EFI For Big Blue

[85lebaront2]

Gary,

Granted I haven't read through the entire thread...may I ask you why you aren't using an aftermarket self learning EFI system? Why use a factory setup?

Ray, Gary said it, much the same reason I stayed with a Ford EEC-V system. I can carry a junkyard EEC-V box with the correct hardware code and reflash it to my current tune in maybe 15 mins, it will actually take longer to swap the box than get it programmed. I can carry a pre-flashed spare with me on a long trip and at worst case can find a 1996/7 EEC for a 351 W/E4OD in a junkyard and reflash it.

Aftermarket, call the source, tell them what you have and maybe you might have something in 2-3 days, more likely a week or more. I would not want to be up in WV at my son's or Texas at my other son's and have to sit and wait on parts.

[Gary Lewis]

Ray, Gary said it, much the same reason I stayed with a Ford EEC-V system. I can carry a junkyard EEC-V box with the correct hardware code and reflash it to my current tune in maybe 15 mins, it will actually take longer to swap the box than get it programmed. I can carry a pre-flashed spare with me on a long trip and at worst case can find a 1996/7 EEC for a 351 W/E4OD in a junkyard and reflash it.

Aftermarket, call the source, tell them what you have and maybe you might have something in 2-3 days, more likely a week or more. I would not want to be up in WV at my son's or Texas at my other son's and have to sit and wait on parts.

Another reason I like the factory system is that it is true port injection. But many of the aftermarket systems are just replacements for a carb and you wind up having the traditional imbalance between cylinders due to distribution problems in the intake manifold.

Anyway, Core Tuning got back with me today and said "The wideband I would recommend is the Dynocom DC AFM. My response was "I'm confused about the AFR meter. I thought you guys liked Innovate, and I was assuming you'd suggest something like the MTX-L Plus. What's better about the Dynocom?"

Anyone know anything about them?

[Gary Lewis]

Another reason I like the factory system is that it is true port injection. But many of the aftermarket systems are just replacements for a carb and you wind up having the traditional imbalance between cylinders due to distribution problems in the intake manifold.

Anyway, Core Tuning got back with me today and said "The wideband I would recommend is the Dynocom DC AFM. My response was "I'm confused about the AFR meter. I thought you guys liked Innovate, and I was assuming you'd suggest something like the MTX-L Plus. What's better about the Dynocom?"

Anyone know anything about them?

In looking at the documentation on those two AFR meters I find this on calibration:

Innovate: Calibration Schedule - Normally aspirated (daily driver)

- Calibrate before installation of new sensor

- Calibrate new sensor again after 3 month of use

- Thereafter calibrate once a year or every 20,000 miles, whichever comes first

Dynocom: The following are some timing guidelines for when to perform a calibration procedure:

- The first time before a new sensor is used.

- For every 3000 ft. change in altitude.

- For race/off road engines, every tuning session.

- For wild street performance engines once every week of use.

- For mild street performance engines every month of use.

It is worrying that the Dynocom is to be calibrated 4 times as often, meaning every 3 months vs annually for the Innovate.

On top of that, the Innovate's analog output that will go to the data logger says that 0V = 7.35 AFR and

5V = 22.39 AFR. But the Dynocom says an output of 0 VDC means 9.00:1 AFR (gasoline) and an output of 5 VDC means 16.00:1 AFR.

On top of that, the Innovate is ~$220 and the Dynocom is ~$355. So....... Thoughts?

 

[85lebaront2]

In looking at the documentation on those two AFR meters I find this on calibration:

Innovate: Calibration Schedule - Normally aspirated (daily driver)

- Calibrate before installation of new sensor

- Calibrate new sensor again after 3 month of use

- Thereafter calibrate once a year or every 20,000 miles, whichever comes first

Dynocom: The following are some timing guidelines for when to perform a calibration procedure:

- The first time before a new sensor is used.

- For every 3000 ft. change in altitude.

