Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
:eek: OMG, not again! Use the search! The SEARCH! :freak2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
It's crap just like the rest of those 20 HP intake mods. If it isn't a real chip, it's crap. That thing is just a resistor in a box that you put in place of the IAT sensor. You could go to Radio Shack and buy a pack of resistors for $2, pick the right value and get the same effect. It doesn't work and all it will do is make the car run richer (as if our cars don't run rich enough as it is).

You can't get more horsepower without putting at least a little work into a project.

EDIT:

BTW, there are a million threads in here about these. Use the search.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.

It simply tries to trick the EEC into thinking it is colder out, and hence, adding timing...but then you may get detonation and actually lose power.

And by the way, these cars run way rich at WOT from the factory...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Originally posted by americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 10:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.

It simply tries to trick the EEC into thinking it is colder out, and hence, adding timing...but then you may get detonation and actually lose power.

And by the way, these cars run way rich at WOT from the factory...
My bad. I thought I read somewhere in here that the IAT mod made it run richer. I figured it made sense if Ford did something like realizing the air is colder, expecting the more dense air, and turning up the timing and fuel amount. But since I just heard it from the EEC man himself, now I know (I'm being serious, not being a smart a$$). Learned my thing for the day, time to go home. :)

I really notice that they run rich now that I have a chrome exhaust tip. It stays chrome for about 2 days then it turns shiny black. Guess I could keep my foot off of the gas and it would help, but nah...what's the fun in that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
Originally posted by americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 10:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.
So does the coolant temp sensor have any effect on A/F mixture then? I thought one of them did at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Originally posted by NateNBeckie+May 20 2004, 11:17 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NateNBeckie @ May 20 2004, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 10:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.

It simply tries to trick the EEC into thinking it is colder out, and hence, adding timing...but then you may get detonation and actually lose power.

And by the way, these cars run way rich at WOT from the factory...
My bad. I thought I read somewhere in here that the IAT mod made it run richer. I figured it made sense if Ford did something like realizing the air is colder, expecting the more dense air, and turning up the timing and fuel amount. But since I just heard it from the EEC man himself, now I know (I'm being serious, not being a smart a$$). Learned my thing for the day, time to go home. :)

I really notice that they run rich now that I have a chrome exhaust tip. It stays chrome for about 2 days then it turns shiny black. Guess I could keep my foot off of the gas and it would help, but nah...what's the fun in that? [/b][/quote]
I can optimize your a/f with a chip...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Originally posted by dIESEL600+May 20 2004, 12:25 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dIESEL600 @ May 20 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 10:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.
So does the coolant temp sensor have any effect on A/F mixture then? I thought one of them did at least. [/b][/quote]
There are some multipliers in the EEC that CAN be used to richen or lean up the mixture by a standard amount based on ECT OR ACT, but these are only really used on some of the older cars in pratice...I usually optimize all of that anyway.

But the base fuel gtable really operates only based of load and RPM, or, in some of the newr cars, TP and RPM. This is what really determines a/f when in open loop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Originally posted by americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 01:03 PM
I can optimize your a/f with a chip...
I would love to take you up on that offer, but I don't have that much money to spend right now. :(
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
425 Posts
PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!

It's like a bad drug. It may give you the feeling that it works at first, but the negative side effects are far worse than the positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
It doesn't work at all, not even at first...the EEC ses that sensor as an input to timing....how can the EEC calculate proper timing if the sensor is now telling the EEC it is ALWAYS the same temperature outside? This means you would likely end up with too much timing most of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
.......We shot down the hot pavement, going even right at the start.  Almost as surprising to me as it was to Mikey, I shot past him!  It was like I was watching the road in fast forward; my car had never been close to that fast.  I gripped the steering wheel tightly and floored it until I saw Mikey in my rearview mirror.  It was all over.  The Speed Seeker added so much horsepower!  It was a great feeling when I pulled over to the side and saw Mikey's jaw hanging down in complete shock.  I soaked up the satisfaction on that bright sunny Sunday.

      Needless to say, from that day on I believed in the Speed Seeker Horsepower Enhancer.  Mikey doesn't race me anymore.

