Ownership Verified: 1967 Ford Fairlane 500

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
1967 Ford Fairlane 500

Ummm... I hate to tell you this, but *ALL* Exploder 5.0s are either GT40 or GT40P motors. There is no such thing as a factory *non* GT40* 5.0 engine in an Exploder.

That's clearly a GT40 intake pair there.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Also - is there a reason you used an in-tank pump bodge instead of simply adding a return line and using an external pump?
 

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
My understanding is that the "GT40" intake is the tubular style upper:


and the GT40 and Explorer intakes share the same lower.
From what I gather, the flow difference is mostly negligible, with the GT40 tubular being perhaps slightly better (and far better looking)
The expense of the tubular intake was not worth it to me though, especially since I will eventually be covering it up with a shaker.


As for the internal/external pump, sound was a large factor; internal pumps are quieter. Longevity too, as a internal pump can be cooled by the fuel, and thus last longer (I rarely run below a half tank in any EFI vehicles because of this; also: desert, fuel isn't always available, so running low is dumb)

Finally, i wanted the baffle, so that the pump will almost never be in a situation where it can pump air.
Obviously, if I never run below half, then pumping air is not going to be a common occurrence with a central pickup under normal circumstances, but if i do end up running low for whatever reason, or if circumstances are not normal, (hard braking, turning, accel, etc) it is a potential issue.
Since there is no such thing as a aftermarket Fairlane fuel tank that already has baffles in it for EFI purposes, this was my solution. (66-67 Fairlane =/= comet/mustang/falcon/any-other-platform-mate)


besides, OEM's all run internal pumps on their high pressure EFI systems for a reason. I know you and others (myself included) like to hate on OEM's for dumb decisions, but I don't think the internal fuel pump is one of them.

Inaccessible, impossible to replace internal pumps? Yes, dumb. but internal pumps in general? No, that's a good idea.


I am also going to be upgrading to a 3/8ths fuel line, rather than the factory 5/16, and yes, there will be a return (also 3/8)
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
My understanding is that the "GT40" intake is the tubular style upper:


and the GT40 and Explorer intakes share the same lower.
From what I gather, the flow difference is mostly negligible, with the GT40 tubular being perhaps slightly better (and far better looking)
This is in error. That *is* a GT40 intake, but it only ever came on one vehicle, the 5.0 Cobra. It's more commonly called the GT40 Cobra or 5.0 Cobra intake (for obvious reasons) while the Exploder intakes are usually called "GT40 intakes".

As for the internal/external pump, sound was a large factor; internal pumps are quieter. Longevity too, as a internal pump can be cooled by the fuel, and thus last longer (I rarely run below a half tank in any EFI vehicles because of this; also: desert, fuel isn't always available, so running low is dumb)
External pumps are easier to service, can be easily muffled (many luxury cars used external pumps for a long time) and can be air cooled. Also, little modification needed to the tank (in fact, usually none) and all modifications go to the replaceable sender unit.

Finally, i wanted the baffle, so that the pump will almost never be in a situation where it can pump air.
Obviously, if I never run below half, then pumping air is not going to be a common occurrence with a central pickup under normal circumstances, but if i do end up running low for whatever reason, or if circumstances are not normal, (hard braking, turning, accel, etc) it is a potential issue.
Since there is no such thing as a aftermarket Fairlane fuel tank that already has baffles in it for EFI purposes, this was my solution. (66-67 Fairlane =/= comet/mustang/falcon/any-other-platform-mate)
Putting the baffle in wasn't a bad idea, though there are other ways to do it - multipoint pickup webs, for example.


besides, OEM's all run internal pumps on their high pressure EFI systems for a reason. I know you and others (myself included) like to hate on OEM's for dumb decisions, but I don't think the internal fuel pump is one of them.
Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Toyota and others all used *external* pumps for their high pressure EFI fuel pumps for a very long time. Many only went to in-tank pumps because they were smaller and cheaper (and being such, *required* fuel cooling.)

I am also going to be upgrading to a 3/8ths fuel line, rather than the factory 5/16, and yes, there will be a return (also 3/8)
Yeah, you can do that by modifying the level sensor/pickup assembly. Done that a number of times when converting vehicles.

Also, have you considered just running a Ford EEC-V and reprogramming it?
 
Last edited:

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
This is in error. That *is* a GT40 intake, but it only ever came on one vehicle, the 5.0 Cobra. It's more commonly called the GT40 Cobra or 5.0 Cobra intake (for obvious reasons) while the Exploder intakes are usually called "GT40 intakes".
So be it, my research had shown otherwise, but it hardly matters. I got a pretty decent intake, and it was ported, and at the $75 I think i paid for it, (I did buy it back in march after all) I think I'll be pretty happy with my purchase.


External pumps are easier to service, can be easily muffled (many luxury cars used external pumps for a long time) and can be air cooled. Also, little modification needed to the tank (in fact, usually none) and all modifications go to the replaceable sender unit.
While an external pump would certainly have been easier to install with respect to tank mods (I want to say 3/8's pickups are even a thing for Fairlanes, though I can't seem to find one now) I've had terrible luck with external pumps. Granted, all the ones I have used have been low pressure ones, intended for carb's applications, but I have used several different styles, from the stupid plunger crap that's available in parts stores, up to my current Carter P4070. I've seen terrible reliability, and awful noise, even with the pump installed as close to the tank, and as low as possible, and on rubber isolators for the pump, as well as the bracket.

As for ease of maintenance, my new pump will come out from the top, inside the trunk. No fuel spillage, no jacking up the car, no fuel in the face. easy, simple. Just need to remove the 16 screws and the fuel lines. Granted, removing 16 fasteners would suck if I had to do it by hand (though at least I wont be upside down doing it) but with the advent of power tools, those 16 screws are going to zip out much faster then you could jack the car up and replace my current Carter fuel pump, despite that there are only 4 bolts and 2 hose clamps involved in that process.

The walls I built into my riser will keep the mess down to a minimum too, if there even is any. While replacing an external pump with no mess is probably possible, it's not going to be as easy as my new setup will be. There won't be any mud or road filth in the way of any pump maintenance either, nor will I have to deal with rusty fasteners. We'll have to see how it goes when I finally shove this into the car and start running my fuel lines, but I am going to try and have the post-pump fuel filter right there close to the pump output as well, so I won't have to be getting under the car for fuel system maintenance at all.


Additionally, as I am sure you know, fuel pumps are bad at sucking fuel; it's why external pumps need to be mounted low and close to the tank, but thanks to the less than brilliant design of my OEM pickup, there tends to be a few moments of pump running before it really draws uninterrupted fuel to push to the front of the car.


