Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    FEP Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    158

    Default CFI to FiTech EFI

    I'm thinking of upgrading my 1985 LTD LX to a 347 with FiTech's cool EFI. I like the look of a carb but want the drivability of an EFI car. I don't want a GT40 set up with a plenum. (gotta keep the dual snorkel you know!)

    Anyway, what needs to be done to the EEC electronics of the CFI? How do I ensure my AOD torque converter locks up like it should? Just checking stuff out preliminary to see what guys on here have done when converting to a 4 bbl carb.


    Terry
    Terry

    78 Fairmont Sedan V8 - Factory black interior, factory A/C, No longer a SHO project, t/c 8.8 diff w/ 3.73LS
    85 LTD LX - Black, 5.0L CFI, crank windows
    93 Mustang LX 5.0L notch - original owner, 20k original miles
    17 F250 - My RV Trailer, projects, and car hauler vehicle

  2. #2

    Default

    I am looking at this down the road too, but I don't think you have anything to worry about besides maybe the egr. From what little investigation I could do I think the tfi is fine working alone, the fitech is entirely self contained and the aod runs off the TV and nothing else.

  3. #3

    Default

    you'll need to replace the distributor. TFI works with the stock PCM for ignition advance. None of the FiTech offerings output the correct signal for TFI. You'll need to convert to a Duraspark dizzy, or similar aftermarket. The higher end FiTechs do have advance control, but still utilize their own coil driver. In that case, you can use a closed-bowl TFI dizzy, as long its for a bank-fire and not a sequential system. Bank fire has uniform windows and vanes, SEFI has one wide window/narrow vane for cylinder ID.

    AOD trans does not have a lock-up converter, per say. AOD is completely hydro-mechanical, and does not need connection to any management system. An AOD uses two input shafts; the hollow shaft driving the Forward and intermediate clutch, and the solid inner shaft driving the direct clutch. Once the trans enters third gear, the converter housing is connected directly to the input of the trans, eliminating the hydraulic coupling. All done internally to the trans.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  4. #4

    Default

    Are you sure about tfi? What I meant was you don't have to plug it into the fitech(it can't do tfi) but if you let it do its own thing it will be fine.

  5. #5

    Default

    positive. Otherwise, the ignition will be stuck at base timing with no advance. Advance comes from the PCM. I teach Ford driveability classes.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  6. #6

    Default

    Does Ford tfi require the cfi unit? If you could put a carb on a tfi motor you can put the fitech on there. The fitech just won't be able to control the timing. If you read the comments on the fitech site they suggest letting the tfi just do its own thing. Considering the complaints about letting the fitech control the timing I would be happy with that.

  7. #7

    Default

    OK, first, you're mixing and matching several things here. TFI does not require the CFI unit, it requires the PCM. The CFI unit delivers fuel to the intake, and provides throttle angle information via the TP sensor. TFI stands for Thick Film Integrated circuit ignition, and specifically refers to the module either on the side of the distributor (open bowl) or on the inner fender (closed bowl). That module's job is to manage ignition coil saturation, dwell, and discharge. The TFI module uses several input to do this; PIP (Profile Ignition Pickup) is the signal from the hall-effect device inside the dizzy that senses rotation, and generates that base timing signal, SAW (Spark Angle Word). The TFI passes PIP to the PCM. The PCM then looks at numerous other factors, such as coolant temp, throttle angle, air temp, mass air flow or barometric pressure, and engine speed. It calculates engine load from these factors, and compares that to a lookup table in the PCM's memory. From that table, the PCM determines the needed amount of ignition advance over base timing, and sends that to the TFI as the SPOUT (SPark OUT) signal. The TFI then uses that to discharge the coil at the correct time. If the SPOUT signal is open, the TFI will revert to base timing, and there will be no advance. So, no, in practicality, you cannot just slap the FiTech onto the engine and achieve anything close to acceptable performance, because the ignition will be locked down to base timing. The TFI module itself does not do any advance calculations to accommodate such an application. It only controls dwell, saturation, and discharge durations, not timing.

