5.0 distributorless with 5 speed?????????

[rocket 5979]

Also if the thread starter is going to be 4 wheeling with his truck, I recommend the EEC-v (Explorer) fuel injection system further. Not only for the late model dependability but for further dependability with water contamination. No distributor to get saturated so no worrys about misfire and cleaning distributors at the most inopportune time. I have used a DIS system and feel it should be mandatory for any deep water crossing and mudding, period. I had CJ7 I built and always wandered how to put on a DIS system to eliminate the bogging and misfires associated with deep water crossing. I am only throwing all the stuff on the table for the threadstarter to determine what is the best way to go..-j

Um, so what your saying is that distributor vehicles are prone to water logging while offroading??? Thats just craaazy talk there!!! I suppose you also expect us to run tires that are round too, instead of the square caveman ones??? Whatever, just give me a EEC-IV and a screwdriver and all problems will be solved.

 

[reserved50]

I have no idea what point you are talking about, all over the map like you're looking for a pointless arguement, antisocial etc, scary. Point is EEC-IV requires no extra work to tune, you do not need to tune it, there is NO REASON TO (capitals for the dense population)=YOU SAVE MONEY AND TIME. This is where bench racers usually chime in with many mods listed in thier signature, usually which has a bug of its own to work out.

Yes im 100% sure hes going to want over 1000hp on a Bronco II(being sarcastic for the bench racers again). I've heard better ideas from the Springer show. According to your logic you must be pretty amazed how the EEC-IV can even run lol, I dont know what to tell you, keep hacking that EEC-V and tell people you are "tooner".
Anyone that doesnt seal the distributer from water or submerges it past that point has issues anyways, I see how some people think this way,I agree with you totally now *backs away*. He also did not state how extreme the vehicle was being used, one can assume, thats where you run into people that have all these "projects" and predictions that never truly work out, I've seen quite a few of them on the internet *coughs*

 

[reserved50]

Right now EEC-IV is the best Ford EEC to choose for swaps, EEC-V is only a good swap if you’re going to use all its vehicle control functions. EEC-VI is starting to hit the streets. EEC-VI will not only replace EEC-V, but make EEC-V more appealing to aftermarket venders. Listen for future technology.

thank you, just one out of several articles I found, if he had a 4R70W etc whatever I would of said EEC-V also.

http://fordfuelinjection.com/?p=3

5-speed , doesnt need a jillion hp whatever lol , and a simple swap from what I read on the post (no certain features needed mentioned)= EEC-IV


read up, its like talking to oil jockies or apprentices sometimes, just because they can turn a wrench or plug into an OBDII doesnt mean anything, I've met my fair share

 

[ziggyofthenorth]

Sorry for causing world war III

I'm sorry to start such a dispute. I probably should have posted somewhere else on the site, but most people who do the swap live where inspections and emissions testing doesn't exist and they opt for carburators and probably Duraspark II ignition. I figured that it would be much easier to find someone running a stick in a V8 Explorer to answer my questions.

Included in my engine purchase is the wiring and computer, along with motor mounts and some other odd pieces under the hood. An enemic late 70's 302 would be an improvement over the tired 140K 2.9 (assuming it is the original engine). More is better, but this swap actually started with reliability for me. I like to play in the woods. Four wheeling is a means to an end for me, but I tend to go down ATV trails and all sorts of odd places. I don't set out for mud bogs. rock crawling, or catching air...then again, I don't always know what I'll find by accident. Most of these places are inaccessable to tow trucks. Not much bigger than a Bronco II, Explorer Sport, or a CJ can get back there. I need to get a dash cam.

I appreciate all the info, but I'm still a bit foggy on the details. I'm sure I'll understand once I go through the actual motions though. What will tuning cost though??? I still assume that it is cheaper and easier in my situation, compared to finding an unbutchered EEC IV harness and computer and buying it with all the other little things I may need to convert over.

