New guy- OM606/ford f150 project request help
New guy- OM606/ford f150 project request help
I've been reading this forum for quite a while but have been waiting for the ability to post! Great Forum so allow me to say hello from the USA (although I was born in Portugal) and ask some questions!
I am huge diesel engine fan . Most of my vehicles are diesels and I'm reasonably handy but not an expert in comparison to some folks here. I've rebuilt injectors and built my own pop tester and I'm a mechanical engineer by trade.
I have purchased a 1998 e300td with a 0M606.962. I'd like to put this engine in my Ford f150 4x4 truck mostly for fuel efficiency. My current 5.4l struggles to get 13 MPG and I'm hoping I can get over 20MPG with OM606. As such, I'm planning on using the DSL1 controller and been in touch with Baldur about it (it seems perfect for what i want to do).
I am looking to stay with stock injection pump and perhaps upgrade the turbo (not VNT) and inter-cooler to maximize the stocks pumps available fuelling, which according to Baldur is around 300HP?? I don't really care about the actual HP number (less is fine) but I WOULD like to maximize torque and perhaps allow the engine to reach 5500 RPM as this would work best with the trucks existing automatic transmission controller shift points.
I'm in the planning and learning phase so I'll have a bunch of questions and I am using the search as much as I can but it seems most on here want BIG numbers and my goals are not that.
There will be many issues with the conversion itself but my main goal right now is to understand what i can reasonably expect from the engine itself.
So for anyone that cares to lend an opinion:
IS it reasonable to expect from a OM606 w/ stock IP (6mm elements), upgraded turbo (perhaps a GT2860R) & intercooler and DSL1 controller/tune,
1) 5500 RPM?
2) Reliable 350+ Lbs. Ft crankshaft torque?
3) controllable safe EGT when towing ?
Any comments or dialogue appreciated- i want to learn.
Hello everyone!
I've been reading this forum for quite a while but have been waiting for the ability to post! Great Forum so allow me to say hello from the USA (although I was born in Portugal) and ask some questions!
I am huge diesel engine fan . Most of my vehicles are diesels and I'm reasonably handy but not an expert in comparison to some folks here. I've rebuilt injectors and built my own pop tester and I'm a mechanical engineer by trade.
I have purchased a 1998 e300td with a 0M606.962. I'd like to put this engine in my Ford f150 4x4 truck mostly for fuel efficiency. My current 5.4l struggles to get 13 MPG and I'm hoping I can get over 20MPG with OM606. As such, I'm planning on using the DSL1 controller and been in touch with Baldur about it (it seems perfect for what i want to do).
I am looking to stay with stock injection pump and perhaps upgrade the turbo (not VNT) and inter-cooler to maximize the stocks pumps available fuelling, which according to Baldur is around 300HP?? I don't really care about the actual HP number (less is fine) but I WOULD like to maximize torque and perhaps allow the engine to reach 5500 RPM as this would work best with the trucks existing automatic transmission controller shift points.
I'm in the planning and learning phase so I'll have a bunch of questions and I am using the search as much as I can but it seems most on here want BIG numbers and my goals are not that.
There will be many issues with the conversion itself but my main goal right now is to understand what i can reasonably expect from the engine itself.
So for anyone that cares to lend an opinion:
IS it reasonable to expect from a OM606 w/ stock IP (6mm elements), upgraded turbo (perhaps a GT2860R) & intercooler and DSL1 controller/tune,
1) 5500 RPM?
2) Reliable 350+ Lbs. Ft crankshaft torque?
3) controllable safe EGT when towing ?
Any comments or dialogue appreciated- i want to learn.
Some of your answears will never be positive,
The MB 60X 4 valve engines will definetly be able to turn at 6k nevertheless a head job is needed for such a kiling RPM, no matter what many will say , running continuously a 606 in the 5.5 / 6 k range will lead to premature fatigue and posibly colisions inside... most engines wear out the chain and can be found with 6/7/10º cam retaded wich may leat to valve to piston colision.
The stock pump will not give u the elephant kick weather it is with mechanichal governor or any other kind of electronic controll. for the elephant kick u need a 7.5 or 8mm element pump!!! The max output is what will keep your EGT´s down, that and a good eficiente turbo and the charge air cooler. u can never expect a 606 to pull out 600N 5 miles uphill without starting to overheat, but there is solutions for overheating , being one a big oil cooler , along with a big engine cooler , the engine can be made to withstand such a abuse without harm.
the best engine for what u are after i belive is the 603 D 35, and if i´m not mistaken there is a D35 version of the 606 in the american market found in the S Klass. S 350 , despite is a N/A engine can be turboed with success , and that fella pulls like hell.
whatever u need to know , is in this fórum , for sure
Bem haja....
what ever u need to know many people here can help out
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
Boas Camarada....
Some of your answears will never be positive,
The MB 60X 4 valve engines will definetly be able to turn at 6k nevertheless a head job is needed for such a kiling RPM, no matter what many will say , running continuously a 606 in the 5.5 / 6 k range will lead to premature fatigue and posibly colisions inside... most engines wear out the chain and can be found with 6/7/10º cam retaded wich may leat to valve to piston colision.
The stock pump will not give u the elephant kick weather it is with mechanichal governor or any other kind of electronic controll. for the elephant kick u need a 7.5 or 8mm element pump!!! The max output is what will keep your EGT´s down, that and a good eficiente turbo and the charge air cooler. u can never expect a 606 to pull out 600N 5 miles uphill without starting to overheat, but there is solutions for overheating , being one a big oil cooler , along with a big engine cooler , the engine can be made to withstand such a abuse without harm.
the best engine for what u are after i belive is the 603 D 35, and if i´m not mistaken there is a D35 version of the 606 in the american market found in the S Klass. S 350 , despite is a N/A engine can be turboed with success , and that fella pulls like hell.
whatever u need to know , is in this fórum , for sure
Bem haja....
what ever u need to know many people here can help out
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
Obrigado pela sua ajuda!!
1) On the RPM- the truck transmission controller shifts at 5000 RPM maximum - do you think this is possible without head work?
.... My next series of questions will be towards what I should do to the engine (it has 300,000 Km on it) before I install.... but that will come later.
2) I don't need the elephant kick- just enough to comfortably push the truck. The trucks smallest gasoline engine produces 435 Nm... That is what I'd like from the OM606. That's about 30% more than the stock 330Nm. Do you think this is possible with the configuration I mentioned?
3) I already have the OM606 so this is what I need to stay with.
Yes I understand pulling up a hill is not easy on an engine and I won't do it often...BUT - I do tow an 8000 lb trailer 1 or 2 times a year. I'll have and EGT gauge and I guess I'll just have to watch it. As for cooling- I don't expect a problem because i plan to use very very large radiator, oil cooler and intercooler.
Barrote-
Obrigado pela sua ajuda!!
1) On the RPM- the truck transmission controller shifts at 5000 RPM maximum - do you think this is possible without head work?
.... My next series of questions will be towards what I should do to the engine (it has 300,000 Km on it) before I install.... but that will come later.
2) I don't need the elephant kick- just enough to comfortably push the truck. The trucks smallest gasoline engine produces 435 Nm... That is what I'd like from the OM606. That's about 30% more than the stock 330Nm. Do you think this is possible with the configuration I mentioned?
3) I already have the OM606 so this is what I need to stay with.
Yes I understand pulling up a hill is not easy on an engine and I won't do it often...BUT - I do tow an 8000 lb trailer 1 or 2 times a year. I'll have and EGT gauge and I guess I'll just have to watch it. As for cooling- I don't expect a problem because i plan to use very very large radiator, oil cooler and intercooler.
well the 6mm elements can produce 30% more power, what i dont know is if u will be able to use the M pump with EDC governor , if not u can always swap them into a mech.
if u already have the 606 , be happy with it , thats all i wish... here u can understand how to tune it a bit.
regards
why a 603 D 35 is not a good choice? mr martin B?
