[Shaker666]

Hey folks,

I'm about to embark on a fuel injection mission and am searching for some answers. My '79 Bronco has a 400M motor and I've got a ported GT-40 351W lower, Cobra upper, and X3Z EEC, MAF, injectors (have 30 lb/hr units too, but X3Z is calibrated for 24s, so I might stick with those for now), 65mm TB, etc.

1) Can anyone could tell me whether the engine and injection harness from a '95 F150 is MAF based?
2) Can I plug in an X3Z computer to the '95 F150 harness and expect full SEFI functionality?

If all is looking good, I think I just need a set of intake manifold adapters from Price Motorsport and I literally have the rest of the parts for the conversion. Of course, I'll probably be TwEECing it at some point to get rid of the EGR and thermactor.

Thanks,
- Shaker

[cgrey8]

If you are going to be tweaking on the tune, then start off expecting to tune. And don't mess with the TwEECer. Use the Moates Quarterhorse instead. Read over the FAQ about what to know BEFORE buying a TwEECEr/QH for more details.

I wish I could answer your F150 wiring harness issue, but I don't know the answer for sure. Although I believe most trucks in the mid to early 90s were all speed-density.

[Shaker666]

The only reason I would be tweaking the tune would be to compensate for some sort of driveability issue. I plan on using the Cobra MAF kit (X3Z computer, 24 lb/hr injectors, and 70mm MAF that comes in the kit) and am hoping that everything will work fine with the 408 cid engine...

[cgrey8]

You'll need to hope real hard on that. Chances are you will have issues. They may not be major issues, but a 400M is not a 302 Cobra. Spark advance needs, displacement, expectation of EGR, warm-up enrichment needs, WOT enrichment needs, its all going to be different. Add to that, the EEC is going to be measuring the air and calculating that to an engine load value to determine spark advance, fueling, and a few other things. The amount of air the 400 can take in is going to be much higher than a 302 so the EEC is going to calculate engine load much higher than it actually is on the engine. The negative side-effect is that as you increase the throttle, the EEC will force Open Loop sooner and pull spark advance further than it really should for the actual engine load condition BOTH of which could severely hinder fuel economy and performance at non WOT conditions.

[Shaker666]

Yeah, fair enough. I've got a line on a Tweecer RT through another tuner on this site, so I may as well invest in another unit. The engine rarely sees anything over 3000 RPM, however... and it's got a nice cam, intake, and headers. It runs great with an Edelbrock 600cfm carb at the moment. I'm not sure what to do about the exhaust, however... I've got one bung in the Y-pipe already for an O2, but not sure if I need to add another one and can bypass/reprogram a secondary.

[cgrey8]

If you haven't bought the TwEECer yet, seriously consider a Quarterhorse (QH) instead. The QH can do pretty much anything a TwEECer RT can and MORE for cheaper than you can get a new TwEECer RT. Although if you are getting a sweet deal on a TwEECer RT, then go for it.

Just make sure what you are getting is a TwEECer RT and not a TwEECer Base. If it is a TwEECer Base, don't bother with it unless it is $50 or less. The TwEECer Base isn't going to get you datalogging, which is what you need to solve driveability issues. A TwEECer Base can be upgraded to a TwEECer RT, but it can only be done by Mike Glover and I believe he charges somewhere around $150 for it. Between that and buying a TwEECer Base, you'd be better off spending your money on the QH.

All this is explained in that FAQ about what you need to know BEFORE buying a TwEECer or QH. If you haven't read it, do so unless you are confident you already know what you need to about EEC tuning.

[Shaker666]

If you haven't bought the TwEECer yet, seriously consider a Quarterhorse (QH) instead. The QH can do pretty much anything a TwEECer RT can and MORE for cheaper than you can get a new TwEECer RT. Although if you are getting a sweet deal on a TwEECer RT, then go for it.

Just make sure what you are getting is a TwEECer RT and not a TwEECer Base. If it is a TwEECer Base, don't bother with it unless it is $50 or less. The TwEECer Base isn't going to get you datalogging, which is what you need to solve driveability issues. A TwEECer Base can be upgraded to a TwEECer RT, but it can only be done by Mike Glover and I believe he charges somewhere around $150 for it. Between that and buying a TwEECer Base, you'd be better off spending your money on the QH.

All this is explained in that FAQ about what you need to know BEFORE buying a TwEECer or QH. If you haven't read it, do so unless you are confident you already know what you need to about EEC tuning.