    Using the FiTech without timing control will require the use of a distributor with vacuum and/or mechanical advance, such as a DuraSpark unit.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  8. #8

    Default

    Ford Ignition Systems

    2.0 - Distributor Ignition Systems

    2.1 - Thick Film Integrated IV Ignition Systems

    TFI-IV ignition systems were introduced in 1983 along with the EEC-IV Electronic Engine Control system. The components of the TFI-IV system include:

    a TFI-IV ignition module (Ignition Control Module - ICM)
    a distributor
    a Hall effect PIP sensor within the distributor (CaMshaft Position sensor - CMP)
    an E-core ignition coil
    spark plugs and secondary circuits
    an EEC-IV engine control module (Powertrain Control Module - PCM)

    2.2 - Distributor Mount versus Remote Mount TFI-IV ICM

    TFI-IV ignition systems have two distinct configurations. In the first configuration, the TFI-IV ICM is mounted on the distributor and has three pins, which plug into the Hall effect camshaft position sensor (commonly known as the PIP or Profile Ignition Pickup sensor) inside the distributor. This configuration is called a distributor mounted ICM. In the second configuration, the ICM is not mounted on the distributor but in another location within the engine compartment. This configuration is called a remote mount ICM.

    The distributor mounted TFI-IV ICM uses a Universal Distributor that has an opening in it through which the pins of the ICM plug into the CMP (PIP) sensor. The remote mount TFI-IV ICM uses a Sealed Distributor. The CMP (hall effect PIP) sensor is located inside the distributor on both configurations. There are no mechanisms on either distributor for either centrifugal or vacuum advance. The CMP sensor inside the distributor responds to a rotating metallic shutter on the distributor and produces a digital PIP signal. The PIP signal is an indication of engine rpm and engine/piston position for both the ICM and the PCM. Because the shutter is mounted on the distributor shaft, two revolutions on the crankshaft are required to fire each sparkplug once. The distributor rotates at half the crankshaft speed.
    2.3 - Push Start versus Computer Controlled Dwell TFI-IV ICMs

    The internal circuitry of the TFI-IV ICM will have two possible arrangements; push start (PS) or computer controlled dwell (CCD).

    The push start system allows for increased dwell (coil on time) when starting the engine. After engine start, the ICM internally determines coil on time (dwell) based on engine rpm (derived from the PIP signal), previous spark position and, coil charge time. The PCM calculates spark timing and outputs a rising edge of SPOUT at the appropriate time. The ICM turns the coil off whenever it sees a rising edge of SPOUT. The SPOUT signal is an acronym for SPark OUTput, a digital signal generated by the PCM. The falling edge of SPOUT is ignored by the ICM. On a push start system, SPOUT only controls when the coil fires. The dwell was designed to provide either 17% or 32% excess dwell to ensure sufficient coil charge time under transient engine-acceleration conditions. Push start TFI-IV ICMs are gray in color.

    A computer controlled dwell (CCD) system uses both edges of the SPOUT signal. The PCM calculates spark timing and outputs a rising edge of SPOUT at the appropriate time. The ICM turns the coil off whenever it sees a rising edge of SPOUT. The falling edge of SPOUT is used by the ICM to turn the coil on. The coil on time (dwell), is therefore, entirely controlled by the PCM-generated SPOUT signal. The ICM does not internally determine dwell, it just responds to directly to SPOUT signal it receives. The PCM determined the correct dwell by measuring the time it takes for the coil to reach a predetermined current level. This has the advantage of limiting excess dwell, which significantly reduces heating in the ICM. TFI-IV ICMs that utilize computer-controlled dwell are black in color.

    2.4 - Spark Output (SPOUT) Signal

    As described above, SPOUT is a digital signal generated by the PCM. The rising edge of SPOUT determines ignition timing for each cylinder because it causes the ICM to turn off the ignition coil and fire the spark plugs. The falling edge of SPOUT is output as a 50% dutycycle for a push start ICM. The falling edge of SPOUT determines the coil on time (dwell) for a CCD ICM. During engine crank, SPOUT mirrors PIP to provide 10 deg BTDC spark timing during crank. After the engine is out of crank mode, the PCM calculates normal ignition timing and controls SPOUT appropriately.

    If the SPOUT signal line from the PCM is open, the ICM will use the PIP signal to fire the coil. This results in a fixed spark angle (normally 10 deg BTDC) and fixed dwell. The in-line SPOUT connector can be opened in order to check to see if base engine timing is correct (normally 10 deg BTDC).

