Brought to you in part by:

.

Shop Eastwood for your Auto Restoration Needs!


  Mustangsandmore Forums
  '74 to '78 -- The Mustang II
  EEC IV Question

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   EEC IV Question
Maxwell_fax
Gearhead

Posts: 221
From: Port Royal, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-12-2001 01:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Maxwell_fax   Click Here to Email Maxwell_fax     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I should probably go see those fox body people about this one, but my II pride keeps me from doing it so here goes..

I put Injection on the 289 in my M-II about a year ago... Since then it had hunted an idle, and occasionally stalled at stop signs etc. Not to mention throttle response was rather dissappointing vs. the Holley 600 that used to be there.. I was talking to an older guy at the autoparts today about it (although I don't think he knew anything about injection) and he mentioned that it wasn't getting enuff fuel.. I assumed that the 302 injection would work just fine on a 289 although the 289 has a hell of alot more snot than the 302 that used to be there.. (Stock Rebuilt '66 289 C code vs. Stock '87 302 from a Crown Vic) Anywho I decided to go with what this guy said.. I installed an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and turned the pressure up as far as it would go (75psi) and the idle cleared up.. Although it ran a little rich. I then backed it off till it started acting up, and increased it till the idle was smooth.. The final pressure was about 55 psi which it higher than the high end of the specs.. It doesn't seem to be loading up, idles great, and the throttle response is remarkable...

Has anyone else run into/seen such a situation? Is there something here I should do to the injection (bigger injectors or something) of did I just get lucky?

IP: Logged

The Cobraman
Gearhead

Posts: 154
From: Edmond, OK USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-12-2001 01:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for The Cobraman   Click Here to Email The Cobraman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did you do the mass air conversion, or is it still speed density?

Fuel pressure measured at what point?

Did you make sure the TPS was sending the correct signal to the processor?

If it's still on the SD system, camshaft profile may be hurting you, since you indicate that it's somewhat stouter than the OE profile.

IP: Logged

Maxwell_fax
Gearhead

Posts: 221
From: Port Royal, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-12-2001 03:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Maxwell_fax   Click Here to Email Maxwell_fax     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's still speed density for now.. Too cheap to buy the kit, holding out for something to crash and wind up in the local junkyard..

The fuel pressure has been measured at the test port on the fuel rail.. (FYI the digital snap on FP guages suck.. they are so slow..)

I connected my scan tool to it and everything seems in line.. Since I used 1987 electronics there was no serial data available, but I have gone over the TPS, along with the other sensors.. The MAP even looked alright on the oscilloscope.. No ignition system problems show up on it either... The doaner car ran fine, tranny died.. It did have 220,000 miles on it, and it has crossed my mind that an injector might be dirty or something, but once again, the doaner car ran fine..

I am thinking the cam is the problem.. It is the direct replacement for a 1966 289 but chances are it is a bit more stout than an 87 5.0 (from a crown vic)... Like I had mentioned, the 289 is twice the engine that the 5.0 was.. It is also capable of reving to 6 grand with no problems.. The 5.0 sounded like it was gonna explode at 5... Hmm Cam... Time for a roller setup...

IP: Logged

a351must2
Gearhead

Posts: 320
From: Snohomish, WA, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-12-2001 09:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for a351must2   Click Here to Email a351must2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The two things I can think of is that it's either running lean because it's speed density and you don't have the correct motor being ran by it, or it's running lean because the Idle Air Bypass is stuck open and acting like a large vacuum leak.

EFI and vacuum leaks can be a pain because the computer will try to adjust for the extra air from the vacuum leak using readings from the oxygen sensor, so the symptoms aren't as bad as with a carburetor.

IP: Logged

cpmaverick
Moderator

Posts: 1564
From: Auburn, AL.
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-13-2001 08:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cpmaverick   Click Here to Email cpmaverick     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When you increase fuel pressure you increase fuel in the AF mixture, so you car needs more fuel; bigger injectors would help but the speed density system will always be holding you back. It shouldn't be difficult to find a 90-93 5.0 in a junkyard by now..

IP: Logged

Maxwell_fax
Gearhead

Posts: 221
From: Port Royal, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-15-2001 01:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Maxwell_fax   Click Here to Email Maxwell_fax     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They aren't too hard to find in junkyards (excluding the ones around here that are 10 years behind the rest) Question is, did they use the mass airflow set up on any non 5.0 HO's?? Keep in mind a 289 was not the Windsor firing order.. I think I read somewhere that you can "just rewire the injectors and it'll work" Sounds good.. Haven't really check it out.. A roller cam would be nice though.. Still wouldn't think a plain ole 289 would take that much more fuel...