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
Taking my understanding of MB engines the torque curve starts at 2.5k til 3.5 by 4.5 its already extiguished , this does not mean it can´t produce significant amout of power above this .... usually even old models of auto trans are able to be set shifting early , and some of them even manually.
well the 6mm elements can produce 30% more power, what i dont know is if u will be able to use the M pump with EDC governor , if not u can always swap them into a mech.
if u already have the 606 , be happy with it , thats all i wish... here u can understand how to tune it a bit.
regards
why a 603 D 35 is not a good choice? mr martin B?
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
Larger elements keep egt's low by reducing the injection duration, and thereby the combustion duration. They also significantly increase off-boost torque, making turbo lag seem to diminish.
A stock turbo, larger elements and a low restriction charge pressure path might work just fine in an F150. You've got plenty of room for a better intercooler, that's for sure.
raysorenson
01-27-2016, 05:34 PM #7Picking the right turbo is the biggest thing. Too small will drive great but you run the risk of excessive compressive loading of the rods at low rpm. Too big and you have to do a lot of waiting, especially in a vehicle as heavy as an F150 4x4. Maybe the stock turbo is just right.
Larger elements keep egt's low by reducing the injection duration, and thereby the combustion duration. They also significantly increase off-boost torque, making turbo lag seem to diminish.
A stock turbo, larger elements and a low restriction charge pressure path might work just fine in an F150. You've got plenty of room for a better intercooler, that's for sure.
50harleyrider
01-28-2016, 07:27 AM #8Looks like we're on the exact same swap path. At this point, I plan to use the HX35 10cm. It's supposed to spool nicely at low RPM and still provide enough boost for 300+ HP. You shouldn't have to rev the OM like you're thinking. I am going to use Baldurs' DSL1 ecu and at first stick with the stock E-pump. I am also going to use the 722.6 2wd tranny out of the w210 at first to shake this whole transplant down. Baldurs' ECU will talk to Ole Feger's 722.6 TCU so that is great. Then I plan to go with a 722.666 out of an ML500 for my AWD a little later. It is supposed to be the beefiest of the 722.xxx trannys and is readily available in American junk yards. I was going to use the E4OD but decided against it because I don't want to use any potentially problematic adapter plates. The bellhousing off the w210 will bolt to a 722.666 AWD tranny and I'll be staying with all MB components. If you are planning to use the Ford tranny/transfer case, I've been in contact with a fellow named Bendtsen (Google him) stateside who specializes in plates and can make one for the modular tranny you have. You'll have to get a PCS or similar TCU also as well as a 7.3 Ford diesel torque converter. Your gasser torque converter just won't hold up to 350 HP diesel torque. I have a still in the box 7.5 M-super pump from Dieselmeken I might sell you if my E-pump works out with Baldurs' ECU. There's a lot of work and expense so do your planning well. You can PM me anytime. I'm going to move forward with my project soon so we can learn together!
Ray- I am very concerned about high EGT- especially when towing. My (somewhat limited) understanding of what causes high EGT was founded on the idea that high loading and excess fuel could raise combustion temperatures & EGT to critical levels. My approach to minimize this was to make sure there is always enough cool charge air (efficient turbo & after cooler) for any given fuel supplied. This is why I was considering a turbo and after cooler upgrade given my understanding that the stock IP could supply more fuel than the stock turbo could supply charge air. Is that wrong? I hadn't given much thought to injection duration and didn't know it was possible to alter injection duration with a stock IP and simple mechanical injectors? Could you expand on that?
50harleyrider- I am planning to use the existing gasoline drive-line from the flywheel back- including the torque converter. BUT - Understand I'm not planning the power levels your suggesting. I'm staying below my current engines torque with the 606. I have the 5.4 engine now and 4r75w transmission. The 5.4 engine produces 365 lb ft (495Nm) of torque and I expect (and hope to achieve) only about 315-330 lb ft of torque with the 606... so I think I'm well below the limits of the existing torque converter and drive line.
Can anyone tell me in the om606 is internally or externally crank balanced? I haven't read much about that. Do i need to worry about counter weighting the flywheel?
Thanks for all the replies.
Ray- I am very concerned about high EGT- especially when towing. My (somewhat limited) understanding of what causes high EGT was founded on the idea that high loading and excess fuel could raise combustion temperatures & EGT to critical levels. My approach to minimize this was to make sure there is always enough cool charge air (efficient turbo & after cooler) for any given fuel supplied. This is why I was considering a turbo and after cooler upgrade given my understanding that the stock IP could supply more fuel than the stock turbo could supply charge air. Is that wrong? I hadn't given much thought to injection duration and didn't know it was possible to alter injection duration with a stock IP and simple mechanical injectors? Could you expand on that?
50harleyrider- I am planning to use the existing gasoline drive-line from the flywheel back- including the torque converter. BUT - Understand I'm not planning the power levels your suggesting. I'm staying below my current engines torque with the 606. I have the 5.4 engine now and 4r75w transmission. The 5.4 engine produces 365 lb ft (495Nm) of torque and I expect (and hope to achieve) only about 315-330 lb ft of torque with the 606... so I think I'm well below the limits of the existing torque converter and drive line.
Can anyone tell me in the om606 is internally or externally crank balanced? I haven't read much about that. Do i need to worry about counter weighting the flywheel?
50harleyrider
01-28-2016, 10:33 AM #10Make sure you account for the RPM where the 5.4 makes its maximum torque(265 ft-lb@ 4000). It is much higher than the 606(243@1600). The 7.3 diesel for 2003 is 525 ft-lb @1600. The stall speed will match your 606 RPM much better. The 4R75W will be stressed too much at 1600 as well as the stock torque converter will provide too much RPM on take off. The 4RW75 has some issues which do not lend itself well to a diesel. Do some research. For sure if you do try the 4r75w, use a 7.3 torque converter. That's a no brainer.
I thought I did do my research... but I'm not above making a mistake? The 4R70W has some well documented weaknesses (especially with reverse failures) but I've not found any significant issues with the 4R75W and in my research it has been widely regarded as being pretty strong with a torque capacity of 750 Ft Lbs?? Did I miss something?
Also... I think you have a typo in your torque/rpm figures relative to the 5.4. The torque curve actually shows 265 Lb. Ft @ 1600 RPM - not @ 4000 where it makes 365 lb. ft. The stock 606 only makes 243@1600 and given what I've read about upgraded turbos, I'm "presuming" the peak torque will actually move up in the RPM range... (probably in the 2200-2500 vicinity? ) If so- the 5.4 produces more than 330lb ft of torque in that range which is right where I hope the 606 will be for peak torque.
If I'm missing something - please let me know but those are the numbers I have?
Harley rider-
I thought I did do my research... but I'm not above making a mistake? The 4R70W has some well documented weaknesses (especially with reverse failures) but I've not found any significant issues with the 4R75W and in my research it has been widely regarded as being pretty strong with a torque capacity of 750 Ft Lbs?? Did I miss something?
Also... I think you have a typo in your torque/rpm figures relative to the 5.4. The torque curve actually shows 265 Lb. Ft @ 1600 RPM - not @ 4000 where it makes 365 lb. ft. The stock 606 only makes 243@1600 and given what I've read about upgraded turbos, I'm "presuming" the peak torque will actually move up in the RPM range... (probably in the 2200-2500 vicinity? ) If so- the 5.4 produces more than 330lb ft of torque in that range which is right where I hope the 606 will be for peak torque.
If I'm missing something - please let me know but those are the numbers I have?
