Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
B) I am wondering if anyone that is a regular reader of this forum has heard of or uses the "Next Level" modules. They are a piggyback style unit so it fits between the main auto CPU and the engine - trans controler or in most our cases the EEC-IV. The unpgrade unit I am going to install in my 1998 Taurus SE Duratech has three settings and also adjusts the fuel to air ratio to compensate for underhood temp. So when the sensor's to lean the fuel mixture due to higher engine heat are activated, this unite can compensate for it. The three positions it has when installed are #1. OFF #2. High performance mode -- using regular octane no lead. #.3 High performance enhanced mode for using premium no lead Hi -Octane fuel. Here in Michigan it is 92 to 94 octane rating. I later will add a 180 degree themostat, and already have bypassed the air intake box in the left front fender. I will rerout the air intake using flex tubing to a cooler still air spot. The 180 degree themostat is from previous users experience with more costly chips. They have had problems with engine knock at idle when hot. It is so faint that it is only detected by a dyno knock sensor analisys. So the 180 themostat does cure that on other modules, so I will use it also. Just in case the sensor controls allow the fuel mixture to get close to 14.7-1. I am hoping to stay closer to a 13.0-1 ratio.
What I hope to hear is from folks that have used the "Next Level " module on Gen 3 Duratec mills and an honest statement of how well the unit worked. The price is very good and a basic modle is available that can not be turned off or set for premium fuel only. It runs on regular only and is a no touch addition. The Tri -Phase unit is toggle stwitch adjustable from the drivers seat and uses LED's for quik veiw of what setting you are using. Thanks for your time, and please feel free to comment. Wes B. :chili:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
A/f should not change for "engine heat." There are some heat temp models that make the car go rich based on inferred cat temp and other factors, but not for "engine heat." Also, these boxes simply intercept the EEC singal and modify it, instead of working with it.

I also doubt any car will knock at idle unless you have other serious mechanical issues...and it would not be pinging at that. A car is not knock constraiend at such low loads, like 0.20 which is what you might see at idle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
<_< What I meant was the unit makes adjustments that are made by the EEC for underhood heat. The knocking was lean mixture knocking common with piggyback programers that are altering timing above stock the setting (most all do). The person resolved the knock problem by installing a 180 degree thermostat to re-adjust the engine management control back to a richer setting by cooling the engine 15 degrees. The fuel mileage also suffered I am certain. The car was not equipped with a knock sensor as part of its engine managment control system it is a (Dodge) Neon DOHC 5 speed. I also did the thermostat water temp drop to 180 on my 89 Thunderbird 3.8 V-6. It had speed density and did not at the time have any or many performance products available. So one that could be done was electric fan, manually adjust static timing using the distributor and adding more fuel by trying to make the computor think the engine was not fully warmed up. It was very crude, but the Thunderbird 3.8 was quite underpowered and a person had to do a lot of small and if possable an occasional large change for any increase in performance from the car. I was only stating that the aftermarket chip advanced spark timing and when the engine became quite hot it was too advanced in spark timing to idle correctly. The chip was not perfect or tuneable. I am certain that any one chip with a standard setting will not affect all engines in the same manner. The only way to custom fit the fuel and timing mixture with the differant temperatures any car or truck a "chip" maker encounters is with a custom tuned Engine Control Unit. The out of the box units can improve on the factory settings, when the buyer is willing to upgrade fuel octane and also is willing to run a cooler water temp for lower underhood temps and also change the air intake for the coolest point possable. I just feel it is not practical to think on unit can be made to get maximum performance from any and all cars and trucks, with any combination of engine and transmissions, with the varying octane rating of fuel people purchace. In the one case I spoke of the engine's "chip" was set up for too much spark advance at idle. The pinging was not audible but the dyno picked up on the premature plug fireing and increased possability of damage and engine wear while at idle when hot. Thats all, I was not saying one way or any other if his unit was good or bad. I was only pointing out that it was possable with any aftermarket addition to the engine that alters fuel ratio, and ignition timing. Any person that performs those changes should be aware that they could be doing possable damage to there motor. :( Thanks for responding to my forum post. :chili:
Wes B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
A well-made program SHOULD NOT knock, even with advanced timing. All of the chips I have made here do not knock.

A colder thermostat does NOT make the gnine run richer...why would it? ECT is not an input for fuel. While in closed loop, the EEC runs feedback from the o2's and in open loop, only the MAF is used and it runs off the base tables.

Yes, on older cars you could, with too cold of a thermostat (but we're tallking like a 10) for the computer to stay in open loop. However,with newer cars since way back, the open lopp to closed-loop swtich happens based on time, not ECT.

The EEC also has the ability to retad timing to control idle...after using the idle tables and feed-forward idle-air tables and what not.

