|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: DaytonaTurbo]
#662675
04/08/10 01:59 PM
04/08/10 01:59 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074
detroit, mi
POS Dakota
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074
detroit, mi
|
Quote:
Quote:
While I agree for the most part, efi won't give you perfomance over a carb, it does offer quite a few benifits.
It has take 2 years to get my car drivable with the painless system. but I have driven it more now with it hooked up in one week then I did when it was carbed for a whole year.
I get in and know it is going to start. I can stop and not worry about it dying at a light.
As a cruiser it is very important that it be more reliable then the power factor.
It has died on me once, but when it was carbed it died multiple times a year.
Well something must have been very wrong with your carb setup if that was the case. People daily drove cars for over half a century. I daily drive my thermoquad equiped 440 to work every day spring-fall. It's never died on me or left me stranded, only time I've ever stalled it is before I got the choke dialed in properly. Cold driveability is actually quite good, I typically fire it, let it warm up 30 seconds, kick it down and go, even on days when the temp is near freezing, a 30-60 second warm-up is all I do. Of course efi will still be better in that situation, however a well tuned carb is quite under-rated in terms of driveability. I stress the well tuned part, which generally are not, going by the guys on this board. I'm not putting efi down, I myself have a megasquirt, efi intake and all the parts to make it work but I still waffle as to whether I want to go through with it because a well tuned carb is actually quite decent, and a lot less effort.
Exactly!!! When I was younger I do not recall cars constantly stalling at lights, or anyone complaining they couldn't drive them. they all drove fine. 
And it's not like that's changed.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#662676
04/08/10 03:13 PM
04/08/10 03:13 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
I am trying to help him. There is no easy cheap way to EFI an old mopar. If you grabbed everything for the host vehicle, that'd be the best way to go. If you have added any perfromace upgrades it will not work so you have to start chopping and piecing things together, that get's expesive and tricky as you go.
It’s getting cheaper and easier as the years go by because 1: more EFI cars are in the junkyards, and 2: more people attempt and discuss how to retrofit it. The reason I jumped on you was you basically just said 'don't do it' but didn’t offer an alternative solution. Nobody here said it had to be cheap or easy. You have a SC on one of your cars, right? That’s not cheap or easy – imagine if there was somebody who always tried to stop you from doing that – you would not have achieved it.
Quote:
Most of us do not have the skills to set up and computerize EFI set-up. If a person can't tune a carb how the heck is he/she going to fab up a EFI system???
True, lots of folks don't have the skills, but please identify who those people in this thread are.   Maybe I’m one of them, I always thought I was OK with carbs, then I got a wideband and realized how bad my AF was on a carb that ‘felt’ like it drove well. I’ve got a buddy that’s ‘good with carbs’, his run fine when they’re cold with no choke, and he thinks that’s fine simply because it runs smooth. He wastes fuel – but not enough to blacken the plugs, so it’s OK for him. I think there are a lot of people out there like that. The performance and economy of their cars is less than it could be but they don’t know any different.
Quote:
There is zero need for an EFI set-up on most of these muscle cars. Any benfit in mpg's or "drivablity" is crushed by the cost of the EFI system.
You are correct, there is no ‘need’ for most people, it’s a ‘want’ -- just like other things. Drum brakes and points ignitions and single-field alternators are quite functional, yet people install discs and halogen headlights and MSD boxes and other stuff. Because we want to.
As another example:
All of my cars have at least 100K on the engines, and they really respond to more ignition timing when they are cold. They don’t need it when they are warmed up, and they sure don’t need it on a hot re-start. So as a ‘tuner’, I installed an MSD6 and an adjustable timing module, and it worked great. But I have to turn the knob by hand to advance/retard it, and I sure need to remember to retard it when it’s warmed up, which is a PITA for forgetting. An EFI system can do all that automatically.
Now, back to the discussion…
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#662677
04/08/10 03:21 PM
04/08/10 03:21 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
Is the wheel just a disc, and not a stamped 3D thing? If it's just a disc, it seems like it would be straightforward to design a new one and have a water jet cut it out.
