Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default Car running rich at idle - Looking for a Tuner in Pacific NW, would a BAMA tuner help

    So, my car is running pretty rich at idle, and stumbles a bit off-idle, but seems to do well in the mid-range and top end. I know its running rich because it blew 520 Hydrocarbons at the smog station... with the catalytic converters installed.

    I'm running a stock Cobra MAF, 65mm BBK throttle body, Cobra ECU, Cold Air Intake, brand new IAC valve, 24# factory injectors and running a Walbro hi flow fuel pump at 40psi)

    I talked to a local tuner that has done a lot of stuff with OBD1 cars (mine is basically a 1993 Cobra EFI setup), but they said the best they can do, is run a baseline on the dyno to see where everything is at, and if the idle mixture is rich, then the best that they recommend is running a Megasquirt EEC direct replacement. I was really surprised. I thought that there were a number of folks that still tuned these old OBD1 cars.

    Does anyone know of a tuner in the Pacific NW, preferably in the Portland, Oregon area?

    Or.... I have been looking at a couple of different tuners, like SCT, BAMA, etc., does anyone suggest any of these, and can any of these potentially remedy a rich idle setup, either with a tune, or by manually adjusting maps?

    Thanks for any advice you can offer.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  2. #2

    Default

    Unfortunately, you're not likely to find many actual and effective troubleshooters out there anymore, not with the amount of aftermarket alternatives where vendors can spend your money instead. About 18 years ago, my 5.0 Thunderbird passed all "e tests" with flying colors, with GUTTED cats and OMITTED air injection. This doesn't sound like a "tune" problem, but a problem problem. The factory AFR mapping is like (or is similar to) the following...






    ... so unless there is a physical problem, a sensor problem, or a "fuel multiplier" problem, these AFRs are supposed to be stuck to, and shouldn't be resulting in overly high amounts of HC out the exhaust...

    Is the ManifoldAbsolutePressure sensor now functioning as a BarometricPressure sensor, with the port open to atmospheric pressure, and has it's frequency output been tested?...

    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 02-07-2018 at 06:43 PM.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  3. #3

    Default

    ^^^ spot on. This isn't a tune issue. Something is actually wrong.
    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
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    The MAP sensor is now acting like a BAP sensor, in that its getting ambient air pressure, not connected to vacuum.

    I read a number of other folks running very similar setups (a couple with the exact same TrickFlow Stage 1 cam) and having very similar results.... decent idle, but not perfect, running rich only at idle, and cold start requires holding the pedal a bit until warm, and occasionally the car dies at idle or off-idle).

    A couple of those folks ran with the SCT tuner with Bama tunes, and it totally fixed his issues.

    I'll run the MAP/BP tests, and see what comes up... if the MAP/BP sensor was malfunctioning, wouldn't I see a code? I've pulled codes and get only EGR related codes, which is normal, since I have eliminated the EGR valve.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  5. #5

    Default

    No, you won't necessarily or initially see a trouble code, and that is what made me pull my friggin' hair out for a long time before testing the MAP sensor that was in my present car ('86 3.8 CFI (gone now, thankfully) now with Holley 2 barrel carburetor), finding it faulty ( indicating to the EEC that the vehicle was being operated at a couple thousand feet below sea level... which it wasn't, lol, quite the contrary, LOL! ), and THEN after me finding it, after a few tankfuls of wasted fuel, all of it perplexing the pi$$ out of me for a while, was the first time ever a code for it showed up... sooooo... that's why I'm suggesting testing it might surprise you, and totally could be causing idle/low speed richness... MAP/BP signal, if whacked out, can throw the load part of the calculation (a pretty big part of AFR calcs) or multiplication right out the window...
    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 02-07-2018 at 07:40 PM.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  6. #6
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Ok I'll test it tonight and report back. The sensor is brand new from Napa, so if there's an issue, I'll be able to return it to them.