(and yes, all three of those pics are from the bottom of the tank. The mount is at an approximate 45? angle, with the filler tube going up, and then dropping down to the bottom of the tank)

so even if a aftermarket/OEM replacement sender was available in 3/8's, I'd still be stuck with a not very good design.



Putting the baffle in wasn't a bad idea, though there are other ways to do it - multipoint pickup webs, for example.
I think I could even hear my wallet squeeking in fear of that one. Multi-point pickup web sounds like a very expensive series of parts, and a setup that's not going to fit though any existing holes in my tank. If I am going to be cutting big-ass holes in my tank, why not go with a baffle and internal pump?


Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Toyota and others all used *external* pumps for their high pressure EFI fuel pumps for a very long time. Many only went to in-tank pumps because they were smaller and cheaper (and being such, *required* fuel cooling.)
I think the odds are pretty damn good that all of those marques that used high pressure external pumps also had a fuel tank and fuel lines that were designed in such a way as to reduce or even eliminate the possibility of getting air into that line, and as I alluded to already in this post, my fuel tanks OEM pickup very much does suck air into the line regularly. Of course, the air in the line problem could be solved by designing my own pickup, or using some sort of multi-point pickup as you mentioned, or even something like Holley's Hydramat, but then I am cutting holes in a tank again to install such systems.

Also, have you considered just running a Ford EEC-V and reprogramming it?
To be honest, I hadn't looked into it, but if Ford's EEC-V system does not have a good self-learning routine, then I am not sure it would be a good option for me. Road-tuning is going to be the only way to get a tune on this car to start with, since taking it to a dyno is not particularly feasible. It would require trailering the car to either Vegas or SLC.

If I have to take the car in to get the ECU re-programmed every time I make a major change, then that would be an issue too, since at the very least, I know that the Edelbrock cam that I currently have in the car is not going to be a long-term solution for me. I don't care for the way it makes all it's power down low and mid-range. Sure it's better drivability, and honestly, with my gearing, it's better to have the power down low and midrange, but I had a shit-ton more fun with the K code replica cam that made it's power at the top.

So, the cam is going to be replaced within a year or three for sure, and who knows what else I might do to the car. The only performance parts on the engine that I know are staying indefinitely are the AFR heads and probably the Howard's roller lifters. Every other part, up to and including the rotating assembly, is subject to change.
Who knows, I may even have a supercharger fall into my lap. Sure, it would be hard to make boost work with the shaker I want, but I think I could stand to loose the shaker if it means boooooost. :mrgreen:

As far as the fuel tank/pump discussion is concerned, it's all academic anyways, since the mods to the tank are pretty much done, and I have all the parts now anyways. That much of the project is something I am committed to now, same as the intake manifold, and even the 70 mm throttle body (that's a aftermarket ford replacement part btw, not some custom universal thing I'm going to have to adapt).
I've got all the parts, I've had them for a while, I've been gathering parts for nearly 9 months now, and I've been at least low-level planning it for 7 or 8 years.

The only aspect of the EFI conversion that's really still in flux and capable of major change and shifts in direction is the ECU.
3 months ago, I would have sworn up, down left and right that I was going to run a MSIII
Now, I'm leaning towards a Holley Dominator.
I'm going to look into the EEC-V unit, and see if that could potentially serve my needs. If it'll do what I need, and be reasonable in cost, as well as have connectors/pins available (Fuck using an old harness and hacking it up to make it work. Seriously, fuck that noise. I'm going new on the harness, and that is that) then maybe I'll end up going that route.

I'm very much open to options as far as the ECU goes, and I can even make the switch between MAF and MAP style systems (currently planning MAP, though I do like the sound of MAF)

ECU wise,
I need it to work with what's likely going to be a Ford TFI type distributor (yeah, I haven't bought the dizzy yet either, but TFI is looking likely)
I need it to be able to trigger at least 1 fan relay
I need it to be able to work MPFI, preferably in sequential, though batch fire will work just as well I think
I need it to be able to work the Ford IAC
I need it to be able to self-learn, at least enough that I can drive it though changing elevations to get to a place that can tune it properly. (though if I can avoid having to go to a Dyno in order to get at least 90% capability, that's a big plus in my book)
I would like to to be compatible with the other Ford senders (CTS, MAT, Oil pressure, etc)
I would like it to be able to have configurable outputs, so as to run my factory idiot lights (hot, cold, & oil pressure)
I would like to have barometric based (with a secondary MAP sensor) on-the-fly altitude adjustment of the fuel tables, so as to maintain AFR regardless of altitude; but with decent self-learn capability, this is probably less necessary.
Ability to mount in the engine compartment is a plus too, I don't wan't to have to run a new connector in the firewall unless I absolutely must, and yes, if it's running through the firewall, I will put a disconnect on it, I feel that not doing so is lazy and poor work.



So far, the Dominator will do all of the above and much more besides. The HP can do most of it, but I am limited on the quantity of outputs. The Holley offerings have a MAP sensor in the ECU, though I cannot find any options to utilize it in their software. (yet)
The MSIII, I think can do it all, but the documentation is not as good as Holley, and the software is much less friendly too.
EEC-V is a question mark for me, I'll look into it.
Are there any other half-decent options that are worth looking into?
I admit that I haven't looked very hard at the Edelbrock or FAST offerings, since Edelbrock seemed disproportionately expensive when I last looked about a year ago, and FAST's offerings seemed needlessly difficult to find much information on. (at leas a year ago)
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
13,926
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
I have amassed a bunch of knowledge on EFI conversions by now. I can highly recommend going with adapting a OEM EFI system because the steep learing curve will mean that by the time you get frustrated cause you'll never get it to run right, dump the crap and get a good aftermarket system, you'll know all the pitfalls and will be up and running in no time.
That being said, if you are willing to learn without blaming the learning curve on a "bad investment" (see: bunch of whiny-ass guys on the Holley support forums) and save $500 or more, go straight for a Holley System. The Sniper TBI I am using basically is a castrated version of the more upmarket offerings you are looking at, so I think I can give you some insights here as well.
The killer feature of the Holley offerings is hidden in it's software. It's something I haven't seen with MegaSquirt or TunerPro yet: When you review a data log and pause the playback at a certain data point, all parameters active at that moment will be highlighted in the config, so when you for example try to tune out an AE lean spot, there's no guesswork as to which parameter you have to modify.

Regarding the distributor: Are you still running the el cheapo Skip White HEI? If yes, you are only one spot weld and one screw hole drilled away from having a perfectly fine dizzy for a Holley EFI system. Will even double as a CPS.

If you have any questions, shoot me a PM. I am also available on several IMs :)
 
Last edited:

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
Thanks for the insight, I'll definitely keep that in mind. From the little bit of research I did on adapting a EEC-V ECU to my needs last night, I don't think that is going to be a very good way to go for me anyways, so I'm back to choosing between Megasquirt, or some ECU system from holley, Edelbrock, FAST, etc.

