USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
7/25/18 3:31 p.m.

I touched base with the guy on CL with the used TKO.  Evidently he put 30K on it in a 302 Ranger swap.  Rebuilt 2 years/25K ago by Liberty (now makes me wonder why it needed rebuilding?)

I could buy the Quicktime RM-8090 bell-housing for this.  Found it as cheap as $800.  Can I use a stock Mustang HTOB on this set-up or would I be looking at something else?

I would need to get a 26 spline clutch plate - looks like that's available.  Just takes money...

I still haven't started grinding on the MT-82.  I felt around a bit and that rib is pretty tall.  Removing it might give me the clearance I need.  Or it might just ruin the trans case.

I'm at a bit of a project gridlock at the moment.  I don't really want to continue work on the EcoBoost mounting until I get a control pack.  Ford Performance hasn't been in touch in a week.  I e-mailed asking for status today.  The possibility that they come back and tell me to pound-sand is still very real.  I really don't know where to go with all this.  Frustrating.

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
7/25/18 11:15 p.m.

Waiting with bated breath; I'm sure like everyone else following along, really pulling for Ford to come through for the folks who dug into projects based on their stuff. For your sake and because it seems to bode well for the future. I know this minute I could just plan on a 2.3 build to avoid this issue, but having them come through would be much more reassuring for planning for any swap.

mblommel
mblommel Dork
7/26/18 7:04 a.m.

Are the 2.0 and 2.3 motors so different that you couldn't make a 2.3 harness work?

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/2/18 1:44 p.m.

Talked to the guy at Ford Performance again just now.  He said he'd not heard anything, and was going to send an e-mail to the engineers in charge of the 2.0 Control Pack.  So more of the same on that front.

I started reaching out to the local tuning shops to see what would be doable with a stock ecu and a custom tune.  Evidently SCT is probably the only tuner that would work with the stock ecu.  Will follow that up.

Otherwise, I'm thinking about contingency plans / daydreams.  I like numbered lists, so here-goes:

  1. Switch to a 2.3 EB from a Mustang.  There's actually a junkyard in Ft. Collins with an EB Mustang right now (yes, same yard where I bought and returned EB 2.0 #1).  Probably simplest way to go, and I already have a reasonable idea of how the EB block fits in the car.
  2. I've been daydreaming about buying a beat-up but built late 90's Mustang GT just for the drivetrain.  Then I could part the rest of the car.  Not super clear on the size requirements on a 5.0 engine, though I know they've been put in TVRs in the past.
  3. Also, to digress further, I've liked the Rover V8.  Would need to do research on the trans options on this one - likely a T5 of some sort would work out great.  Probably similar in fit to the 302.
  4. Sometimes I get on a wild tear to buy a JDM Renesis engine/trans.

All these options would involve trying to get rid of at least some of the 2.0 stuff I've already bought.  Would definitely prefer to get the control pack and be able to finish the swap as I intended.  We'll see.

 

Dusterbd13
Dusterbd13 MegaDork
8/2/18 1:49 p.m.

Lfx!!!!!!

NOHOME
NOHOME UltimaDork
8/2/18 2:28 p.m.

I like the LFX option. V8 roadsters has the ECM bit handles for thr Miata crowd.

 

 

Pete

dherr
dherr HalfDork
8/2/18 3:06 p.m.

A friend of mine has one with a 302 and 5 speed.  It is done right and crazy fast. This is the "easy" button as it has all been done and documented. The Rover can be done and many UK models had a 3.9 or larger Rover until TVR started creating their own engines. The Rover in my TR4A has a bellhousing for a GM T5 from a Camaro, so again could be easily done.  My vote is to go back to the 2.3 Ecoboost engine from the Mustang and get the proper ECU for it. Overall power and balance would be better than any Rover or Ford V8, the Rover is much lighter than the Ford, so better balanced but getting power from the Rover is expensive.  

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/15/18 12:36 p.m.

Ok, progress.  Sort of.  I think...

I've just about given up on Ford Racing.  I keep contacting them every week or so, and they either ignore e-mails or tell me over the phone that they're working on a control pack.  But they won't give any indication of timeline.  And they're kind of rude about it.  Like I should enjoy months of blind project delay.

So I touched base with SCS-Delta in the UK about their EcoBoost controller:

https://www.scs-delta.co.uk/ford-ecoboost-ecu

Very responsive, informative, and friendly.  Would appear their system will do much the same thing as the Ford version.

I will need to send my harness to them for modification, but that's no big deal.  Just a bit more waiting.

There are some aspects of their system that are easier - no return line or fuel pressure regulator is required.  I can use the factory narrow band O2 sensor, or I can swap to a wide-band.  They have an accelerator pedal potentiometer kit, or I can use a factory pedal.

Still getting details, but I think this makes sense.

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
8/15/18 5:18 p.m.

