Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications 3.0L Duratec 3L up and running... sort of...

Yes, I know what the differences are. And I wasn't talking about EEC-IV in particular, OR the returnless system (SINCE THE PERSON WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHO POSTED THIS TOPIC, SAID HE HAD THE SYSTEM WITH RETURNLINE).
And just so you know, my Mustang did NOT have a MAP sensor (post-'89), and I was only using that car as an example, since that was the car that I first observed this condition. And I work on tons of cars every year that utilize this same aparatus on them, although they aren't all equipped with this. So, Mr. Genius, if you say I'm wrong, then why don't YOU tell everyone what the purpose is for the vacuum hose on the fuel pressure regulator on these cars equipped with this, since the ECM can compensate for everything just by changing the injector pulse width? Tell why they felt they needed to influence fuel pressure with a vacuum source.
You don't have to believe me. I really don't care if any of you do. Some of you Contour guys here are so stubborn, and think you got it all figured out.
That's why sometimes I get so sick of trying to help out here on Contour.org, because of people who just sit and piss on all my experience and act like they know everything there is. All the car forums just seem to have so much attitude in them, and they just tend to bring out my bad side lately.
Sorry for the stupid rant, I just had to get it off me, and good luck, I hope you guys figure all your car problems out.

You aren't wrong about the purpose of the Fuel Pressure Regulator! Lets get that straight. Thanks for your wonderful insight.

Now, what you are wrong about is the results of driving and EEC V car around with the fuel pressure regulator unplugged.
I will explain this slowly one more time.
-Because of the reasons about pressure differential that you have so elaborately outlined, the fuel delivery at WOT will not be as high as it should be.
-Hence the car will be running lean.
-Yes the FPR gives a 10psi spike to increase the fuel pressure so the the fuel delivery acts the same at various throttle positions, WHEN WORKING PROPERLY.

But what if it isn't?

Now use a little logic: If a system is designed to adjust fuel line pressure so that delivery is consistent depending on various manifold pressures; AND SUDDENLY, there is no compensation in the line pressure, VOILA! Not enough fuel for WOT use.

Last time I checked that meant a lean condition.

Lets babystep through the other part:

-EEC V computer.

-Car is first fired up and idling.

-Fuel pressure in the line is 55psi instead of 45psi due to NO VACUUM in the FPR.

-The pcm starts with the pre-programmed data tables just to make the car run.

- The higher pressure causes a rich condition in the exhaust and the PCM says "Oh MY! We have trim back the Fuel a bit" and then it does by lowering the pulse width.

- Life goes on and normal driving gets all trimmed in by the pcm, power emissions, everything is hunky dory.

-Now you go WOT and the pre-calculated tables that use adjustments provided by the the other driving conditions are not adequate to tell the pcm what fuel to deliver.

-This results in a LEAN CONDITION!

I hope that clarifies how you could be right about the FPR's purpose in life, but wrong about the end result of a lean condition because of it.


I just don't understand why it came to this...you could have nicely said:
"I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense."
"That does not compute."
"Could you please translate that?"
"Tell me what you are saying, because here is what I think you are saying." (for those less aggressive folk out there)

I would give you a list of my credentials, but I don't think it would matter. It usually doesn't impress me when someone else comes on and tells all the mechanical credentials etc. since I was a dealership technician (Chevy) and most of the Techs were just PART-Changers with fancier certificates on the wall. I was sick of that and I moved on afterwards, but that is another story.

Just remember that you started stomping your foot here first, but anyway in case that you were just having a bad day as you say: "No Problemo" "Have a better day now because this is piddly stuff that shouldn't get us riled up."

warmonger

All of this stuff is really great guys. I'm just curious how SVT_Nate is making out.

So don't scare him off, LOL.

TB

You're right, that is what is really important! lol

Sorry.

warmonger

Sorry about all the heat here lately, as I don't really like causing tension (although, I seem to have here). But it was (and is) my understanding that Ford EEC-V still uses the WOT strategy that uses only pre-set (open loop) lookup tables for A/F ratio at WOT, and does not use fuel trim during that time. And that fuel trim (adaptive) compensation was only brought into part throttle and idle strategies during times when O2s weren't able to generate sufficient reliable closed loop feedback. That would make fuel be richer at part throttle (w/ FPR vac line disconnected) until closed loop O2 feedback was able to trim the fuel back to compensate, but then air/fuel ratio would still be normal at WOT. But I'm in left field so that must be wrong.

ok guys.. here is what I've got.. The car runs fine until warm, after that it stalls out. After stalling I pulled the #4 plug.. it's definitly running rich is was soked in gas. After this I went back to looking into the ECT sensor as sugested and what I had for readings are as follows. It started out with the car slightly warm at 7.9v and by the time the car was to the point to were it wouldn't even stay running at idle and the temp gauge was in the middle it was reading 50.2v. Which to me sounds wrong, however I know nothing about the readings from that sensor. Also, the other thing that I have noticed is that I am almost positive that the coolant isn't circulating just yet.. I know the pump is ok as it is a brand new one with the metal impellar. when filling it currently has a little over 8.5 qaurts in it... and when filling they went right into it without a problem. Hope this helps a little.. I can't figure it out to save my life.. and it's not toss'n any CEL's.

-Nate

50.2 volts is too high and theoretically shouldn't be possible since most of the sensors are based upon a 5 volt reference. Did you mean K-Ohms?

How are you measuring it? If you are measuring the sensor with it unplugged then voltage is useless and you should be measuring resistance. Resistance should vary a great deal with temperature but I can't remember if it goes up or down. I'm thinking that high resistance=low temp on our sensors and low resistance = high temp. However, I don't remember now.
If your values were 7.00 K-ohms and 50.2 K-ohms then it makes sense.
You should go back and re-check the readings paying close attention to the scale and such.

warmonger

PS Josch, No sweat man.

Wasn't using K-Ohms. The sensor only had one wire comming out of it which would have been the positive lead. The other was ground which I put to the negative side of the battery. Was reading Voltage. And yes, the sensor was plugged in and running durring this.

Try to get a resistance reading of the sensor so that you can compare the resistance when cold with the resistance when its hot. Just unplug the wire and measure the sensor directly.

Also, I think there is one sensor the dash temp gauge and one for the pcm. I though the dash temp gauge was one wire where the pcm sensor was two-wire.
Anyone else jump in here for verification?
If not I will try to look today.

warmonger