Don't forget to measure the engine compartment to see if it will hold the engine. Remember it's longer and taller than your 5.4. If you plan to keep the 4wd, oil pan clearance may be an issue. Lift kit will cure that if you don't mind climbing up into the cab
50harleyrider
01-29-2016, 06:41 AM #13The 1998 2v 5.4 triton produces 350 ft-lbs at 2500 RPM. That is a little better than my 1997 which produces 335 ft-lbs at 3000 RPM. You would need to look at actual dyno results to see how much your 1998 2v 5.4 produces at 1600 RPM. I doubt it's much. The 4r75w has a bad 4th OD. If I recall it is only a band which an OM606 would rip apart. The e4od was much better. We need to see the stall speeds the gasser torque converter has. The v10 gasser torque converter would be the minimum I would use. A 5r100 would be the choice automatic.They're bullet proof. A 4r100 like the old 7.3 had would work. Can you point me to your 750 ft-lb reference for the 4r75w? Sounds high but would be nice. I would also love to see some dyno results of a 300+ hp om606.962 with a 10cm turbine housing hx35 to see where the torque changes from stock. Maybe Hario has some graphs. I hope he sees this post since he recommended/sold this turbo to me. Obviously peak would move up in RPM but I wonder if it is actually less than stock at 1600 RPM. The stock KKK turbo was probably selected by MB to keep the torque up below 2000. That's the first thing I'm getting rid of. It sure won't hurt to rev an OM606.962 for short durations as long as your egt and back pressure don't get too high. That 4v head will breathe nicely and this wonderful engine won't produce those nasty torque spikes the 4bt Cummins has.
Don't forget to measure the engine compartment to see if it will hold the engine. Remember it's longer and taller than your 5.4. If you plan to keep the 4wd, oil pan clearance may be an issue. Lift kit will cure that if you don't mind climbing up into the cab
On the 4r75w.. sorry - that was typo on my part.. its 750Nm-(553 lb-ft)- http://www.f150hub.com/trans/4r70w-4r75w.html
I agree- the 5r100 would be nice but swapping is just too much work on my 2006 truck since the ECM/TCM are one unit and i don't want start messing with adapting in a 5 speed. I'm trying to use the stock ecm/pcm with the stock tranny.
Yeah- I haven't seen a 606 300hp dyno chart either but in reviewing compressor maps for the turbo upgrade, I've already calculated and plotted my expected pressure ratio and mass air flow requirements... right now leaning toward the T03-(super 60 trim) which puts boost past surge limits nearer 2100 RPM. At 1600 RPM (where the small kkk14 is probably fine) the T03 is well left of the surge limit.
Yes- the 606 is a full 7" longer than my 5.4 but my fan shroud is at least that long. I'll probably have to go e-fan in front of the rad/ac condensor to make room. I haven't looked too close at the oil pan and overall height differences... I'm not too worried about height because I have a lot up room to go up under the hood.... not much below with the cross member, steering rack and front axle... that might be an issue.
I have the 2006 5.4 - 3 valve triton - the torque curve is here (in red)- http://www.f150forum.com/attachments/f38...curves.jpg
On the 4r75w.. sorry - that was typo on my part.. its 750Nm-(553 lb-ft)- http://www.f150hub.com/trans/4r70w-4r75w.html
I agree- the 5r100 would be nice but swapping is just too much work on my 2006 truck since the ECM/TCM are one unit and i don't want start messing with adapting in a 5 speed. I'm trying to use the stock ecm/pcm with the stock tranny.
Yeah- I haven't seen a 606 300hp dyno chart either but in reviewing compressor maps for the turbo upgrade, I've already calculated and plotted my expected pressure ratio and mass air flow requirements... right now leaning toward the T03-(super 60 trim) which puts boost past surge limits nearer 2100 RPM. At 1600 RPM (where the small kkk14 is probably fine) the T03 is well left of the surge limit.
Yes- the 606 is a full 7" longer than my 5.4 but my fan shroud is at least that long. I'll probably have to go e-fan in front of the rad/ac condensor to make room. I haven't looked too close at the oil pan and overall height differences... I'm not too worried about height because I have a lot up room to go up under the hood.... not much below with the cross member, steering rack and front axle... that might be an issue.
50harleyrider
01-29-2016, 09:23 AM #15You can't use the stock Ford pcm (or ecm or ecu or whatever you want to call the engine controller) for the OM606.962. Maybe I'm missing something with your plans. Using the stock Ford tcu wouldn't work either as it has to talk to the ecu. At minimum you'll have to get a PCS or similar tcu and Baldur's ecu or use an M-pump and stand alone boost controller. That's why I plan to use the 722.6. That way I can use Baldur's ecu with the option of a stock E-pump, E-super pump or M-super pump, and Ole Fejer's 722.6 tcu. Those brilliant men have already worked together. You need to PM Baldur and Ole. They are nice guys and very smart. I am still in my learning curve here so let's figure this out together.
I will use Baldurs DSL1 to run the OM606. The 606 will run stand alone on the DSL1 using the trucks TPS sensor only. I'll also have seperate, boost, egt, water temp and oil pressure gauges for direct readings on the 606.
The existing stock Ford ECM/TCM will run the transmission and all other subsystems. The DSL1 has a tach signal output which will back-feed the stock ECM the crank sensor signal. All the other Ford engine sensors will be grafted onto the OM606 because the newer Ford gauges aren't "direct read" gauges. For example -the newer 5.4's use a dry cylinder head temp sensor to extrapolate coolant temp and the ECM indirectly drives the temp gauge etc.
All these sensors and the harness itself will be fitted to the 606 just to drive the stock ECM. Resistive loads will be used at coil and fuel injector harness ends so the ECM will "think" they are connected. With a valid CPS signals, the ECM won't know I'm running a 6 cylinder compression ignition engine versus an 8 cylinder spark ignition engine... at least that's the plan.
I have to go this route because on the newer trucks- many systems and subsystems cross talk and won't work if the other isn't there. Even the HVAC system polls the ECM and instrument cluster in order to work.
You misunderstand-
I will use Baldurs DSL1 to run the OM606. The 606 will run stand alone on the DSL1 using the trucks TPS sensor only. I'll also have seperate, boost, egt, water temp and oil pressure gauges for direct readings on the 606.
The existing stock Ford ECM/TCM will run the transmission and all other subsystems. The DSL1 has a tach signal output which will back-feed the stock ECM the crank sensor signal. All the other Ford engine sensors will be grafted onto the OM606 because the newer Ford gauges aren't "direct read" gauges. For example -the newer 5.4's use a dry cylinder head temp sensor to extrapolate coolant temp and the ECM indirectly drives the temp gauge etc.
All these sensors and the harness itself will be fitted to the 606 just to drive the stock ECM. Resistive loads will be used at coil and fuel injector harness ends so the ECM will "think" they are connected. With a valid CPS signals, the ECM won't know I'm running a 6 cylinder compression ignition engine versus an 8 cylinder spark ignition engine... at least that's the plan.
I have to go this route because on the newer trucks- many systems and subsystems cross talk and won't work if the other isn't there. Even the HVAC system polls the ECM and instrument cluster in order to work.
Unplugging the maf gives you wrench light and possibly limp mode, it does on most other DBW Fords. Maf is the main load input so the PCM may take a crap using only TP for load. Fortunately, you can try unplugging the MAF and cam sensors to see how it behaves.
You could install the maf on the '606 but there are tables in the PCM that check volumetric efficiency at a given throttle angle and engine speed. A turbocharged 3.0l won't mimic the 5.4 3v airflow curve. Not sure what the PCM does when MAF VS TP VS RPM tables don't see what they want other than a CEL, but it may very well throw out a P2106 and go into limp.
raysorenson
01-30-2016, 12:25 PM #17It might work to use the Ford TPS as the only load input. This will require using the Ford accel pedal sensor. You'll also need the Ford crank position sensor input. Not sure how the PCM will behave without cam sensors.
Unplugging the maf gives you wrench light and possibly limp mode, it does on most other DBW Fords. Maf is the main load input so the PCM may take a crap using only TP for load. Fortunately, you can try unplugging the MAF and cam sensors to see how it behaves.