Thanks,

Ziggy

 

[CDW6212R]

Quote, of myself "...Unless you leave it absolutely bone stock as an 86-95 302, the only wise choice is to use OBDII...."

If you started with an 86-95 302 engine and left it that way, you would achieve excellent driveability with the 225hp it makes stock. The point we have made here is that if it is not a bone stock 302HO engine, then the EECIV computer would require you to trick it to operate better than it will with no tuning. That would take more expertise, money, and a chip or device which tricks the PCM(tweaker, FMU).

Ziggy you mention having a 98 Explorer 302 lined up. Great, the best PCM for it is the OBDII from that truck, plus the wiring harness, and all front dress(accessories/brackets). With just that, no tweaker, FMU, or other special EECIV crutches, you can have the PCM tuned to function with any combination.

Speak with James above, he is very well recommended to tune these trucks. He will give you the most feasible option to be able to make it work with the manual trans, no PATS etc. The cost will be comparable to what the gadgets for tricking the EECIV would cost, but the driveability will be far better. Regards,

 

[reserved50]

I know people that have stuck with carb and not upgraded and they have driven carb vehicles before and they dont mind, sure the less fuel economy, driveability etc. I personally couldnt, including the Duraspark. Personal preference for some. All the Bronco IIs I have seen are EFI though (made from a donor 5.0 Moostang, since they are a dime a dozen), if it came with EFI I always say stick with it, dont downgrade. A stand alone EFI system probably wouldnt be worth the cost to do so.
Its best to have both trucks almost side by side, makes it so much easier especially with harness routing, the EEC-V is a good choice after you get thru the little odds and ends but its a more reliable system than the EEC-IV(ignition modules, no moving parts etc). It'll even track missfires down to a certain cyl to help diagnose problems.You WILL have more wiring and connectors for sure wired into the rest of the vehicle because its slightly more complex than the older control unit (location for ports, could be tied into ABS, PATS, alarm sys wiring etc), so you might have unused connectors depending on setup. Then theres functions with the EVAP system that might code on you and could be eliminated with a tune, so in that way most of the emission functions of the EEC-V (and one main purpose of the upgrade to OBD-II) will be disabled by the tuner, unless you want to go thru the trouble of installing almost every component from the Exploder over.
Its doable but carb being the easiest, then EEC-IV then EEC-V, I only said before dont go with EEC-V because of the setup time and tune cost, ( I think I said it over and over but some people kept missing the "time and cost" part and wanted to be noticed or something ) . I could say EEC-V but for some people it might be over their heads (experience) and money wise as the cost builds, but some people read too many magazines and dont try to figure out the finer details before posting.
Untouched EEC-IV harness with 5-speed comp, MAF sensor etc maybe around 500$ tops. Tuning is a general term, without a dyno its hit and miss if you have major mods, but for eliminating the auto side of it should be pretty basic even for a hack, over the counter tunes are iffy I personally think especially if you are trying to abstract more power unless you can give them a wideband datalog.
You have the entire EEC-V setup? so use it , just will take more time to setup, maybe double.

 

[rocket 5979]

I have no idea what point you are talking about, all over the map like you're looking for a pointless arguement, antisocial etc, scary. Point is EEC-IV requires no extra work to tune, you do not need to tune it, there is NO REASON TO (capitals for the dense population)=YOU SAVE MONEY AND TIME. This is where bench racers usually chime in with many mods listed in thier signature, usually which has a bug of its own to work out.

Yes im 100% sure hes going to want over 1000hp on a Bronco II(being sarcastic for the bench racers again). I've heard better ideas from the Springer show. According to your logic you must be pretty amazed how the EEC-IV can even run lol, I dont know what to tell you, keep hacking that EEC-V and tell people you are "tooner".
Anyone that doesnt seal the distributer from water or submerges it past that point has issues anyways, I see how some people think this way,I agree with you totally now *backs away*. He also did not state how extreme the vehicle was being used, one can assume, thats where you run into people that have all these "projects" and predictions that never truly work out, I've seen quite a few of them on the internet *coughs*

The EEC-IV requires no extra work to tune??? So when did twisting a distributor become "tuning"??? If you are going to talk about tuning you might want to have an idea of what it is first. There is much more to tuning and the advantages that come from it than global spark advance.