I am an incredibly cheap bastard, so I was actually looking for a Tweecer base because I would've been able to use the RT from my 5.0 to tune the truck and use the base in the Mustang in the mean time. I was also looking into building the circuitry myself since it is actually not very difficult to construct a serial comms interface with the ECU. It's definitely quicker to simply buy the interface, so I'll do a bit of research. Thanks for the suggestion.

[cgrey8]

Building the hardware is harder than it seems. The connection to the EEC is not serial-based. When you chip a Ford EEC, you are LITERALLY replacing the onboard ROM chip with your own chip. So the com with the EEC is parallel TTL memory bus com that is running at 1+MHz. So yeah, buying the hardware is far cheaper than trying to reinvent that wheel.

[Shaker666]

Building the hardware is harder than it seems. The connection to the EEC is not serial-based. When you chip a Ford EEC, you are LITERALLY replacing the onboard ROM chip with your own chip. So the com with the EEC is parallel TTL memory bus com that is running at 1+MHz. So yeah, buying the hardware is far cheaper than trying to reinvent that wheel.

Point taken. I've got another TwEECer RT on its way from another board member.

I started to get really concerned about the VSS, but after looking at the A9L binary it appears to be possible to disable the VSS altogether via VSTYPE. At this stage I'm considering building a new binary using X3Z and D9E2 as base binaries (D9E2 is stock '89 351W). I'd be looking at migrating things like spark and fueling from the Bronco.

[Shaker666]

Does anyone know if disabling VSS (setting VSTYPE to 0) works ok?

[Shaker666]

It doesn't look like the VSS will pose any issues at all.

Does anyone know where I can find some nice aftermarket 36-1 trigger wheels for the EDIS-8 conversion?

[cgrey8]

The most popular place I know of is off Explorer 5.0L balancers. There could easily be other engines/vehicles that will also work for you.

[Shaker666]

The most popular place I know of is off Explorer 5.0L balancers. There could easily be other engines/vehicles that will also work for you.

I found a '97 Exploder Eddie Bauer V8 today and I worked on pulling that damper for an hour, but I just couldn't get it. I need to go back to the yard with a giant crowbar to keep the motor from spinning when I yoke on the breaker bar. I did manage to score the cam sync sensor w/housing and the coil mount bracket for $40 combined, though. Main issue with the damper is that I can't see any crank pulley bolts, so I'm not sure I can remove it even if I get the damper bolt out! If there are other vehicles I could source the trigger wheel from, I'd love to know which ones. I know there are a myriad of V6 Fords that have them... will those work?

[cgrey8]

I'll leave it to other people to answer about other vehicles. If you go back to the Explorer 5.0L, don't forget to get the pickup sensor that reads the balancer's wheel too.

Worst case scenario, I have a balancer that I'm taking off of my Explorer engine. It has a small chip out of the pulley, but a little JB weld or something like that, and it should be fine:


I haven't yet muscled it off my engine yet and I expect it to be a PITA. Although it's on an engine stand so I can get an impact wrench and torches in there much easier than I imagine you could with the engine you were struggling with.

[Tipo874]

BTW, you can't use that 5.0 balancer directly on that 400. The 5.0 balancer is a 50oz unit while the older engines use 28oz balancers.

I've been trying to find a 28oz balancer with a trigger wheel, but have been unsuccessful sofar, which is why I mounted the wheel on the crank pulley.

[Shaker666]

BTW, you can't use that 5.0 balancer directly on that 400. The 5.0 balancer is a 50oz unit while the older engines use 28oz balancers.

I've been trying to find a 28oz balancer with a trigger wheel, but have been unsuccessful sofar, which is why I mounted the wheel on the crank pulley.

To complicate things further, I don't quite remember whether my balancer is setup for internal or external balancing either. I have an SFI 28oz small block Ford balancer sitting here on my countertop... is it possible that would fit the 400? It has a convenient location to mount a universal trigger wheel from trigger-wheels.com, as you suggested. Otherwise it's back to the junkyard to try and get that 302 damper off... without any crank pulley bolts, of course.

[Tipo874]

BTW, you can't use that 5.0 balancer directly on that 400. The 5.0 balancer is a 50oz unit while the older engines use 28oz balancers.

I've been trying to find a 28oz balancer with a trigger wheel, but have been unsuccessful sofar, which is why I mounted the wheel on the crank pulley.

To complicate things further, I don't quite remember whether my balancer is setup for internal or external balancing either. I have an SFI 28oz small block Ford balancer sitting here on my countertop... is it possible that would fit the 400? It has a convenient location to mount a universal trigger wheel from trigger-wheels.com, as you suggested. Otherwise it's back to the junkyard to try and get that 302 damper off... without any crank pulley bolts, of course.