You could install the maf on the '606 but there are tables in the PCM that check volumetric efficiency at a given throttle angle and engine speed. A turbocharged 3.0l won't mimic the 5.4 3v airflow curve. Not sure what the PCM does when MAF VS TP VS RPM tables don't see what they want other than a CEL, but it may very well throw out a P2106 and go into limp.
Yes- the Ford fuel air PCM mapping is a concern for the MAF readings but I'm not too worried about the cam positions sensors as many have disabled them with all the Ford Cam Phaser problems. I know there's a workaround on those.
I have a plan for the MAF but it remains to be seen if it will work. I am planning on leaving the MAF in the intake stream (pre-turbo) and reducing or reconfiguring the input air stream to adjust flow velocity across the MAF. Diesels typically require more air than Gasoline engines (14.7:1 vs 18+:1) so I'm hoping I can find a workable combination. Of coarse the effects of boost on the curve might prove uncorrectable and I may have to simulate a MAF signal after all. I have similar concerns for O2 sensors.
On the crank position sensor, the DSL1 has a square wave output (for RPM) that I'm hoping will serve as the CPS signal to the Ford ECU. I'm not sure if the Ford CPS has an index (TDC) pulse so I'll need to research that .
Ray-
Yes- the Ford fuel air PCM mapping is a concern for the MAF readings but I'm not too worried about the cam positions sensors as many have disabled them with all the Ford Cam Phaser problems. I know there's a workaround on those.
I have a plan for the MAF but it remains to be seen if it will work. I am planning on leaving the MAF in the intake stream (pre-turbo) and reducing or reconfiguring the input air stream to adjust flow velocity across the MAF. Diesels typically require more air than Gasoline engines (14.7:1 vs 18+:1) so I'm hoping I can find a workable combination. Of coarse the effects of boost on the curve might prove uncorrectable and I may have to simulate a MAF signal after all. I have similar concerns for O2 sensors.
On the crank position sensor, the DSL1 has a square wave output (for RPM) that I'm hoping will serve as the CPS signal to the Ford ECU. I'm not sure if the Ford CPS has an index (TDC) pulse so I'll need to research that .
"Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor
The Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor measures the mass of air flowing into the engine. The MAF sensor output signal is used by the PCM to calculate injector pulse width. For transmission strategies, the MAF sensor is used to regulate Electronic Pressure Control (EPC) , shift and TCC scheduling."
TP is not mentioned.
I've turned the idea of a 606 swap in a pickup over a few times. I keep coming back to curb weight or gearing. My '97 is light with man trans, 4.6, short cab, stock wheels/tires at 4600#. It's an easier swap vehicle than the next gen F150's but still too heavy to be much fun with a 606. An old 4x2 SWB f100 would be a blast. An old heavy duty truck like an F4 or F5 would be neat too, but only with short gearing
raysorenson
01-31-2016, 10:17 AM #19From the '06 F150 WSM 4r70e/4r75e "description and operation" of electronic control:
"Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor
The Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor measures the mass of air flowing into the engine. The MAF sensor output signal is used by the PCM to calculate injector pulse width. For transmission strategies, the MAF sensor is used to regulate Electronic Pressure Control (EPC) , shift and TCC scheduling."
TP is not mentioned.
I've turned the idea of a 606 swap in a pickup over a few times. I keep coming back to curb weight or gearing. My '97 is light with man trans, 4.6, short cab, stock wheels/tires at 4600#. It's an easier swap vehicle than the next gen F150's but still too heavy to be much fun with a 606. An old 4x2 SWB f100 would be a blast. An old heavy duty truck like an F4 or F5 would be neat too, but only with short gearing
BUT- I think pep will be just fine if I can get the 606 to about 330 lb-ft of torque- which by everything I've read seems easily within reach with the stock IP. The 4.6 offered in the same truck only makes about 310 lb ft and while most say it's underpowered, the stock gearing is 3.55. I plan on 4.10 gears so I "think" with more torque than the 4.6 and better gearing, it could actually feel better.
And yes- I knew the PCM took engine load and RPM into account for trans control and I'm not sure it uses "just" MAF but certainly my preference would be to incorporate a working MAF signal... I just don't know that I can reconcile the expected mass flow properties with the actuals.
Yea- the 06 f150 4x4 weighs close to 6000 lbs. But- my goal is efficiency not necessarily pep and I'd gladly take a less responsive truck that was 50-60% more efficient.
BUT- I think pep will be just fine if I can get the 606 to about 330 lb-ft of torque- which by everything I've read seems easily within reach with the stock IP. The 4.6 offered in the same truck only makes about 310 lb ft and while most say it's underpowered, the stock gearing is 3.55. I plan on 4.10 gears so I "think" with more torque than the 4.6 and better gearing, it could actually feel better.
And yes- I knew the PCM took engine load and RPM into account for trans control and I'm not sure it uses "just" MAF but certainly my preference would be to incorporate a working MAF signal... I just don't know that I can reconcile the expected mass flow properties with the actuals.
W124 om606 HX40 finished and it's a beauty 450bhp/456ft-lbs
maxypriest
01-31-2016, 03:50 PM #21https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMHZRw78XZ0
W124 om606 HX40 finished and it's a beauty 450bhp/456ft-lbs
50harleyrider
02-01-2016, 07:52 AM #22I'm initially going that route (2wd,722.6) in my 97 F150 if I can fit the OM in. Jav, how close are you to pulling the 5.4 out and checking dimensions down to the nitty gritty for your transplant? I see a lift kit as the only way to go 4wd with the OM because of the engine height and differential clearance. That F250 by dieselpumpuk on utube is square nosed and the om will easily fit it. I may go F250 but also fear a 3.0 diesel won't move a 3/4 ton around with good fuel mileage as I also want. Probably would be a lot less headache just to get a power stroke truck. I sure hope your plans will work. Is the tach signal voltage of the Ford compatible with the DSL1? Also the Ford 3v ecu you mention above has to be reprogrammed to use the 2v heads engine or lock out the VCT in the 3v. I had issues with my 3v F150 and was considering going with a 2v engine until I found that out. I seriously doubt you can use the Ford TCU any longer. Hope you can. Also hope you can use that nice big Ford tachometer. A little pod tach in the A-pillar just wouldn't be as nice.
I'm a few months from pulling the 5.4. I'm in the prep phase til at least spring.
I'm going to try and research the bottom end differences of the 2 engines to get as better picture but you have me a bit worried as that's something I really hadn't expected to be a big issue. I figured worst case would be to convert the 606 to a rear sump. Do you think even that is problemaltic?
I've seen the dieselpumpuk too. Cool truck but I've yet to see a 4x4 version targetting efficeincy.'
On the tach signal, if discussed it with Baldur and were confident it will work but if need be, Baldur may be able to tweek it a bit.
I expected the VCT reprogramming but from my reading... it's a fairly straight forward process familiar to quite a few tuners. I also plan on discussing some other tuning options to help the swap go easier.
Harleyrider-
I'm a few months from pulling the 5.4. I'm in the prep phase til at least spring.
I'm going to try and research the bottom end differences of the 2 engines to get as better picture but you have me a bit worried as that's something I really hadn't expected to be a big issue. I figured worst case would be to convert the 606 to a rear sump. Do you think even that is problemaltic?
I've seen the dieselpumpuk too. Cool truck but I've yet to see a 4x4 version targetting efficeincy.'
On the tach signal, if discussed it with Baldur and were confident it will work but if need be, Baldur may be able to tweek it a bit.
I expected the VCT reprogramming but from my reading... it's a fairly straight forward process familiar to quite a few tuners. I also plan on discussing some other tuning options to help the swap go easier.
