1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Your chance to introduce yourself and your vehicle
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mck1117 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 am
What do the signals from the TFI look like? If it's just one tooth per cylinder from TFI -> ECU, and normal charge/fire signal from ECU -> TFI, then that'll work with zero software changes.
Here's a good post about TFI that I'm referencing: https://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/TFI_Diagnostic.shtml#:~:text=The%20push%20start%20mode%20allows,(SPOUT)%20signal%20is%20received.

Basically there's a CMP sensor that goes to the TFI and is half rotation of the crankshaft. The TFI needs a SPOUT signal from the ecu which is the issue. This signal is supposed to control the ignition timing and dwell. The TFI sends a PIP signal to the ecu which I'm unsure how to interpret this.

My question is how the ecu knows what SPOUT signal to provide in the first place and how the PIP signal is interpreted. I just don't know enough about it and I'm not really finding much info.

Also, there's a class action lawsuit on these modules so I'm not really wanting to go this route personally but it potentially could be done. Any thoughts?
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:37 pm
So again, what exactly are you doing?
:o Oops! I swore I put that! Sorry. Fuel = sequential, ignition = wasted spark.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

wstefan20 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:10 am
mk e wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:37 pm
So again, what exactly are you doing?
:o Oops! I swore I put that! Sorry. Fuel = sequential, ignition = wasted spark.
very good.

Does the OEM harness support this?
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:15 am
very good.

Does the OEM harness support this?
It does support the sequential fuel injection but factory is the TFI not the coil packs and cam crank sensors. Fortunately there's plenty of unused pins from factory so I'll add them to my version of Proteus. Again, I'll still have the stock TFI pins wired correctly so someone could do a completely stock setup or something different like I am.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

wstefan20 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:31 am

It does support the sequential fuel injection but factory is the TFI not the coil packs and cam crank sensors.
Can you put a scope it and see what the signal is exactly? If they (ford) are generating the a 720 degree crank position to allow sequential injection then it might just be a matter of asking the ford pattern be added to the options list.....or it might be close enough to a pattern they already have. I tend to just throw stuff like that out because for me its more trouble than its worth, but if p&p is the goal it might be worth your bother to scope it all.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mck1117 »

Adding new trigger patterns is trivially easy for rusEfi. I suspect it's actually just one tooth per cylinder.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mck1117 »

image.png
image.png (781 KiB) Viewed 12507 times
The tooth for #1 on the PIP signal (TFI -> ECU) is much shorter than the others. That's how it knows where #1 is.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mck1117 »

image.png
image.png (912.59 KiB) Viewed 12507 times
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mck1117 »

Oh neat, your engine actually has the same firing order as my LS, but the cylinders are numbered differently, so it looks like a different order, but it's actually the same one!
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

mck1117 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:17 am

The tooth for #1 on the PIP signal (TFI -> ECU) is much shorter than the others. That's how it knows where #1 is.
that got easy fast.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

mck1117 wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:24 am

I'm not sure you really want to use the MSD ignition - you get much better configuration options when also running ignition off the ecu. Is the MSD in question a whole distributor with integral sensor, or an external ignition box that uses a normal locked out points distributor as its engine phase/speed source? Either way, I'm sure there's an inexpensive solution to fit a missing tooth wheel on the crankshaft. I'm pretty sure your engine came with EDIS on later Mustangs, Explorers, etc, so you might even be able to cobble together a nearly-OEM trigger wheel/sensor setup.

There's a good chance that if it's a non-distributor MSD ignition box you can configure it to not change the advance, and just fire it from the ECU as if it was the coil.
So now the question is why bother putting together a waste spark setup? The distributor is staying because that is the the required trigger so why not use it? The AL6 box gives a good hot spark so just connect the AL6 to the ECU and call it done. The only down side is needing to replace the cap and rotor every 20k-50k miles.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mck1117 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:17 am
image.png

The tooth for #1 on the PIP signal (TFI -> ECU) is much shorter than the others. That's how it knows where #1 is.
haha I actually just found this image too! Does rusEFI have a way to interpret that shorter tooth? And if so, I'm assuming it is able to interpret the crank angle and everything from this?