In reply to USERNAMETAKEN :

Interesting... Anyhow, sorry Ford Racing's being problematic, but congrats on finding someone who can help you continue with the Ecoboost!

I'm excited to see any update on this project; I can only imagine how you feel...

EDIT: Awesome! The same folks have a 265hp system for the BMW B48 2.0 liter!

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/16/18 8:52 a.m.

I asked further about timing, and this morning the Ford Racing guy is saying it'll be at least 6-8 weeks for them to turn around a control pack.  That's the best case scenario.

In the spirit of Pete's diversions to customer cars away from the Molvo, I've also been doing a bit of paid work while waiting on TVR parts.  I normally do mechanical engineering and design work, but an old friend asked if I'd be willing to do some steel fabricating work for him.  So I built these:

The lower tubes are 4" x 2" x 1/4" wall.  HEAVY!  The guy who designed the frames is a civil engineer, and evidently they never discussed gussets when he was in school...

With a first coat of rolled-on Rustoleum:

Overall, I'm pretty happy with how they turned out.  A nice little project to fill up some open time and fill up the bank account.

stuart in mn
stuart in mn UltimaDork
8/16/18 9:04 a.m.

Coincidentally I watched an episode of Junkyard Empire on the Velocity channel last night - they were putting an Ecoboost engine in an old Mustang SVO, and part of the whole drama was finding an ECU and wiring harness for the thing.  They claimed they got the last one available (although I have no idea when it was actually filmed.)

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/16/18 9:38 a.m.
USERNAMETAKEN said:

Ok, progress.  Sort of.  I think...

I've just about given up on Ford Racing.  I keep contacting them every week or so, and they either ignore e-mails or tell me over the phone that they're working on a control pack.  But they won't give any indication of timeline.  And they're kind of rude about it.  Like I should enjoy months of blind project delay.

So I touched base with SCS-Delta in the UK about their EcoBoost controller:

https://www.scs-delta.co.uk/ford-ecoboost-ecu

Very responsive, informative, and friendly.  Would appear their system will do much the same thing as the Ford version.

I will need to send my harness to them for modification, but that's no big deal.  Just a bit more waiting.

There are some aspects of their system that are easier - no return line or fuel pressure regulator is required.  I can use the factory narrow band O2 sensor, or I can swap to a wide-band.  They have an accelerator pedal potentiometer kit, or I can use a factory pedal.

Still getting details, but I think this makes sense.

Uh, what?

No US product has been a narrow band front sensor for almost a decade now.  For sure, every turbo engine that has come out since 2010 has had a WB sensor as the primary feedback.  Not sure where that info has come from that it's otherwise.

BTW, the WB control is a LOT better than NB, far more accurate, and will run closed loop even at non stoich conditions. 

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/16/18 9:48 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Here's what the guy from SCS wrote:

We usually use the post catalyst narrowband lambda sensor in the pre cat position. We sell an optional wideband lambda controller if you wish to use the OE wideband sensor for real time fuel trims.

So I didn't correctly represent what he said.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/16/18 9:59 a.m.
USERNAMETAKEN said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Here's what the guy from SCS wrote:

We usually use the post catalyst narrowband lambda sensor in the pre cat position. We sell an optional wideband lambda controller if you wish to use the OE wideband sensor for real time fuel trims.

So I didn't correctly represent what he said.

So they have a unique controller that is supposed to run a DI system?  Or are they using the production one?

Running a DI system is not exactly easy- and I'm not aware of any aftermarket controller that is reasonably priced that can do that.

If they went through the effort to make a 65v injector driver, and didn't put an on board wide band controller, well....

Either way, I'd totally lean toward the WB control.  If you are going to spend the money, do it right.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/16/18 10:04 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

So I looked up the web page, and the answer to my question isn't really there. 

While the ECU looks like a unique system, with color coded connectors and a black housing, it's also virtually identical to the module that we use in the car- it's not as if they used the standard connectors and put in to their own box, they used the factory box and connectors.  

Which means I still wonder is it unique or just a hack into the OEM controller.  Which should 100% use the WB sensor (and has the drivers).

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/16/18 11:56 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

I would rather use the factory controller.  Every day of the week.  But so far I've gotten 4 months of run-around.  I have a great concern that I'll wait another 4 months and the same people will tell me, "Hey, we're not going to build that for you after all".  Can you assuage my worries?

So these SCS guys seem to have a solution.  Whether it's a modified stock system or is bespoke, I don't know.  But they have stuff in stock, and they answer my e-mails.

Because my alternative is to dump the EcoBoost engine and do something different.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/16/18 12:03 p.m.

In reply to USERNAMETAKEN :

I think you are missing my question- I agree that a path that gets you on the road is best.  So SCS is a desirable path.

