[Silver_69_Coupe]

I finally got the motor and transmission rebuilt from my 2000 explorer doner.

I am getting ready to start on wiring up the EEC-V ECU and ran into something I really dislike about the explorer ECU. It fires on 2 Cylinders at a time. The ECU only has 4 Coil Outputs.

Current ECU. EQE3 ML2-8A1A 0B08 XL2F-12A650-PD G

I want to change to a 8 coil version of the ECU. I am looking at options and so far it looks like I can use one from a 4.6. The SBF 302 out of the explorer uses the same style of trigger wheel. I am pretty sure the cam sensor will also work.
I also would like to go with a coil near plug setup. I am not sure what coils to use.

I need a little help of figuring out what ECU and Coils to look for.

EECV RZASA 03-04 Marauder Almost impossible to find. None around.
EECV CMAI6 97-98 Mark VIII I am not sure if this one is a good option. But I think I can get one from our local pick a part.
EECV MQAH1 01 F-150 5.4 & F-250 These are more common but I am not sure if it will work.

Or can I reflash the ECU I have. My Guess is no since the pin out is so much different.

Also since this is going into a 69 Mustang I need to delete EGR, Rear o2, PATS, and a few other items. I want to keep the transmission control. I am running the 4R70W out of the explorer.

[cgrey8]

I don't have any info to help. But I am curious as to what the disadvantage to the coil packs over coil-per-plug is. Obviously there is some benefit or people wouldn't be trying to convert to it.

[034v]

MLC-221 (97-98 LM8) will need the crank sensor to be useful. PIP and signal is doable on the SBF with the correct 36-1 trigger wheel and fabricating the crank sensor mount, as well as a cam sensor.

You can do it on a 94-95 CBAZA ECU and external EDIS module from a 93-94 Mark VIII, but the dwell is terrible for COP use.

FWIW I do have complete 93-98 Lincoln Mark VIII XDF's available.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

MLC-221 (97-98 LM8) will need the crank sensor to be useful. PIP and signal is doable on the SBF with the correct 36-1 trigger wheel and fabricating the crank sensor mount, as well as a cam sensor.

You can do it on a 94-95 CBAZA ECU and external EDIS module from a 93-94 Mark VIII, but the dwell is terrible for COP use.

FWIW I do have complete 93-98 Lincoln Mark VIII XDF's available.

I am new to some of the terminology. What does PIP stand for.
The Explorer 5.0 has the 36 tooth trigger and crank sensor in stock form. It also has the cam sensor. The cam sensor is very similar to the ones you see on the 3.8 and 3.9 V6 Motors.

I am assuming the the MLC-221 Will drive COP.
I am debating using the COP coils from a 4.6 and making a bracket for them to mount above the headers with a heat shield. I would like to use LS coils but I have read that the Ford ECU does not like them.

[034v]

correct. LS coils can work on the 97-98 LM8 ECU. So long as it is MLC-221 hardware.

PIP = Profile Ignition Pickup signal. It is the ECU's form of limiting. It will need adjusting along with dwell or repetitive spark discharge to dial in the LS coils. Not as hard as it sounds.

Ensure the 4R70W you are using uses the same resistance solenoids for the shift and lock solenoids as the ECU you are using as well.

You can see the minimum requirements on Dechipa's page.

http://www.efidynotuning.com/efiswap.htm

[Silver_69_Coupe]

I Picked up an ECU.
MLC-221 BTC0 F8LF-12A650-EA EEC-V

I also picked up a set of coils from a 2001 Chevy Tahoe. 5.3. Part Number UCE314 12558693 H6T55171ZC. Any thoughts on compatibility with this coil? Where do I find specs on the EEC-V Output and These coils?

First thing I need to figure out is wow to interface with it on the bench. I am sure someone has a good write up on this but most of what I am finding refers to EEC-IV. Using the J3 Port. I am under the impression on EEC-V you can connect to it on the OBD2 port. I am not afraid of doing the research but there is so much contradictory information I would like to get pointed in the right direction from someone who has done this with an EEC-V. I would like to start by disabling PATS. and the other Items I need to since they will not be used on this motor.