So far, I do like Holley's tuning software the best, and that sounds like a very useful feature, since I will be doing all the tuning myself.



On the skip white dizzy, that was relegated to the 'emergency backup' pile-o-parts a while ago, the amount of end-play in the dizzy doesn't sit right with me, and at the time I replaced it, I didn't think the large cap would have worked very well with my plans for a shaker. I was also having tons of ignition related problems, (that turned out to actually be a burned valve) so it was replaced.
Of course, now that my approach to doing a shaker has changed 180?, the large cap would probably be fine now, so I should probably look into shimming it up to remove the end play, and turning it into a EFI dizzy.

Currently though, my ignition is a Pertronix Ignitor III system, including their remote HC coil. From what I gather though, the Ignitor III module will not be compatible with EFI, and since I want to go with sequential injection, the usual 4 pin GM style module won't work either; I'd need to go with a 7 pin unit.


TFI dizzys are available in junkyards for cheap though, and I know those will work great with sequential ignition.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Why do you need a distributor? TFI kinda sucks (I have it, I don't like it, even Ford wishes they didn't make it) and EDIS8 is a far superior setup.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I'll reply more in depth to the above stuff later today - I have to head out and see about getting another engine for the Bronco this morning.

You are aware that if you fit the Exploder 5.0's pre-PATS EEC-V system including engine sensors, it will actually run your current configuration out of the box, right? And the self-learn system will figure out the variances in about 20 minutes.
 

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
I'll await your more indepth post then, but my understanding with respect to EDIS is that it requires a crank trigger, which will require fab on my part as my timing cover has no provision for such a thing, nor does my crank pulley or balancer (remember, I'm a 28oz engine, and no 28oz windsor engine ever came with anything other than a distributor based ignition. For all intents and purposes, my engine is a stroked 1967 289)

Also, EDIS coils are fugly. Sure, I could fab up something to remote mount and hide them, but that's just yet more work to do, and I'm not even sure where I could hide the things reasonably.


As for just running a straight EEC-V system, well, I know nearly nothing about that, but if it's also EDIS, that brings up the same issues as to whether that will play nice with my early 28oz 302. Additionally, If I have to dick around with changing timing covers & water pumps, as well as converting to a serp setup (to use later parts, which include the reverse rotation water pump), just to run EFI, why the hell don't I just buy an exploder engine and run it straight up? after all, it's easier.




Running a Dominator or similar, with a TFI dizzy (and I can't say I've heard anything bad about TFI, but I may end up running a 7 pin GM module in my large-cap GM style dizzy I have instead) will require minimal actual parts changing on my engine; just the intake and dizzy, then running wires. (+plus the fuel system changes, but I have to do those no matter what)
I'm doing this in the winter, and unlike Texas, it actually gets cold here. the closest I come to a heated shop is a propane burner, and working here in Cedar (which all the future work will be done in Cedar) means that I have far less tools than normal, and it's pretty much just me doing it. So, more time on the laptop>>>more time working on cold engine parts. and tuning time on the laptop with a aftermarket system will be minimal anyways, at least with the holley software.


So far, I'm failing to see any major advantages to running a EEC-V system other than, maybe, maybe cost. What does EEC-V and/or EDIS really offer me that an aftermarket system does not? I know EDIS will get me slightly faster spark, with maybe a touch more control over ignition timing, but I'm not sure how much I care. TFI or a GM 7 pin module will give me full control over timing anyways.


Now, If I was a 'typical' hot rodder, and electrical work and wiring and computers scared the hell out of me, then using a OEM system straight up might be more appealing, but I work on avionics wiring harnesses with several miles of wire, and tens of thousands of connections. wires don't scare me. Good documentation, ease of use, effectiveness, long-term applicability. these are the things I care about.
I want all new wiring anyways, that is in keeping with the harness I have already designed and fabricated. (which is why I'm not interested in buying some universal 'kit'. I'll get and ECU and empty connectors/pins, and make my own harness.


While I don't like paying the kinds of prices that are being asked for a Dominator system, it's not beyond my means, not in the slightest, and I will pay what I need to in order to get a system I am happy with long term.
As far as I know though, the aftermarket systems mostly all offer me something that no OEM ECU does, which is fully configurable inputs and outputs, which are things that are relevant to me, as reducing the number of sensors that are running in parallel is a good thing, and I hardly have the ports available to run 3 separate CTS senders (one for the ECU, one for my gauges, and one for the idiot lights)

what I'd really like is an ECU that can drive my Autometer gauges, so I only need one of each type of sender in the engine, but unless I replace all my gauges with a different style, (all mine are one-wire ground-shot gauges) or go to one of those fugly tablet style pods it does not seem like that is something that is offered by anyone.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I am going to have to reply in installments - while I've gotten my new engine moved, I'm still busy with seasonal stuff, work and various mechanical repair tasks enough that I shouldn't be taking out that much time to make a really long single post.

First item, TFI. TFI module quality, even from Ford, has declined in general in recent years. So has HEI module quality - oh, my, it's declined even with the official GM modules; this is why my friend and I went to EDIS 6 on his Jag when we converted it from L-Jet to MegaSquirt a decade or so ago, and why I'll be doing that with mine eventually.

If you hadn't heard of anything bad with TFI, it's because you haven't really looked. TFI's first major problem is where they put it.



That's the TFI dizzy on my spare 302 engine. The TFI module is the gray electrical box below the main body of the distributor. Note that it's sitting right next to one of the hottest parts of the engine, the thermostat housing. Notice also that the module is in tight quarters. This means that the module itself limits how much base timing you can have (because you can only rotate the distributor so much before it hits in either direction) and it's constantly being cooked by engine heat. The latter often leads to premature TFI failure in EFI Fords because as it turns out the little plastic case the circuitry lives in isn't a great heat shield. The aftermarket produces relocation kits to put the TFI module on the fender (here is one of *many* examples) or you can do it yourself but that really only partially solves the problem. From that second link:

Having the engine on my ?91 Bronco suddenly die while rolling along the interstate at 70 mph with big rigs and cars all around is one of the most unnerving situations I?ve been in, on or off-road. When all power is instantly lost, braking and steering become a big problem. Fortunately, I managed to glide safely to the shoulder?heart pounding.

The sudden die-on-the-road scenario wasn?t the first time this happened to my FSB, nor is it rare among those of us who run Ford engines with the ignition control modules mounted on the distributor. It?s a common malady.