- For race/off road engines, every tuning session.

- For wild street performance engines once every week of use.

- For mild street performance engines every month of use.

It is worrying that the Dynocom is to be calibrated 4 times as often, meaning every 3 months vs annually for the Innovate.

On top of that, the Innovate's analog output that will go to the data logger says that 0V = 7.35 AFR and

5V = 22.39 AFR. But the Dynocom says an output of 0 VDC means 9.00:1 AFR (gasoline) and an output of 5 VDC means 16.00:1 AFR.

On top of that, the Innovate is ~$220 and the Dynocom is ~$355. So....... Thoughts?

Gary, I bought my Innovate used from a fellow who had used it in tuning his Mustang. I did have to replace the sensor about a year later and it can either be ordered from Innovate, or, since it is a standard Bosch wideband, from a source like RockAuto by Bosch PN. On the output, the interface into BE for data logging was included with my package (along with a TwEECer which I no longer have) and does very well as I have it at the H where the factory single O2 sensor went so it reads the combined stream. Mixture control is the dual sensors, one on each bank on the pipes just below the manifold flanges.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, I bought my Innovate used from a fellow who had used it in tuning his Mustang. I did have to replace the sensor about a year later and it can either be ordered from Innovate, or, since it is a standard Bosch wideband, from a source like RockAuto by Bosch PN. On the output, the interface into BE for data logging was included with my package (along with a TwEECer which I no longer have) and does very well as I have it at the H where the factory single O2 sensor went so it reads the combined stream. Mixture control is the dual sensors, one on each bank on the pipes just below the manifold flanges.

That's exactly where I've been planning to put my wide-band sensor - the factory position where the two sides come together. And then put the factory sensors upstream of that.

But either Adam or Ben suggested that it go in one stream or the other as one of them will be leaner than the other and you don't get a true reading at the crossover. But, why wouldn't you get a good average reading there? Aren't you really shooting for an average that is close to 14.4 to then let the computer "trim" it to perfection?

[85lebaront2]

That's exactly where I've been planning to put my wide-band sensor - the factory position where the two sides come together. And then put the factory sensors upstream of that.

But either Adam or Ben suggested that it go in one stream or the other as one of them will be leaner than the other and you don't get a true reading at the crossover. But, why wouldn't you get a good average reading there? Aren't you really shooting for an average that is close to 14.4 to then let the computer "trim" it to perfection?

Gary, everything I have read on the use of the wideband says it should ideally monitor the whole exhaust stream. One of the issues with many of the early computer systems was the O2 sensor only monitoring one bank of the engine, which in theory is fine because an FBC feeds two cylinders from each barrel as does a TBI. The early bank fired systems were the same way. What caused problems was the fact that the second bank was assumed to be running the same. We all know what that word gets you. This was the reason Ford moved the O2 sensors on V8 trucks to the H from the back of the right exhaust manifold in 1987.

You now have a situation where a problem (leaking gasket, bad plug, injector issue either lean or rich) will now affect the other 7 to some extent as it is seeing the "average" mixture. Once engines were changed from either TBI or bank fired into sequential, it became feasible and needed to go to bank sensors where the ECA can, in it's programming, say the #5 cyl is a bit lean and increase the pulse width on #5 cyl only. This is where the fuel trim portion of the OBD-II system comes in, it allows "tweaking" of individual cylinders to correct errors. It can still be fooled by a leaking exhaust manifold gasket since under light load (cruise) air is actually drawn in and leans the stream to where the computer will increase fuel on the cyl with the gasket leak.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, everything I have read on the use of the wideband says it should ideally monitor the whole exhaust stream. One of the issues with many of the early computer systems was the O2 sensor only monitoring one bank of the engine, which in theory is fine because an FBC feeds two cylinders from each barrel as does a TBI. The early bank fired systems were the same way. What caused problems was the fact that the second bank was assumed to be running the same. We all know what that word gets you. This was the reason Ford moved the O2 sensors on V8 trucks to the H from the back of the right exhaust manifold in 1987.