Your talk about bench racing is funny being that it seems you have never really tuned much of anything. Seems like that would be considered "bench racing" by many; since you prefer to throw that term around so often here lately.

The name of the game is not to have a 1,000 horsepower Bronco. Just because I like to create vehicles like that does not mean I assume everyone else will. What I was talking about and what James was talking about is efficiency. Why use archaic components and methods? The EEC-IV has its place in the vehicle world, just not in this application.

How can you say "Anyone that doesn't seal the distributer from water or submerges it past that point has issues anyways" and "He also did not state how extreme the vehicle was being used"??? It seems with those statements and a few you have made earlier in this thread that you are just stretching for some reason to justify your point of view in this matter. The difference here is that the point of view I am coming from had merit to begin with, which is why I stated it. Your point of view was just blurted out and now it seems you are trying to somehow fabricate merit to support it.

Your constantly disrespectful tone has not gone unnoticed either. Another child with a keyboard. At least you didn't go as nuts as what you used to months back...before you got yourself banned the first time. Maybe one day you will learn to actually conduct yourself in a respectable manner and keep things technical instead of trying to take personal shots at people in here.

 

[reserved50]

wow, again off topic, Im sure everyone has horrid results if they havent used this tuner, and turning the distributer has resulted in meltdowns, the missed point was its cost effective for a basically stock engine(missed serveral times again).
Yes a bench racer with explosive results or an outcome that wasnt expected.
Of course, it must not be used in this application, because it will not run with out the EEC-V and probably self destruct as soon as the engine is cranked, good point, I better call Ford to recall that ECU.
It wasnt stated at the time what the complete application was for and and some have assumed it was going to be submerged or something strange.
Once again we are civilians, you are not in vietnam so just chill. Yes as I recall your hostility was noticed, and you did stop posting after a mention of a ban now since you reminded me. You went to another board and you basically were confrontational there also, even more so possibly due to the time away from the keyboard. Disrespectful? only to some people that have great anger built up from years of neglect,( they usually lash out repeatedly and wont stop, like a train wreck, getting angrier each time), the internet brings this type out . You have once again turned it into a personal war, this is not the army lol. On another not I have met some bi-polar folks, they were very nice but hard to manage. I said it months ago, if you have anger on here PM me personally and keep these boards clean sir, any respectful adult should not fight over the internet like a tantrum throwing 2 year old, can you do that for me, thank you.
So bascially EEC-IV (like a broken) record is the best for time and cost and it gives you a better result at success because of the simplicity not knowing your technical knowledge, and with no tuning, distrubuter or thru the PCM as opposed to the EEC-V. It almost seems like some people want others to use the the newer setup to sell a tuner, I seriously hope not.

Once again, if anyone feels hostile, keep the boards clean and PM me I cant keep encouraging you on here to fuel your shrinking ego. Im going to make a wise bet on this and say you have to retaliate like a young-un' , PM me please.

 

[CDW6212R]

If the parts in hand(Ziggy has an OBDII 98 engine/parts) was an 86-95 engine and parts, then the choice between the OBDI and OBDII would be tough. Having one set of parts and changing(hunting the other parts), that would add time and cost.

He has the OBDII parts, virtually in hand - ready to acquire, those are the best to have. So why are we, any of us, arguing over the options? If he had the EECIV parts and was in a hurry or short on cash... That is not the topic of this thread, since he has a line on the best parts to get, support that and go on to the next thread.

Ziggy, I think that you have heard the best results to your question, I hope that you feel comfortable with your direction. Feel free to ask any details of little stuff that is inevitable with any swap. Many here have done something very similar. Regards,

 

[MountaineerGreen]

This thread is now closed. There is some good info here, but arguing back and forth only detracts from otherwise good stuff.