So common that back in 2002, Ford lost a class-action lawsuit that affected 300 models and some 23 million vehicles built between 1983 and 1995. The reason: The placement of the thick film ignition (TFI) module placed too close to the engine block, causing the heat-sensitive module to suddenly fail when it gets above 257 degrees. Our ?84-?91 Broncos are on that list because the TFI is mounted on the distributor?one of the hottest places on an engine.
Late in the TFI production run, Ford would follow the aftermarket and redesign the TFI ignition system so the module lived on the inner fender, radiator crossmember or firewall - away from the engine vee - and fitted it with a big heatsink.



As mentioned above, all that did was delay the inevitable. The modules would still heat soak and die, because Ford still didn't have effective exhaust manifold heat shielding - it would just take longer. About the only real long-term benefit from relocating was that you had a lot more range of timing adjustment.

EDIS8, on the other hand, is actually engineered to live in the vee of the 302. It's got a great big heat shielded base and is able to operate in temperatures where parts of the engine's sensors actually start melting. It essentially has no limitations on timing range, multistrike, or anything else timing related. And it's a direct bolt on for any 302 save for that you have to fab up a mount for a crank position sensor (you can bolt on a timing wheel to your existing balancer). It's able to run the ignition by itself if you should lose connection to the computer. And it's much more recent production - vehicles carrying this only stopped being made in 2008, plus it was used on the last Windsor Mustangs so they're basically never going to go out of support. You can get much more reliable spark, much more powerful spark (so you can run much larger plug gaps) and therefore more power. It's not just "a little more" spark or "a little more" management, it's WAY more of both.

Here's an article on how you can fit it to an even older 302 than you have: https://www.diyautotune.com/support/tech/customer/ford-edis/ You need not fit a serpentine system, install a new timing cover, swap water pumps or engine pulleys.

- - - Updated - - -

One other thing:

As far as I know though, the aftermarket systems mostly all offer me something that no OEM ECU does, which is fully configurable inputs and outputs, which are things that are relevant to me, as reducing the number of sensors that are running in parallel is a good thing, and I hardly have the ports available to run 3 separate CTS senders (one for the ECU, one for my gauges, and one for the idiot lights)
If you are running the GT40 lower intake manifold you do, if you combine it with the standard aftermarket thermostat housing for the EFI 302 - or the factory thermostat housing. There's two coolant sensor ports on or bolted to the GT40 manifold and the aftermarket/late stock EFI thermostat housing has the third. Factory Ford trucks ran all three at various points - one for the ECU, one for the idiot light, one for the gauge on the dash.
 
Last edited:

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
So on TFI vs EDIS, regarding the reliability of electronics near a hot engine, that's not really news per-sey to me, but I was not aware that the on-dizzy TFI system was bad enough that Ford moved the module to a remote location. IF I end up going with a TFI based ignition, I'll have to pull the remote system from a donor, or remote install the module myself (I've got several old PC heatsinks available after all, I'm sure I could figure something out)
That being said, while the dizzy is certainly a warm place, it's not nearly so hot on my car as it would be on most, if not all OEM applications for TFI. My engine bay sees significant airflow, and even after running for hours on end, average surface temps are not much warmer than the running temp of the water/oil (except for the headers and parts of the heads of course)

Now, if I start pushing the car, constant high RPM and that sort of thing, then I'm sure thermal issues could still rear their heads.


Restricted clock-ability of the dizzy is a bigger concern for me, but it sounds like a remote mount TFI module will go some ways towards alleviating that issue as well.




As for EDIS8, I have seen the DIYAutotune article, and my concern with just bolting the trigger wheel to my balancer like that is that it's going to space out the pulley by 125 thou.
I had the slightly wrong balancer on the engine for a month that spaced the pulley out around 80 thou, and I threw the belt twice in that month, so if I space the crank pulley out, then I have to space the water pump pulley and (probably the entire) alternator out by the same. I'll also note that the slightly wrong balancer I had was a correct 28oz unit, but it was a 3/4 bolt balancer vs the 3 bolt I should have. the 3/4 bolt balancer caused a moderate engine vibration.

Anyways, adding spacers feels like a bandaid to me, and (in the case of the crank and waterpump pulleys) it's just one more thing that has to be held in alignment when assembling. Looking at DIYAutotune's trigger, I don't see any means to keep the trigger wheel concentrically aligned to the crank either, which means it has to be done with the bolts, which means either fighting/fudging it, or tight tolerances on holes, which is a pain in the ass.

Now, If I do some fab to modify my stock 1967 crank pulley to accept the trigger wheel, and I welded the trigger to the pulley, it would probably be fine.

TFI though, even if I custom fab a remote mount module (which would be trivial fabrication) is damn near plug and play. Using my SkipWhite ElCheapo HEI distributor with a GM module is plug and play (though that huge thing has the same clocking issues as TFI-On-Dizzy)

I think I'm going to change long-term plans to go with EDIS8, but while it would be plug-n-play with either an OEM or Aftermarket ECU, it is not plug and play with my hardware. Maybe next winter, or the one after that. However, for the initial EFI conversion, I think I am still going to pass on EDIS ignition at this time.







On the water ports, my GT40 lower has 2 ports, and one of those is for the heater core. I've seen some images on GIS that show an adapter threaded into the heater port that spaces the heater outlet up, and allows for a temp sender to be placed inline, which is more or less what I was planning on doing anyways (ECU sender direct in the manifold, and gauge sender inline with the heaterhose)

Even my 1967 thermostat housing has a fitting in it to install a sender, and I used to use it, however, that fitting is post thermostat. If the engine is up to operating temp, and the t-stat is open, all is well; but if I am not up to the T-stat temp, then anything in that port is going to read cold.
It's... ok.. ish for a gauge. One of my old configurations for the car had a gauge probe in that hole, I didn't like it, but I suppose it worked. That fitting will not work for the idiot light sender though. My car has something that hasn't been seen on most cars since the 60's, which is a cold light, as well as a hot light. The cold light turns off at about 100?F. It's not a necessary feature, but it's nifty and different, and I don't want to loose that. Additionally, IIRC, that OEM hot/cold sender has a weirdly long probe, and it does not physically fit in the t-stat housing, since it hits the thermostat.

Of course, if my eventual ECU has programmable outputs, then I wont need that OEM sender at all, since I can just program the ECU to put power or ground to a pin when CTS<100 and CTS>"too hot"

Then again, if my eventual ECU can and will do everything I need for any of the potential future configurations/features of this car, and the only thing it can't do, is light up a light when the water temp is under 100?F, that's hardly the end of the world.