You now have a situation where a problem (leaking gasket, bad plug, injector issue either lean or rich) will now affect the other 7 to some extent as it is seeing the "average" mixture. Once engines were changed from either TBI or bank fired into sequential, it became feasible and needed to go to bank sensors where the ECA can, in it's programming, say the #5 cyl is a bit lean and increase the pulse width on #5 cyl only. This is where the fuel trim portion of the OBD-II system comes in, it allows "tweaking" of individual cylinders to correct errors. It can still be fooled by a leaking exhaust manifold gasket since under light load (cruise) air is actually drawn in and leans the stream to where the computer will increase fuel on the cyl with the gasket leak.

Bill - That's my understanding as well. Which is why my plan is still to put the sensor in the factory cross-over.

And, the rest of that is why I felt like going to anything short of MAF/SEFI wasn't worth it.

[Gary Lewis]

Bill - That's my understanding as well. Which is why my plan is still to put the sensor in the factory cross-over.

And, the rest of that is why I felt like going to anything short of MAF/SEFI wasn't worth it.

Time for an update on Big Blue's EFI quest. Not a lot to tell, but:

Core Tuning: I haven't yet purchased the software & hardware from them with which to modify the EEC-IV ECU. We have it down to the right package, but there's a debate going on between Adam and Ben with regard to what wide-band AFR meter I should have. It has almost been a month since their conflicting recommendations came in, so I think I'll have to check back in to see what I should do.

Cam: I'm not impressed with the power that Big Blue's 460 puts out, and have been attributing it to the cam. I put together a spreadsheet to compare and contrast cams, and got really confused. With so many variables and wildly-varying claims by the manufactures it is mind-boggling.

Then I thought I'd work with Lunati to see what they recommend, and discovered that there are several required fields in their recommendation-request form that I simply do not know. At that I turned to an independent party and emailed Scott Johnston, aka The Mad Porter. he said:

Given the poor flow characteristics of the 85 cylinder heads and a whole bunch of unknowns about the actual build it is no wonder that the combination is so lazy. ... Most EFI trucks generate as noted in the last email about 12 to 13 mpg unloaded. A carbureted truck that gets 11.2 mpg is nothing to be complaining about.

Then the discussion turned to cams. I know he thinks the Edelbrock cam is "poo", so I asked him what he thought I should have:

If you are building what is essentially a 93+ EFI engine then our standard crate engine EFI cam is appropriate. Top the guides a bit to ensure seal to retainer clearance with comp 926 springs. 207 / 219 on a 113 +4 or 5 depending on compression ratio, piston choice, altitude and or deck height.

So I told him that once I get the engine torn down and determine the pistons used as well as the deck height, and therefore the compression ratio, I'll get back with him and we will finalize the cam.

Compression Ratio: Speaking of the probable compression ratio, I had been assuming that it has quite a bit since it requires 91 octane to keep from pinging, and even then I have to pull the vacuum advance or it'll ping when pulling a heavy trailer. But, I now think that what I have is a distributor set up for EGR and yet I'm not running EGR. I say that because it fits both the experienced pinging as well as the fact that Vernon's engine builder didn't know what he was doing. So, I'm sure he slapped the non-EGR intake on w/o regard to the changes needed in the timing. So the spark is coming in way too soon, and that probably has something to do with the spots showing up on the spark plugs.

Bill - How hard is it going to be to create a timing curve in the ECU that works w/o EGR?

Heads: Huck, the 1990 F250, came with 1993+ F3 heads. From my reading those are very good heads, and while they could be improved with porting they flow well for low-end torque, which is what I'm looking for. So I'm taking them to Eric Weingartner tomorrow. Eric no longer ports cast iron, but he will go through the heads completely. And, I'll ask him to install the Comp 926 springs that Scott says I'll need. Plus, I want to get his take on cams.