[Paulie]

The lS coils are fired by the ECU sending a 5 volt signal to the coil. Most Ford ECUs, including the one you have, fire the coils by grounding them. I'm not sure how you are going the LS coils to work with the Ford ECU.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

The lS coils are fired by the ECU sending a 5 volt signal to the coil. Most Ford ECUs, including the one you have, fire the coils by grounding them. I'm not sure how you are going the LS coils to work with the Ford ECU.

I had no idea that the LS used 5V to trigger the coil. I know they have 12V hot in run and Ground on them. I assumed the ecu was pulling them low to trigger not high.

Thanks for the heads up. I could use a mosfet but I think the switching speed of the mosfet would cause me issues. Anf create more complexity that I do not want. I will have to rethink this choice of coils.

This picture shows how it works.

[034v]

MLC-221 BTC0 Pinouts

Supply ground by using a relay setup or MOSFET.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

MLC-221 BTC0 Pinouts

Supply ground by using a relay setup or MOSFET.

Wouldn't you want to use a mosfet tied to the 5V output of the ECU and when the Coil trigger goes low (GND) it would pull the output of the mosfet high to trigger the coils. This would involve adding 8 circuits to control the coils. Not to mention mosfets are touchy and would be sensitive to electrical noise that would be created by turning the coil on and off. The circuit would be similar to this.

P-channel-high-side-switch.jpg

Not this exact circuit. I am just don't want to draw it up right now so I found something similar on the internet.

To me this is just a bad idea. The switching speed of the mosfets may cause issues. Sourcing a mosfet good enough to use in this application would be tricky and could get very expensive fast. You would also have to create a board and a good enclosure.

It would be easier to just switch the plan to use an LS ECU. Not to mention there is a lot more support for customizing the LS ECU. And everything is cheaper for the LS. There are a lot more people in my area that know everything possible about the LS.

The throttle body I wanted to use only supports an LS IAC (Stepper Motor Style). No Ford Option. At least not that I could find.

The other option I am considering is to just use the Explorer ignition system and call it done. Converting to COP and changing to the other ECU is becoming more of a headache that it is worth to me. I don't want to spend the next 6 month working out all of the kinks. I want to get the car on the road so I can actually enjoy it.

[034v]

ditch the LS COP and go with Ford COP and LS wire set. Easy

[Silver_69_Coupe]

ditch the LS COP and go with Ford COP and LS wire set. Easy

I order a set of the COP that have a screw hole on one side so I can mount them to a bracket that I make. I also found another reason to ditch the explorer ECU. It has to do with the VSS and how the explorer gets the VSS signal. On the explorer the VSS is derived from the ABS System. You have to have the whole abs system in order to get the VSS Signal. With the Lincoln I get the signal from a sensor on the transmission. Luckily my transmission supports this.

[034v]

Going thru a somewhat similar deal myself. In my 89 Lincoln mark 7, used a P3M ECU from a late 93 5 liter Thunderbird to MAF convert it. Compiled a pretty decent XDF and oddly enough, it looks to be the "stepping stone ECU" for the CBAZA. All of this is shoved in to the car that is using a blow-thru slot style 05-up MAF and a 66mm snail.

Using a T5 from a 99-04 V6 for the better gearset and rating. VSS signal is having to be converted to avoid using a fox or a 94-98 tail housing which is hard (if not impossible) to get now..

So, having to utilize a Dakota Digital BT100 to get speed to show on the dash.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

Knock sensors... The MC-221 has 2 knock sensor inputs on pins 32 and 57. The 302 does not have provisions for mounting 2 knock sensors. There is a way to mount 1 on the back of the Motor. I think it is a leftover from a clutch pivot on the old 60's stuff. There is also a spot that I can drill and tap on the area behind the intake manifold.

Can one of the knock sensor be disabled and not cause problem in the ECU?
Or Can I just wire both inputs to the same sensor?
Or Can I use something like this and bolt it to the back of the head?

41asYPJcRbL._AC_SX466_.jpg

I would like to keep the knock sensor feature but there is really no need for 2 when 1 will do the job well enough.

[034v]

KS can be completely disabled, or switch se to 1. However, there isn't a way to designate which sensor gets killed.