    2.5 - Camshaft Position Sensor (PIP) Signal

    The CMP (hall effect PIP) sensor is a digital output device located within the distributor. A rotary vane cup, used to trigger the hall sensor, is mounted on the shaft of the distributor. It is made of a ferrous metal. When the window of a cup is in the air gap between the hall effect device and the permanent magnet, a magnetic flux field is completed from the magnet through the hall device and back to the magnet. This results in a low (0 to 0.4 volts) output signal. As the distributor shaft turns, a metal tooth on the cup will move into the air gap. The magnetic field will be shunted by the tooth, preventing it from reaching the hall device, and the output signal will change from low to high (B+ volts).
    2.5.1 - Signature PIP

    All rising edges of PIP normally occur at 10 deg BTDC for each cylinder. PIP normally has a 50% duty cycle. (For a few engines, initial timing is set to 5 deg BTDC or 15 deg BTDC.) Some port-fuel-injected engines (PFI) and all sequential-fuel-injection engines (SFI) use a signature PIP distributor. For signature PIP systems, one tooth on the vane cup is smaller than the rest to identify that cylinder # 1 is at 10 deg BTDC. The width of the PIP signal generated by this tooth is smaller than that of the other teeth (30% duty cycle for 4 and 6 cyl engines, 35% for 8 cyl engines) and is called signature PIP.

    The PCM uses the rising edges of PIP to calculate engine rpm and as a reference for calculated spark output (SPOUT) timing. The PCM uses the falling edges of PIP to recognize signature PIP and determine where cylinder no. 1 is for proper fuel injection timing. At low engine rpms. the falling edge of PIP is used as the reference for calculated spark output (SPOUT) timing because it provides a closer timing reference than the rising edge of PIP.

    2.5.2 – Signature PIP applications

    Note: these are unverified engineering part numbers obtained from old, internal documents. They may not reflect
    2.6 - Ignition Diagnostic Monitor

    The Ignition Diagnostic Monitor (IDM) signal is an input into the PCM. This signal is the voltage from the primary side of the coil (commonly known as TACH). When the coil is turned off to fire the spark plugs, a large flyback voltage (up to 400 volts) is generated on the IDM circuit by the coil discharge. The PCM interprets this positive voltage transition to mean that the coil fired. The coil signal is processed directly by the PCM through an external 22 K ohm resistor on push start TFI ICMs. The coil signal is processed internally on computer controlled dwell TFI ICMs, then sent on to the PCM as a digital signal. The PCM expects to see an IDM pulse for every SPOUT. It uses this information to determine if the ignition coil and other ignition components are working properly.
    2.7 - TFI Pinouts













    * Pin 4 is Start on push start ICM, IDM on computer controlled dwell ICMs
    grey ICM is push start, black ICM is computer controlled dwell

    Distributor Mounted TFI-IV ICM










    * Pin 4 is Start on push start ICM, IDM on computer controlled dwell ICMs
    grey ICM is push start, black ICM is computer controlled dwell

    Remote Mounted TFI-IV ICM



    Partial TFI-IV Schematic

    Note 1: This typical PIP/SPOUT/PCM interface schematic applies to both distributor mounted and remote mounted ICMs.

    Note 2: Coil driver, IC power supply and unlabeled resistors are implemented on a integrated circuit. This IC differs between push start and computer controlled dwell ICMs. Differences and associated wiring inputs/outputs for PS-TFI and CCD-TFI ICMs are not shown.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  9. #9

    Default

    Yes, but if you take away the CFI and put on the FITech your TFI should still work just fine right? Why would you do anything to the PCM or anything else that would break the TFI? The only thing on the cfi is the TPS sensor and the TFI doesn't use that.

  10. #10
    FEP Power Member vintageracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HILLBILLY HOLLYWOOD, Tennesse
    Posts
    1,944

    Default

    Fitech is also coming out with 2 bbl carb replacement kits and a tri-power setup.
    Mike
    Remember, "Drive Fast, Turn Heads, Break Hearts!"