Possible future things that I might like to have in the future include, but are not limited to:
Traction control? That'd be cool, and even if I keep a fully mechanical speedo with the eventual drivetrain, there are ways of getting a good speed signal that don't involve taping shit to the driveshaft. I admit though, I don't really need this, at least not with my current power output and drivetrain; not even in inclement weather.
Cruise Control -- This one will happen eventually, and if the ECU can deal with it, all the better
Air conditioning. This will happen too, and while having the ECU be capable of cutting out the compressor at WOT is nice, I can make that happen other ways too if I must.
Boost? Boost has been very much a pipe-dream for a long time with this car, never really seriously considered, but, that being said, I have had some ideas bouncing around about how I could make this happen even with a shaker. Going to the OEM style intake actually makes boost+shaker easier, but I admit, boost is still not very likely, especially given the engine's current compression ratio. Though, if a cheap, but good means of boost shows up at a very reasonably price... well, fuck the shaker lol. Boost. booost. IF, and it's a big if, but IF boost does happen, then there are all kinds of nifty things that aftermarket ECU's can do...


Anyways, I think I'm likely to have an ECU on order or at least decided on before December. If there are any decent deals to be had on a Dominator over the course of Black Friday/Cyber Monday, I'm going to pull the trigger, unless I am convinced otherwise before then.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
That being said, while the dizzy is certainly a warm place, it's not nearly so hot on my car as it would be on most, if not all OEM applications for TFI. My engine bay sees significant airflow, and even after running for hours on end, average surface temps are not much warmer than the running temp of the water/oil (except for the headers and parts of the heads of course)
I sincerely doubt your engine bay is any cooler than the engine bay on a 7th-9th generation truck. The trucks had bigger fans, larger radiators, MUCH larger radiator grille openings, lower state of tune, higher airflow through the engine bay, etc., etc. And yes, these had problems with the TFI module both when it was distributor mounted or when it was fender/crossmember mounted.

Now, if I start pushing the car, constant high RPM and that sort of thing, then I'm sure thermal issues could still rear their heads.
Actually, that is less of an issue because higher speeds naturally go along with better airflow and better cooling. You will find your highest underhood temperatures are at lower speeds and especially if you sit in traffic for any length of time - I don't recall seeing electric fans on your car which would change the equations; mechanical fan cars cool the most poorly at or near idle.

Restricted clock-ability of the dizzy is a bigger concern for me, but it sounds like a remote mount TFI module will go some ways towards alleviating that issue as well.
Some, but you still have the problem of a TFI module.

As for EDIS8, I have seen the DIYAutotune article, and my concern with just bolting the trigger wheel to my balancer like that is that it's going to space out the pulley by 125 thou.
I had the slightly wrong balancer on the engine for a month that spaced the pulley out around 80 thou, and I threw the belt twice in that month, so if I space the crank pulley out, then I have to space the water pump pulley and (probably the entire) alternator out by the same. I'll also note that the slightly wrong balancer I had was a correct 28oz unit, but it was a 3/4 bolt balancer vs the 3 bolt I should have. the 3/4 bolt balancer caused a moderate engine vibration.

Anyways, adding spacers feels like a bandaid to me, and (in the case of the crank and waterpump pulleys) it's just one more thing that has to be held in alignment when assembling. Looking at DIYAutotune's trigger, I don't see any means to keep the trigger wheel concentrically aligned to the crank either, which means it has to be done with the bolts, which means either fighting/fudging it, or tight tolerances on holes, which is a pain in the ass.
Or you could mount it to the front of the balancer. It's what we did with the Jaguar conversion, not least because we *couldn't* space out the belt driven accessories' pulleys.

Adapter ring I designed to properly locate the wheel and mount it to the XK engine balancer:




And here's the CPS mount I created and used (before making it look nice, trimming, etc.):


And with both installed:


Mounting EDIS 6 on a car that didn't come with it; early prototype made from a modified stock Taurus bracket:


And installed.


Now, If I do some fab to modify my stock 1967 crank pulley to accept the trigger wheel, and I welded the trigger to the pulley, it would probably be fine.
See above. I was able to do all this and have stock parts remain, er, stock.

I think I'm going to change long-term plans to go with EDIS8, but while it would be plug-n-play with either an OEM or Aftermarket ECU, it is not plug and play with my hardware. Maybe next winter, or the one after that. However, for the initial EFI conversion, I think I am still going to pass on EDIS ignition at this time.
See above. You have more room to play with than the Jags I've converted and there's no reason you can't make this a bolt-on conversion.

On the water ports, my GT40 lower has 2 ports, and one of those is for the heater core. I've seen some images on GIS that show an adapter threaded into the heater port that spaces the heater outlet up, and allows for a temp sender to be placed inline, which is more or less what I was planning on doing anyways (ECU sender direct in the manifold, and gauge sender inline with the heaterhose)
Many of the stock truck 5.0s have a tower fitting that screws into that 'heater port" - this allows the water to pass through as well as to plug in a sensor. It's not an either or proposition. You can screw a T-fitting into the tower if you want multiple sensors at this point. You can see it in this picture of my cracked intake manifold, right above the thermostat outlet.



My car has something that hasn't been seen on most cars since the 60's, which is a cold light, as well as a hot light. The cold light turns off at about 100?F. It's not a necessary feature, but it's nifty and different, and I don't want to loose that. Additionally, IIRC, that OEM hot/cold sender has a weirdly long probe, and it does not physically fit in the t-stat housing, since it hits the thermostat.
The cold light wasn't ever common either. If you have a numeric coolant temp gauge, you don't need it.

Of course, if my eventual ECU has programmable outputs, then I wont need that OEM sender at all, since I can just program the ECU to put power or ground to a pin when CTS<100 and CTS>"too hot"

Then again, if my eventual ECU can and will do everything I need for any of the potential future configurations/features of this car, and the only thing it can't do, is light up a light when the water temp is under 100?F, that's hardly the end of the world.
The majority of ECUs do not do this. Honestly, you're the first person I've ever heard of wanting that.

"Too Hot" warnings are usually handled by gauges now, where the gauge flashes colors depending on what it sees. They're not terribly popular.

Possible future things that I might like to have in the future include, but are not limited to:
Traction control? That'd be cool, and even if I keep a fully mechanical speedo with the eventual drivetrain, there are ways of getting a good speed signal that don't involve taping shit to the driveshaft. I admit though, I don't really need this, at least not with my current power output and drivetrain; not even in inclement weather.
Traction control requires that you replace your drum backing plates, install different axles, install new rotors and front knuckle assemblies, install a rear tone ring in or for the diff, etc. You don't have to strap anything to the driveshaft, you can use something that bolts between the driveshaft and the output/input flanges as applies.

This is a plug in module for early EEC-V. You can get this by scavenging the ABS modules and such from a donor GT40-equipped Exploder. Yes, this means you can also get ABS in your car.

Cruise Control -- This one will happen eventually, and if the ECU can deal with it, all the better
This is a standalone function, though EEC-V incorporates it if needed.

