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.