It's kinda like an upside down tuna can with some notches cut out from the bottom. I put both wheels in CAD, overlayed them, and aligned the #1 tooth. Based on drawing 16 angular lines from the center of the Mopar circle (aligned with rising/falling edges), I believe some simple work with a file can get the Dodge wheel pretty close to the Ford wheel -- at least close enough to make it worth a try.
Quote:
 I recall reading somewhere that it does sequential injection at lower RPMs to help with idle quality, then above some set RPM it transitions to bank fire??
I don't know if the EEC makes an actual switch in strategy or not, but mathematically any engine, based on RPM, valve timing, and injector size will eventually 'fade' to where the injector cannot physically inject enough fuel, quickly enough, during the degrees of open intake valve.
Last edited by Fury Fan; 04/08/10 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Fury Fan]
#662678
04/08/10 03:50 PM
04/08/10 03:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
I'll be watching this as I would like EFI for potential fuel mileage benefits with the computer controlling timing and mix, and all season drivability.
my eddie 1406 is good, and I have it tweaked pretty well, but I have to tinker with the idle mix, pump shot, and change needles out between summer and winter fuel blends, the choke isn't always consistant in setting, and I have to sit and let it warm up for a few minutes in park if I don't want it to die putting it in gear in the winter when cold, etc.
I could get away with not having to do all that tweaking by running it 15% richer or so in the summer, but then I'd most likely drop fuel economy by at least a few MPG.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#662681
04/08/10 04:22 PM
04/08/10 04:22 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,766
Andrewh
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,766
|
yes painless had a prototype piece made and gave it to me with the rest of the parts. Pins in under the sensor so you don't even see it when you pull the cap.
IF it would seriously help get more people moving along, I will go through the pain of pulling it for someone to study. The cuts in it are kind of crude as well, but it works.
It was a carbed 1965 poly 318 with the carter BBD.
Look it up, it was a crap carb. EVen bought a rebuilt one after trying to rebuild the original one on it. Helped some, but not a whole lot.
If I could have found a 4bbl intake for less then a new motor, I might have tried a holley and gotten it to run well, but that isn't really a choice. So I ditched the engine and carb when I could.
Even if the harness and computer had been free, it still cost me over 2k to do this conversion. So I agree it isn't financially worth it. But I sure like how it drives and when it is all said and done worth it.
BUT since it is a protype uint with no support, I think it pays to explore the other options.
And since they canceled the program, I think it wouldn't hurt to try and benifit the other people interested in doing this for all the effort.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#662685
04/09/10 07:05 AM
04/09/10 07:05 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
My main point is EFI is really no better than a well tuned carb, but cost 6x as much. If you want EFI just say it, don't say you want it because it drives better or gets better milage.
Gotta keep beating on the belief that a well-tuned carb is as good as EFI. It can work well and is cheaper/simpler. That's where the comparison ends.
As an example of what the 5.0 EEC does (other OEM systems may do it also):
With TPS = zero and engine RPM > 1500, pulsewidth ->> zero. What this means is when coasting above 1500 RPM, the fuel injectors are turned off.
Carbs can't do that, in fact my AF gauge shows my 440 goes at least 1 full point richer when coasting. I presume this is because of the very high vacuum and the closed throttle -- the above-idle engine speed sucks lots of fuel out of the idle circuit.
I have observed this phenomenom repeatedly with my Lincoln. When coasting down one particular long hill in town, I generally see 125+ MPG by the time I hit the bottom. Last time I tried it I put it in neutral (engien went to idle so the strategy turned off) and only got about 75.
Side note:
If retrofitting a 5.0 (or probably any other OEM system) make sure to integrate the Vehicle Speed Sensor as the EEC uses info from that for saving fuel and also for a good idle when coasting to a stop. This is described in the Pantera link I posted earler.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Fury Fan]
#662686
04/09/10 07:45 AM
04/09/10 07:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck
Not enough dumb comments...yet
|
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
|
Quote:
Quote:
My main point is EFI is really no better than a well tuned carb, but cost 6x as much. If you want EFI just say it, don't say you want it because it drives better or gets better milage.
Gotta keep beating on the belief that a well-tuned carb is as good as EFI. It can work well and is cheaper/simpler. That's where the comparison ends.