Air conditioning. This will happen too, and while having the ECU be capable of cutting out the compressor at WOT is nice, I can make that happen other ways too if I must.
You can do this with one switch and a relay. Even until recently, not all cars run this through their ECU and some incorporate it separately. Most 80s-90s cars had it spliced into the WOT switch most EFI vehicles had.

Boost? Boost has been very much a pipe-dream for a long time with this car, never really seriously considered, but, that being said, I have had some ideas bouncing around about how I could make this happen even with a shaker. Going to the OEM style intake actually makes boost+shaker easier, but I admit, boost is still not very likely, especially given the engine's current compression ratio. Though, if a cheap, but good means of boost shows up at a very reasonably price... well, fuck the shaker lol. Boost. booost. IF, and it's a big if, but IF boost does happen, then there are all kinds of nifty things that aftermarket ECU's can do...
EEC-V and MAF can handle ridiculous amounts of boost. Ask anyone with a Terminator Cobra.

Tell me why you think you need MAP, MAF and two barometric sensors again?
 
Last edited:

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
Oh christ, this is getting out of hand.





I sincerely doubt your engine bay is any cooler than the engine bay on a 7th-9th generation truck. The trucks had bigger fans, larger radiators, MUCH larger radiator grille openings, lower state of tune, higher airflow through the engine bay, etc., etc. And yes, these had problems with the TFI module both when it was distributor mounted or when it was fender/crossmember mounted.



Actually, that is less of an issue because higher speeds naturally go along with better airflow and better cooling. You will find your highest underhood temperatures are at lower speeds and especially if you sit in traffic for any length of time - I don't recall seeing electric fans on your car which would change the equations; mechanical fan cars cool the most poorly at or near idle.
I'm pretty sure I have more airflow under the hood than even the 7th-9th gen trucks. For one thing, the design of my core support and hood acts like a giant scoop, taking in most of the air that hits the car above the bumper level, and forcing it through the engine compartment. I don't like the design, and I have plans to fix it, but that's not going to happen for years, maybe even more than a decade. so, for all intents and purposes, the air scoop is not going anywhere.
There's lots of room for air to escape through the underside, which other than the engine itself, is largely unobstructed. The lack of seals between the fenders/cowl and hood also accounts for some amount of airflow exiting the engine compartment, though it's probably negligible at highway speeds.
The openness and airflow through the engine compartment has caused me problems actually, with ice buildup inside the distributor and on the intake manifold and on the front of the carburetor. I don't drive in heavy wet snow too much, so it's an issue I can avoid with prudence, now that I know it happens, but I know it happens.

My car has had an electric fan for years too, that happened in August of '14, on page 10 of this thread.

Even when I am running around town, the fan hardly ever even cycles on, even when I sit at a light. Sometime over the last winter, my temp controller for the fan bit the dust, and I had to wire it to a switch; that was the fan configuration when I was in Texas, and even driving around in the traffic of San Antonio, I hardly ever had to cycle it on, and never for more than a few minutes, and never when I was going faster than 20-25 mph.

I'll also note that even in summer, my fender skirts and core support pretty much never get much over ambient in terms of temp, certainly never so hot that I can't touch it with bare skin for prolonged periods of time.

So, that all said, IF I go TFI, and when I then remote mount the module, there is no reason for me to mount it on a fender or some other obscure, out of airflow place. I could easily put in a place that sees significant airflow when moving, and is well away from heat even when not moving.
TFI also has the (minor) advantage of being able to work with sequential injection, which would require a wired up and functioning cam position sensor if I used EDIS.



Or you could mount it to the front of the balancer. It's what we did with the Jaguar conversion, not least because we *couldn't* space out the belt driven accessories' pulleys.

Adapter ring I designed to properly locate the wheel and mount it to the XK engine balancer:
img

img

And here's the CPS mount I created and used (before making it look nice, trimming, etc.):
img

And with both installed:
img
Mounting EDIS 6 on a car that didn't come with it; early prototype made from a modified stock Taurus bracket:
img

And installed.
img


See above. I was able to do all this and have stock parts remain, er, stock.



See above. You have more room to play with than the Jags I've converted and there's no reason you can't make this a bolt-on conversion.




Yeah.. more room maybe, but that doesn't make it easier. If I am using my work resources to create a machined alignment spacer of the appropriate dimensions to put a trigger wheel on the front of my deep-dish pulley, then I might as well just have them machine up an entire pulley that is sufficiently shorter for me to be able to mount the trigger direct to the balancer.
I could do it without a spacer, using standoffs, but again, alignment for concentricity, plus, it'd be hackery at best to use spacers.
I could use spacers, but weld the trigger to the pulley, which is much less hacky, but maintaining concentricity would not necessarily be trivial. I'm sure I could make a fixture, and make it work, but that's hardly simple fabrication.

Many of the stock truck 5.0s have a tower fitting that screws into that 'heater port" - this allows the water to pass through as well as to plug in a sensor. It's not an either or proposition. You can screw a T-fitting into the tower if you want multiple sensors at this point. You can see it in this picture of my cracked intake manifold, right above the thermostat outlet.
img

As I said, I've seen that, and with my plans to only use 2 senders, that is basically what my plan was all along, though I wasn't going to use a tall tower to make this happen; there are a number of in-line aftermarket solutions available for very cheap.
Multiple sensors in a T cause other issues though, in that the sensor is not actually in the flow. Air pockets can form, and even if they don't, the reading is still delayed.

An inline setup though also has other issues in that you are limited by the length of the sensor, and my OEM hot/Cold sender probably would not work in an inline arrangement, be it the tower, or an aftermarket solution.

The cold light wasn't ever common either. If you have a numeric coolant temp gauge, you don't need it.



The majority of ECUs do not do this. Honestly, you're the first person I've ever heard of wanting that.

"Too Hot" warnings are usually handled by gauges now, where the gauge flashes colors depending on what it sees. They're not terribly popular.
That's part of why I like it, it's weird and different and you never see it done anywhere. It's part of my car's OEM functionality, and I'd like to not loose it.
As for doing away with the idiot light entirely, well. No. When I am driving in my car, for hours and hours on end, I simply do not watch the gauges that closely. I'll glance every now and then, sure, but I'm generally not watching the gauges at all. I can see speed in my periphery on my older Escort radar detector which has GPS, and other than that, I am enjoying the scenery, or paying attention to the road.
Having a bright, obnoxious LED warning light for hot conditions, or low oil pressure is a good thing, and one of those lights even flickering is enough to grab my attention, and start looking at the gauges to ID the real problem, and judge the seriousness of it.