Switch Type 0, 1, 2

[Silver_69_Coupe]

I am working through the wiring on this and ran across a question pertaining to the VSS. I see the ECU has an input for the VSS. My Current setup has a VSS that goes to the speedometer. How do I deal with this? Do I run the VSS signal to the speedometer and the ECU in parallel. Or is there a pin on the ECU that I can get the VSS Signal from for my speedometer?

The other question is about pin 48 Tachometer out, On the Explore ECU it is there. On the MLC-221 (98 Lincoln Mark VIII) it is marked Not used. My assumption is that the Tachometer Signal is there but not used in the schematic I found. Is this assumption correct?

[86GT]

Not sure why you want to change coil to LS unless you are running some serious compression or boost. You can run the COP in series on a waste spark and not have to change the PCM. I run the Explorer PCM on a 428CJ but I left it as waste spark.

I believe the VSS is pin 58 on the PCM. I ran the VSS to the PCM and piggy backed off of that for the speedo. I have a Autometer speedo. The PCM uses the OSS sensor to generate a vehicle speed and thus the VSS can be disabled in the PCM. You can then have a dedicated VSS for the speedo.

Yes the tach is pin 48 on the explorer.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

Not sure why you want to change coil to LS unless you are running some serious compression or boost. You can run the COP in series on a waste spark and not have to change the PCM. I run the Explorer PCM on a 428CJ but I left it as waste spark.

I did not look into that option. But that sounds like a good compromise for what I am doing. Do you have pictures of your setup?

[86GT]

Not the best image for the install but there is a link in my signature for alot of detailed pics

[Silver_69_Coupe]

Not the best image for the install but there is a link in my signature for alot of detailed pics

I have been looking for an ECU Bracket like what you are using. Where did you find that one?

[86GT]

I went to the wrecking yard and got it out of a ranger. I believe the explorer uses the same one. Here is a pick when i was mocking everything up.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

I went to the wrecking yard and got it out of a ranger. I believe the explorer uses the same one. Here is a pick when i was mocking everything up.

I found a cast metal one.
Donor was a 2003 Ford Escape.
Ranger and Explorers had them but they were fastened from behind the dash. Very difficult to get to.
The 96-2000 Explorers were built into the body. Made out of sheet metal.
The 2003 Escape was pretty easy. Just 2 Bolts on the bracket under the plastic cowl. And the bolts that hold the ECU and Harness in place.

[86GT]

I think I saw the metal one once and noticed it was not open in the rear for a Quarterhorse access. I went with the plastic one so that i could live tune. Once the tuning was done i would flash the PCM with the tune so i could remove the QH.

The metal one has the bracket at the back for support which is good.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

I think I saw the metal one once and noticed it was not open in the rear for a Quarterhorse access. I went with the plastic one so that i could live tune. Once the tuning was done i would flash the PCM with the tune so i could remove the QH.

The metal one has the bracket at the back for support which is good.

I am planning on modifying this so the QuarterHorse will fit. The back bracket holes will work out great. Even if I have to cut one out for QuarterHorse.

Right now I am still planning. I have most of the stuff for the EFI fuel delivery conversion.

I am questioning how the Return-less system is supposed to work. Most of the stuff I am reading talks about PCM Fuel pumps controlled by either a controller or the ECU. Or using an adjustable regulator that is not controlled by the ECU. But some have the return coming off of the regulator and some are coming off of the fuel rails. But looking at the fuel system in the Explorer I am not understanding how it works.

The question I have not answered is how does the ECU know what pressure is in the fuel system. Doesn't it need to know so it can calculate the duty cycle for the injectors? I do not see a sensor. I see a tank pressure input on the ECU but I think that is to control the EVAP system. I am not sure what the function of FP MON is. Is that the Fuel pressure monitor and if so where is it supposed to be. I do not have one on the rails that came with the motor. And looking at the schematic it looks like it just senses weather or not power is to the fuel pump.

This is on the Explore ECU.
Pin Net Color Function
12 29 (YE/WH) FUEL GAUGE/LVL
40 238 (DG/YE) FP MON
56 191 (LG/BK) PURGE
62 791 (RD/PK) Tank Pres
80 926 (LB/OG) FP RLY

[86GT]

The 96-98 explorers were return style which is exactly what you are doing. The 99+ explorer is a mechanical returnless. It has a regulator in the tank and the pressure is regulated to something like 58psi. In the READ strategy you can turn the fuel system back to return style. You will also have to disable PATs.