What I'm wondering is if they are taking the OEM system and modifying it, or putting their own hardware within the stock housing.  If it's a modified stock system, it's already capable of WB inputs. Which saves some money and effort getting another sensor driver.

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/16/18 12:22 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Yeah, I really don't know. You'd have a better eye than me as far as stock vs. custom.

And I agree that having the wide-band capability is worth a bit of an up-charge.

dculberson
dculberson UltimaDork
8/16/18 12:37 p.m.

My reading of that is that the pre-cat o2 sensor is wideband and they use the factory one for that. They say the post-cat o2 sensor is narrow band and usually use that but can upgrade to a post-cat wideband. Is the post-cat o2 sensor on a 2.0 ecoboost narrow or wide-band?

Usernametaken, I am just some random guy on the internet, but I think going from a modern DI turbo 4-cylinder to some archaic-in-the-90s v8 would be a major step backwards. The Rover v8 is even more archaic. I know it would be easier and probably get you on the road faster, but I feel like it would be a letdown. Going to the 2.3 sucks from a "I spent so much effort to get this 2.0" standpoint, but it's still a lot better motor than the other two options listed in my opinion.

USERNAMETAKEN
USERNAMETAKEN Reader
8/16/18 1:00 p.m.
dculberson said:

Usernametaken, I am just some random guy on the internet, but I think going from a modern DI turbo 4-cylinder to some archaic-in-the-90s v8 would be a major step backwards. The Rover v8 is even more archaic. I know it would be easier and probably get you on the road faster, but I feel like it would be a letdown. Going to the 2.3 sucks from a "I spent so much effort to get this 2.0" standpoint, but it's still a lot better motor than the other two options listed in my opinion.

Thanks.  You pretty much spoke my feelings on it exactly.  I still pretty much like I'm in limbo.  But short story is that I still love this engine and still want to make it work.

- Scott

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/16/18 1:58 p.m.
dculberson said:

My reading of that is that the pre-cat o2 sensor is wideband and they use the factory one for that. They say the post-cat o2 sensor is narrow band and usually use that but can upgrade to a post-cat wideband. Is the post-cat o2 sensor on a 2.0 ecoboost narrow or wide-band?

Narrow band.  Having a WB sensor behind a catalyst is not helpful at all- there's just not enough gas there to get a very useful signal.  A NB there is sensitive enough around stoich to be very useful.  And for primary control, there's no reason to filter the information through a catalyst- that just slows the system down.

So in this case, if the catalyst is to be kept, and the feedback is used, then it should be WB in front, NB in the back.  Regardless, the primary feedback sensor should be WB before the catalyst.  Always.

Jerry From LA
Jerry From LA SuperDork
8/16/18 7:15 p.m.

To my mind, the only reason for the post-cat O2 sensor is to compare the output to the pre-cat one.  Too similar, and the computer throws a PO420 code.  So a narrow-band is all you need in the back, since the output does not vary much.

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
8/16/18 7:48 p.m.

So... If it's not a tweaked Ford ECU then everything is pretty much what it says on the tin? That is, the only weirdness is if they're hacking a Ford ECU then charging extra to make the wideband driver drive a wideband?

How unusual is that enclosure? Do we know who manufactures the Ford ECUs, and whether that case might not be Ford- or Ecoboost-only?

Link does a direct injection ECU at about $2k (price lifted from the only retailer I could find quoting a price online, converted to USD from AUD), but has no particular Ecoboost package that I know of. Noting this only to observe a ballpark figure for another DI-capable aftermarket ECU.

For USERNAMETAKEN's sake, I want it to be a solid and straightforward solution. For my own selfish sake, I'd love it if he tried out SCS's product since I don't know them, but would love to have an off the shelf solution for the engine I'd like to use in the 2002.

Ransom
Ransom PowerDork
8/17/18 11:17 a.m.

Apologies if I've taken a tangent and run with it, but I see that all their ECUs are in either a seemingly-identical case, or another form factor of the same type of case, including those for non-Ecoboost or generic applications, so it doesn't seem to me that it would be a modified Ford ECU.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
8/17/18 11:42 a.m.

In reply to Ransom :

The module is either made by Bosch or Conti- probably Bosch.  The general shape is something I see all the time, but mostly for our products- which is why I'm asking.  And given how much a PITA calibrating DI is, modifying the stock is a lot easier than a DIY calibration.  Once it's done, it's easy, but I'm not sure any OBD monitoring software records the details of running the pump and controlling the injectors, nor the specific calibration on where they are aimed.

And that's why I'm asking about how the ECU is made- as it should already have WB feedback built in if it's OEM modified.

At the moment, this seems like the best path to go, no question.  I just want to clarify the system.

Our Preferred Partners
8EUlxusP7HVoxcxC3ACmptrH3Qjhz15Eo7Krl0AdeiWYlveWZovlEvaWzG6BTlzo