An idiot light alone is not good enough, but if I didn't have them, I probably would have cracked the block or heads by now, since the Hot light is what indicated to me that the OEM radiator was worthless on my very first test drive back in 09. It's also what alerted me to the fact that the slightly too long balancer was throwing the belt, and it's what alerted me to the broken belt when I was driving back from Texas. Without the light, I wouldn't have noticed the overheating condition until it was too late, and the damage done.

Additionally, I put a lot of effort into maintaining the design functionality of the idiot lights when I made my instrument cluster too, so It'd be foolish to just throw them all away. My entire Ethos with this car is to Add functionality, not loose it.


Traction control requires that you replace your drum backing plates, install different axles, install new rotors and front knuckle assemblies, install a rear tone ring in or for the diff, etc. You don't have to strap anything to the driveshaft, you can use something that bolts between the driveshaft and the output/input flanges as applies.

This is a plug in module for early EEC-V. You can get this by scavenging the ABS modules and such from a donor GT40-equipped Exploder. Yes, this means you can also get ABS in your car.



This is a standalone function, though EEC-V incorporates it if needed.
Not necessarily, even MSIII has a few different methods of traction control it can use, based off of VSS signal. Obviously, a pure VSS based traction control is not as elegant as an OEM style system, but it would work.
The Holley offerings have similar traction control methods.

For getting a VSS signal, all I need is something like this

My car currently has yokes on both ends of the driveshaft, so no drive flanges there to be bolting things too.

Of course, as discussed previously. a change of Axle will probably happen, and when it does, I will go to disks, so doing things there for speed sensing is possible. The front is already disk.

ABS though, AFAIK, is not something that can be managed through the current crop of aftermarket ECU's. It might be nice to have...

It's neither here nor there though, that's a future want, and not even a need. I'd like to keep the door open for it, but now is not the time.

You can do this with one switch and a relay. Even until recently, not all cars run this through their ECU and some incorporate it separately. Most 80s-90s cars had it spliced into the WOT switch most EFI vehicles had.
Like I said, I can make that happen other ways too if I must.

I am well aware that it's a recent feature in ECUs, Hell, many domestic 80's and 90's cars didn't even have this function, and for a V8 that makes plenty of power, it's not strictly necessary, It'd be nice, but it's not necessary.


EEC-V and MAF can handle ridiculous amounts of boost. Ask anyone with a Terminator Cobra.

Tell me why you think you need MAP, MAF and two barometric sensors again?
Even MAF has it's limits on boost, sure the Termi's run a lot of boost, and more than I would ever run, but an OEM MAF sensor can only go so far. If I ran a MAF system, then I wouldn't need the baro sensor either, since MAF, by nature of being MAF, accounts for the air density change with altitude. Directly measuring air density is the entire point of MAF after all. MAF also deals with engines that make low vacuum better, which is why my initial thoughts on EFI, years ago, leaned heavily towards a MAF-based system. I've moved away from the idea of a MAF system lately, since MAF is apparently a pain in the ass to calibrate for an aftermarket EFI; a non-issue if I go EEC-V.

Anyways, I don't think I need MAP, MAF and two baro sensors, I never stated that. MAF is not even in the question here, and has basically never been mentioned. I dropped the idea of a MAF system some time ago, and haven't brought it up since.
I need 1 map sensor, to run the engine.
I want 1 baro sensor, to accommodate for altitude changes, since I can see 2000 ft in elevation and 10,000, on one tank of fuel without even turning the key off. One of my regular drives I like to do, only 190 miles round trip, goes as low as 3000 ft near Hurricane, and 9900 ft on SR14.
I don't live in a flat place. elevation change is just the way things are, and my car does not run the same at 10000 ft as it does at 3000 ft



At this point, I feel like we are spinning our wheels; descending into nitty-gritty details, and getting nowhere. I'll concede, TFI may be less than ideal in comparison to EDIS in some respects, reliability being chief among them; thus EDIS, or some other distributed ignition system it on the books for a future upgrade, and I won't be dropping lots of money into TFI, however TFI, even in comparison to a GM HEI-7 or -8 system, still offers the best balance of timing control feature-set to ease of installation (with respect to custom solutions required)


As for EEC-V, while potentially cheaper, and it does use a MAF system, which I like, and also has ABS capability; it would be more effort to piece together the necessary components, and would also cause difficulty with my desire for all new wiring that conforms to the labeling scheme I have already defined for wire ID's. While it's a minor concern, EEC-V also does not inherently have the capability to maintain OEM functionality without using 3 CTS senders, which is inefficient, and irritates me.
A bigger concern with EEC-V is documentation, since I have little more to go off of then forum threads.

I am currently targeting the second or third week of December to be up and running again with my car, with EFI, and I do not, at this time, think that EEC-V offers enough long-term benefit to be worth the scramble of what is, effectively, a major shift in implementation philosophy for my car's EFI project.

for my particular application, with my particular skills, toolset, and constraints, a full aftermarket EFI system, with good software and good documentation still feels like the best way forward. It'll probably be remote mount TFI for now, moving to a distributed coil arrangement eventually.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
13,926
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Yeah, go with a Holley system. As I said, I never looked back.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I'm pretty sure I have more airflow under the hood than even the 7th-9th gen trucks. For one thing, the design of my core support and hood acts like a giant scoop, taking in most of the air that hits the car above the bumper level, and forcing it through the engine compartment. I don't like the design, and I have plans to fix it, but that's not going to happen for years, maybe even more than a decade. so, for all intents and purposes, the air scoop is not going anywhere.
The 7th-9th gen trucks have so much airflow it is possible to operate even one equipped with the massively hot PowerStroke 7.3L turbodiesel without a fan in Texas in the summer provided you do not get stuck in traffic. Not only do they have all the same features above the bumper (except larger) but they also have a big air intake below the bumper to aid cooling. Diesels have holes *in* the bumper to increase cooling flow even more.

with ice buildup inside the distributor and on the intake manifold and on the front of the carburetor. I don't drive in heavy wet snow too much, so it's an issue I can avoid with prudence, now that I know it happens, but I know it happens.
Icing of this type happens on the 7th gen trucks with carbs and lower operating temperatures. The EFI manifold and system run hotter.

My car has had an electric fan for years too, that happened in August of '14, on page 10 of this thread.
Couldn't recall if it did or didn't.

So, that all said, IF I go TFI, and when I then remote mount the module, there is no reason for me to mount it on a fender or some other obscure, out of airflow place. I could easily put in a place that sees significant airflow when moving, and is well away from heat even when not moving.
TFI also has the (minor) advantage of being able to work with sequential injection, which would require a wired up and functioning cam position sensor if I used EDIS.
There's another reason to go with a CPS of some kind anyway - my experience with using a distributor as a CPS has been pretty bad with MegaSquirt as well as a couple of other systems including a hacked EEC-IV. Yes, it's possible, certainly, but it isn't as clean a signal and IMHO is less than optimal having had to break out an oscilloscope to figure out signal weirdness more than once. I find a separate CPS is a much better option for reliability with an aftermarket EFI system.

