Quick question: EVTM Chapter 5 (Start & Ignition)

[85lebaront2]

There are a lot of the early EEC-V systems out there that still used a distributor. Any F or E series under 8500 GVWR that still used any of the older engines (4.9L, 5.0L or 5.8L) built for the 1996 up MY would be EEC-V.

I always forget about the heavy trucks that kept the older F-series parts into the '00s. The '95-97 diesels were originally EEC-IV (no ignition, obviously) with the underhood DLC and the underdash OBD-II-compliant DLC, and most have been flashed to to be OBD-II exclusively now. That's what I mean about the early EEC-Vs not really being the same as the later ones, including the '96 1/2-tons that came off the line as EEC-V, and meeting the early requirements, but not being true EEC-V/OBD-II as they're commonly known today. Obviously the diesels can be flashed, but I don't think the '96 gas engines https://supermotors.net/getfile/892730/thumbnail/eecconnectors.jpg

In any case: BigDav782 needs to follow the Haynes diagnostic procedure I mentioned earlier.

Steve, I re-flash mine very easily, I use this cable:

Here is screenshot of the meters screen on the software, Binary Editor form Core Tuning LLC:

Sorry about the glare on the screen.

[Gary Lewis]

Steve, I re-flash mine very easily, I use this cable:

Here is screenshot of the meters screen on the software, Binary Editor form Core Tuning LLC:

Sorry about the glare on the screen.

Gee, Bill, that sure looks familiar.

Steve - I have the same cable. Also bought it from Core Tuning. And I have Binary Editor. That's how the ECU was flashed to be for a 460. So when the short-block gets built up and all the wiring is done I'll effectively have a '96 truck with OBD-II, MAF, & SEFI.

[Steve83]

I re-flash mine very easily...

Good to know; thanks. Do you remember how much the cable was, where it came from, and how much the software was?

...wow...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XGN1DNH

http://www.coretuning.net/index.php/shop

[85lebaront2]

I re-flash mine very easily...

Good to know; thanks. Do you remember how much the cable was, where it came from, and how much the software was?

...wow...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XGN1DNH

http://www.coretuning.net/index.php/shop

Steve, my package, purchased in April or May 2013, was $750 including a TIN3 EEC, several tokens (used on the initial "crack" of an EEC), the cable, software and roughly a year of free support. I actually got a little more because the 460/E4OD/F350 combination was new to them as most of their work had been Mustangs prior to that. I built a bench flash setup, using an extra 104 pin EEC plug, an extra OBD-II plug and a toggle switch for ignition on-off during the flash procedure. Adam Marrer and I spent a couple of hours on the phone and on-line with him in a remote log-in on my laptop while he walked me through the steps. I am pretty comfortable playing with it.

I have dual O2 sensors one in each downpipe, and where the factory single would mount on the EEC-IV systems, an Inovate wideband O2 sensor. Some of the OBD-II items are turned off, misfire detector, catalyst overheat, 3rd O2 (post cat). We had some issues with the canister purge, in that the OBD-II is looking for a fuel tank pressure sensor. By changing it to a VMV that eliminated that code, but because the software (Binary Editor 2012) did not have a place to enter the duty cycle, it set a new code. The latest version does have that capability. The other item was the EGR, the back pressure sensor is used on the CA spec 460s, the EGR tube with the nipples and orifice is NLA from Ford and no aftermarket source exists, so we had to use the "sonic" system with the duty cycle solenoid and EGR position sensor.

One thing I did, after talking with my friendly transmission shop, I have my converter clutch unlock set at 80% throttle, or just about where it will cause a downshift, this seems to completely eliminate the overheating problems with the E4OD, basically I let the 460's torque do the work, like it is a manual transmission. Example, pulling a contractor's equipment trailer loaded with two big roll up doors, three operators and the tracks for them, plus the bed loaded, coming through the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, going up the slope in the tunnels, the transmission downshifted from 4 to 3, with the converter unlocked engine was at 2700 rpm, or where it used to run towing with the C6, converter clutch re-locked, 2200 rpm at 54 mph. Nothing like having torque.

[Steve83]

...several tokens...

I have a psychological aversion to paying THAT MUCH for anything that CAN work, but is intentionally programmed NOT to work because its maker wants to extort extra $$$ from me each time I use what I've already paid for. That, and the fact that I like being able to grab junkyard parts whenever I need them (without going thru all that hassle), will keep my vehicles running the way Ford programmed them to for a LONG time to come.

