if it wasnt mounted to the air pan would it have worked better

I read (several years ago) an article that explained that the engineers wanted it inside the car, in a kick panel or behind the glove box. Marketing wanted it under the hood so that customers could see it (rationale was "if they can't see it then they won't believe it's there").

Not sure how true that is or not, but sounds believalbe...:)

JS

I thought I had an article about an engineer who came up with his own version of a more reliable Chrysler Electronics board, but only came up with this:

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe...p;MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&slide

and this WVU student’s thesis

http://www.rommet.com/remco/thesis/

and the lean burn efforts by Ford and Toyota

https://www.howacarworks.com/technology/lean-burn-engines

Maybe the articles are on an older computer

The original Chrysler Lean Burn patent listing Gordon W. Fenn from 1975

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4104998A/en?oq=4104998

Allpar thoughts

https://www.allpar.com/mopar/lean-burn.html

Sample quote

If Chrysler had mounted the unit on the body instead of the air cleaner as they did in production, I think a lot of these problems could have been resolved.

End quote

started to look at my 80 cordoba as in stuff i wanted to do 1st was to switch the dist. with the hei module set up, and was looking on rock auto and saw they still offer a lean burn unit

I thought the reason it was mounted on the air cleaner was for cooling?

I think it was on the air cleaner to make it easier to get to and to design into an existing vehicle to begin with. I've only ever had one fail and it was the original style that had a ballast resistor, not the newer spark or fuel control ones form the 80s. Part of the problem with them is also the sensors that can go bad and throw things out of whack.

In the 90s GM and Ford started putting their ECMs under the hood and most are still doing it with no problems so at the very least Chrysler could have put it on the inner fender and not on the engine itself and that might have saved some potential problems from heat and vibration.

Lean burn engine development is still going on.

Here’s is an article from today on plasma spark plugs to ignite lean air to fuel ratios

https://www.wired.com/story/is-lightning-fast-plasma-the-key-to-a-cleaner-car-engine/

Sample quote

The efficiency of a combustion engine is deeply dependent on how it's being used. For example, engines tend to be least efficient at low speeds and low power, a scenario that might be encountered when driving through a city. So Sjöberg and the Transient Plasma team tested the ignition system in the engine across a range of operating modes that loosely correlated with different scenarios, like driving on the highway. During the tests at Sandia, Transient Plasma System’s plug demonstrated that it could offer up to a 20 percent improvement in fuel efficiency in these driving modes, relative to the performance of a commercial combustion engine with a conventional spark plug.

Singleton says the results from the Sandia tests soon attracted the attention of the auto industry. For the past few years, Transient Plasma Systems has been working with several undisclosed car manufacturers to test the system with the companies’ engines. He says he is optimistic that the first cars to use the system could be on the road within the next five years.

End quote

Just read about this

I seem to recall Smokey Yunick talking about plasma ignition way back in the 70's. The tech wasn't there yet, though. Sounds like it might be catching up.