Yeah.. more room maybe, but that doesn't make it easier. If I am using my work resources to create a machined alignment spacer of the appropriate dimensions to put a trigger wheel on the front of my deep-dish pulley, then I might as well just have them machine up an entire pulley that is sufficiently shorter for me to be able to mount the trigger direct to the balancer.
I could do it without a spacer, using standoffs, but again, alignment for concentricity, plus, it'd be hackery at best to use spacers.
I could use spacers, but weld the trigger to the pulley, which is much less hacky, but maintaining concentricity would not necessarily be trivial. I'm sure I could make a fixture, and make it work, but that's hardly simple fabrication.
The XK engine's bolts are also recessed, though not to the same degree. The adapter ring I have is in the vicinity of three inches thick. I think making a spacer/adapter could be less of an issue than you may think; I ran that up in Google Sketchup (at the time) in a couple of hours, for example. I've seen others do the same thing in situations similar to yours and they didn't seem to think it was any big deal.

Not necessarily, even MSIII has a few different methods of traction control it can use, based off of VSS signal. Obviously, a pure VSS based traction control is not as elegant as an OEM style system, but it would work.
The Holley offerings have similar traction control methods.
I know. I've used them. Mostly they're pretty much fail at being useful traction control because it's just guessing at it as it doesn't have a front wheel speed reference. I've actually had an MS3 freak out and engage traction control in a straight line downhill on one car I was helping with. Funny, but not terribly useful.

For getting a VSS signal, all I need is something like this

My car currently has yokes on both ends of the driveshaft, so no drive flanges there to be bolting things too.
There was recently something that showed up on the Bronco forums that was specifically for yoke-yoke solutions. Have to go look for that. I'll keep an eye out for it as I browse over there.

Like I said, I can make that happen other ways too if I must.

I am well aware that it's a recent feature in ECUs, Hell, many domestic 80's and 90's cars didn't even have this function, and for a V8 that makes plenty of power, it's not strictly necessary, It'd be nice, but it's not necessary.
Actually, I'm struggling to think of a 82-on domestic car that came with factory air conditioning that didn't have this. Even the carbed cars had a compressor defeat switch (usually coupled with an idle-up solenoid) somewhere in their throttle linkage.

Even MAF has it's limits on boost, sure the Termi's run a lot of boost, and more than I would ever run, but an OEM MAF sensor can only go so far. If I ran a MAF system, then I wouldn't need the baro sensor either, since MAF, by nature of being MAF, accounts for the air density change with altitude. Directly measuring air density is the entire point of MAF after all. MAF also deals with engines that make low vacuum better, which is why my initial thoughts on EFI, years ago, leaned heavily towards a MAF-based system. I've moved away from the idea of a MAF system lately, since MAF is apparently a pain in the ass to calibrate for an aftermarket EFI; a non-issue if I go EEC-V.
Eh... Less of a pain to calibrate in as much as sometimes the system designers didn't know what to do with it, IMHO. MS2 definitely had MAF as a third class citizen and the conversions I've done mostly went with MAP by necessity. The Holley Dominator doesn't really support it properly either IIRC. MAF is, however, superior. :dunno:

Anyways, I don't think I need MAP, MAF and two baro sensors, I never stated that. MAF is not even in the question here, and has basically never been mentioned. I dropped the idea of a MAF system some time ago, and haven't brought it up since.
I need 1 map sensor, to run the engine.
I want 1 baro sensor, to accommodate for altitude changes, since I can see 2000 ft in elevation and 10,000, on one tank of fuel without even turning the key off. One of my regular drives I like to do, only 190 miles round trip, goes as low as 3000 ft near Hurricane, and 9900 ft on SR14.
I don't live in a flat place. elevation change is just the way things are, and my car does not run the same at 10000 ft as it does at 3000 ft
Okay, my mistake. And yes, I'm aware that the Mountain West contains, uh, mountains. One point against a MAP system even with an external reference barometric sensor, is that you may find that your cam doesn't actually work with it - if you have enough overlap or other issues to reduce your idle or part throttle vacuum you can get all sorts of tuning issues that you may not be able to resolve short of getting a new cam.

A bigger concern with EEC-V is documentation, since I have little more to go off of then forum threads.
Start over at EECTuning.org and go through all the FAQ and stickied threads and posts. Those will direct you to software options and hardware vendors, and get you pointed where you'd need to go for EEC IV or V (early V is surprisingly closely related to IV).

I am currently targeting the second or third week of December to be up and running again with my car, with EFI, and I do not, at this time, think that EEC-V offers enough long-term benefit to be worth the scramble of what is, effectively, a major shift in implementation philosophy for my car's EFI project.

for my particular application, with my particular skills, toolset, and constraints, a full aftermarket EFI system, with good software and good documentation still feels like the best way forward. It'll probably be remote mount TFI for now, moving to a distributed coil arrangement eventually.
Actually... from what all you've said, I'm thinking you should just slap a Holley Sniper on top of it. You've got complications with skills, toolsets and workspace constraints; TBI is still better than carb, Sniper is a minimal investment and I can just about guarantee you will likely need *far* more time, tools and space to do a proper MPFI conversion than what you've set aside. I'd say do a Sniper for now and accumulate more parts, knowledge, etc, in 2018. You'll be able to sell off the Sniper stuff for a good portion of what you paid for it when the time comes to upgrade past that.
 
Last edited:

NotLaw

Active Member
DONOR
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Cedar City, UT
Car(s)
'90 Saab SPG, '84 K5 Blazer, '67 Fairlane 500
Spectre;n3417895 said:
...I can just about guarantee you will likely need *far* more time, tools and space to do a proper MPFI conversion than what you've set aside.


Granted, I've still got a minor bug or two to iron out, namely, why the ECU is seeing a RPM signal, but there is still no spark at all (also why I can't set initial timing), but it is together. I do have the ECU, it is reading all my sensors and senders, I can crank, and I do have oil pressure and no leaks of either oil, fuel, or water.

Video will be incoming as soon as I get it to actually run, and a picdump of the whole build will follow sometime thereafter.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,370
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
It isn't completed until it fires and runs properly. :D From experience, this can actually be the longest part of an MPFI conversion.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
13,926
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
If you went with Holley, feel free to contact me for trouble shooting advice...
 

bone

"bangle for president"
DONOR
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
16,299
Location
belgium!!
Car(s)
Volvo V40 & Yamaha Banshee
what's up with all the hoseclamps on the towerstrut?
 
Top