Fuel is calculated based on the static 58 PSI and the inferred Vacuum or manifold pressure. Vacuum is 2" per 1 PSI as a rough conversion. The PCM takes 58 PSI and subtracts the inferred vacuum *2. The math is different in the PCM but i think you get the general idea. All of this changes if you convert it back to return style. The explorer also has a pulsation device in the fuel line near the injector rail. I dont recall the technical name for it. It try's to prevent pressure variations in the line.

Depending the HP that you plan to make and the fuel line sizes will dictate the fuel line routing. Most people just mimic the fox body mustang. On high HP application people will "Y" the fuel line into the front of the injector rails and then "Y" it into the regulator at the back and then into one return line. Just make sure to make the supply and the return the same size. DO NOT make the return smaller than the supply like ford did.

These are just my opinion...


Where are you going to mount the PCM bracket in the 69?

[Silver_69_Coupe]

I am still figuring out where to mount the PCM Bracket. I like where you mounted yours but I have my Electrical distribution and my door control system there now. (My door handles are shaved and open with a remote.)
I have no heater or AC but intend to add it back in. My firewall was rusted out so bad that I replaced it. You can see what I mean in the picture I am attaching. I will probably put my PCM close to the same place as yours. I need to figure out how much room I need for the HVAC System first.

The HVAC system is low hanging fruit. I am hoping to get the EFI going by fall. Then get the HVAC and Interior done this winter. I am hoping to get it back on the road by spring.

I looked at the fuel pump setup that comes in the 2000 Explorer and see what you are talking about.

[86GT]

Looks good

The 42 pin connector may make it to the passenger inner fender. You could then make the 42 pin connector a bulk head type connector. You could then mound the PCM bracket in the inner fender behind the rocksheild. I mounted my vacuum resivor there.

Only thing I would recommend is to make sure that it is mounted high away from the exhaust, if it is in the engine bay. It gets warm in there. Just mount it as high as possible and below the pinch weld on the upper and lower cowl. Mine is real close to the fuel regulator and it is real tight.

I assembled a Bussman fusebox and mounted it under the battery. I ran the wires under the fender over to the PCM. I would do it differently today but hind sight is 20/20.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

Battery is in the trunk. Power distribution (Ground, Ignition and Constant 12V) is behind where a stereo would be. The fuse box is down by the brake pedal. The 104 pin connector might be in the engine compartment with the ECU portion in the passengers compartment. Like they did on the Explorers, Rangers and Pickups. The 42 Pin connector you are referring to will be eliminated.

The inner fenders on this car are different. It is 2 pieces that covers the back of the headlight on the front and the door hinge and pinch weld on the back. 90 percent of the inside fender is exposed. There is no room to put anything in there. Unless I build a water and impact proof box for it.

yhst-13525187779972_2268_130490512.gif

I have considered using some Aviation Bulkhead connectors like these.

51R2fyMzhcL._AC_SL1200__resize.jpg

And mounting the PCM on the floor in front the shifter under the dash.

It would make a very clean looking install. They are rated for 5 amps, 220F, and have a IP68 Water rating.

[86GT]

Never seen that first picture. Is that part of the inner fender? The aviation connector may not be enough as far as current. The coils take more than 5 amps. You can use more pins but that is not advisable. This is why the 42 pin connector had 4 heavy duty pins on the corners. The trans takes about 4 amps with all solenoids energized. HEGOs take up to 3 amp each. If you break the circuits apart you might be able to get in the 5 amp limitation.

[Silver_69_Coupe]

The first picture is the splash guards for the 69 Mustang. It does not have a wheel guard like you would see on other cars. The inner fender if completely exposed. They only put splash guards that protect the headlight connectors and the door hinges.

I am reluctant to use those connectors. The pins don't look big enough for even 5 amps.

I think the ECU through the firewall is my best option. The hardest part is finding just the right spot and doing it without damaging the paint. Lots of tape and a very steady hand with a die grinder. I don't think the Plasma cutter is an option. Not enough room from the inside and cutting from the outside might start a fire. Otherwise it would work. The metal does not get hot enough to damage the paint.