ALL of our chips are custom made, for each individual car. We do not sell any "out of the box" chips...and we need not have he car most times due to our extensive database, and testing of various combos. With enough experience, one can tune for each customers mods. I tuned the Twin Turbo Mach 1 without ever having the car, via mail order. When we placed it on the dyno, it was only 2% off. A stock car poses no challenge.

You will never get as good a driveability using one of these "control boxes" beacause you cannot change that many paraments, and limit yourself to a few. The EEC has 3000 parameters, and is very versatile, if you know what you are doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
:ph34r: I seem to be offending someone without having made any attempt to. I am repeating only what I have read, experience myself, and been told by certified mechanics and shop owners both repair and parts sales . That does not mean they are 100 correct but niether is any one book. They sell repairs and parts, a programmer sells his programs, that is the way of free enterprise. By "out of the box chips", I only meant to say that all the units made for a 1997 Ford 3.0L Duratech were the same. All the units made for a non-turbo PT Cruiser are the same. Not that every "chip" for every brand, modle, and engine of car or truck is the same. Sorry, if I was not clear on that. As for the lower water temp helping to stop spark knock -- it was told by a many folks, mechanics, shop owners, performance books, ETC. that changing my thermostat on a speed density equiped engine would change the air to fuel ratio. I have also been told that using a 180 degree thermostat would do the same on a mas air controlled EEC-IV equiped Ford car, if a person changed the ingnition timing for more static advance. The change made to my 1989 3.8 V-6 would tend to make the computor behave as though the engine was not completely warmed up. That in turn would cause the air / fuel mixture sensor to "behave" as if engine was still warming up from cold start and the fuel mixture sensor to run cause the the EEC -- IV unit to run the engine closer to a 13-1 fuel to air mix than 14.7-1 air to fuel mix. He said (my mechanic) don't do it. I did anyway -- and used slightly more fuel. I was also able to increase the distributor timing a bit for better acceleration. I have no data of what I did to the (computor and sensors), nor did I tell anyone else to do the same thing. As for the engine knock in my sons freinds car, that story is forth hand hearsay. It is only what the dyno operator/shop owner told my sons friend, he told my son, my son told me, and I then put it in the forum. I doubt it would be allowed in court as fact. I witnessed nothing and did not attend the dyno reading on the Neon. The dyno operator could have been selling his services or parts, how would I know? How does anyone know? The only reason -- I have to feel the car ran better with a cooler thermostat was side by side acceleration tests with other known cars. I have been told as I said that running the engine a bit cooler would increase the fuel to air mixture. You say it does not. I suppose the test is in the results and not the discussion of the idea. I am sorry if your ideas being different is a problem, I suppose I will just wish you well and hope your methods. I hope you suceed as well as you hope. Best of luck to you. The more ideas presented on any forum can only make it better. If we all did exactly the same thing, life would get boring very fast.
Sincerely,
Wes B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I know you were not looking for info on other systems, but about 3yrs ago I contacted venom, and they designed a venom 400 for my car, 1997 Ford Taurus Duratec. It works great but I also have a Apex'i SAFC II monitoring it and I can make an "infinite" amount of adjustments (supposedly). If you were going for all out performance I would highly reccomend this set up or (from what I have heard from others) the american motorsports chip w/ a monitoring setup (air/fuel gauge or whatever your flavor).