...a couple of hours on the phone and on-line with him in a remote log-in on my laptop while he walked me through the steps.

What a nightmare! That's another reason I won't be investing in that system. I don't want to spend that much time learning how to use the tool.

I've been helping a local shop recently that specializes in Land Rover repairs, and there were 2 problem-children (both 2016 RRSports) that required that kind of assistance from both an out-of-state, and an overseas diagnostician. Fortunately, the equipment supplier also supplies that assistance free (with the yearly subscription - no extra for each instance). Because this shop had an older scanner that doesn't support pass-through programming (the overseas guy had to write code into several ECMs for about 10 hours over a few days for ONE of these abominations), they overnighted us the newer scanner as a loaner. Turns out, we identified an error in the factory (Land Rover) software, so it's going back through the chain before more vehicles are affected. (Or is it "INfected"?)

The point being - I don't want to spend that kind of time & effort on a 30-year-old $2K truck. I really didn't want to on those 3-year-old $50K vehicles, either.

[Gary Lewis]

...several tokens...

I have a psychological aversion to paying THAT MUCH for anything that CAN work, but is intentionally programmed NOT to work because its maker wants to extort extra $$$ from me each time I use what I've already paid for. That, and the fact that I like being able to grab junkyard parts whenever I need them (without going thru all that hassle), will keep my vehicles running the way Ford programmed them to for a LONG time to come.

...a couple of hours on the phone and on-line with him in a remote log-in on my laptop while he walked me through the steps.

What a nightmare! That's another reason I won't be investing in that system. I don't want to spend that much time learning how to use the tool.

I've been helping a local shop recently that specializes in Land Rover repairs, and there were 2 problem-children (both 2016 RRSports) that required that kind of assistance from both an out-of-state, and an overseas diagnostician. Fortunately, the equipment supplier also supplies that assistance free (with the yearly subscription - no extra for each instance). Because this shop had an older scanner that doesn't support pass-through programming (the overseas guy had to write code into several ECMs for about 10 hours over a few days for ONE of these abominations), they overnighted us the newer scanner as a loaner. Turns out, we identified an error in the factory (Land Rover) software, so it's going back through the chain before more vehicles are affected. (Or is it "INfected"?)

The point being - I don't want to spend that kind of time & effort on a 30-year-old $2K truck. I really didn't want to on those 3-year-old $50K vehicles, either.

I'm doing the same thing as Bill. Following directly in his footsteps. And it is still a huge learning curve. But, to pass down to my kids and grands something that can be maintained and something they can drive anywhere will be worth it.

[85lebaront2]

...several tokens...

I have a psychological aversion to paying THAT MUCH for anything that CAN work, but is intentionally programmed NOT to work because its maker wants to extort extra $$$ from me each time I use what I've already paid for. That, and the fact that I like being able to grab junkyard parts whenever I need them (without going thru all that hassle), will keep my vehicles running the way Ford programmed them to for a LONG time to come.

...a couple of hours on the phone and on-line with him in a remote log-in on my laptop while he walked me through the steps.

What a nightmare! That's another reason I won't be investing in that system. I don't want to spend that much time learning how to use the tool.

I've been helping a local shop recently that specializes in Land Rover repairs, and there were 2 problem-children (both 2016 RRSports) that required that kind of assistance from both an out-of-state, and an overseas diagnostician. Fortunately, the equipment supplier also supplies that assistance free (with the yearly subscription - no extra for each instance). Because this shop had an older scanner that doesn't support pass-through programming (the overseas guy had to write code into several ECMs for about 10 hours over a few days for ONE of these abominations), they overnighted us the newer scanner as a loaner. Turns out, we identified an error in the factory (Land Rover) software, so it's going back through the chain before more vehicles are affected. (Or is it "INfected"?)

The point being - I don't want to spend that kind of time & effort on a 30-year-old $2K truck. I really didn't want to on those 3-year-old $50K vehicles, either.

Well, since (a) my truck is 33 years old and (b) I pay no personal property taxes on it and © I have no catalytic converter, air bags or ABS and (d) it was paid for when I bought it cash in 1994, If I want to spend $750 to be able to do what I want and not be at the mercy of some tuning shop, then that is my choice. I have no real use for a 4WD, lots of people do, for the once in a blue moon I might actually need 4WD, the added weight, complication and increased height aren't worth it to me.