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 »

mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:32 pm
So you've convinced me you don't need a break-out board as what you're doing is really a 1 off install so you've made an incredibly strong case to buy a proteus and wire it in and stop worrying about which features you'll need to delete to use the OEM connector, just cut it of and be done with the problem for good. Hell, you would have had it running and tuned by now just using the time you and I have sent discussing PnP :D
Ok so you are 100% correct. There is no reason to do a one-off PCB just to re-route pins. My hope is to make a plug and play that's affordable so that there's a cheap and "easy" solution to a common problem. Whether that's misguided or not, we'll see.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:32 pm
Use the new found free time to grind all but 1 tooth off the distributor trigger and add a proper crank position setup so it will rev crisply.
So on this engine they replace the distributor with the cam sensor which is basically a one "tooth" signal I believe. There's also a "stock" crank signal I plan on using as well. My thought though is that I plan on using this setup on my personal project, but will also try to support the stock setup for those who want something plug-and-play.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:32 pm
Spec what's right for the project not what you might be able to get away with.....I have never ever hear any one complain about having too many ECU features available, but literally 100's about too few.
Very good advice here. I'm basically trying to do this in the constraints of the stock 60 pin connector, and I definitely see your point. The stock 60 pins is definitely not enough for a great design for every feature for every car, but that's not my goal here. I know due to the constraints of the connector this puts this product squarely at more of an entry level system that would require upgraded later. That goes with even my goals. My friend who owns the car is still learning about cars and has never tackled any tuning or custom setups at all, so this will be a great tool and allow him to learn and upgrade for some time without breaking the bank.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:32 pm
Also old cars just don't have everything new ones do so you always endup adding a bit of wiring....and the sooner you just get on with it the easier you're life becomes. My project car started life fuel injected but an early 80's implementation so its got...100? 120? new wires. It just is what it is.
I completely agree. If this car were actually my project I would be going a different route, but since I can kill two birds with one stone and help more than just one person out (hopefully) with this, that's what I'll do!
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:32 pm
On the pin count front, I'm using ..36? just for analog inputs. They go fast and as I said, I've never hear anyone complain about having too many. When I do car for other this is always one of the first questions, are we leaving room for future improvements or is it finished? If its for me the answer is I'm leaving room for future improvement because nothing is ever DONE done.....I sent a CAN line and 1/2 dozen other unused wire to the front, and use 2 plus I extended another 4 OEM wires back to the ECU before I ever "finished" the 1st round of wiring. Project cars are toys...toys are for playing with, plan accordingly and stop trying to remove pins you'll miss later. I don't have a proteus because I'd need 2 or 3 to get enough pins to be happy :lol:
Wow! that's a lot of analog inputs! We were actually just talking about that issue and maybe adding an external ADC sometime in the future.

Again, I really don't want you to think that I don't value your advice and I'm just blatantly disregarding it for my own hubris. I just think that I may have miscommunicated my goals with this project. And yes, it may turn out to be a complete waste of time and it helps no-one (I hope that's not the case), but at very least I'll have learned way more than just buying one.

For sure, I'll be starting my own project soon on other cars and buying a Proteus and doing this more of your way. This one is just different goals is all :D
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

You mentioned a 4 tooth crank sensor I think it was? That is of no value, its the same accuracy/data you already have on the distributor trigger.

As far as removing the distributor and adding a cam sensor, after you add a proper crank position wheel, sure, great idea.....which brings us back to:

"what are you building exactly?"

If the goal is getting it running at the lowest cost then stop talking about changing stuff, put a proteus on it, beg for the ford trigger to be added and be done.

If the goal is getting it running the best it can run you need to install a decent crank wheel and a few other sensors ....I like 36-1 but 60-2 is a another good choice. Then install a proteus and be happy. This path will be a few hundred dollar more but gives a better result.

If your goal is to see how much time and money you can spend screwing around with it, make a custom ECU. Seriously. You can't do a 1 off for anything like the price you can buy a proteus that is made in bigger batches and it will almost certainly take you 2 or 3 spins to get everything right and with incidentals you'll be into it for around $1500. There is a reason design rule #1 is "if there is an off the shelf solution that meets the requirements, use it".