[85lebaront2]

Time for an update on Big Blue's EFI quest. Not a lot to tell, but:

Core Tuning: I haven't yet purchased the software & hardware from them with which to modify the EEC-IV ECU. We have it down to the right package, but there's a debate going on between Adam and Ben with regard to what wide-band AFR meter I should have. It has almost been a month since their conflicting recommendations came in, so I think I'll have to check back in to see what I should do.

Cam: I'm not impressed with the power that Big Blue's 460 puts out, and have been attributing it to the cam. I put together a spreadsheet to compare and contrast cams, and got really confused. With so many variables and wildly-varying claims by the manufactures it is mind-boggling.

Then I thought I'd work with Lunati to see what they recommend, and discovered that there are several required fields in their recommendation-request form that I simply do not know. At that I turned to an independent party and emailed Scott Johnston, aka The Mad Porter. he said:

Given the poor flow characteristics of the 85 cylinder heads and a whole bunch of unknowns about the actual build it is no wonder that the combination is so lazy. ... Most EFI trucks generate as noted in the last email about 12 to 13 mpg unloaded. A carbureted truck that gets 11.2 mpg is nothing to be complaining about.

Then the discussion turned to cams. I know he thinks the Edelbrock cam is "poo", so I asked him what he thought I should have:

If you are building what is essentially a 93+ EFI engine then our standard crate engine EFI cam is appropriate. Top the guides a bit to ensure seal to retainer clearance with comp 926 springs. 207 / 219 on a 113 +4 or 5 depending on compression ratio, piston choice, altitude and or deck height.

So I told him that once I get the engine torn down and determine the pistons used as well as the deck height, and therefore the compression ratio, I'll get back with him and we will finalize the cam.

Compression Ratio: Speaking of the probable compression ratio, I had been assuming that it has quite a bit since it requires 91 octane to keep from pinging, and even then I have to pull the vacuum advance or it'll ping when pulling a heavy trailer. But, I now think that what I have is a distributor set up for EGR and yet I'm not running EGR. I say that because it fits both the experienced pinging as well as the fact that Vernon's engine builder didn't know what he was doing. So, I'm sure he slapped the non-EGR intake on w/o regard to the changes needed in the timing. So the spark is coming in way too soon, and that probably has something to do with the spots showing up on the spark plugs.

Bill - How hard is it going to be to create a timing curve in the ECU that works w/o EGR?

Heads: Huck, the 1990 F250, came with 1993+ F3 heads. From my reading those are very good heads, and while they could be improved with porting they flow well for low-end torque, which is what I'm looking for. So I'm taking them to Eric Weingartner tomorrow. Eric no longer ports cast iron, but he will go through the heads completely. And, I'll ask him to install the Comp 926 springs that Scott says I'll need. Plus, I want to get his take on cams.

Gary, there are various tables in the spark control for the running conditions. There is not, from what I remember, a direct correlation between manifold vacuum and advance like you have in a conventional system. Since the MAF control does not measure the manifold vacuum it uses an alogrithm to develop an "inferred" value.

On the heads, I should have probably gotten with Scotty AKA "the mad porter" for exhaust side recommendations on mine as that is still the weak area.

You posted the stock HP and torque ratings for the 351M and 400 the other day, the 400's torque peak didn't really surprise me, that 3.98" stroke helps a lot and Ford usually tried for torque in their larger engines, the old MEL 430 comes to mind. I think the 1958 430 was 375 HP @ 4600 and 490 ft-lbs @ 3100.

[1986F150Six]

You posted the stock HP and torque ratings for the 351M and 400 the other day, the 400's torque peak didn't really surprise me, that 3.98" stroke helps a lot and Ford usually tried for torque in their larger engines, the old MEL 430 comes to mind. I think the 1958 430 was 375 HP @ 4600 and 490 ft-lbs @ 3100.

Hmmm! Sounds like my 4.9L!!!

Sorry, Bill and Gary, for the momentary "highjack" of the thread.