    1995 Ford Powerstroke F350 "Centurion" STRETCHED Crew Cab Dually

    I like "Cut & Coach Built" vehicles!

    www.musclecardeals.com


  11. #11
    FEP Member brianj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Raymond, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,896
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    Yes, but if you take away the CFI and put on the FITech your TFI should still work just fine right? Why would you do anything to the PCM or anything else that would break the TFI? The only thing on the cfi is the TPS sensor and the TFI doesn't use that.
    The PCM controls the timing, but the PCM needs the TPS input to do that. It will not advance the timing, and you will get 0 advance. A $49 advance auto rebuilt Duraspark distributor will solve this.
    Last edited by brianj; 02-01-2018 at 06:24 PM.
    1983 Mustang G.T. No-option stripper- I like strippers.
    5.0, GT40P heads, Comp Cams XE270HR-12 on 1.6 rockers, TFI spring kit, Weiand 174 blower, Holley 750 mechanical secondarys, Mishimoto radiator, Edelbrock street performer mechanical pump, BBK shortys, T-5 conversion, 8.8 rear, 3.73 gears, carbon fiber clutches, SS Machine lowers, Maximum Motorsport XL subframes, "B" springs.

  12. #12

    Default

    Yes that would allow you to use the fitech to control timing but are you certain the tfi uses the tps? I can't see how that would be useful for determining the level of advance.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    Yes, but if you take away the CFI and put on the FITech your TFI should still work just fine right? Why would you do anything to the PCM or anything else that would break the TFI? The only thing on the cfi is the TPS sensor and the TFI doesn't use that.
    No, the TFI will not work correctly. If you are removing the CFI system, you are removing the stock PCM. The stock PCM controls the TFI based on inputs including the tp sensor, as I've already stated. Please carefully read my two previous posts.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    Yes that would allow you to use the fitech to control timing but are you certain the tfi uses the tps? I can't see how that would be useful for determining the level of advance.
    TP is used to measure throttle angle, which is CRITICAL to spark advance calculation. Trying to use the TFI with FiTech is an exercise in futility...
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Ford worked out the TFi thing from 1980 -1983 with the Brown Box Duraspark III.

    Every six degrees of advance from

    EECI,
    EECII,
    MCU,
    EECIII,
    EECIV,
    and
    EEC V


    was designed to mitigate or stop in service problems that Bosch, Lucas and Nipondenso systems messed up on. Ford was looking a waranty claims all the time. Maybee too much!

    European, English and Japanese igntion systems could be tree felled with ease. The Bosch igntion pickups, the Opus igntion amplifiers, the Denso igntion, they take a car down just like a TFi module failure does. Ford at least made it simple to sort through, and although there were law suits over TFi, that's America baby, and they moved on to even more aggressive systems, supercharging, and turbos, just because the 1983 to 1995 EECIV was so good.


    The TFi and EDIS8 are far better than people give it credit.

    FiTech is 7 times the cost of MegaSquirt, and won't integrate with TFi unless you go back to Duraspark I, II or III technology. So its a backward step. At the moment, the CanBus and USB links make up for the retarded ignition protocols.

    Ford costed out the Duraspark, and the Third Genration Whizz Kids got a better deal with less cost by integrating all that jazz together into a better mouse trap.

    The TFi makes better spark when it works. When its on holiday, you run a service check. If it won't go, you go back to the book.

    Not knocking progress, but some people got a Hel-uva-lot to learn about how the Big Three's Indigenous ignition systems rock and roll.

    Any of the Rennnex, Delco and Ford igntion systems of the mid to late 80's are far supperior to the FiTech limitations.

  16. #16
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Ford worked out the TFi thing from 1980 -1983 with the Brown Box Duraspark III.

    Every six degrees of advance from

    EECI,
    EECII,
    MCU,
    EECIII,
    EECIV,
    and
    EEC V


    was designed to mitigate or stop in service problems that Bosch, Lucas and Nipondenso systems messed up on. Ford was looking a waranty claims all the time. Maybee too much!

    European, English and Japanese igntion systems could be tree felled with ease. The Bosch igntion pickups, the Opus igntion amplifiers, the Denso igntion, they take a car down just like a TFi module failure does. Ford at least made it simple to sort through, and although there were law suits over TFi, that's America baby, and they moved on to even more aggressive systems, supercharging, and turbos, just because the 1983 to 1995 EECIV was so good.


    The TFi and EDIS8 are far better than people give it credit.

    FiTech is 7 times the cost of MegaSquirt, and won't integrate with TFi unless you go back to Duraspark I, II or III technology. So its a backward step. At the moment, the CanBus and USB links make up for the retarded ignition protocols.