:lol: That's hilarious! What a looser......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
425 Posts
I hate to admit this but I had a simular IAT product installed for a good 8 months. It worked...at least it did for a while...I thought anyway. I won't ever use it again.

When I pulled off intake pendulum and cleaned the intake valves, it was pretty ugly. The carbon build up was nasty. Both O2 sensors where badly burnt and black and my muffler was in need of replacement (that's when I got the turbo muffler). I don't know what the cat convertor looked like, but I'm sure it was just as bad. I'm sure it's due to be replaced.

I port and polished the headers and cleaned everything I could. Needless to say it was messy. When I was done. I cycled through 3 bottles of RXP to make sure I would pass smog. I was afraid of not passing.

Not to mention, I was only getting about 12 mpg. Now that I have a the Diablo chip(I recently pulled it out and brought it back to stock condition due to high cost in fuel prices), my car is running like it's supposed to and all the cleaning and porting I did, it's much faster than before. Now, I'm averaging 21.5 mpg or more every time I fill up.

Word of advise, lose it before you damage your car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Originally posted by americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 11:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.

It simply tries to trick the EEC into thinking it is colder out, and hence, adding timing...but then you may get detonation and actually lose power.

And by the way, these cars run way rich at WOT from the factory...
Hi Alberto,

I too have always believed that the amount of fuel delivered at any given moment is at least to some degree dependent on air and engine temperature, and hence I always thought that the ECT and IAT sensors played major roles in helping the PCM determine optimal fuel delivery system strategies. This seems to be the conventional wisdom, or at least I thought it was.

The basis for my thinking comes from a variety of sources, but I suppose the best can be found in Charles Probst’s “Ford Fuel Injection & Electronic Engine Control" (which to my knowledge is a highly credible source). In it, Probst indicates time and again that both the ECT and ACT (IAT) play a very active role in fuel injection control in virtually all engine operating strategies.

For instance, with regard to "Part Throttle" strategy, Probst states the following as to fuel delivery:
"Pulse time is also increased according to the ACT and ECT sensors, greater when the incoming air and/or engine is colder."
Even WOT stratagy calls for some air/engine temperature input, according to Probst:
“...[engine] control provides extra enrichment to handle the sudden rush of air. ECT and ACT add pulse times as necessary for lower temperatures.”
I understand that much of Probst’s statements and opinions are rooted in EEC-IV principles, but it’s hard for me to think that basic Ford Fuel Injection Strategy would have changed all that much during the “step up” to EEC-V and OBD-II.

So I guess my question is this: do the more modern Ford engines, such as the Duratec found in the newer Taurus, rely less (or not at all) on air temperature to assist in determining fuel requirements? Your post seems to suggest that ignition timing, and not fuel injection, is the primary reason for the existence of the IAT on "that car".

:zoomsmiley:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
esta garbaje.
Anything promising 20+ horses on ebay is garbage, unless it is from a big name company such as Jet or Diablo.
I bought a "chip" from a guy off of ebay, and it sucked. At first I thought I felt a difference. Then the next morning my car stalled right after I turned it on. And I had to rev my engine to push whatever crap was slowing down my car out, and blueish gray smoke shot out of my exhaust. Car was fine once the "chip" was out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Originally posted by rockledge+May 22 2004, 06:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rockledge @ May 22 2004, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-americanmotorsport.com@May 20 2004, 11:44 AM
It does not make the car run richer...intake air temperaure has no effect on A/f on that car.

It simply tries to trick the EEC into thinking it is colder out, and hence, adding timing...but then you may get detonation and actually lose power.

And by the way, these cars run way rich at WOT from the factory...
Hi Alberto,

I too have always believed that the amount of fuel delivered at any given moment is at least to some degree dependent on air and engine temperature, and hence I always thought that the ECT and IAT sensors played major roles in helping the PCM determine optimal fuel delivery system strategies. This seems to be the conventional wisdom, or at least I thought it was.

The basis for my thinking comes from a variety of sources, but I suppose the best can be found in Charles Probst’s “Ford Fuel Injection & Electronic Engine Control" (which to my knowledge is a highly credible source). In it, Probst indicates time and again that both the ECT and ACT (IAT) play a very active role in fuel injection control in virtually all engine operating strategies.

For instance, with regard to "Part Throttle" strategy, Probst states the following as to fuel delivery:
"Pulse time is also increased according to the ACT and ECT sensors, greater when the incoming air and/or engine is colder."
Even WOT stratagy calls for some air/engine temperature input, according to Probst:
“...[engine] control provides extra enrichment to handle the sudden rush of air. ECT and ACT add pulse times as necessary for lower temperatures.”
I understand that much of Probst’s statements and opinions are rooted in EEC-IV principles, but it’s hard for me to think that basic Ford Fuel Injection Strategy would have changed all that much during the “step up” to EEC-V and OBD-II.

So I guess my question is this: do the more modern Ford engines, such as the Duratec found in the newer Taurus, rely less (or not at all) on air temperature to assist in determining fuel requirements? Your post seems to suggest that ignition timing, and not fuel injection, is the primary reason for the existence of the IAT on "that car".

:zoomsmiley: [/b][/quote]
I'm no expert, but it's my guess that Probst was referring to a Speed-Density system there.

I believe that IAT would be used to determine the A/F ratio in a Speed-Density system.

But in a Mas Air system, the MAF can determine the amount of air entering the engine without having to directly measure the temp. So, it can determine the proper amount of fuel to add. The PCM still needs the IAT to determine the proper spark timing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Originally posted by eCarâ„¢@May 24 2004, 08:55 AM

I'm no expert, but it's my guess that Probst was referring to a Speed-Density system there.

I believe that IAT would be used to determine the A/F ratio in a Speed-Density system.

But in a Mass Air system, the MAF can determine the amount of air entering the engine without having to directly measure the temp. So, it can determine the proper amount of fuel to add. The PCM still needs the IAT to determine the proper spark timing.
Good point you make about the MAF. I understand there is a relationship between temperature and air density, and I went back and re-read what Probst had to say about the MAF. Here's a very relevant paragraph:

"It [MAF] measures mass, or weight, so it requires no air-fuel-mixture ratio correction for changes in density due to temperature or altitude."

Seems pretty straight-forward and would explain a lot, but other than that simple paragraph, Probst never really states again that the MAF sensor is capable of "picking up the slack" from the ACT regarding measuring incoming air temperature. His book covers Ford FI from 1988-1993, and the MAF was around for that entire time, so it's not as if the technology was too new for him to discern. Makes me wonder why Probst would put forth those broad statements that I posted earlier about how the ACT DOES play a role in A/F ratios without any qualifications as to how things might be different in a MAF-equipped system. A little bit misleading, if you ask me.

And another thing that confuses me about the MAF: if it can supposedly account for changes in such things as ambient conditions and altitude, then why does my '94 SHO w/MAF need a baromatric pressure (BP) sensor?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
In a Ford MASS Air system, the IAT and ECT are not used to determine a/f except as I provided above. I can see how the EEC works when I look at the code, plus have a lot of experience with this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Originally posted by americanmotorsport.com@May 24 2004, 11:38 AM
In a Ford MASS Air system, the IAT and ECT are not used to determine a/f except as I provided above. I can see how the EEC works when I look at the code, plus have a lot of experience with this.
Nobody's challenging your experience Alberto, or what you have to say regarding how A/F ratios are determined. Just pointing out reasons why other people -like myself- might not fully grasp (at least initially) all of what you have to say about the subject, based on us (me) getting differing information from other sources that are generally deemed credible. ;)

In any event, I guess my next question on the issue has to be this: if the PCM doesn't need the ACT (IAT) input to help determine A/F ratios, then why does it need it for ignition timing? Why can't the PCM just use the same input from the MAF that it uses for A/F, since supposedly that signal is already accounting for changes in air temperature. Isn't that right? In other words, why not dump the IAT altogether?

Also, I'm still hoping for some feedback on why my MAF-equipped SHO needs a BP sensor? Anyone?

:unsure:
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top