    Thanks. I'll keep you posted.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  7. #7
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walking-Tall View Post
    No, you won't necessarily or initially see a trouble code, and that is what made me pull my friggin' hair out for a long time before testing the MAP sensor that was in my present car ('86 3.8 CFI (gone now, thankfully) now with Holley 2 barrel carburetor), finding it faulty ( indicating to the EEC that the vehicle was being operated at a couple thousand feet below sea level... which it wasn't, lol, quite the contrary, LOL! ), and THEN after me finding it, after a few tankfuls of wasted fuel, all of it perplexing the pi$$ out of me for a while, was the first time ever a code for it showed up... sooooo... that's why I'm suggesting testing it might surprise you, and totally could be causing idle/low speed richness... MAP/BP signal, if whacked out, can throw the load part of the calculation (a pretty big part of AFR calcs) or multiplication right out the window...
    Ok, I have to say that I owe you big time... I was way skeptical, because the MAP sensor is brand new... literally less than 20 miles on it. I ran the two tests, and the VREF voltage was dead on at 5v. When I ran the MAP/BP test, the voltage should be at the 1.51 to 1.61 volts, as I am at about 300 feet of elevation. My results came back at 2.56 volts, which is about 3000 feet below sea level... just like you mentioned you saw on your car.

    So, I guess this proves that my MAP/BP sensor is toast. Is there anything else external to the sensor that could cause this condition?

    Should I be looking for a different source, other than Napa, for a new MAP/BP sensor?

    Thanks much for your help, I think this is the smoking gun for my situation.... can't wait to see if a replacement can remedy the situation.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  8. #8
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    My all time favorite Mike the cool person post!

    Quote Originally Posted by Walking-Tall View Post
    Update: Tested suspected MAP sensor...

    VREF test: key off, disconnect MAP connector; measure voltage between VREF and SIG RTN at connector; KOEO - got 4.95v, good.

    MAP/BP Sensor test: connect MAP connector; with digital multi-meter, back-probed MAP connector MAP wire with (+) and battery negative with (-) - got 2.50v, not good.

    According to a table of MAP/BP voltage specs, this MAP sensor thinks it's a couple thousand feet below sea level. Maybe what the car needs is a periscope?

    The frequency testing went as follows: 160Hz with no vacuum - perfect; 110Hz with full vacuum - supposed to be ~93Hz.

    NOW, AFTER the above testing, is the FIRST TIME EVER getting a K.O.E.O. code 22 (MAP/BP out of self-test range), and it's been guzzling gas but not really showing signs of it besides the fuel gauge needle, and acts sluggish and hesitant upon acceleration with taking it for one spin around the block so far. I swear this car is possessed, with somewhat of a sense of humor, and likes to play games with me. Anyway, I need to find another MAP sensor... a used one that works, because new ones appear to be hovering around the the ridiculous amount of 90 bucks around here.

  9. #9
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Mike, I wonder if you finally got the 22 code because of the KOEO test with the MAP/BP sensor disconnected?

    Also, is it strange and/or common to have one of these sensors to bad so quickly? I'm guessing mine was bad out of the box.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vdubn View Post
    Ok, I have to say that I owe you big time... I was way skeptical, because the MAP sensor is brand new... literally less than 20 miles on it. I ran the two tests, and the VREF voltage was dead on at 5v. When I ran the MAP/BP test, the voltage should be at the 1.51 to 1.61 volts, as I am at about 300 feet of elevation. My results came back at 2.56 volts, which is about 3000 feet below sea level... just like you mentioned you saw on your car.

    So, I guess this proves that my MAP/BP sensor is toast. Is there anything else external to the sensor that could cause this condition?

    Should I be looking for a different source, other than Napa, for a new MAP/BP sensor?

    Thanks much for your help, I think this is the smoking gun for my situation.... can't wait to see if a replacement can remedy the situation.
    I'm glad you're quite likely getting to the root. A very long time ago, somebody (my father, the smartest guy I have ever known) said to me, "oh, so you think that just because all those spark plugs came new out of their boxes they are all working right?...". Troubleshooting 101 says 'assume nothing', test, know... especially today IMHO, where finance and marketing have fully taken over everything. Those guys don't give a fiddle whether something works right or not, just that it sells plentifully. I see it all the time with many things now, even very complicated and rather expensive things that really should and need to continue to work right, sometimes for safety reasons... doesn't matter to them, everything is like a pet rock. A pet rock can fairly safely be assumed that it'll do it's job right, new outta the box and on and on... but/and the price of all things just keeps on goin' up...