Yes, that 28oz balancer will likely work. I have an aftermarket balancer that needs a thin spacer between the damper and pulley and I had planned to shrink-fit the wheel on the spacer, but the original wheel is thicker than the spacer, and the aftermarket wheel would have worked, with a shim, but it needs machining.

[cgrey8]

I believe 50oz balancers can be drilled for 28oz balance applications. I've heard of people doing this when they do 331/347 stroker upgrades. So instead of replacing stock or 302-aftermarket components, they just modify them to work with the stroker kit. Personally, I'm hoping to purchase a 331 stroker kit that is 50oz balanced so I don't have to worry about it.

[Shaker666]

I bit the bullet and shelled out for a universal crank trigger wheel. Not only will it be easier to design mounting for, it's as cheap if not cheaper than finding one at the wreckers. I ended up going with this one: http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/34-3 ... p-181.html

Now I'm focusing on the fuel system. I've currently got the stock 1979 tank, which has no baffles or sumps. It has 5/16" line going into a coarse pre-filter then to a Holley "Red" low pressure pump which feeds the stock steel fuel line. I'm considering installing a Fram HPG1 canister style 10 micron filter between the Holley and an Aeromotive or Walbro high pressure pump. Thinking of running steel braided with AN fittings aft of the high pressure pump, but using the stock steel fuel line. Power is roughly 350 horsepower, so not concerned about major fuel delivery needs. It's a 4x4 work truck. Any concerns I should be having about that design?

[Shaker666]

I solved the fuel system issue with one Walbro 255 external inline pump, twin Trickflow filters on either end, and a bunch of -6 AN fittings to connect it all together. The neatest thing I've seen are the tube to AN adapters, making retrofit upgrades like mine a breeze. I'm able to use my stock lines and mount AN fittings directly on the ends.

I'm now debating on how much injector and MAF I need for the 408. It's a stout motor with a strong torquey cam and the heads flow really well. The truck dynoed 330 horse and around 450 ft-lbs of torque carb'd. These are my options based on what's sitting on the shelf:

• C&L 73mm or 76mm bodies
• Ford 55mm and 70mm Cobra MAF sensors
• C&L green and red tubes
• set of 24# and 30# injectors

Would the Cobra 70mm MAF w/24# injectors be enough for the 408? Is a C&L 76mm body a better unit than the 73mm body? Just can't decide...

[Shaker666]

Ummm guys? I have a major problem. Does anyone make an elbow or anything to alleviate this problem?

BroncoTB_interfere_web.jpg

(493.81 KiB) Downloaded 2899 times

[cgrey8]

Umm, you mean a 90° throttle body elbow like this:


(96-97 Explorer elbow)

Or this:

(97-2001 Explorer elbow)

Or maybe all you need is 45°:

Trick Flow SN95 Adapter Elbow

There's also this style:

(Trick Flow 96-01 Mustang & Cougar intake elbow)

I have a 97-01 Elbow that has a broken off bolt in the EGR provision. I don't have any plans for it. If you decide you can use it, let me know.

[Shaker666]

Thanks for that wealth of potential solutions, Chris. I was/am seriously stressing about this one.

I also found a thread on Corral where someone installed the intake rotated 180* (so the TB faces the driver side): http://forums.corral.net/forums/showpos ... stcount=12

I suppose this might only be possible when the intake is symmetrical like the GT-40/Cobra/Explorer upper, which is what I'm using (Cobra upper). Only real concern is the 180* bend that the throttle cable must make, unless I'm overlooking something else... again... like maybe the plenum itself won't even fit the other way round!

[cgrey8]

I know Ranger guys that put their plenum on backwards, but only because the engine was setup that way to start with (came out of a Grand Marquis). The back side of the plenum DID have issues with the AC Box. They were able to work around it, but it wasn't a perfect solution.

But as you can see from my pics (1st two pics posted are my elbow), it fits and works just fine. Since I'm using the Explorer TB, bracketry, and everything, the throttle cable just routes across the top of the engine and pulls forward to open the plate. I'll see if I can get pics of it posted tonight. The catch is Mustang and Explorer TBs open in oposite directions. So to set that up, you may have to do some welding to your TB so the cable pulls the TB open in the right direction. It's not a big deal. Many people have done that.