As an example of what the 5.0 EEC does (other OEM systems may do it also):
With TPS = zero and engine RPM > 1500, pulsewidth ->> zero. What this means is when coasting above 1500 RPM, the fuel injectors are turned off.
Carbs can't do that, in fact my AF gauge shows my 440 goes at least 1 full point richer when coasting. I presume this is because of the very high vacuum and the closed throttle -- the above-idle engine speed sucks lots of fuel out of the idle circuit.
I have observed this phenomenom repeatedly with my Lincoln. When coasting down one particular long hill in town, I generally see 125+ MPG by the time I hit the bottom. Last time I tried it I put it in neutral (engien went to idle so the strategy turned off) and only got about 75.
Side note:
If retrofitting a 5.0 (or probably any other OEM system) make sure to integrate the Vehicle Speed Sensor as the EEC uses info from that for saving fuel and also for a good idle when coasting to a stop. This is described in the Pantera link I posted earler.
don't really care about mpg's or numbers like that. Maybe if it was 1977 and I had only a 440 car to drive I might have cared. I guess if I wanted more MPG's out of a 440 I'd go w/ a 4 speed O/D.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#662687
04/09/10 10:23 AM
04/09/10 10:23 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's kinda like an upside down tuna can with some notches cut out from the bottom. I put both wheels in CAD, overlayed them, and aligned the #1 tooth. Based on drawing 16 angular lines from the center of the Mopar circle (aligned with rising/falling edges), I believe some simple work with a file can get the Dodge wheel pretty close to the Ford wheel -- at least close enough to make it worth a try.
ugh, that'd be hard to fab. I just called a pretty good machine/fabrication shop here. They can't take a flat piece and stamp it into a tuna can, but they think they could bend it into a circle and weld it to a top plate. Whether or not it would be balanced and true though... 
Unless they didn’t understand what you were describing, you need to find a different machine shop (or show them a sample wheel).
Some fab ideas I see:
Weld a flat plate to a piece of round tubing, then true it in a lathe -- true the bottom flat plate surface for mounting and the ID-OD surfaces for rotational clearance and then put in a center hole. Mark the slots and cut with a hacksaw, clean the cuts with a flat needle file. Or...
Get a solid piece of steel and machine the whole thing in a mill.
As the original piece is a stamping, either machining operation should hold tolerances A-OK. Might be expensive, but you could get there. Probably only need +/- 1/32” tolerances.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#662689
04/09/10 03:03 PM
04/09/10 03:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
According to fordfuelinjection.com, the Ford VSS is 8 pulse/rev, and an assumed 8000 pulse/mile. That sensor you linked to would be great in that it should plug right in to our speedo cables (but the thread pitch needs verified). My jury is still out on whether the difference would be an issue. Using the Summit sensor would tell teh EEC that you're doing 10 mph when you're only doing 5, eventually you'll be stopped but EEC thinks you're still moving. I don't know how sensitive/critical it would be at walking speed (like creeping in a line of cars toward a 4-way stop). If it were reversed (sending a lower speed than actual) I'd be more confident it would be OK. Quote:
What mopar distributor did you find that has a similar wheel & sensor?
As for the wheel and sensor:
I read 2-3 stories on 5.0-Mopar EFI and didn’t like those cut-n-splice dizzy conversions, so I disassembled 2 Ford and 3 Mopar dizzys. I spent several weeks of thinkin’, researchin’, junkyardin’ and CADdin’ on these trigger wheels trying to find a simpler solution. I looked for off-the-shelf adapter bushings to adapt the Ford wheel to the Mopar shaft but didn’t find anything that I thought would work well (and the sensor would be tough to mount, too). I’m not ready to put my findings out there yet, for the following 2 reasons.
#1: I don’t have a setup to compare/test the electrical output signals yet.
#2: I’m hoping you guys might come up with an even better idea . (For example, I never thought of using a flat disc!)
Chew on it for a while – what other autos might have shutter wheels & sensors, and how could we research those parts via the internet???
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#662690
04/09/10 03:20 PM
04/09/10 03:20 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 411
Texas
vynn3
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 411
Texas
|
Quote:
don't really care about mpg's or numbers like that. Maybe if it was 1977 and I had only a 440 car to drive I might have cared. I guess if I wanted more MPG's out of a 440 I'd go w/ a 4 speed O/D.