    Ford costed out the Duraspark, and the Third Genration Whizz Kids got a better deal with less cost by integrating all that jazz together into a better mouse trap.

    The TFi makes better spark when it works. When its on holiday, you run a service check. If it won't go, you go back to the book.

    Not knocking progress, but some people got a Hel-uva-lot to learn about how the Big Three's Indigenous ignition systems rock and roll.

    Any of the Rennnex, Delco and Ford igntion systems of the mid to late 80's are far supperior to the FiTech limitations.

  17. #17

    Default

    too bad they use the TPS then, considering the position of the throttle was not important in dist. advance before.

    Apparently you can get TFI to work with a sniper but holley just doesn't want to support TFI since it is kinda old at this point. If I did go this way I would probably do that since the cost difference is about the same if you have to buy a new ignition with the Fitech. Hopefully I won't have to. I would have to buy a new ignition for a 4 barrel (i guess) and that removes some of the cost savings there too.


  18. #18
    FEP Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Here's what FiTech Tech Support sent me...

    Hi
    the best approach for converting your TBI, is to disconnect as little as possible from the factory computer.
    You also have to share your TPS signal from the FiTech to the factory Ford computer.
    It works well when it set up properly, my father has a 91 Caprice wagon I did the same thing to.Would recommend looking getting one of the 600 HP systems.
    Anything else let me know



    Note, he recommended their 600 hp version because I asked about a 347 in the 450 hp range.
    Terry

    78 Fairmont Sedan V8 - Factory black interior, factory A/C, No longer a SHO project, t/c 8.8 diff w/ 3.73LS
    85 LTD LX - Black, 5.0L CFI, crank windows
    93 Mustang LX 5.0L notch - original owner, 20k original miles
    17 F250 - My RV Trailer, projects, and car hauler vehicle

  19. #19
    FEP Power Member vintageracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HILLBILLY HOLLYWOOD, Tennesse
    Posts
    1,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SHOmont View Post
    Here's what FiTech Tech Support sent me...

    Hi
    the best approach for converting your TBI, is to disconnect as little as possible from the factory computer.
    You also have to share your TPS signal from the FiTech to the factory Ford computer.
    It works well when it set up properly, my father has a 91 Caprice wagon I did the same thing to.Would recommend looking getting one of the 600 HP systems.
    Anything else let me know
    .

    It worked well on GM.

    What about Ford????
    Mike
    Remember, "Drive Fast, Turn Heads, Break Hearts!"

    1995 Ford Powerstroke F350 "Centurion" STRETCHED Crew Cab Dually

    I like "Cut & Coach Built" vehicles!

    www.musclecardeals.com


  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    too bad they use the TPS then, considering the position of the throttle was not important in dist. advance before.
    yes, Throttle angle has always been an important part of load calculations for spark advance. Vacuum advance used either manifold vacuum, or a timed port on the carb, to determine engine load, which is directly influenced by throttle angle. Engine speed is the other primary factor in load calculation, which is why all dizzys had mechanical advance. The TFI system has neither, but depends on the PCM to determine load and advance. The PCM relies on various sensors, including throttle angle.
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  21. #21

    Default

    My point was they could have used vacuum rather than throttle position as they had done for 50 years prior. I am sure it is better to use tps if you have it but I would not say it is critical. Interesting to see you can just share the Fitechs TPS to accomplish the same thing. I can't imagine it has the same range of values but perhaps the 'reset on start' for the TPS allows a wide range of values to work in the computer.

  22. #22
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    FiTech is awesome, but its got some limiatations because its a one size fits all system, and not specfic to Fords Feul and Igntion controlled ECM.


    I'd personally go EDIS8 before ever downgrading the igntion system to Duraspark II. EECIV is a Feul and Igntion computer, it does both duties, but uses an updated Duarapsk III type system with more self contained parts, and cheaper components. Its reliable, and with the right PIP and service tool, its easy to ensure its reliable. It does require going through FB71's information, as it doesn't suffer fools gladly. Its a very advanced system, way more advanced than the GM igntion systems.

    Anyone subbing in an ancIent Duraspark II to get a Fitech to go is hookin' a nose to 10 years (1974 to 1984) of the most extensive Ford development ever.


    The guys who worked on the Ford EEC were
    areo space and
    Telco and
    missle engineers.