[Shaker666]

I messed around with the setup a bit today and I've decided that running the plenum rotated 180* is the best way forward. I can use the 65mm throttle body I've got without modifications, stock Mustang throttle cable bracket, and just run a 180* loop for the cable. The main reason this configuration works best in my application is because it clears the A/C lines much better and I don't need to buy any more junk. I still have to notch the firewall to clear the upper plenum, but this would need to be done regardless of the orientation. The engine is set really far back in the Bronco... a lot more so than I thought.

Took a few shots as it's coming together today. Here's a shot of the PME adapters installed and torqued down after tapping the 4 holes required in the block:

PMEadapters_installed.jpg

Very nice and clean setup from Price Motorsports

(479.9 KiB) Downloaded 2836 times

The 351 lower had to be clearanced to accomodate the thermostat housing as well:

thermohousing_mods.jpg

Intake manifold clearancing for 351C/400M thermostat housing

(523.33 KiB) Downloaded 2836 times

The fuel rail is from a '95 EFI 351W van and the feed had to be bent back to clear the plenum:

fuelrailmods.jpg

Fuel rail feed and return line

(426.15 KiB) Downloaded 2836 times

Port alignment looks pretty good with the PME adapters:

portalignment.jpg

Port alignment with adapters is pretty good

(257.03 KiB) Downloaded 2836 times

[Shaker666]

I've made a little bit of progress, but the intake I bought (from ChargedGT on Corral) had a crack in #5 cylinder. Between clearancing it for the M block and welding the crack it had to return to the machine shop 3 times. Three's a charm!

Here's some shots of the work with the manifold finally installed with lots of clearance front to rear. Also performed a 3G alternator upgrade while I was in there. The stock unit was already underpowered. Does anyone know how to stab the cam sync sensor? Do I need to ensure it's positioned at some angle of rotation when the engine is at TDC?

IMG_1755.JPG

Completed lower intake installation

(116.63 KiB) Downloaded 2808 times

IMG_1752.JPG

3G alternator upgrade

(194.59 KiB) Downloaded 2808 times

IMG_1753.JPG

ECT sensor mounting position

(167.6 KiB) Downloaded 2808 times

IMG_1756.JPG

36-1 trigger wheel on balancer... need to mount VR sensor next...

(157.17 KiB) Downloaded 2808 times

[cgrey8]

I just posted a thread in the hw forum about how to setup one of those cam sensors. Check it out and see if it gives you what you need.

[decipha]

be sure the next time you yank the intake you take a few minutes and open up the head, that lip sticking into the port is a big stop sign, it being off to the side isn't as detrimental as if it was up top so it won't make much if any difference down low, but on the top end you could probably gain 5-10 more hp but taking that lip out

im sure you already knew this but i was just further reiterating your mindset

oh and also, has anyone ever mounted the engine further up to get more clearance in the bronco's and ranger's ?? seems like it's much needed from what i hear

[Shaker666]

He he, yeah, that port alignment is going to sacrifice some top end power, for sure. Fortunately, the engine rarely sees 3000 RPM. It's just something that has to be lived with if you're going to run a Windsor intake on a Cleveland. The ports are shaped very differently. It's a wonder that they line up at all!

Not sure what you mean when you're asking about mounting the engine further up to get more clearance. In my situation, the engine sits too high and too set back. I was originally planning to run a 3/8" phenolic spacer between the upper and lower intakes, but the upper barely fits under the firewall flange as it is. We had to notch it in order to get one of the back plenum bolts in! If anything, moving the engine slightly forward would've helped, but that would probably have adversely affected the 4x4's already dismal handling performance. Notching the firewall wasn't a big deal... maybe 20 minutes of time spent in clearancing.

[Shaker666]

Well, much thanks to Indy2000 for helping me along, as well as CC Racing for the last minute machine work where necessary, but the Bronco is now officially running SEFI and EDIS8 on the stock 400M block. The engine was rebuilt about 50,000 miles ago, so it's not totally stock actually (cam, headers, intake, etc.). I was surprised that the EDIS just worked. It wasn't difficult to get working at all.

More pics to come, but here's a few snaps after fire up and before retiring for the evening.

Bronco_1stFire_passside.jpg

An overview of the engine. Coil packs, check. 3G upgrade, check. SEFI, check.

(560.56 KiB) Downloaded 2760 times

Bronco_1stFire_coilpacks.jpg

Here you can see the coil packs mounted using the stock '96 Exploder bracket, cut down and drilled to mount on top of the compressor. Wires needs to be replaced and routed neatly, of course.

(580.1 KiB) Downloaded 2760 times

Bronco_1stFire_driverside.jpg

This monstrosity has to go... and be mounted lower to clear the hood. This is only what we used for 1st fire.

(559.17 KiB) Downloaded 2760 times