Thought i'd try to help
-C-
:burnout:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
:) Thanks,
I am committed to the "Next Level", Tri -- Phase unit for now. it is a fairly simple unit, I do not expect a 35-40 HP gain or anything like that. Just a stronger running car. I only wanted to know if anyone was familier with this unit espessially on a duratech mill. Since I wrote my first post I have found a tremendous amount of discussion and emoyion on module units, dyno installs, piggyback units, scams, and a lot of disagrement on what the best HP per dollar is and the possabilty of the "perfect" module. Maybe, I will just keep my 79 F-250 4X4 with the 460 4V swapped in. Thanks much for your reply, I felt you may be the first person to answer the question without selling something to me also. I suppose I will use the unit and see if it works as advertized or remove it if not. The company had a fair amount or data for different cars and trucks. It is not a huge differance in power I expect or paid for. 15 HP and 12 LB's Torque at the wheels is about it. I just start slow and sample things to find out what the motor likes and dislikes. If max HP was my only goal, I would have another Thunderbird and install a MarkVIII LSC engine in it -- then go up from that point. :boxing: For my Taurus I would get a centrifical supercharger, or the old whipple charger. Three outfits make similar units, and they would work well with 10.5-1 compression and the DOHC mill. Thanks again for the letter. I think I will just keep my ears open and mouth closed for now. The tunable piggyback module you mentioned you had sounds as if it would work great. I just did not want to put $300-600 into the car yet. I have had older Taurus's before and a Sable also a 1989 Thunderbird. The Gen III Duratech powered cars run very well compaired to the 88 3.0 or 3.8 AOD cars. The entire car is far better, and the old ones were good. I am hopefull the bodies hold up better. Michigan weather will tear up a nice car pretty fast if used in winter.
Sincerely,
Wes B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Originally posted by Wes B.@May 30 2004, 09:02 AM
:ph34r: I seem to be offending someone without having made any attempt to. I am repeating only what I have read, experience myself, and been told by certified mechanics and shop owners both repair and parts sales . That does not mean they are 100 correct but niether is any one book. They sell repairs and parts, a programmer sells his programs, that is the way of free enterprise. By "out of the box chips", I only meant to say that all the units made for a 1997 Ford 3.0L Duratech were the same. All the units made for a non-turbo PT Cruiser are the same. Not that every "chip" for every brand, modle, and engine of car or truck is the same. Sorry, if I was not clear on that. As for the lower water temp helping to stop spark knock -- it was told by a many folks, mechanics, shop owners, performance books, ETC. that changing my thermostat on a speed density equiped engine would change the air to fuel ratio. I have also been told that using a 180 degree thermostat would do the same on a mas air controlled EEC-IV equiped Ford car, if a person changed the ingnition timing for more static advance. The change made to my 1989 3.8 V-6 would tend to make the computor behave as though the engine was not completely warmed up. That in turn would cause the air / fuel mixture sensor to "behave" as if engine was still warming up from cold start and the fuel mixture sensor to run cause the the EEC -- IV unit to run the engine closer to a 13-1 fuel to air mix than 14.7-1 air to fuel mix. He said (my mechanic) don't do it. I did anyway -- and used slightly more fuel. I was also able to increase the distributor timing a bit for better acceleration. I have no data of what I did to the (computor and sensors), nor did I tell anyone else to do the same thing. As for the engine knock in my sons freinds car, that story is forth hand hearsay. It is only what the dyno operator/shop owner told my sons friend, he told my son, my son told me, and I then put it in the forum. I doubt it would be allowed in court as fact. I witnessed nothing and did not attend the dyno reading on the Neon. The dyno operator could have been selling his services or parts, how would I know? How does anyone know? The only reason -- I have to feel the car ran better with a cooler thermostat was side by side acceleration tests with other known cars. I have been told as I said that running the engine a bit cooler would increase the fuel to air mixture. You say it does not. I suppose the test is in the results and not the discussion of the idea. I am sorry if your ideas being different is a problem, I suppose I will just wish you well and hope your methods. I hope you suceed as well as you hope. Best of luck to you. The more ideas presented on any forum can only make it better. If we all did exactly the same thing, life would get boring very fast.
Sincerely,
Wes B.
Every chip we make is different...not all out say 98 4v Taurus chips are the same, we make them per the customers' needs and each car's details.

What you heard about the thermostat affecting a/f is incorrect, except on the older, older cars, where putting in a 160 would make it stay in open loop as I said...back then the closed loop swtich was based on ECT to clear, now it is not. Still, a 180 would not have done this even on those vehicles, but a 160 would have.

I would also, if you used that 160 thermostat on those cars, make it RICHER,not leaner..not 13.1 or even close, as it would run off teh base tables in that isnatce,instead of regularting off the o2's. And this owuld only affect cruise and idle, not WOT.

I am just clarifying misinfomration here. Part of the reason I was asked to join the forum was to divulge proper information. I have a lot of experience with the EEC' amd know every parameter inside and out...

The reason the car runs better with a colder t-stat is not due to a/f, but rather, because there is less heat-soak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Originally posted by Wes B.@May 31 2004, 12:18 PM
:) Thanks,
I am committed to the "Next Level", Tri -- Phase unit for now. it is a fairly simple unit, I do not expect a 35-40 HP gain or anything like that. Just a stronger running car. I only wanted to know if anyone was familier with this unit espessially on a duratech mill. Since I wrote my first post I have found a tremendous amount of discussion and emoyion on module units, dyno installs, piggyback units, scams, and a lot of disagrement on what the best HP per dollar is and the possabilty of the "perfect" module. Maybe, I will just keep my 79 F-250 4X4 with the 460 4V swapped in. Thanks much for your reply, I felt you may be the first person to answer the question without selling something to me also. I suppose I will use the unit and see if it works as advertized or remove it if not. The company had a fair amount or data for different cars and trucks. It is not a huge differance in power I expect or paid for. 15 HP and 12 LB's Torque at the wheels is about it. I just start slow and sample things to find out what the motor likes and dislikes. If max HP was my only goal, I would have another Thunderbird and install a MarkVIII LSC engine in it -- then go up from that point. :boxing:  For my Taurus I would get a centrifical supercharger, or the old whipple charger. Three outfits make similar units, and they would work well with 10.5-1 compression and the DOHC mill. Thanks again for the letter. I think I will just keep my ears open and mouth closed for now. The tunable piggyback module you mentioned you had sounds as if it would work great. I just did not want to put $300-600 into the car yet. I have had older Taurus's before and a Sable also a 1989 Thunderbird. The Gen III Duratech powered cars run very well compaired to the 88 3.0 or 3.8 AOD cars. The entire car is far better, and the old ones were good. I am hopefull the bodies hold up better. Michigan weather will tear up a nice car pretty fast if used in winter.
Sincerely,
Wes B.
What do you mean similar? Between the centrifugal and whipple-charger (twin-screw) designs?

If you lookat the dynosheet in these forums, you would see we picked up like 26 ft/lbs on D'man's car. This is an excellent power to dollar ratio, and it was in the low, mid, and high end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Alberto,
The whipple similarity to centrifical was only a reference to expanding the use of superchargers or blowers from drag race cars only to street drivin passenger cars. Similar cars would include, Thunderbird Supercoupe, Pontiacs Grand Prix, or Oldmobile's Arora with the V-6 rather than the N/A V-8 engine. I did not say a whipple was a centrifical supercharger. The whipple was a go-between in its applications one of first pratical superchagers that could be used on a street driven daily driver car, give good performance with low maintainance unlike the 6 and 8-71 GMC superchargers. Although they phyically mount similar and use the screw type impellers for pressure increases like them and actually "funtion" more closly to the GMC type. The wipple is a blow through unit NOT draw though as the big 8-71's and therefor is more compact and could be installed underhood under a regular car hood. The centrifical blowers made by Vortech, Paxton and other units are similar only as they use far less power to make addtional manifold pressure, usr lots less fuel, and take up less space than the early 6 and 8 -71 Blowers. That is how they are similar. Also the Whipple became far more reliable than the older set-up used on 1/4 mile cars and found its way to street rods and then to the davly drivers. One mounted on the 232 cube 3.8 Thunder in 1994 made 330 pounds torque from the factory ,compleatly stock. not to shabby. Also either are perfect for SEFI cars or trucks.
As for the fuel mixture levels 13 parts air to 1 part fuel mixture is correct for optimum performance powerwise if the ignition is strong enough and burns all the fuel mix. That is from older sources that were also experts on what makes a car run faster, maybe only carburated cars and trucks. Like you said Alberto you are the Forum Expert now, so I will not bring any more matters to your attention. I am happy you are happy with your accomplishments. All I wanted to know is if anyone had used the "Next Level"-- Tri-Phase unit on their Duratech powered Taurus or Sable??
Wes B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Originally posted by Wes B.@Jun 1 2004, 01:35 PM
Alberto,
The whipple similarity to centrifical was only a reference to expanding the use of superchargers or blowers from drag race cars only to street drivin passenger cars. Similar cars would include,  Thunderbird Supercoupe, Pontiacs Grand Prix, or Oldmobile's Arora with the V-6 rather than the N/A V-8 engine. I did not say a whipple was a centrifical supercharger. The whipple was a go-between in its applications one of first pratical superchagers that could be used on a street driven daily driver car, give good performance with low maintainance unlike the 6 and 8-71 GMC superchargers. Although they phyically mount similar and use the screw type impellers for pressure increases like them and actually "funtion" more closly to the GMC type. The wipple is a blow through unit NOT draw though as the big 8-71's and therefor is more compact and could be installed underhood under a regular car hood. The centrifical blowers made by Vortech, Paxton and other units are similar only as they use far less power to make addtional manifold pressure, usr lots less fuel, and take up less space than the early 6 and 8 -71 Blowers. That is how they are similar. Also the Whipple became far more reliable than the older set-up used on 1/4 mile cars and found its way to street rods and then to the davly drivers. One mounted on the 232 cube 3.8 Thunder in 1994 made 330 pounds torque from the factory ,compleatly stock. not to shabby. Also either are perfect for SEFI cars or trucks.
As for the fuel mixture levels 13 parts air to 1 part fuel mixture is correct for optimum performance powerwise if the ignition is strong enough and burns all the fuel mix. That is from older sources that were also experts on what makes a car run faster, maybe only carburated cars and trucks. Like you said Alberto you are the Forum Expert now, so I will not bring any more matters to your attention. I am happy you are happy with your accomplishments. All I wanted to know is if anyone had used the "Next Level"-- Tri-Phase unit on their Duratech powered Taurus or Sable??
Wes B.
The twin screw and centrifugals mount totally different...you must have meant roots and twin screw (whipple). Who says the centrifugals use less power to make more boost? There are many factors that play a role here, such as presure drop at different points, adiabatic efficiency range, positive displacement (when regarding positive displacement blowers such as twin-screw), etc.

I disagree with 13.1:1 being the optimum a/f for performance on an N/A car as a general rule, and it is definitely too lean for FI. Empirical data shows otherwise.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top