Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Performance OBD1 manifolds on OBD2 car?

I know I'll need an o2 sensor bung for the front manifold. I also read that the EGR connection is different? Is this true? If this is true, could I just splice the connector from the obd-1 car onto the EGR tube for my 1998 se?

Last I checked, when replacing manifolds on a 95, Ford uses a 96+ manifold with the O2 sensor hole filled in. Leads me to believe that the 95 manifolds should work just fine once you put the rear O2 bung in.

My 95 (OBD I) has the bungs in it for 4 O2 sensors (OBD II). Don't know why they just didn't skip the EEC-IV and go right to the V with a brand new engine. My 95 Windstar, with the out-dated 3.8L pushrod 6 was OBD-II. So in the same year, Ford took an old engine and gave it a new computer, and a new engine and gave it the old computer. Ford must work with the Governement a lot.... :rolleyes:

That OBD-II EEC-V on your 95 Windstar probably cost a small fortune to make at the time (relatively speaking), since at the time Ford was making gobs of OBD-I EEC-IV and ramping up production of OBD-II models on a new production line. Capacity was very low at first on the new OBD-II model as they were trying to get the process right, explaining the small number of vehicle lines using it in 95. There are quite a few differences in the manufacture of the EEC-V compared to the EEC-IV (double sided reflow, new thermally conductive adhesive, spray coating instead of dip coating, new ring casting/heatsink and connectors). Of course, they all had to use it in 96 so the line had to be "proved out" before being completely dependant on the new process for all vehicle lines. There's more to launching a new product than flipping the switch on the new line and walking away.

I understand all that, PA, but think about it- wouldn't it be more cost effective to incorporate the new computer with the new engine. It had to have it the following year anyway, so it was inevitable. Now Ford has to maintain stockpiles of both systems for the Contour, rather than just the OBD II system they would have had to have if they used it right off the bat.

It doesn't make sense that they used the EEC-IV one year only, and then every year after would be EEC-V. It would have been much more cost effective to introduce EEC-V on the Contour's Duratech than the 3.8L pushrod, given that the 3.8L had already established itself with the EEC-IV and its related systems.

LOL!

You're missing two points Sandman:

1) When Ford builds (and stockpiles) an EEC, it is already flashed with its code. Has to be, so they can be tested (and assigned a part number) before they are put in a box. So, no matter if the 95 Contour was EEC-IV or EEC-V, there still have to be a few boxes somewhere specifically for 95 Contours. Ford doesn't have a single "blank" PCM sitting around a warehouse waiting for a code flash.

2) Developing initial EEC-V applications early (i.e. for 95MY) for an established engine exposes Ford to less design risk than trying to do it on a brand new engine. The sensors, packaging, etc. were much less likely to move around on a 95 Windstar 3.8L OHV engine (already well established) than on a brand new engine in a brand new car. So, the guys designing the EEC-V had a pretty well established (and well understood) engine to work with, instead of an engine that could change for a variety of reasons prior to launch.

This is conjecture, but I would not be surprised if the Duratec design was kicked off internally to Ford before the EEC-V, thus the engine was originally planned with an EEC-IV system. Switching to EEC-V midstream would throw timing way off. Most likely, there was a parallel EEC-V team working on the 96 once it was identified as a need.

Also, the material cost of an EEC-IV is less than an EEC-V (as well as variable cost in 1994 - economies of scale), thus allowing the program to meet its cost/price goals more easily (a VERY important measurable in a new vehicle launch). When they went to EEC-V in 96 either the selling price had to increase, the material content had to decrease, or the per unit profit had to decrease. We all know what Ford prefers to do in this situation. :rolleyes:

Trust me on this; I used to draw a paycheck as an engineer at the plant that makes these parts. I also worked closely with the engineer responsible for developing some of the new processes for the EEC-V. Ford didn't choose the method if EEC-V introduction that would cost them more money when looking at the big picture.

I understand what you are saying, but my point is this:

The EEC-IV uses certain systems and components that differ from the V system (IMRC to name one system). It would seem cheaper just to continue using EEC-IV systems on an engine for which they have been tried and tested (3.8L, just need to be reflashed for the Windstar, as it was also new that year), and standardize all systems for a new engine (EEC-V on the Duratech), rather than deal with 2 completely different systems on that engine (again, Duratech). Considering that, why not just put OBD-II on both vehicles. Both were new for 95, and required completely new wiring harnesses, so why not standardize right off the bat? To me, that would have made the most sense. The logistics of supporting the different wiring harnesses itself would seem, to me, to be cost prohibitive as far as switching engine management systems mid-stream, since they had to know a good deal ahead of time that OBD-II was a requirement for 96+. They already had the EEC-IV system in place for the Windstar in 95 (from other vehicles using it, namely the Taurus, on which platform the Windstar is based).

Not trying to argue with you, it's just that the logistics of it all doesn't make economic sense to me.

whoa, car history aside, anyone else have any thoughts on my question? Thanks for your input, everyone!