This is why I keep asking you what the goal is....its pretty clear you just like the idea of laying out an ECU and are contorting yourself to justify the effort. We've established its not the best option for you're buddy's car. We've established you have no plans to sell it and have done no research into the target market anyway so you don't know if you even could sell it if you changed your mind and decided to try.

So what's left?....you just want to do it. That's a fine answer as long as you understand that is the answer and all the other justification is nonsense. And understand, I'm in no position at all to challenge the "because I can" reasoning, but I am in a position to know it when I see it ;)
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:01 pm
You mentioned a 4 tooth crank sensor I think it was? That is of no value, its the same accuracy/data you already have on the distributor trigger.
Sorry for the confusion. The crank is a 32 tooth not 4.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:01 pm
As far as removing the distributor and adding a cam sensor, after you add a proper crank position wheel, sure, great idea.....which brings us back to:

"what are you building exactly?"
Yeah. I can see the confusion here, so apologies. I am going to try to have three options:

1) stock TFI (assuming I can get it to work)
2) cam/crank sequential injection, batch ignition
3) cam/crank sequential injection, direct ignition

This gives direct "plug-and-play" as well as limited expandability to give the target audience of entry level performance.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:01 pm
If the goal is getting it running at the lowest cost then stop talking about changing stuff, put a proteus on it, beg for the ford trigger to be added and be done.

If the goal is getting it running the best it can run you need to install a decent crank wheel and a few other sensors ....I like 36-1 but 60-2 is a another good choice. Then install a proteus and be happy. This path will be a few hundred dollar more but gives a better result.

If your goal is to see how much time and money you can spend screwing around with it, make a custom ECU. Seriously. You can't do a 1 off for anything like the price you can buy a proteus that is made in bigger batches and it will almost certainly take you 2 or 3 spins to get everything right and with incidentals you'll be into it for around $1500. There is a reason design rule #1 is "if there is an off the shelf solution that meets the requirements, use it".
Again, I think you're missing the point. The goal isn't the cheapest option FOR ME, but for the consumer. And the goal isn't to make the absolute best EEC for this car on the market, but to fill a gap of both replacing an aging EEC the easiest way for the consumer while allowing them to have features they can add onto and promote learning in the future.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:01 pm
This is why I keep asking you what the goal is....its pretty clear you just like the idea of laying out an ECU and are contorting yourself to justify the effort. We've established its not the best option for you're buddy's car. We've established you have no plans to sell it and have done no research into the target market anyway so you don't know if you even could sell it if you changed your mind and decided to try.
How would this not be the best option for my friend's car? He will get a plug-and-play solution while benefiting a lot of other people too, and have plenty of room for him to learn, grow, and upgrade his car for years to come. He has no plans of making this some crazy boosted race car any time in the near future so this will fit his needs perfect.

And as far as the target market research, I have posted this on several mustang forums and have got a lot of interest. As well, if this was not needed, there wouldn't already be a plug and play MegaSquirt on the market. Which by the way has way less features and is crazy overpriced. This is not just my opinion either, again this is from facebook groups and forums.

I think there's a miscommunication of goals and the target audience here. I 100% agree, if my audience was the veteran performance crowd with 1000hp cars then absolutely, this is stupid! That's not the audience or the goals though. I do intend (with permission of course) to produce these and sell them in the future. My prior post was simply stating that that was far off in the future because despite what you think, I do realize it will take a few versions of this to get things perfect. Again, I am under no illusion that this will be "easy", "cheap", or "quick".
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by AndreyB »

who is going to fabricate 10 units for this to help 10 people? what kind of investment would be needed to fabricate 10 units?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
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 »

AndreyB wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:59 pm
who is going to fabricate 10 units for this to help 10 people? what kind of investment would be needed to fabricate 10 units?
Well, I'm not sure how this open source platform license works exactly. I feel it would be both immoral and rude to not give credit where it's due and mck1117 has put in quite a bit of time, not to mention you Andrey on the forum and whomever coded everything as well so I want to be fair here.