Turns out even without the SPOUT the spark works but is exactly 0 degrees which is not ideal but at least I know that the car would run.

http://www.useasydocs.com/details/TFI.htm

From this post it would seem that they just use one of the ignition high outputs to generate the SPOUT with a 10degree offset. The duty cycle of the SPOUT is what determines the spark advance and that's what I can't find much info on. They set "cranking trigger" to rising edge which is when the coil fires, and "ignition input capture" to falling edge which is supposed to indicate dwell time based on the duty cycle but I don't know what they mean by ignition input capture. Any ideas?
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:48 pm
So now the question is why bother putting together a waste spark setup? The distributor is staying because that is the the required trigger so why not use it? The AL6 box gives a good hot spark so just connect the AL6 to the ECU and call it done. The only down side is needing to replace the cap and rotor every 20k-50k miles.
I'm a novice at the Al6s. How would I wire up the AL6 with the stock distributor? And if I go with the cam/crank I won't need a distributor at all and gain coil packs which would be better from what I can gather, but I might try the stock TFI if there's a chance of it working and move to the coil packs later.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mck1117 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:29 am
Oh neat, your engine actually has the same firing order as my LS, but the cylinders are numbered differently, so it looks like a different order, but it's actually the same one!
haha got to love how ford numbers its cylinders! I'm more of a gm fan myself, but my buddy is die-hard Ford so here we are! :lol:
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

wstefan20 wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:45 pm


I'm a novice at the Al6s. How would I wire up the AL6 with the stock distributor? And if I go with the cam/crank I won't need a distributor at all and gain coil packs which would be better from what I can gather, but I might try the stock TFI if there's a chance of it working and move to the coil packs later.
The OEMs moved to distributorless ignition to meet the changing emissions rules...first no maintenance for 50k miles, then not maintenance for 100k. A distributor might make 50k, but can't make 100k. That was the real driver for the change.

In the V8 performance world you start to run into dwell time limits as RPM goes up. High reving engines like a ferrari V8 or V12 used dual 4/6 cyl distributors to solve the problem. In the US V8 world, there are pretty short dwell coils and CDI boxes like the AL6 which is pretty much the gold standard and you will find them pretty much any place US V8s are raced and under 8k rpm there is really no concern.

Hooking it up is pretty simple:


Not to say you should stick with it....just saying if you already have it there is no performance gain in removing it to switch to waste spark or directfire. For me, a replacement ferrari V8 distributor cap is $395 each (2 required), a rotor about $75 vs a set of 8 chinese LS coils for $80 so I ditched the distributors on the V8 and again on the V12, it was just a money choice for me, I would have preferred the stock look of the distributors but couldn't justify the cost to keep them. For you parts are cheap so its just what you want the finished setup to look like really.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:13 pm
Not to say you should stick with it....just saying if you already have it there is no performance gain in removing it to switch to waste spark or directfire.
You definitely have a point! I'd really like to get the stock TFI working if I can because it would save me from buying all those extra parts and it would be 100% plug and play. Hopefully I'll hear back from one of the rusEFI guys about whether it'll work.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

wstefan20 wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:34 am

You definitely have a point! I'd really like to get the stock TFI working if I can because it would save me from buying all those extra parts and it would be 100% plug and play. Hopefully I'll hear back from one of the rusEFI guys about whether it'll work.
I think you already have have when mck1117 posted your trigger info.....that is a very simple trigger. Its not ideal because with so few teeth spark will be retarded during acceleration but I'm sure it'll do.
Last edited by mk e on Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mck1117 »

Will that trigger pattern work? Yes, if implemented, it'd probably run fine.

Is it better than a crank mounted trigger with tens of teeth? No.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mck1117 wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:53 am
Will that trigger pattern work? Yes, if implemented, it'd probably run fine.

Is it better than a crank mounted trigger with tens of teeth? No.
Agreed completely! My main reasoning for wanting it to work is not so I can use it necessarily, but so it would truly be "plug-and-play" for the mustang guys who aren't into wiring or are on an extreme budget.

That said, it's not 100% up to me since this is my buddy's car. I think he'll probably want to go with the cheapest option to start and then we can make improvements later. Personally I would just bite the bullet and go with the full sequential injection and direct ignition. :D
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Ok so took me way longer than it should but here's the preliminary pinout:

Image
Image
Image

Please double check behind me that the signal levels are correct.

Red is what I'm adding (optional stuff of course)

Here's what I'm for sure not hooking up at all:
-19 fuel pump monitor (don't really need)
-27 egr signal
-29 right O2 sensor signal
-31 canister purge
-32 thermactor air diverter solenoid
-33 EGR vacuum regulator solenoid
-38 thermactor air bypass solenoid
-43 left O2 sensor signal
-48 self-test input connector
-49 O2 sensor ground

Here's what I'm not sure if I should delete:
-30 neutral safety switch sense
-54 WOT cutout relay

My proteus questions:
-what voltage are the analog inputs rated for?
-what voltage are the hall/digital inputs rated for?
-what pin(s) are for PWM for IAC etc?
-can the digital pins sense short/open?

General questions:
-how do you handle resistance measurements for air/coolant temp thermistors?
-Am I missing anything or should I add anything?

I wanted to add knock sensors and ETB and still might, my only concern is I'm basically out of extra pins from the factory so if I add one, some smart person doing this swap as a direct swap might short it out so I'll have to choose wisely...

Sorry. I know that was a lot packed into one post! :lol:
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Had a thought tangent. In order to get extra pins by utilizing some I'm "deleting" but not risking damage from a rookie plugging in a stock harness I could do either jumpers, or solder. I'm thinking if there's physically room the jumpers would be more "user-friendly", but I'm not sure other than EFI concerns (which are minor) there's any trade-offs. Figured I'd get opinions on this!
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Also, I'm thinking about coms now. I see that a few rusEFI boards have Bluetooth built in but proteus does not. Is there a reason for this? Can I put an on-board Bluetooth and it work with proteus firmware?

I'd prefer not to have to go crazy adding external connectors on this thing if possible. For the end-user, I'm debating whether I should put an external USB connector on the case panel mount, or if I should just route it through the stock harness in the blank spots. I'm personally leaning towards the first since although it would require cutting the stock case, it wouldn't require the user populate unused pins or do any custom wiring. Thoughts?

Any reason to have CAN external or any other signals I'm not thinking of? This is an old car so there's nothing CAN anyhow but I figured I'd get an opinion.
Last edited by wstefan20 on Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Sorry for spamming! Just a lot of info to go through. Here's my revised pinout:

Image
Image
Image

I've added pins for two widebands (ya know, two just in case lol), and one electronic throttle body. Depending on the feedback from the above posts I might go down to one wideband and use those pins for other stuff if anyone thinks I should.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

I would suggest the stock pins for O2. It will either be a 0-1V or 05V and software setup.

Are the stock NBO2 4 wire? If so you have everything you need right where you need it for something like this
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0189/1312/files/Spartan_Lambda_Controller_2_User_Manual.pdf?14583750738547542903

2 pins saved in the OEM and another 6 in your adds, plus you have 2 o2 sensor waiting for the day rusEFI supports 2. you're welcome ;)

Maybe use those 2 for CAN. That is the easiest way to add more stuff in the future....someday I'll talk the rusEFI guy into offering the ECUs as CAN expansion modules and you'll be ready for hat day.....or buy stuff elsewhere.

After that labeling stuff like fan hi/lo is fine.....but really you're talking about 2 LS drivers that could be used for anything and that is a better way to think about your plan. How many do think will want to add ETC to an engine that never had it for example vs say nitrous or wastegate or whatever you'd get with another pair of Ls drivers? For I use a pair of LS drivers talking to an $25 external pololu motor controller leaving me 4 wasted ECU pins for the internal ETC drivers that don't have the power to drive my particular throttle. Another 4 wasted for stepper IAC drive that I don't have....I guess I'm saying don't add dedicated pins for things your target application doesn't likely need and an external module will solve for the rare cares it is needed.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:09 pm
I would suggest the stock pins for O2. It will either be a 0-1V or 05V and software setup.
I was under the impression that the stock O2 sensors were pretty much useless for tuning?
mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:09 pm
Are the stock NBO2 4 wire? If so you have everything you need right where you need it for something like this
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0189/1312/files/Spartan_Lambda_Controller_2_User_Manual.pdf?14583750738547542903
This is pretty much the same as the O2 sensor controller as mck1117 that I'm thinking of adding to my circuit internally (buy on header pins in case anything changes and so it's optional). Yeah, It's two more wires since the wideband O2 needs 4 wires (two external for heater) rather than 2 (two eternal for heater. True it's still in dev, but that's where the headers would come in handy. I'll probably have a jumper on this pin so if you wanted you could technically still run the stock O2 or read analog 0-5V from that pin or wideband.

Plus it would be nice to not have the wideband controller external or am I just being crazy on this?
mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:09 pm
2 pins saved in the OEM and another 6 in your adds, plus you have 2 o2 sensor waiting for the day rusEFI supports 2. you're welcome ;)
wait... rusEFI doesn't support 2 O2 sensors? Isn't this just an analog waveform, and aren't O2 sensors fairly useless for tuning?
mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:09 pm
Maybe use those 2 for CAN. That is the easiest way to add more stuff in the future....someday I'll talk the rusEFI guy into offering the ECUs as CAN expansion modules and you'll be ready for hat day.....or buy stuff elsewhere.
Good idea! I think I should have 2 pins free but still working things out. and I'm also not sure if I should just make this a panel mount connector like USB rather than come out the stock harness. Any thoughts?
mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:09 pm
After that labeling stuff like fan hi/lo is fine.....but really you're talking about 2 LS drivers that could be used for anything and that is a better way to think about your plan. How many do think will want to add ETC to an engine that never had it for example vs say nitrous or wastegate or whatever you'd get with another pair of Ls drivers? For I use a pair of LS drivers talking to an $25 external pololu motor controller leaving me 4 wasted ECU pins for the internal ETC drivers that don't have the power to drive my particular throttle. Another 4 wasted for stepper IAC drive that I don't have....I guess I'm saying don't add dedicated pins for things your target application doesn't likely need and an external module will solve for the rare cares it is needed.
All good points here. Though I thought the low side drivers could be re-assigned in software? I could assign those pins as low-side driver but use them for something else right? Only ones that are truly gone are the ETC pins I guess but it'd be a nice feature in case someone wanted it. I didn't think about nitrous or wastegate though so you have a good point. ETC needs it's own circuitry on Proteus though so I'm still probably going to include those. Definitely food for thought for sure though. Thanks!
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

wstefan20 wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:32 pm

I was under the impression that the stock O2 sensors were pretty much useless for tuning?
Well.....that is a partly true statement. NB sensors are certainly nowhere near as useful as WB sensors for engine development work but its only been about 15 years that WB was readily available so engines got tuned without WB sensors for 100 years....but they save a lot of time.

If you're goal is to hold cost down the existing NB sensors are free, cheap to replace and do provide information. You always know rich/lean which is always helpful. The sensor will change output as it gets richer, but the numbers shift with temp so they would be inconsistent and certainly not suitable for any auto-tune (which I personally have never found a use for anyway)....but it will tell you say if the mixture is consistent across the rpm range and if you use a plug read to decide if you are happy with the mixture you are tuned, I'd did it that way for years. Another option is set your lambda table to 1.0 and tune your VE, not all engines/setup will be happy with that at WOT, but 50% or 80% or whatever works and you know something that math will let to you fill more in until you have a pretty good VE table...then go to the lambda table and set whatever number you want and it will be close.....and its not like there is a magic lambda value and if you can't read it the world will end or engine explode, the engine is going to want what it wants so either adjust on the dyno or use plug color, which you still have to do when you have WB sensors. So while I would always want WB data , I would would certainly take NB data and neither is actually needed to tune and engine. Time or money they say.
.
I currently have 2 WB and 4 NB sensors on my setup BTW.. Tri-y headers means 6 collectors, each collector has a sensors. Banks are WB, the smaller groups are NB looking for out of sync ITBs at low throttle where the mixture will be about 1.0 lambda and sync issues most obvious. The ECU has 2 onboard WB controllers so this was the cheapest way to get the most data.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Thanks for making sense of that mk e! I'll probably leave the stock O2 connected to those pins then if I have the room (which I should). Personally though I'm pretty lazy and if this onboard wideband O2 controller works ok then I can get along with $30 sensors and have accurate readings too which would be awesome. I'm very new to tuning so I know very little so this'll be a learning curve... lol
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

Ok. So I'm starting to answer my own questions.

I found the AT pins for thermistors on the proteus (guess I'm blind). From the diagrams it looks as though analog and digital are all 5V?

That leaves me with a few dilemmas...

1) I've got a few 12V signals I need to read for trigger etc. I'm guessing I need to add some sort of voltage divider to step it to 5V?

2) Do I need a neutral safety input? Does rusEFI even support that?

3) The cam sensor can be either 12V hall effect or VR and there's only 2 VR pin sets on proteus. What's the best way of overcoming this issue...

4) can the High side drivers do PWM? I need to send an SPOUT signal that's 12V.

I'm sure I'll have more questions soon
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

My strong and last advice get an old ECU to steal the connector off, wire it to a a proteus and get the car running. Actually see what everything is and does, what you like, what you feel you're missing, then, and only then, pick up your p&p project again.

I say this because you said you have no PCB design experience, do don't have any ECU install or tuning experience and it doesn't appear you have any general non-ecu tuning experience so your odds of success on your current path are near zero. You eat an elephant 1 bite at time....start with 1 bite and install a known good ecu. If you really want to do a PCB make it a connector break-out board so it doesn't really matter if something goes wrong, you're out $20. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Then, once you understand about all the things you're asking about if you still think there is a market for a p&p, get on the Ford and mustang forums and figure out what features people actually want, not the ones you'd like, the ones people will pay for. I suspect you'll find low cost is far and away #1 so anything you can leave out like ETC and WB should be left out to get the cost of entry as low as possible. That model is why MS got so popular....but you need to ask potential customers, you need to read the MS forum and see what your potential customers like or doesn't like about that product so you know how to make something better....or again you will likely fail. I've been in product development for 30 years now and I can say for sure that guessing never works.

Good luck and can't wait to see how you make out.
wstefan20
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
Github Username: wstefan20

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by wstefan20 »

mk e wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 10:30 pm
My strong and last advice get an old ECU to steal the connector off, wire it to a a proteus and get the car running. Actually see what everything is and does, what you like, what you feel you're missing, then, and only then, pick up your p&p project again.

I say this because you said you have no PCB design experience, do don't have any ECU install or tuning experience and it doesn't appear you have any general non-ecu tuning experience so your odds of success on your current path are near zero. You eat an elephant 1 bite at time....start with 1 bite and install a known good ecu. If you really want to do a PCB make it a connector break-out board so it doesn't really matter if something goes wrong, you're out $20. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Then, once you understand about all the things you're asking about if you still think there is a market for a p&p, get on the Ford and mustang forums and figure out what features people actually want, not the ones you'd like, the ones people will pay for. I suspect you'll find low cost is far and away #1 so anything you can leave out like ETC and WB should be left out to get the cost of entry as low as possible. That model is why MS got so popular....but you need to ask potential customers, you need to read the MS forum and see what your potential customers like or doesn't like about that product so you know how to make something better....or again you will likely fail. I've been in product development for 30 years now and I can say for sure that guessing never works.

Good luck and can't wait to see how you make out.
Ok. So I should preface, I am usually a bit understated and hard on myself because I don't have the biggest self-esteem, but I do have my Electrical and Computer Engineering BS and am finishing up with my Master's degree in Electrical Engineering with a specialty in control system design (thus my interest in the project) and have done plenty of PCB design. My prior comments were just that my schematics may be a bit sloppy compared to those for proteus (seriously the best schematics I've seen in a long time).

I don't want this to come off harsh since I know you are just giving sound advice. I was told not to do a lot of things when I started this hobby and ended up rebuilding engines and manual/auto transmissions even when told it wasn't possible.

I agree that I do not have any experience with this specific system so I'm having to get up to speed.

That's not to toot my own horn, I'm humble enough to know I've got a lot to learn but I'm not concerned about my abilities to make this work but I am under no delusion that my first few versions very well may not work.

That said, I agree it would definitely be easier to start with a regular board and go from there, but I'd like to make something that can help others who want something more plug and play, and I know I can do just that. That and I apparently have a proclivity for self-torture :lol:
Post Reply