Fine, that's absolutely your prerogative. But if that's the case, maybe you should refrain from posting to so many EFI threads that carbs are all any of us will ever need?
This is not just a "go-fast" forum. There are lots of folks here with different needs/desires than yours. Believe it or not, some of us use our old Mopars as <gasp!> daily drivers.
Now, back to the discussion on retrofitting EFI, please.
vm
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: Fury Fan]
#662693
04/09/10 05:45 PM
04/09/10 05:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,951
Oregon
hooziewhatsit
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,951
Oregon
|
Quote:
According to fordfuelinjection.com, the Ford VSS is 8 pulse/rev, and an assumed 8000 pulse/mile.
That sensor you linked to would be great in that it should plug right in to our speedo cables (but the thread pitch needs verified).
My jury is still out on whether the difference would be an issue. Using the Summit sensor would tell teh EEC that you're doing 10 mph when you're only doing 5, eventually you'll be stopped but EEC thinks you're still moving. I don't know how sensitive/critical it would be at walking speed (like creeping in a line of cars toward a 4-way stop). If it were reversed (sending a lower speed than actual) I'd be more confident it would be OK.
Or just change the scalar in the ECU to 10mph instead of 5mph for when to stop fuel shutoff (highlighted cell)
http://screencast.com/t/YzZlYzVkYzEt
There is also VSCFRQ - Vehicle Speed sensor frequency, set to 50Hz. Change that to 100Hz, wonder if it would correct it for the rest of the ECU.
Either way, when you're stopped, it will still show that you're stopped. Then when you hit 1mph, it reads 2mph, 5->10, 100->200mph  , etc
It'd be nice using that sensor since we could keep our stock speedometers (I don't want to replace mine!), and get the signal we need. If nothing else, I can make a box that plugs in after the sensor to cut the number of pulses in half. I didn't look any farther at summit to see if they had one with a different number of pulses.
That accell distributor would probably work, but they sure are proud of them ($$) 
AndrewH: It would definitely be interesting to see what they came up with for the distributor. If you have the time, I'd like to see some pics!
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
|
|
|
Re: 5.9 efi a different way
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#662694
04/09/10 07:16 PM
04/09/10 07:16 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
Or just change the scalar in the ECU to 10mph instead of 5mph for when to stop fuel shutoff (highlighted cell)
http://screencast.com/t/YzZlYzVkYzEt
There is also VSCFRQ - Vehicle Speed sensor frequency, set to 50Hz. Change that to 100Hz, wonder if it would correct it for the rest of the ECU.
Either way, when you're stopped, it will still show that you're stopped. Then when you hit 1mph, it reads 2mph, 5->10, 100->200mph , etc
I agree, stopped is fine and moving is fine, it's those transitions and near-zero points that might cause drivability issues (which is one thing we're trying to get away from ). I don't ahve any EEC tuning tools, so I'm at a disadvantage there. My gameplan is to use the 2 MS-II units I have, and then give the EEC a shot on a differnt car. I may have to use some 'trickery' with relays and resistors on the sensors, to modify my fueling curves and other things.
Quote:
It'd be nice using that sensor since we could keep our stock speedometers (I don't want to replace mine!), and get the signal we need. If nothing else, I can make a box that plugs in after the sensor to cut the number of pulses in half. I didn't look any farther at summit to see if they had one with a different number of pulses.
 I wanna keep my speedo too. Aint no aftermarket round speedo that will fit in a 68 Fury or a 65 300 and look right.
Quote:
That accell distributor would probably work, but they sure are proud of them ($$)
Yep, huge money, and at that point you could install a Megasquirt and use the factory dizzy. That's the crux to me on the 5.0 conversion - you've got to get it cheap enough, or already have the tuning tool, or else it becomes more cost-effective to go MS.
And 2 of those Accell dizzys have mechanical advance.  Why would you use a dual-synch dizzy (which is intended for sequential EFI, right?) and then not have the ignition timing controlled by an ECU? Ignition timing control is tantamount to engine responsiveness and area-under-the-curve torque.
|
|
|
|
|
