which was one of the problems with stock E4OD converters As for warranty, it is two years from the point I fire the engine up. Also, he recommends the new synthetic Type F. And without pictures it didn't happen, so here's what it looks like:

Jonathan - It is very strange. I really don't understand. In your last pic did you not have your instrument bezel down in the notches? It looks lined up, but I'm guessing that's because the instrument bezel isn't "registered". Right? And your switch is an original switch? Right? So, who has one of these things in an original condition, meaning mounted and functional? Do we have to move the face of the fog lamp bezel left with respect to the studs, and cut the slot in the instrument bezel further left? Or slot the hole in the dash for the switch?

So sorry! At least you know what it is, although that is small compensation.

It shows to being in a hand-off from UPS to USPS, and is somewhere between Carrollton, TX and Tulsa. Delivery is still scheduled for Monday, but I'm thinking Saturday. We shall see.

One down, but probably several to go. The grounds are really the only thing connecting the devices that are acting up, so it has to be a ground issue somewhere. Having said that, if the only symptoms are of turn signals or brake/tail lights, then the turn signal switch is a common denominator.

Since you have EFI I think you have to ensure the system works properly or the computer will get its knickers in a twist. And, since I am not familiar/au fait with that system, I can't comment further. But, if it will help, here's an illustration thereof:

They appear to be the right ones.

Don't get me wrong, I think you've made a wise decision. You've proven that what you have works well and there's not much reason for change. My case, and every case, is different. I have a 460 which was rebuilt by who-know-who, and poorly done at that. It drops a cylinder at idle, which suggests a valve problem, although I've not run a leak-down test. And it oozes oil from every seam. So, being the behemoth that it is, it needs to come out to facilitate the repairs. Meanwhile, with the help of several on here, I've scored the necessary electrical and fuel system parts with which to change it to EEC-V. And, as an adjunct to getting an E4OD core, crossmember, and driveshafts for Dad's truck, I have an EFI'd 460 sitting on the stand with the necessary heads, manifolds, and even serpentine brackets - although no clue how it ran. (Not to mention a spare set of intake manifolds, intake plumbing, and even alternator from Jim.) So I'm ready to mix and match. And I say all of that to point out that swapping to EFI ain't easy. I'm sure that I'll have problems finding something, like the PCV hose that I already know isn't easy to find. So, buying a donor is the way to go.

Click on his handle, PetesPonies, where it is underscored and then click on Send Email to PetesPonies.