    Yes, it's also obviously a variable resistor of sorts, with a convoluted and complicated process of doing so (frequency to voltage conversion? Why?... I'm stubborn in some of my ways though, and stick with 'variable resistor' (right or wrong, I don't know or care, for my own thought process of it's function) because a reference 5v goes to it), somewhat obscure and not test-able until it's found out how to test it, very much not adjustable if it's not right, indicating things to a sane person standing on dry land that they should be wearing deep sea diving or scuba gear... an(other) idiotic "black box".

    Source for black boxes probably doesn't much matter today either. My suggestion would be to test it and KNOW that it works in the parking lot before leaving.

    Good luck with it
    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 02-08-2018 at 11:21 AM.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    My all time favorite Mike the cool person post!
    Without a sense of humor mixed in with our varying levels of patience, lines in the sand, in this mad world, we'd go mad.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vdubn View Post
    Mike, I wonder if you finally got the 22 code because of the KOEO test with the MAP/BP sensor disconnected?

    Also, is it strange and/or common to have one of these sensors to bad so quickly? I'm guessing mine was bad out of the box.
    No Sir, reconnected, ran test, code 22 showed up, laughing it's a$$ off at me. I was mad enough that day after that, but I wasn't prepared to repair any potential damages, and I didn't yet have any of the pieces necessary for RIPPING all of the "technology" out of it. The ripping came later, and I still couldn't be happier with how the car functions today.

    It's random black box bologna, par for what all these sensors are. Maybe not manufactured correctly, mishandled, dropped, the machine wasn't calibrated properly that day, rattled around (my original was loose with only one screw holding it to the inner fenderwell)... who knows? With only about 20 miles, I'm sure your guess is correct.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  13. #13

    Default

    Is 40psi fuel pressure with the vacuum line connected? It should be 40-42 with no vacuum applied. Less at idle with vacuum like 32.
    84 LX Vert. 5.0 5speed canyon red on white
    99 cobra, electric green on medium parchment, vortech s-trim

  14. #14
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowetlx View Post
    Is 40psi fuel pressure with the vacuum line connected? It should be 40-42 with no vacuum applied. Less at idle with vacuum like 32.
    Hmm... I set the pressure with the vacuum connected to the regulator... funny thing, I called aeromotive to see about mounting a fuel pressure gauge to the regulator, and they said that I could just remove the vacuum fitting all together, and that all that port was for was for forced induction applications. It seemed crazy, so I just left the vacuum line connected. I will disconnect the vacuum line today, and set the pressure to 40 psi, and make note of how much adjustment was needed.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  15. #15
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    So, I talked with Napa today, and no issues getting my sensor defected and swapped for another one. I was looking this all up as a 1993 Cobra, and honestly in the end wouldn't think it would matter, as I thought all 1989 to 1993 used the same MAP/BP sensor. As it turns out, Napa shows a different sensor for 1989 and 1990, versus 1993. Here are a couple of pics from Napa's site to show the difference between the two.

    Can anyone identify what might be different between these two sensors (other than the cap on the one that Napa says is for the 1993)?

    Here is the one I found to be bad, for the 1993:
    Name:  NapaBP219000.jpg
Views: 137
Size:  12.9 KB

    Here is the one I am thinking of getting today, that says fits the 1989, 1990, etc.
    Name:  NapaBP219002.jpg
Views: 138
Size:  14.6 KB
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  16. #16

    Default

    i think your high rail pressure may be your issue. With ford eec maintaining a consistent pressure drop across the injector is important. If your regulator is not dropping pressure as manifold vacuum rises it will run rich.
    84 LX Vert. 5.0 5speed canyon red on white
    99 cobra, electric green on medium parchment, vortech s-trim

  17. #17

    Default

    I've used the map sensor off of a 460 on my car before. I doubt there is much difference between them.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vdubn View Post
    Can anyone identify what might be different between these two sensors (other than the cap on the one that Napa says is for the 1993)?
    I'd say the diff is probably only the grey vacuum nipple bushing (reminder) to not install a vacuum hose onto it.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowetlx View Post
    i think your high rail pressure may be your issue. With ford eec maintaining a consistent pressure drop across the injector is important. If your regulator is not dropping pressure as manifold vacuum rises it will run rich.
    That's debatable. The only problem being if pressure is set too high (however high that is, which I don't think is 7-8psi higher than usual), and then if injector pulse width (open time) cannot be reduced enough for idle and low speed and cruise air:fuel mixtures. I've had 60psi (cranked up (that's +20psi more than normal) with the addition of a bigger throttle body so that WOT would be safely rich for testing/tuning, on an '86 Thunderbird 5.0L) set running with the vacuum line off, and that produced about 53psi then with the vacuum hose on, running, and there was no difference at all with it's behavior at idle or low speed or cruise, so the pulse widths were able to be reduced enough to remain inside the normal operating window. WOT fueling was all that was affected, because EEC lets go of the fuel metering reins ("open loop"?) in general then.
    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 02-08-2018 at 04:18 PM.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  20. #20

    Default

    We will see what the result is. I would not attempt to diagnose it further until the proper fuel pressure is acheived. The computer cannot calculate an infinite adjustment to compensate for a rich condition. Eec v cars the limit is 25%. I don’t know off hand what the eec iv limit is but I don’t see it exceeding that. His fuel pressure is 25% higher than normal. It’s the first place to start.
    84 LX Vert. 5.0 5speed canyon red on white
    99 cobra, electric green on medium parchment, vortech s-trim

  21. #21

    Default

    older map/bp sensors output a squarewave frequency signal, newer systems used a sensor that output a variable voltage.
    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)

  22. #22

    Default

    The limit is about 10% on eec4 cars
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  23. #23
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Ok, so I swapped in the new MAP/BP sensor and tested it. Same 2.54v on the MAP signal wire. Then I switched my DVOM to Hz and it shows 165 Hz frequency with no vacuum. Since our cars don't connect the vacuum to the sensor, I didn't see any need to apply vacuum and test the frequency.

    Then, I drilled my TPS sensor mount holes to the next size and tested and got .96 volts. Before I could only get it down to 1.1 or 1.08 volts.

    Finally, I disconnected the vacuum from the adjustable FPR, plugged the connection going to the engine, and set the fuel pressure to 32psi. Then I reconnected the vacuum hose and revved the engine. Stayed at 32psi, never came up from there. I thought it should jump a bit, and eventually hit 40psi. Maybe it's not an issue.

    Having done all of that, the car fires and runs on its own without me having to give any throttle. Idle hunts a lot less than before (only does it a little upon the first cold start). It smells less rich (my nosemeter says it's less rich), idles better, and felt good running around the block.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

  24. #24

    Default

    What are you running for a fuel pressure regulator? Is it meant for a 5.0 or a universal racing type? You should be able to set it to 40-42 with the line disconnected. Then when you reconnect the line it should drop to about 32. The reason this is important is the pressure difference between the fuel rail and intake manifold side of the injectors has to remain constant. This is the pressure drop across the injector. It should always be in the specified range. As manifold pressure rises(less vacuum) fuel pressure must also rise. If it doesn’t rise the injectors will be delivering less fuel than the computer has calculated. There should be 40-42 when there is 0 vacuum or boost. As pressure goes up further such as turbo or supercharged it would need to increase even more by a 1:1 psi ratio.
    84 LX Vert. 5.0 5speed canyon red on white
    99 cobra, electric green on medium parchment, vortech s-trim

  25. #25
    FEP Member vdubn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Yea it's an Aeromotive FPR specifically for bolting to the stock fuel rail on a 5.0L. I was thinking backwards, I'll reset the pressure to 40psi with no vacuum and see if it drops any once I connect the vacuum.
    85 GT Hatchback, T-Tops. 2012 Coyote 5.0L Swap, T56 Magnum, GT550 Dept of Boost kit, with Eaton M122 SC, RAM 11" Powergrip clutch, BBK Long Tubes/OR X-Pipe, Flowmaster Axle Back, Stifflers DS Loop, and Rear X-member, AJE Tube Crossmember with AJE-Mod Mounts, 3.73 Posi 8.8, 5 lug Cobra 13" fr and 12.6" rear disc swap, 2004 Hydroboost Swap, MM SubFrame Connectors, MM Panhard Bar, MM front A-Arms, MM rear control arms, MM CC Plates, MM Coilovers w/Koni dampeners, MM Torque Arm (soon to be installed).

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
  •