50harleyrider
02-01-2016, 03:21 PM #24A dry sump may be the only big helper but my limited budget won't afford big $$ there. An OM648 rear sump would help a little but again can be big $$ if you can even find it, the oil pump, pickup tube and fasteners for it as well as 648 main caps to attach those fasteners to, and a 648 dipstick, (basically a junk 648 to pillage). I'm not saying you can't do it. Maybe some hammering or a more robust sectioning on your firewall would allow it. On the other hand, you could be the cool dude with the lifted F150 diesel!
If you're interested I can ask if he still has it.
Installed:
OM606/722.6, big IC, W220 brakes.
Planned:
DIY manifold, compound, 722.6 controller, built IP.
[i]Less rust.. [/i]
I know a guy selling a rear bowl sump and matching oil pump for an OM606 for £350, about $500.
If you're interested I can ask if he still has it.
Installed:
OM606/722.6, big IC, W220 brakes.
Planned:
DIY manifold, compound, 722.6 controller, built IP.
[i]Less rust.. [/i]
The MAF sensor is a hot wire anemometer which measures the air speed by detecting how much the air flow cools the heated element inside it. The cooling rate is proportional to the air speed and air speed multiplied by the area it flows through gives you volumetric flow rate. This is converted to mass knowing the air density at the given ambient temperature.
Long story short: you can "correct" the MAF reading by placing the sensor in a different diameter intake pipe. Smaller pipe will increase the air speed making the computer think that the engine is using more air. The inverse is true as well. Or you can mess with the signal of the intake temperature sensor to make the computer think its getting colder/warmer air. The range of adjustment is not as good on this method but it is simpler to implement and may be enough.
ponkokanada
02-02-2016, 12:20 PM #28If you end up having to use the MAF sensor there is a simple way to "adjust" its output if you find the tranny doesn't shift right.
The MAF sensor is a hot wire anemometer which measures the air speed by detecting how much the air flow cools the heated element inside it. The cooling rate is proportional to the air speed and air speed multiplied by the area it flows through gives you volumetric flow rate. This is converted to mass knowing the air density at the given ambient temperature.
Long story short: you can "correct" the MAF reading by placing the sensor in a different diameter intake pipe. Smaller pipe will increase the air speed making the computer think that the engine is using more air. The inverse is true as well. Or you can mess with the signal of the intake temperature sensor to make the computer think its getting colder/warmer air. The range of adjustment is not as good on this method but it is simpler to implement and may be enough.
I "think" going from a normally aspirated V8 gas engine , to a boosted i6 diesel is going to created a very different "shape" with respect to those 3 parameters. I suspect I'm going to run into some "check engine lights" if there is a tight correlation and error check in the maps.
Ponkokanada- read my post #18 above, that's exactly what my plan is. My concern is that I don't know what kind of cross checks the ECU performs with respect to: MAF signal versus RPM and TPS.
I "think" going from a normally aspirated V8 gas engine , to a boosted i6 diesel is going to created a very different "shape" with respect to those 3 parameters. I suspect I'm going to run into some "check engine lights" if there is a tight correlation and error check in the maps.
50harleyrider
02-02-2016, 01:59 PM #30Try to use as many electrical components as possible from the W210 and as few as possible from the Ford. Are you not planning to use MAF from W210? Do you still plan to use the Ford TCU and ECU to talk to TCU as well as the DSL1 only for IP? If so, WOW! Sounds more and more like your build is mostly for experimentation. I prefer KISS approach. It's nice to understand the logic of sensors, but it's something else to integrate all together. Good luck.
Simple is nice but won't work on a newer ford since almost all the control modules are interlinked... remove any "one" and you have to deal the problems that creates on all the others. I'm starting with a newer vehicle because i like and want, ABS, Climate control, stereo with NAV- a working dash that looks factory etc. To have that- you need to keep most of The Ford sensors and controllers in play.
On the flip side- the OM606 and DSL1 actually require very little to run. It does NOT require the MAF... only the MAP sensor, CPS and TPS.
50Harley-
Simple is nice but won't work on a newer ford since almost all the control modules are interlinked... remove any "one" and you have to deal the problems that creates on all the others. I'm starting with a newer vehicle because i like and want, ABS, Climate control, stereo with NAV- a working dash that looks factory etc. To have that- you need to keep most of The Ford sensors and controllers in play.
On the flip side- the OM606 and DSL1 actually require very little to run. It does NOT require the MAF... only the MAP sensor, CPS and TPS.
"ETC FMEM – forced limited power; sensor concern: MAF, one TP, CKP, TSS, OSS, stuck throttle, throttle actuator circuit concern (MIL, powertrain malfunction indicator [wrench])"
FMEM= failure mode effects mgmt
So MAF can get you p2106. 2106 give you "RPM Guard with Default Throttle" FMEM which is a pretty serious limp mode. You can get off the road, but not drive around.
When unexpected maf voltage is found, P061b can be set, which is accompanied by P2106, which, as stated above means FMEM.
Keeping it out of limp by just using a MAF sensor will probably be unrealistic. I see cars with the airbox unfastened come in with P061b/P2016 because the loose box lid caused turbulence across the maf. The throttle closes when shifts occur, maf is expected to drop.
The question is not if you can avoid limp by installing a MAF (you won't), it's what does it do to trans operation when you're in limp. The PCM will expect to have control of RPM in P2106 limp. If it cannot, you get P2105, forced engine shutdown. Does the PCM operate the trans like business as usual in limp? Doubt it. EPC probably defaults to high pressure, TCC probably stays off and worst, it depowers the shift solenoids resulting in default gear which is 2nd for some trannies, 5th for others. My personal experience is I have never observed a single gear shift while driving any Ford in P2106 FMEM.
raysorenson
02-02-2016, 04:29 PM #32More on P2106-
"ETC FMEM – forced limited power; sensor concern: MAF, one TP, CKP, TSS, OSS, stuck throttle, throttle actuator circuit concern (MIL, powertrain malfunction indicator [wrench])"
FMEM= failure mode effects mgmt
So MAF can get you p2106. 2106 give you "RPM Guard with Default Throttle" FMEM which is a pretty serious limp mode. You can get off the road, but not drive around.
When unexpected maf voltage is found, P061b can be set, which is accompanied by P2106, which, as stated above means FMEM.
Keeping it out of limp by just using a MAF sensor will probably be unrealistic. I see cars with the airbox unfastened come in with P061b/P2016 because the loose box lid caused turbulence across the maf. The throttle closes when shifts occur, maf is expected to drop.
The question is not if you can avoid limp by installing a MAF (you won't), it's what does it do to trans operation when you're in limp. The PCM will expect to have control of RPM in P2106 limp. If it cannot, you get P2105, forced engine shutdown. Does the PCM operate the trans like business as usual in limp? Doubt it. EPC probably defaults to high pressure, TCC probably stays off and worst, it depowers the shift solenoids resulting in default gear which is 2nd for some trannies, 5th for others. My personal experience is I have never observed a single gear shift while driving any Ford in P2106 FMEM.
But- I don't plan on using "just the MAF sensor". I plan on using all the Ford sensors with a few exceptions. The TP, TSS & OSS will remain and unless I'm missing something, I think they'll continue to function as if the 5.4 is in place?
I plan to research IF the 2006 CKP uses the Ford - minus 1 (tooth skip) paradyme for timing with the CMP sensor(s). If it does, I'll need to attach a custom tooth ring and run the CKP as well. I also need to find out what options I have tuning wise to eliminate the variable valve timing input(s). I know this has been done as many owners are locking out the problematic cam phasers and using "tunes" to keep from throwing codes after the cams become static. I just don't know the specifics of how they implement that.
AND- the fact remains that even with the Ford MAF- I expect issues getting mass air flow readings to mimic the 5.4 but it's difficult to know just how the ECU will handle that.
Ray- great info- keep it coming!
But- I don't plan on using "just the MAF sensor". I plan on using all the Ford sensors with a few exceptions. The TP, TSS & OSS will remain and unless I'm missing something, I think they'll continue to function as if the 5.4 is in place?
I plan to research IF the 2006 CKP uses the Ford - minus 1 (tooth skip) paradyme for timing with the CMP sensor(s). If it does, I'll need to attach a custom tooth ring and run the CKP as well. I also need to find out what options I have tuning wise to eliminate the variable valve timing input(s). I know this has been done as many owners are locking out the problematic cam phasers and using "tunes" to keep from throwing codes after the cams become static. I just don't know the specifics of how they implement that.
AND- the fact remains that even with the Ford MAF- I expect issues getting mass air flow readings to mimic the 5.4 but it's difficult to know just how the ECU will handle that.
(02-02-2016, 02:45 PM)jav1 50Harley-Check this thread out in the 4bt cummins forum. It may have some useful info for you. Also the 6bt swaps into the superdutys might help since they're also inline 6 diesels. Sorry about the typo-meant MAP. Good luck getting the Ford ecu to accept 6 cylinders. Hey, would an ecu out of an 04 V6 Triton be better to start with? It would be nice to get 3D dimensions of the OM as I still fear clearance. You know how that engine looks in the W210-long and tall.
Simple is nice but won't work on a newer ford since almost all the control modules are interlinked... remove any "one" and you have to deal the problems that creates on all the others. I'm starting with a newer vehicle because i like and want, ABS, Climate control, stereo with NAV- a working dash that looks factory etc. To have that- you need to keep most of The Ford sensors and controllers in play.
On the flip side- the OM606 and DSL1 actually require very little to run. It does NOT require the MAF... only the MAP sensor, CPS and TPS.
http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread...Expedition
50harleyrider
02-02-2016, 07:05 PM #34(02-02-2016, 02:45 PM)jav1 50Harley-Check this thread out in the 4bt cummins forum. It may have some useful info for you. Also the 6bt swaps into the superdutys might help since they're also inline 6 diesels. Sorry about the typo-meant MAP. Good luck getting the Ford ecu to accept 6 cylinders. Hey, would an ecu out of an 04 V6 Triton be better to start with? It would be nice to get 3D dimensions of the OM as I still fear clearance. You know how that engine looks in the W210-long and tall.
Simple is nice but won't work on a newer ford since almost all the control modules are interlinked... remove any "one" and you have to deal the problems that creates on all the others. I'm starting with a newer vehicle because i like and want, ABS, Climate control, stereo with NAV- a working dash that looks factory etc. To have that- you need to keep most of The Ford sensors and controllers in play.
On the flip side- the OM606 and DSL1 actually require very little to run. It does NOT require the MAF... only the MAP sensor, CPS and TPS.
http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread...Expedition
(02-03-2016, 09:21 AM)jav1 If the ECU see's the right signals- (8 coil resistance readings- 8 injector resistance readings) the correct crank, cam and MAF signals- how would it not accept the 6 cylinder?I'm a mechanical engineer, not an electrical so pretty dumb on these matters. I guess you do plan to trick it into 8? That's why I embrace the KISS principal. I think it would be great to use the Ford ecu in a partial way but wouldn't it have to be re-programmed even if it's not controlling the OM? If the signal voltages and currents from all the sensors are different from the ones the OM needs, how can you use it? I was told early in my build plans since the ecu,tcu and dash were all tightly integrated in the w210, that it would be a pain to make the Ford instruments and other dash controls like your climate control work. I think the ABS is pretty much standalone so not as bad. My 97 F150 might be a lot simpler than your 04. I hope you can make all your dash stuff work. I'm going to get Baldurs ecu and have it working in the W210 before I junk it. Then Ole's 722.6 tcu. That will eliminate two issues although probably the simplest ones. Also I'm going to save every bit of dash instruments/wiring along with every bit of harness,tps,other sensors I can get to. I still say using the F150 tcu will not be feasible. Why can't you use the 722.6 and go 2wd to work out all your bugs? Ole and Baldur will get us going with that phase. That's my plan. You can still use your Ford tranny and PCS or equal tcu later for 4wd. My 210 is going into the garage next week so I can get hard dimensions of the OM. All this stuff is a moot point if we can't get it to fit in the truck.
50harleyrider
02-03-2016, 10:08 AM #36(02-03-2016, 09:21 AM)jav1 If the ECU see's the right signals- (8 coil resistance readings- 8 injector resistance readings) the correct crank, cam and MAF signals- how would it not accept the 6 cylinder?I'm a mechanical engineer, not an electrical so pretty dumb on these matters. I guess you do plan to trick it into 8? That's why I embrace the KISS principal. I think it would be great to use the Ford ecu in a partial way but wouldn't it have to be re-programmed even if it's not controlling the OM? If the signal voltages and currents from all the sensors are different from the ones the OM needs, how can you use it? I was told early in my build plans since the ecu,tcu and dash were all tightly integrated in the w210, that it would be a pain to make the Ford instruments and other dash controls like your climate control work. I think the ABS is pretty much standalone so not as bad. My 97 F150 might be a lot simpler than your 04. I hope you can make all your dash stuff work. I'm going to get Baldurs ecu and have it working in the W210 before I junk it. Then Ole's 722.6 tcu. That will eliminate two issues although probably the simplest ones. Also I'm going to save every bit of dash instruments/wiring along with every bit of harness,tps,other sensors I can get to. I still say using the F150 tcu will not be feasible. Why can't you use the 722.6 and go 2wd to work out all your bugs? Ole and Baldur will get us going with that phase. That's my plan. You can still use your Ford tranny and PCS or equal tcu later for 4wd. My 210 is going into the garage next week so I can get hard dimensions of the OM. All this stuff is a moot point if we can't get it to fit in the truck.
If you measure the om606- please share! I plan on doing the same. I'm hoping to do a full 3 view 2D CAD drawing of the 606 envelope but I'm months away from starting that.
I'm an ME too but I have a pretty strong EE background. Electronics seem scarier than they are.. I'm not nearly as put off by signals I can measure & replicate as I am about the compiled code, that I can't change, that interprets those signals. KISS means different things to folks of different back grounds.
If you measure the om606- please share! I plan on doing the same. I'm hoping to do a full 3 view 2D CAD drawing of the 606 envelope but I'm months away from starting that.
50harleyrider, your '97 is an ideal candidate for a swap. The only networked stuff is related to PATS, which won't matter. You can just take the "theft" light out of the cluster.
raysorenson
02-03-2016, 03:21 PM #38Probably no need for coil and injector resistance to look right. The FMEM limp modes are for safety and for saving the trans in the event of an electrical fault that could cause the trans to slip. The safety part is exclusively about drive by wire throttle control. That's why MAF is looked at for plausibility. If there's an unexpected amount of air entering the engine, there could be something wrong with the DBW system. They don't want the Toyota unintended accel hysteria on their hands.
50harleyrider, your '97 is an ideal candidate for a swap. The only networked stuff is related to PATS, which won't matter. You can just take the "theft" light out of the cluster.
the ECU doesn't parse coil/injector resistance? I suppose I could unhook one and see if it throws a code but I know on my German cars, unplug just about anything and it throws a code. It would be nice to NOT worry about those. I'd also like to understand how Ford checks for misfire codes?
Am I correct in my presumption that TSS/OSS should be unaffected as long as the transmission internals are spinning (regardless of what engine is spinning them)?
I understand the MAF voltage/RPM map will need attention that I'm not sure I can overcome with a modified air stream... nature of the boosted beast so to speak.
My back up plan is to make several data logging runs (with the 5.4) with varying applications of throttle to plot the MAF output vs RPM/load. Probably 1/3, 2/3 & WOT plots may be enough to fathom a reasonable idea of MAF voltages for varying RPM and engine loads. Then when the OM606 is in place, I could probably use the RPM signal and either TP or MAP to generate suitable MAF voltage curves?
Ray-
the ECU doesn't parse coil/injector resistance? I suppose I could unhook one and see if it throws a code but I know on my German cars, unplug just about anything and it throws a code. It would be nice to NOT worry about those. I'd also like to understand how Ford checks for misfire codes?
Am I correct in my presumption that TSS/OSS should be unaffected as long as the transmission internals are spinning (regardless of what engine is spinning them)?
I understand the MAF voltage/RPM map will need attention that I'm not sure I can overcome with a modified air stream... nature of the boosted beast so to speak.
My back up plan is to make several data logging runs (with the 5.4) with varying applications of throttle to plot the MAF output vs RPM/load. Probably 1/3, 2/3 & WOT plots may be enough to fathom a reasonable idea of MAF voltages for varying RPM and engine loads. Then when the OM606 is in place, I could probably use the RPM signal and either TP or MAP to generate suitable MAF voltage curves?
I know the pressure pulses from a diesel engine are substantially different than a gasoline engine... thoughts on that?
Baldur- so the ECU is monitoring changes in crank position sensor pulse width?? Does it do it at all RPM ranges? That's some pretty impressive processing power and raises a new concern. If the ECU is monitoring changes in pulse width, and is also monitoring for a missing tooth at each crank revolution, then isn't it reasonable to presume that having 3 rather large pressure pulses instead of 4 lesser oscillations per revolution, is going to trigger a misfire code?
I know the pressure pulses from a diesel engine are substantially different than a gasoline engine... thoughts on that?
What software are using to access the Ford ecu for you data logging? Most of my stable cars are TDI's so I use VAG for them. That's one reason I initially wanted to use a 5 cylinder VE TDI for my transplant but those plans got scuttled when I found out none were imported to the US so it would be virtually impossible to get one through 'Customs'. All my diesel experience is with VE TDI's so my learning curve with the OM is just starting. I started the OM up last night after all the cold, and it fired instantly. I still can't get used to the smoothness of these small displacement inline 6 diesels. Since we now have Baldur for our ecu issues, I'm going to consider modding the oe KKK turbo. Does anyone know if that's a high reving turbo like the TDI ones? If so, I'm afraid to mess with it without a laser balance which I don't think is available in the US. I went through all that on my 05 BHW TDI before I finally got one from Frans in the Netherlands.
50harleyrider
02-04-2016, 06:19 AM #44Jav,
What software are using to access the Ford ecu for you data logging? Most of my stable cars are TDI's so I use VAG for them. That's one reason I initially wanted to use a 5 cylinder VE TDI for my transplant but those plans got scuttled when I found out none were imported to the US so it would be virtually impossible to get one through 'Customs'. All my diesel experience is with VE TDI's so my learning curve with the OM is just starting. I started the OM up last night after all the cold, and it fired instantly. I still can't get used to the smoothness of these small displacement inline 6 diesels. Since we now have Baldur for our ecu issues, I'm going to consider modding the oe KKK turbo. Does anyone know if that's a high reving turbo like the TDI ones? If so, I'm afraid to mess with it without a laser balance which I don't think is available in the US. I went through all that on my 05 BHW TDI before I finally got one from Frans in the Netherlands.
jav, yes, the trans speed sensors should work fine.
Making a device that spits out the expected MAF voltage would work but it sounds like a lot of work to map. If you keep IAT constant, that would remove an additional dimension to map. It would be nice if you could just find a tuner to take out the IPC (independent plausibility check) software in the CPU.
From Ford's PCED on the IPC:
"The torque based ETC strategy was developed to improve fuel economy and to accommodate variable camshaft timing (VCT). This is possible by not coupling the throttle angle to the driver pedal position. Uncoupling the throttle angle (produce engine torque) from the pedal position (driver demand) allows the powertrain control strategy to optimize fuel control and transmission shift schedules while delivering the requested wheel torque.
The ETC monitor system is distributed across 2 processors within the PCM: the main powertrain control processor unit (CPU) and a monitoring processor called an enhanced-quizzer (E-Quizzer) processor. The primary monitoring function is carried out by the independent plausibility check (IPC) software, which resides on the main processor. It is responsible for determining the driver-demanded torque and comparing it to an estimate of the actual torque delivered. If the generated torque exceeds driver demand by a specified amount, the IPC takes appropriate corrective action.
Since the IPC and the main controller share the same processor, they are subject to a number of potential common failure modes. Therefore, the E-Quizzer processor was added to redundantly monitor selected PCM inputs and to act as an intelligent watchdog and monitor the performance of the IPC and the main processor. If it determines that the IPC function is impaired in any way, it takes appropriate failure mode and effects management (FMEM) actions."
raysorenson
02-04-2016, 08:12 AM #45The PCM will set coil and injector codes on the '04 but it doesn't matter. Baldur is right, crank accel data is used to identify missfires, which also doesn't matter. To my knowledge, the PCM takes no action when missfire/injector/coil DTC's are set, so nothing wrong with having these codes stored.
jav, yes, the trans speed sensors should work fine.
Making a device that spits out the expected MAF voltage would work but it sounds like a lot of work to map. If you keep IAT constant, that would remove an additional dimension to map. It would be nice if you could just find a tuner to take out the IPC (independent plausibility check) software in the CPU.
From Ford's PCED on the IPC:
"The torque based ETC strategy was developed to improve fuel economy and to accommodate variable camshaft timing (VCT). This is possible by not coupling the throttle angle to the driver pedal position. Uncoupling the throttle angle (produce engine torque) from the pedal position (driver demand) allows the powertrain control strategy to optimize fuel control and transmission shift schedules while delivering the requested wheel torque.
The ETC monitor system is distributed across 2 processors within the PCM: the main powertrain control processor unit (CPU) and a monitoring processor called an enhanced-quizzer (E-Quizzer) processor. The primary monitoring function is carried out by the independent plausibility check (IPC) software, which resides on the main processor. It is responsible for determining the driver-demanded torque and comparing it to an estimate of the actual torque delivered. If the generated torque exceeds driver demand by a specified amount, the IPC takes appropriate corrective action.
Since the IPC and the main controller share the same processor, they are subject to a number of potential common failure modes. Therefore, the E-Quizzer processor was added to redundantly monitor selected PCM inputs and to act as an intelligent watchdog and monitor the performance of the IPC and the main processor. If it determines that the IPC function is impaired in any way, it takes appropriate failure mode and effects management (FMEM) actions."
jav, yes, the trans speed sensors should work fine.
Making a device that spits out the expected MAF voltage would work but it sounds like a lot of work to map. If you keep IAT constant, that would remove an additional dimension to map. It would be nice if you could just find a tuner to take out the IPC (independent plausibility check) software in the CPU.
From Ford's PCED on the IPC:
"The torque based ETC strategy was developed to improve fuel economy and to accommodate variable camshaft timing (VCT). This is possible by not coupling the throttle angle to the driver pedal position. Uncoupling the throttle angle (produce engine torque) from the pedal position (driver demand) allows the powertrain control strategy to optimize fuel control and transmission shift schedules while delivering the requested wheel torque.
The ETC monitor system is distributed across 2 processors within the PCM: the main powertrain control processor unit (CPU) and a monitoring processor called an enhanced-quizzer (E-Quizzer) processor. The primary monitoring function is carried out by the independent plausibility check (IPC) software, which resides on the main processor. It is responsible for determining the driver-demanded torque and comparing it to an estimate of the actual torque delivered. If the generated torque exceeds driver demand by a specified amount, the IPC takes appropriate corrective action.
Since the IPC and the main controller share the same processor, they are subject to a number of potential common failure modes. Therefore, the E-Quizzer processor was added to redundantly monitor selected PCM inputs and to act as an intelligent watchdog and monitor the performance of the IPC and the main processor. If it determines that the IPC function is impaired in any way, it takes appropriate failure mode and effects management (FMEM) actions."
raysorenson
02-04-2016, 08:19 AM #46The PCM will set coil and injector codes on the '04 but it doesn't matter. Baldur is right, crank accel data is used to identify missfires, which also doesn't matter. To my knowledge, the PCM takes no action when missfire/injector/coil DTC's are set, so nothing wrong with having these codes stored.
jav, yes, the trans speed sensors should work fine.
Making a device that spits out the expected MAF voltage would work but it sounds like a lot of work to map. If you keep IAT constant, that would remove an additional dimension to map. It would be nice if you could just find a tuner to take out the IPC (independent plausibility check) software in the CPU.
From Ford's PCED on the IPC:
"The torque based ETC strategy was developed to improve fuel economy and to accommodate variable camshaft timing (VCT). This is possible by not coupling the throttle angle to the driver pedal position. Uncoupling the throttle angle (produce engine torque) from the pedal position (driver demand) allows the powertrain control strategy to optimize fuel control and transmission shift schedules while delivering the requested wheel torque.
The ETC monitor system is distributed across 2 processors within the PCM: the main powertrain control processor unit (CPU) and a monitoring processor called an enhanced-quizzer (E-Quizzer) processor. The primary monitoring function is carried out by the independent plausibility check (IPC) software, which resides on the main processor. It is responsible for determining the driver-demanded torque and comparing it to an estimate of the actual torque delivered. If the generated torque exceeds driver demand by a specified amount, the IPC takes appropriate corrective action.
Since the IPC and the main controller share the same processor, they are subject to a number of potential common failure modes. Therefore, the E-Quizzer processor was added to redundantly monitor selected PCM inputs and to act as an intelligent watchdog and monitor the performance of the IPC and the main processor. If it determines that the IPC function is impaired in any way, it takes appropriate failure mode and effects management (FMEM) actions."
Not sure yet. I have VCDS too (and 3 TDi's myself). It does great logging and graphing. I'm looking for something similar for Ford but not having much luck. Worst case- I'll use a 4 channel Automotive scope with storage to capture the data I need.
Ray-
Thanks- that's some great info!
I get that some codes won't have a real consequence to drivability but I'd really like no dash warnings (eventually). It's a pet peave of mine.
I've not had too much luck on the Ford tuner side finding a company or person that really understands what parameters are "tune-able" and how. Even modifying shift points in the PCM... I understand it's "doable" but there's very little posted on how the process actually works. As best as I can tell, if Ford made a parameter tune-able, some aftermarket tuner may be able to re-configure it... but not all tuners have access to all parameters. AND- if Ford didn't make provisions for a parameter to be variable, no tuner can change it. I also haven't found a "Guru" that can go in and change any hard coding so I'm left with anecdotal evidence that certain things are known to be programmable (such as shift point RPM's, and the elimination of variable valve timing), because others have done it.
I was thinking last night about Baldurs revelation on the crank acceleration monitoring. And I had a thought. In my mind- going from 4 relatively minor crank pressure pulses per revolution to 3 more pronounced ones "seems" likely to trigger misfire codes. Then I thought- If I create a custom reluctor ring to be driven off a front pulley- I could reduce the reluctor ring RPM (by varying pulley diameters) so that the reluctor ring spins at cam shaft speed (1/2 crank RPM) and double the tooth count. That would produce a valid RPM signal (via doubling the tooth count at 1/2 the speed) and it would smooth out the pressure pulses to where I would only have 1.5 pressure pulses at 1/2 the magnitude per crank revolution. I'm not sure if that would be enough to avoid a misfire code but it seems to me that it would be better- plus it allows me incorporate Fords 60 minus 1 tooth arrangement AND I could split the reluctor ring to drive the CKP off the front set of teeth and the Cam sensors off a different set of teeth.
Thoughts?
Harley-
Not sure yet. I have VCDS too (and 3 TDi's myself). It does great logging and graphing. I'm looking for something similar for Ford but not having much luck. Worst case- I'll use a 4 channel Automotive scope with storage to capture the data I need.
Ray-
Thanks- that's some great info!
I get that some codes won't have a real consequence to drivability but I'd really like no dash warnings (eventually). It's a pet peave of mine.
I've not had too much luck on the Ford tuner side finding a company or person that really understands what parameters are "tune-able" and how. Even modifying shift points in the PCM... I understand it's "doable" but there's very little posted on how the process actually works. As best as I can tell, if Ford made a parameter tune-able, some aftermarket tuner may be able to re-configure it... but not all tuners have access to all parameters. AND- if Ford didn't make provisions for a parameter to be variable, no tuner can change it. I also haven't found a "Guru" that can go in and change any hard coding so I'm left with anecdotal evidence that certain things are known to be programmable (such as shift point RPM's, and the elimination of variable valve timing), because others have done it.
I was thinking last night about Baldurs revelation on the crank acceleration monitoring. And I had a thought. In my mind- going from 4 relatively minor crank pressure pulses per revolution to 3 more pronounced ones "seems" likely to trigger misfire codes. Then I thought- If I create a custom reluctor ring to be driven off a front pulley- I could reduce the reluctor ring RPM (by varying pulley diameters) so that the reluctor ring spins at cam shaft speed (1/2 crank RPM) and double the tooth count. That would produce a valid RPM signal (via doubling the tooth count at 1/2 the speed) and it would smooth out the pressure pulses to where I would only have 1.5 pressure pulses at 1/2 the magnitude per crank revolution. I'm not sure if that would be enough to avoid a misfire code but it seems to me that it would be better- plus it allows me incorporate Fords 60 minus 1 tooth arrangement AND I could split the reluctor ring to drive the CKP off the front set of teeth and the Cam sensors off a different set of teeth.
Thoughts?
Dash instruments may take some time to work out without the PCM but at least you'll have a running and shifting truck while you make those work.
ponkokanada
02-04-2016, 08:51 AM #48It seems to me like keeping the ford PCM "happy" will be the biggest challenge in this project. I understand your wish to keep the ford 4wd 4x4 transmission so why don't you find a standalone aftermarket TCU that could run it?
Dash instruments may take some time to work out without the PCM but at least you'll have a running and shifting truck while you make those work.
your right- and if it was just the instruments- that would be one thing. But on the newer trucks (mine is a 2006- not a 2004 although they are the same generation), it seems everything is networked. Take the instrument cluster and/or PCM out of the equation and you can't even engage the starter...that would mean new direct key wiring. Same is true for the HVAC function and mine is the Lariat with multi-zone climate control... that wouldn't work. Stereo/NAV- also interlinked AND I don't know what else? ABS? SRS? Central Locks? Remote start?
It seems much "easier" to keep the PCM happy than to try and exclude it since all its friends may leave the party too.
Ponkokanada-
your right- and if it was just the instruments- that would be one thing. But on the newer trucks (mine is a 2006- not a 2004 although they are the same generation), it seems everything is networked. Take the instrument cluster and/or PCM out of the equation and you can't even engage the starter...that would mean new direct key wiring. Same is true for the HVAC function and mine is the Lariat with multi-zone climate control... that wouldn't work. Stereo/NAV- also interlinked AND I don't know what else? ABS? SRS? Central Locks? Remote start?
It seems much "easier" to keep the PCM happy than to try and exclude it since all its friends may leave the party too.
50harleyrider
02-04-2016, 10:55 AM #50You should register on 4btcummins forum and contact CR_Magruder from my post #34. If I recall, he was able to keep his 2003 ford expedition pcm in the loop which hopefully is no less integrated into the controllers cross talk 'party' as yours. He didn't need a DSL1 equivalent as his 4bt was an Mpump. He's a nice guy and has been popping about 30mpg with his conversion. It is a manual conversion so won't help you much with your ambitious aspiration to use the Ford tcu.
31 Guest(s)
31 Guest(s)