IP: Logged

Boneman
Journeyman

Posts: 24
From: Sharon, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 01-16-2001 07:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Boneman   Click Here to Email Boneman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How many inches of vac do you have @ idle?
How about inches @ WOT?
Did you put a sniffer on her yet?
Its been a while since Ive worked worked FI but I second the cam profile issue.
You should be using an offset duration cam for improved scavenging & vacume. Do you have a reserve vac. can?

IP: Logged

Boneman
Journeyman

Posts: 24
From: Sharon, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 01-16-2001 07:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Boneman   Click Here to Email Boneman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BTW you should give the Foxers a chance.
This crap is all they know. Bolt ons for the 5.0..
Swallow your stinking II pride & hit them up with your question. It may be a $10 bolt on.
Then again it might be the mpu.
I wish to God that I had the internet 8yrs ago when I started this hobby. Dont deny yourself of information because of pride you butthead.
Ok, Im done venting. As you were..

IP: Logged

Maxwell_fax
Gearhead

Posts: 221
From: Port Royal, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-17-2001 04:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Maxwell_fax   Click Here to Email Maxwell_fax     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I talked to the Fox people the same day I posted here.. Feel better Boneman?

Anywho.. I'll have to check vac. tomorrow.. Although it is probably within the norms.. It is a bone friggen stock el cheapo TRW cam for this particular 289... It's probably worse in terms of performance than the one in the 87 Crown Vic 5.0 I took the injection from.. (vening myself and considering carbs again)

As far as having it on a sniffer, I'd love to put it on one, don't have one at work, and can't find one to use.. (lovely central PA with it's desirable lack of emission testing!) It seems pretty logical that it was running lean it doesn't start to load up noticably till about 75 PSI of fuel pressure.. Exhaust smells better now that the pressure is higher..

Actually had it out and about tonight.. Didn't run bad.. Still has an occasional miss when I'm cruising at a constant speed...

I think a speed density it the way to go.. I used that on an 89 Cougar that I put a 5.8 in for a friend.. It has worked flawlessly since the first time it fired.. It has the lumpy cam and all that stuff..

IP: Logged

cpmaverick
Moderator

Posts: 1564
From: Auburn, AL.
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-20-2001 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cpmaverick   Click Here to Email cpmaverick     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I know for a fact that the Mass-air system will work fine on a non-HO 302, all you need to do is change the injector firing. The reason I know this is I work as a mechanic and we had a 1990 'stang that someone swapped a Crown-Vic 302 in, it had the old 289-302 firing order of course and ran like crap, we simply swapped the injectors (the plug wires were already swapped) and it ran great.

We swapped the correct injector pins out of the ECM plug so that we didn't have to alter the harness.

You will need a mass-air computer and sensor, that will be the expensive part. Mark VII's also had the HO motor.

IP: Logged

Maxwell_fax
Gearhead

Posts: 221
From: Port Royal, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-11-2001 02:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Maxwell_fax   Click Here to Email Maxwell_fax     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay Last question on this.... I hope
I got a mass airflow setup from a 93 Cougar 5.0L... In process of getting that all put in there.. Now for the ignition timing....

The spec for the 289 is 6 deg.
The spec for the 302 is 10 deg.
The Fox people said they have had good luck with 12-14 deg.

Should I use the 289 spec (Genuine Ford OEM Cam for 289) or the 302 spec? Or is hit and miss the best option for timing this thing?

------------------
'78 Mustang II Hatchback
'75 Gran Torino
'75 Lincoln Mark IV

IP: Logged

cpmaverick
Moderator

Posts: 1564
From: Auburn, AL.
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-13-2001 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cpmaverick   Click Here to Email cpmaverick     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Assuming you are running premium 92-93- I'd start with 12 and drive the car, if there is no detenation (ping) go with more timing, if there is back it off a bit. The factory is usually pretty retarded (literally ) and I believe the 289 Hi-Po had 10 degrees from the factory.

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2003, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[About M&M][Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Members' Pics] [M&M Mug Shots]

[ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [Mustangsandmore.com T-Shirts][Tech Articles]