    They are "lazy people with a concience".

    The systems they use are a lesson in how to Get It Done. While the English were screwing over there Jaguars and Aston Martins and Lagondas with electroncis that didn't work, Ford was using its defense contacts to build a better Electronci Injection mousetap.

    The guys who made this happen are like the fellows who calculate retro rocket trejectories at 3 am in the morning for a 3.15 am hit on the earths atomosphere. They knew stuff we would need 5000 hours of training and some serious techncial contacts to even begin to understand.


    If you wanna go FiTech, then you have to do a partial frontal labotomy on the existing TFi ignition. Good luck with that. Ford knew stuff when hacking about with 2-bbl EFi from 1980 to 1984, because with the help of Shelby American Cobras technical staff, Ford had been doing TBi 2 and 4-bbl EFi since 1968.









    Before then, Ford USA was already scoping the 1957 Bendix's Electrojet EFi. Simply, Ford was working on getting the whole shooting match reliable and servicable for 23 years from 1957 to 1980 when the 5.0 EFi Lincoln came out.



    The EEC IV is a forth generation EGR control system that also happens to control the other engine functions. Its not a fuel only computer, its fuel and ignition by handshake. Its got nested stuff inside that has taken a lot of patient, expert work to get productionised.


    Post 3 and 5 of this link show the depth of engineering at the Ford motor company with the 5.0 CFi

    Quote Originally Posted by JACook View Post
    I guess I should have asked whether this is a 5.0 CFI or 3.8. The 5.0 does not use a DC idle speed
    motor like the 3.8 does, so the failures common to the 3.8, like the idle tracking switch, do not apply.

    The CFI 5.0 actually controls idle speed by varying the ignition timing. It also has a vacuum operated
    throttle modulator that can kick the idle speed up a notch when needed, such as when the engine is
    not up to operating temperature, or when the A/C compressor engages.

    Fitech has work arounds that try to do the same thing without ignition control. Its essentially a "Fuel only" computer


    Ford worked out the "tip in" spark advance alogritim from the 5.0 CFi EEC III Durasaprk III era from 1980 to 1984. The software engineers copied the EECIII protocols into the EECIV.

    This did away with the IAC, and created a way to control cold to warm idle speed. Duraspark had an electvie advance ram , means tested by Barametic pressure, and temperature.

    Ford was just way ahead of anyone else.

    Why does a CFi have a choke without a choke blade?

    Why does any Durapsaprk III have a crank position sensor when its not a sequentially injected engine?


    Why does the 5.O CFi have no Idle Air Control




    Because FoMoCo knew that every system needs a fall back.


    TFi has its own interanl fall back systems, even if its controlled by the PCM part of the EECIV computer.

    For the 5.0 CFi 1980-1984 Brown Strain relief Duraspark III and external spark control computer, the TFI ingredients are all laid out.

  23. #23
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I found a Jim and Jeff syle guy in 1985 here in New Zealand when I worked with an ex Ford service technican at Otago Central Electric Power Board.


    These are the only peole to talk to! Noramlly, a trained Ford EEC guy won't bull sheeet ya with snake oil spin.


    Quote Originally Posted by JACook View Post
    The distributor used on the CFI engines has no advance capabilities of it's own. Spark timing is all
    under control of the EEC-IV module.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quicksilver View Post
    Matt / Jeff, this topic brings back a lot of memories and stories as I went through this on a BIG scale when my car ('84 CFI/AOD) was still under warranty. Almost went to arbitration with Ford over this but I didn't want to risk loosing the car......
    And that is the depth of EECIV 5.0 CFi.

    Its such a nice system with a huge amount of freight train torque and probably the nicest induction hiss a cooking model 302 has ever had. Compared to all the other 165 and 180 hp net 5 liters, the CFi is very sweet.

    When it suffers idle hunt, its not always a TPS or ignition issue, there are other O2 sensor and earthing related issues.


    Fitech gets rid of the TFi issues. The two systems don't handshake, so the advice from the service hot line is to go Durapark II based igntion.


    With Tuner Studios version of Bowland and Grippo's Megasquirt, its easier to use all the stock parts, and it works with TFi.


    For basic EECIV, you check the box code, and ask an EECIV guru to rework another Ford box code computer to run with a 2-bbl CFi unit.