That said, I have a re-flow oven with precision soldering equipment so I have no problems assembling batches of 10 or more at a time once everything is finished but again, not sure how the licensing works here...
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:56 pm

Sorry for the confusion. The crank is a 32 tooth not 4.
does it have a missing tooth?

wstefan20 wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:56 pm
Yeah. I can see the confusion here, so apologies. I am going to try to have three options:

1) stock TFI (assuming I can get it to work)
2) cam/crank sequential injection, batch ignition
3) cam/crank sequential injection, direct ignition
The stock TFI also gives the options of sequential injection and distributor, waste, direct ignition. And the crank/cam setup will also support distributor ignition. The difference is more accurate spark timing during acceleration.

wstefan20 wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:56 pm

How would this not be the best option for my friend's car? He will get a plug-and-play solution while benefiting a lot of other people too, and have plenty of room for him to learn, grow, and upgrade his car for years to come. He has no plans of making this some crazy boosted race car any time in the near future so this will fit his needs perfect.

And as far as the target market research, I have posted this on several mustang forums and have got a lot of interest. As well, if this was not needed, there wouldn't already be a plug and play MegaSquirt on the market. Which by the way has way less features and is crazy overpriced. This is not just my opinion either, again this is from facebook groups and forums.

I think there's a miscommunication of goals and the target audience here. I 100% agree, if my audience was the veteran performance crowd with 1000hp cars then absolutely, this is stupid! That's not the audience or the goals though. I do intend (with permission of course) to produce these and sell them in the future. My prior post was simply stating that that was far off in the future because despite what you think, I do realize it will take a few versions of this to get things perfect. Again, I am under no illusion that this will be "easy", "cheap", or "quick".
How is reducing the pin count by 30 while increasing the cost and making him wait months helping your friend? That car would already be running if you just install an ECU....2 hours maybe? 4 tops. go drive, have a beer, done. You are not helping him, this project is for you. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is the piece you need to be honest with yourself about. The project is about you, no one else.

the MS ECU looks like an MS2 so its either old and they just have obsoleted it or they knew there was no point in any better HW with such limited inputs. I'm sure they sell some, probably in CA were people need to put it back to stock once a year for inspection. It also comes fully tuned and the price includes support. They talk about boost so it appears strongly like turbos are the market....the 1000hp crowd.

Forum interest and people willing to write checks are 2 very different things, so careful there. What you need to know is what features are people willing to actually pay for, where do they see value and where does the price point need to be to sell it....people will say they want the feature but then the price of the unit is out of reach vs selling a unit that is pretty basic they can afford today and they add more features internal or external later when they have more money. Its a delicate balance. MS sells a lot of ECUs because they are cheap, not because they are good. go to a racing forum like GRM or speedtalk and nearly all you see is MS....its cheap, it works.

PnP has become very popular now that all the car systems are CAN so there is a clear $$ saving when you pay up to keep all those systems working, or at least keep the dash working. Old cars with very basic systems....PnP adds very little if any value over a wire-in option that adds all kinds of options, and costs less....literally the only thing that comes to mind is a visual inspection for emissions. If you are having the install done at a shop and paying by the hour a PnP can make sense, but that is not you're market so just visual emissions inspection.

It is your money and your time...but its almost certainly not a business opportunity nor is it actually helping your buddy, it is a project you'd like to try and think you'd enjoy, and my only goal here is to help you understand that.
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:37 pm

That said, I have a re-flow oven with precision soldering equipment so I have no problems assembling batches of 10 or more at a time once everything is finished but again, not sure how the licensing works here...
You have or have access to until you graduate?

....and you still need to buy all the parts hoping to sell the units. At $300 they will surely sell if that is the going rate for a replacement used ECU but you'll need to require a core to steal the case from and connector? so a lot of labor and shipping to think about
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:29 pm
You have or have access to until you graduate?

....and you still need to buy all the parts hoping to sell the units. At $300 they will surely sell if that is the going rate for a replacement used ECU but you'll need to require a core to steal the case from and connector? so a lot of labor and shipping to think about
Sorry. Should have specified. The re-flow oven is mine, so I won't loose access. I was referring to my access to Eagle. Just debating taking the leap to learning KiCad.

Agreed. The biggest issue is the core... Probably the only way to make that work would be to either charge a large amount for the cores or have the customer send in a core at their expense. I'm curious how Megasquirt managed to get their hands on new connectors, but they've obviously got deeper pockets.
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
does it have a missing tooth?
Yes.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
The stock TFI also gives the options of sequential injection and distributor, waste, direct ignition. And the crank/cam setup will also support distributor ignition. The difference is more accurate spark timing during acceleration.
You are correct. Though the advantages are likely only noticeable at either high RPM or high HP, but I agree.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
How is reducing the pin count by 30 while increasing the cost and making him wait months helping your friend? That car would already be running if you just install an ECU....2 hours maybe? 4 tops. go drive, have a beer, done. You are not helping him, this project is for you. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is the piece you need to be honest with yourself about. The project is about you, no one else.
1) Here in Missouri where he has no access to a garage and still needs to buy the rest of the top-swap parts, it will be a few months before it's warm enough to work on it anyhow, and he still needs to rebuild his transmission so time is not an issue.

2) Yes, this project is ALSO for me but ALSO for him, and others in the future.

3) I am paying for all the production costs and versions not him, so please don't assume he's getting the raw end of the deal. That's not who I am.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
the MS ECU looks like an MS2 so its either old and they just have obsoleted it or they knew there was no point in any better HW with such limited inputs. I'm sure they sell some, probably in CA were people need to put it back to stock once a year for inspection. It also comes fully tuned and the price includes support. They talk about boost so it appears strongly like turbos are the market....the 1000hp crowd.
My point in bringing up the MS ECU wasn't to say I'm trying to completely oust them from the market with a cheaper alternative, although I think this would be competitive. I'm not trying to start a high volume production run out of my garage, and I realize that this isn't the next best thing since sliced bread so there's not going to be an enormous demand.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
Forum interest and people willing to write checks are 2 very different things, so careful there. What you need to know is what features are people willing to actually pay for, where do they see value and where does the price point need to be to sell it....people will say they want the feature but then the price of the unit is out of reach vs selling a unit that is pretty basic they can afford today and they add more features internal or external later when they have more money. Its a delicate balance. MS sells a lot of ECUs because they are cheap, not because they are good. go to a racing forum like GRM or speedtalk and nearly all you see is MS....its cheap, it works.
Again, I am not trying to start some super lucrative company. I am here to help people not take their money. I know that seems like crazy and terrible in this capitalist day and age, but I truly enjoy this as a hobby and my main goal is so that others can enjoy it too.
mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
PnP has become very popular now that all the car systems are CAN so there is a clear $$ saving when you pay up to keep all those systems working, or at least keep the dash working. Old cars with very basic systems....PnP adds very little if any value over a wire-in option that adds all kinds of options, and costs less....literally the only thing that comes to mind is a visual inspection for emissions. If you are having the install done at a shop and paying by the hour a PnP can make sense, but that is not you're market so just visual emissions inspection.

It is your money and your time...but its almost certainly not a business opportunity nor is it actually helping your buddy, it is a project you'd like to try and think you'd enjoy, and my only goal here is to help you understand that.
Again, to summarize, I have no illusions of some grand "get rich quick" scheme. From a production standpoint this is a very niche market. That's not what I'm here to do! What I am doing whether you realize it or not is that I AM helping my friend out, I will help quite a few more out in the future, and I'm also helping myself learn and grow so I can help even more people on this forum in other projects. At the end of the day, if I loose money, that's on me, and I'm fine with that. If I make some extra, great! And if I help even one person even if that person is myself and if the car even runs at all I will consider this a success or at very least a learning experience.

I appreciate your advice as I completely understand where you are coming from, and your experience. I think we just got off on the wrong foot by misunderstanding the goals and intentions on this project. I hope I clarified these a bit.
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:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:45 pm

mk e wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:25 pm
The stock TFI also gives the options of sequential injection and distributor, waste, direct ignition. And the crank/cam setup will also support distributor ignition. The difference is more accurate spark timing during acceleration.
You are correct. Though the advantages are likely only noticeable at either high RPM or high HP, but I agree.
Backwards, you see it most at low rpm, low power when injector pulses are shortest so error as a % is highest. The ignition options you won't see at any rpm.


wstefan20 wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:45 pm
Again, to summarize, I have no illusions of some grand "get rich quick" scheme. From a production standpoint this is a very niche market. That's not what I'm here to do! What I am doing whether you realize it or not is that I AM helping my friend out, I will help quite a few more out in the future, and I'm also helping myself learn and grow so I can help even more people on this forum in other projects. At the end of the day, if I loose money, that's on me, and I'm fine with that. If I make some extra, great! And if I help even one person even if that person is myself and if the car even runs at all I will consider this a success or at very least a learning experience.

I appreciate your advice as I completely understand where you are coming from, and your experience. I think we just got off on the wrong foot by misunderstanding the goals and intentions on this project. I hope I clarified these a bit.
I will be the first to admit that I am not sharpest tool in the shed most of the time so explain it like I'm forest gump.....how exactly does you taking an ECU and removing 30 pins while likely making it more expensive help anyone?

Maybe better take the little one...mre? and set it up semi-sequential and distributor ignition....that would be a very inexpensive option and you aren't throwing anything away to do it.
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:11 am
Backwards, you see it most at low rpm, low power when injector pulses are shortest so error as a % is highest. The ignition options you won't see at any rpm.
Good to know. Either way It'll be setup for just about any option.
mk e wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:11 am
I will be the first to admit that I am not sharpest tool in the shed most of the time so explain it like I'm forest gump.....how exactly does you taking an ECU and removing 30 pins while likely making it more expensive help anyone?

Maybe better take the little one...mre? and set it up semi-sequential and distributor ignition....that would be a very inexpensive option and you aren't throwing anything away to do it.
Ok, so just like the megasquirt, I'll have a panel mount D-sub connector with the "remaining" pins the Proteus has but the stock 60 pin doesn't. That way, you don't really loose any pins, but you retain the option of a direct plug-and-play.

The only increased cost would be sourcing the connector, which yes, is the biggest issue.

Basically this will end up with all the advantages Proteus has to offer while maintaining plug-and-play ability which is an advantage to those A wanting a stock look, B foxbody mustang owners who are just want a replacement for stock, C those just starting who want something to learn on that won't require the initial investment.

True, this doesn't have 100% of the features of the Megasquirt PNP, but it also has a few features Megasquirt doesn't. The price of a used stock EEC is around $300, and Proteus is $360 without a case, so a $400-450 range full plug-and-play including case and connector would be extremely marketable, which is still half the cost of the Megaquirt! Again, I'm not out to make a ton of money or anything, and I intend on splitting appropriately with those involved, but that's still way after the dev stage.

Hopefully this makes more sense. If I'm way off on my thinking, by all means, let me know.

I have attached the revised pinout I intend on using on version 1. The red are the general unused connectors. I prioritized these so they are easiest to add by simply adding crimped pins to the stock harness to use. I could even include the pins with the EEC as they are cheap. The green are those I am deleting from the stock harness and will have a jumper to allow you to enable each of them which keeps the ECU safe from those with a completely stock harness.
Attachments
92mustangEEC.xlsx
(13.77 KiB) Downloaded 237 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 »

there is another option, and that's to make an adapter board between proteus and your car

like this: https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1701
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:45 am
there is another option, and that's to make an adapter board between proteus and your car

like this: https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1701
Aaaand that's the best idea I've heard this whole time! :lol:

Never even occurred to me! :oops:

There's plenty of room inside the stock case for it too! I've only seen the spaghetti that people tend to do so I never even thought about this!

Sure, there's certain EMI and pin capacitance concerns, but I've actually used that approach with Arduinos several times with success without issue and we're not talking ultra precision here so the "rules" I'm used to can be bent a bit here.

Thanks mck117!
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 »

wstefan20 wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:24 am
Sure, there's certain EMI and pin capacitance concerns, but I've actually used that approach with Arduinos several times with success without issue and we're not talking ultra precision here so the "rules" I'm used to can be bent a bit here.
Meh, pretty much everything on an ECU is pretty tolerant of that mess, plus you're in a nice cast aluminum faraday cage!
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:45 am
there is another option, and that's to make an adapter board between proteus and your car

like this: https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1701
I suggested that 4 pages ago : :lol:

wstefan20 wrote: and Proteus is $360 without a case{/quote]
At LAST!!!! we have the project goal! Thankyou!

....its always cost on open source projects so I knew that but I just didn't know the number. $360 max, $300 target is what I read and tyhat will be tight so every pin counts.

A second connector is fine...but honestly a waste of time and effort. You drive cost down by simplifying and sticking to what you truely need, a CAN buss gets you the rest when budget allows.

so what do you REALLY need?
1 output for the distributor. there is no performance gain with other ignition options and the distributor is reliable and free,

4 fuel. I would not go less than that...you can is cost is critical but idle and low rpm will suffer, so try to fit 4 into the budget

16 AN if you can swing it. I personally burn those so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask here....but they go fast so I'd try and keep them all. at least 2, better 4 configurable for Temp sensor with a pullup

1 CAN buss for future expansion.

4-8 LS outputs, anything after that goes to CAN

5V (or 3.3V) output for sensors

Sensor gnd

12V in
12V switched in
gnd

Serial or whatever you are planning for the tuner....

That is what you need. there are really cheap Chinese connectors and cases, so pick something that works together to you can pot together.

Now you have you're spec. Again, you're welcome ;)
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:27 am
I suggested that 4 pages ago : :lol:
Well, as promised, I am humble enough to eat my words! I'm not sure how I missed that! I must have thought you were talking about the dev boards where people wire the boards with physical wires to a breakout board. So yes, apologies are in order.
mk e wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:27 am
At LAST!!!! we have the project goal! Thankyou!

....its always cost on open source projects so I knew that but I just didn't know the number. $360 max, $300 target is what I read and tyhat will be tight so every pin counts.

A second connector is fine...but honestly a waste of time and effort. You drive cost down by simplifying and sticking to what you truely need, a CAN buss gets you the rest when budget allows.

so what do you REALLY need?
1 output for the distributor. there is no performance gain with other ignition options and the distributor is reliable and free,

4 fuel. I would not go less than that...you can is cost is critical but idle and low rpm will suffer, so try to fit 4 into the budget

16 AN if you can swing it. I personally burn those so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask here....but they go fast so I'd try and keep them all. at least 2, better 4 configurable for Temp sensor with a pullup

1 CAN buss for future expansion.

4-8 LS outputs, anything after that goes to CAN

5V (or 3.3V) output for sensors

Sensor gnd

12V in
12V switched in
gnd

Serial or whatever you are planning for the tuner....

That is what you need. there are really cheap Chinese connectors and cases, so pick something that works together to you can pot together.

Now you have you're spec. Again, you're welcome ;)
haha yep! Now I think we're on the same page. The only pins "left out" that I would need the connecter for are:

5 out of 12 analog
2 out of 3 thermistors
1 out of 16 low-side switches
4 out of 12 ignition output
1 out of 2 ETB
1 out of 2 knock (block only has a stock hole for one anyhow)
3 out of 6 digital inputs

or 18 pins short of the 73 originally used for Proteus, and 26 of those on the 60 pin connector are assignable as:

1 knock
1 CANH
1 CANL
3 analog inputs
4 low-side switches
8 ignition outputs
1 RX
1 TX
1 VR+
1 VR-
1 ETB+
1 ETB-
1 digital input

So I feel that that's a good mix even without the connector.

That said, it's maybe only $5-7 to add a d-sub connector with the rest of the pins, so might as well.

Glad we cleared that up and again, my apologies for any confusion!
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 »

One thing we couldn't find when Gwendal was designing that NB2 PnP board was usable header pins to go between the Proteus and adapter board. They're 4mm pitch, but pretty large diameter. I think on his he just cut the plastic shell off of some normal Ampseal connectors and used the as adapter headers, but that gets expensive quick.
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:25 am
Meh, pretty much everything on an ECU is pretty tolerant of that mess, plus you're in a nice cast aluminum faraday cage!
Yeah... I just took an EMI design class so there's a lot of "what-ifs" that could happen. Though I will say that the "cage" might actually act more as an antenna since there's plenty of edges that don't exactly fit tightly that could make a pretty great radiator especially seeing as most automotive cables aren't shielded so you quickly have a great makeshift dipole antenna on your hands, so there's definitely potential for issues, but seeing as these cases (and ones much worse) are used with no issue leads me to be fairly confident that it's not worth sweating about. :lol:

Sorry for the nerd tangent! :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 »

mck1117 wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:55 am
One thing we couldn't find when Gwendal was designing that NB2 PnP board was usable header pins to go between the Proteus and adapter board. They're 4mm pitch, but pretty large diameter. I think on his he just cut the plastic shell off of some normal Ampseal connectors and used the as adapter headers, but that gets expensive quick.
I was thinking the same thing going through their thread. If there were mounting holes for standoffs on Proteus you could just get really long pins and hand solder them I'm guessing? Though you designed your case to mount using the connectors so I totally get why you didn't add them. I'll have to stew on that one.... I mean, I really hate to bring up the fateful idea again, but worst case It really wouldn't take me all that much time to re-do the layout. I'd obviously prefer not to if I don't... :lol:
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 »

if you were really desperate you could cut lengths of 1/16" brass brazing rod
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

Adding a shit d-sub is cheap, but everything adds up....you have way too much on your your list to hit the price point. You are talking about a mre, not a proteus at your price target. You can't afford adapter boards, knock, ETB, you don't need any of it anyway so kill all that and make the board as small as you can.

You also don't have the connector stock connector or case so why insist on using something you don't have and can't get as a reasonable price? We've already established the project is about a lower/lowest cost V8 ECU and the PnP aspect is a distraction from that goal. This is a good design starts with good user requirements, then creates good design spec and then design outputs (drawing, part specs, etc.)....a good design never ever starts with the design outputs like the connector and case unless that is truly critical to meeting user needs....here it's mostly opposed to meeting user needs as it conflicts with the primary objective of low cost and makes it not really a product.

Low cost
V8
Stay focused

You are taking about nearly exactly an mre...if you can put 2 injectors per driver, I don't know the driver power specs and don't see it in the spec sheet so I'm not sure sure...but hell, its everything you need ready to go, just install it.

If you really want to layout a board, you could take the mre and make it a basic universal up to V8 ECU. Ditch the ETB so you add a couple more injector drives and replace the 2 high current not matching drivers to get 8 matching injector drivers.

Oh!, or maybe better is leave the ETB but upgrade all or most of the low power drivers if there is budget and space on the board. This would be something with a pretty broad appeal and IMO a very useful addition to the current lineup of boards....and could eventually replace the current mre. Another maybe better way to go might be start with proteus but on the mre board...I don't know how close they are? but match the proteus processor pinout and the mre connector pinout using the proteus high power drivers so FW compatible with proteus and an evolution of mre....this would be a nice ECU.

That is the path to success and something a LOT of people would want and you might even excite Mack and Andrey enough to help you.
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

this post says no to pairing up injectors....so upgrading at least 4 outputs is the answer.
AndreyB wrote:
Sun Nov 01, 2020 5:21 pm
The magic of electricity tells us that transistors in microRusEFI are rated to drive specific loads within specific limits. Driving 8 injectors in pairs means more heat on the transistors. Idling 8 injectors in pairs is easy, WOT with high injector duty cycle could be harder. At this point there are concerns if MRE would fail and when if used to drive 8 injectors in pairs.
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:07 am
Adding a shit d-sub is cheap, but everything adds up....you have way too much on your your list to hit the price point. You are talking about a mre, not a proteus at your price target. You can't afford adapter boards, knock, ETB, you don't need any of it anyway so kill all that and make the board as small as you can.
Ok. so I think you missed the price target. It was $400-450. The $360 was for the proteus as an example. This still puts it at half of what the MegaSquirt PnP costs. But I see your point. I could very well make two versions at two different prices using that method.
mk e wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:07 am
You also don't have the connector stock connector or case so why insist on using something you don't have and can't get as a reasonable price? We've already established the project is about a lower/lowest cost V8 ECU and the PnP aspect is a distraction from that goal. This is a good design starts with good user requirements, then creates good design spec and then design outputs (drawing, part specs, etc.)....a good design never ever starts with the design outputs like the connector and case unless that is truly critical to meeting user needs....here it's mostly opposed to meeting user needs as it conflicts with the primary objective of low cost and makes it not really a product.

Low cost
V8
Stay focused
I actually have 8 of the EEC-IVs lying around (none of them the mustang one, but the connector and case are identical). Again, yes, this would be the biggest obstacle, but I could simply have the customer provide the donor, or just charge more for the case. These sell for $30-50 on eBay and there's no shortage of them in my local junkyard either.

And I think the connector and case are critical for the PnP aspect.
mk e wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:07 am
You are taking about nearly exactly an mre...if you can put 2 injectors per driver, I don't know the driver power specs and don't see it in the spec sheet so I'm not sure sure...but hell, its everything you need ready to go, just install it.
Agreed, if all I was trying to do was get my friend's car up and running quickest, you are correct, this would be the best option. That's not my goal though.
mk e wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:07 am
If you really want to layout a board, you could take the mre and make it a basic universal up to V8 ECU. Ditch the ETB so you add a couple more injector drives and replace the 2 high current not matching drivers to get 8 matching injector drivers.

Oh!, or maybe better is leave the ETB but upgrade all or most of the low power drivers if there is budget and space on the board. This would be something with a pretty broad appeal and IMO a very useful addition to the current lineup of boards....and could eventually replace the current mre. Another maybe better way to go might be start with proteus but on the mre board...I don't know how close they are? but match the proteus processor pinout and the mre connector pinout using the proteus high power drivers so FW compatible with proteus and an evolution of mre....this would be a nice ECU.

That is the path to success and something a LOT of people would want and you might even excite Mack and Andrey enough to help you.
Ok, so I think I see the issue here. If you really think we need a version of the mre tailored to the V8 crowd I can absolutely make that happen. I would like to hear from others to make sure this is needed.

I'm not sure if the proteus design could really be improved as it is a great design in my opinion, but if we're just talking make the mre more v8 compatible just to fit it in the case and connector then I'd be down for that. I just want to make sure there's enough of a need.
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:05 am
if you were really desperate you could cut lengths of 1/16" brass brazing rod
Not the worst idea for sure! I'd like to pick your brain about mk e's idea of taking the proteus microcontroller and adapting it to the mre board layout and connector. It would be cheap, and it would allow regular headers to be used so a PnP adapter board like mine would be way cheaper. I just don't want to dump a ton of time on this if there's not much need or reasons no one else has done it yet?
mk e
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by mk e »

Or maybe just uprate the 4 current injector drivers and leave everything else? semi-sequential and waste spark is a fine combination and low cost.
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by AndreyB »

rusEFI strategy is discussed on slack. best way to help rusEFI as of Jan 3, 202 is NOT by designing any new boards.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
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 »

AndreyB wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:46 pm
rusEFI strategy is discussed on slack. best way to help rusEFI as of Jan 3, 202 is NOT by designing any new boards.
Heard loud and clear! I hope you know that I'm just brainstorming and not trying to subvert anything. I didn't know there was a slack channel. Is that something that would be helpful to be a part of? If that's closed to just admins or something I completely understand.
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:45 pm
Or maybe just uprate the 4 current injector drivers and leave everything else? semi-sequential and waste spark is a fine combination and low cost.
Haven't seen an update in a while but there was a member who did a PnP board for a 5.0 as well using the mre which is completely viable option, but if I recall they just used a breakout board along with the adapter instead of just put the connector on the board which I'm not a fan of.

The problem with the mre for my application is that it is lacking:
-6 low side switches
-1 high side output
-1 digital input

Sure, I could modify the stock harness so this is "ok" just like the other 5.0 PnP, but the whole point of this project is so you don't have to modify the stock setup and it is PnP. Not to mention, there's no room for any expandability or switching to a better crank trigger or anything really which also defeats the goal of this project.

Really to get the goals I need, I either need to use Proteus, or I need to design a different board which I've been advised against, so Proteus it is!
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0 EFI swap

Post by AndreyB »

We are 3-8 weeks away from https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1913 potentially changing the hardware reality of rusEFI.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
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:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:44 pm
...., so Proteus it is!
That is by far the best solution. You won't ever regret having spare I/O or having a setup that is fully supported.....and its still 1/2 the price of the less capable MS PnP so pretty good there too.
Post Reply