    MegaSquirt is the only cost effective with TFi way out. And its best to upgrade to EDIS8.


    There is no "cheap way out". That's Electronics!

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Anyone subbing in an ancIent Duraspark II to get a Fitech to go is hookin' a nose to 10 years (1974 to 1984) of the most extensive Ford development ever.


    The guys who worked on the Ford EEC were
    areo space and
    Telco and
    missle engineers.
    They most certainly were/are! I worked with two development and test engineers from Ford's PCM plant near Philadelphia. One came from Motorola, the other came from Ford's (now defunct) Aerospace division. I enjoyed talking with him about the systems and components he worked on for the original space shuttle fleet. He got to shakedown one of the systems for Enterprise and Columbia. And worked with the guy for three years, and can't remember his dang name... Dave xxx?
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  25. #25
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I learned about the rocket science from my 7th form physics treacher, ex Fighter Pilot Mick Reily (Irish, of course) who said Dr. Robert H. Goddard , trajectory technicians and Gross Domestic Product ecconomists use the same kind of free hand thinking you use when looking up Chambers 7 figure logorithims, Bending Moment Diagrams, or Binomial theorem, or Indefinate Integration. Once they've gotten the basics, the mathematical mind comes up with some seriously smart ways of using a computer to bodly go where people are too bored to go repeadly. Very quick but (compared to the prcoessing powers of the human mind) very dumb computers are made by very smart, dilligent people. The fun begins when you get a room full of them brainstorming. Each has the prerequisit 5000 to 10000 hrs training, and then iron sharpens iron.

    I was lucky enough to have a nuclear industry density testing training when at the Laboratory for doing Non Destructive Testing. The guy who taught me had a meeting with the US nuclear density testing guy who did the Troxler electronics. Same deal, IIRC, Intel or what was Motorola internals, really smart teams of people with degrees, and it all gets developed with some amazing skills as an offshoot. Those Troxlers have the same issues with electronics the EECIV does, but lemme tell you, the ancient 1976 model Troxler 3411 b still works, is servicable, and relaible.

    North American smarts, gentlemen. I'm guessing the Fitech will have even smarter, cheeper internals, and its ability to manage the engine will be by Fuzzy logic.

    If you have a choice, I'd go Mega Jolt with EDIS 8.

    The Sameguy on Fordsix.Com did this upgrade to his non computerised 1962 Falcon 170

    Quote Originally Posted by thesameguy
    You might check my thread on the subject -

    https://fordsix.com//viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67718

    viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67718

    and the ignition map I started with:

    https://fordsix.com//viewtopic.php?p=533410#p533410

    viewtopic.php?p=533410#p533410

    EDIS8 works with Mega Jolt and it'll get you where you wanna go. Fitech doesn't manage Igntion, MegaJolt does.


    Note: Stand-alone Ford examples with a Fuel only computer.

    This really like hooking up an old post 1982 5.0 Duraspark III, and hooking up an EECIII from a Californian 1984 5.0 Thunderbird or an 83 F150/F250 with 351 M or 400 ignition system in it.

    You use a Crank Position Sensor (later EECIII 5.0'S and California truck and Econoline 351M's and 400'S had a front mounted CPS).

    It is actually standalone, it just re-intialises periodically from some other sensors to prevent it moving into the locked limp home mode, and it uses the later Rotunda service line like the EECIV does, Ford just wasn't very clear on what happened when the Rotunda Star Tester came out; it over rides the BMAP vacuum signals, but still uses a MitiVac or Ford hand pump to kick it into the two test modes. 82's, 83's and 84's were really nice systems, just no one reads and understands how simple they were to pull DTC codes out.

    The advantages for the old EECIII/DSIII are that its always thrown away for nothing, yet even after you've ripped the CFi or Variable Venturi 7200 carb off it, it still operates the ignition until a battery change or a hard reset. Then the whole ignition dies because it cannot rest the engine advance test.

    Its Brown strain relief Duraspark III box hooks up to the yellow wire of the BMAP sensor, then it delivers spark to a DSIII, and its controlled by the strangest PCM you ever saw, mounted under the seat (Fox body or Panther frame) or dash (Bullnose F-truck).

    People wanna junk these, but they were mass produced, and quality is good. It operates at 12 v reference signal, way up on what the EECIV does, but it controlls the spark advance

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •