lets lose the dizzy...

[zm830101]

i have been lurking around a while and i was wondering if anybody has used a distributorless 5.0 out of an explorer or other late model fords in there efi conversions on classsic stangs? got any pics? i am looking forward to turning my 357 into a n/a fuel injected beast. was wondering if anybody had any experience with the later motors. also has anybody had any experience with the MSD distributorless ignitions? i want to take alll the engine management stuff from an explorer and adapt it to work on my 351. any suggestions?

 

[67coupe351w]

i have been lurking around a while and i was wondering if anybody has used a distributorless 5.0 out of an explorer or other late model fords in there efi conversions on classsic stangs? got any pics? i am looking forward to turning my 357 into a n/a fuel injected beast. was wondering if anybody had any experience with the later motors. also has anybody had any experience with the MSD distributorless ignitions? i want to take alll the engine management stuff from an explorer and adapt it to work on my 351. any suggestions?

I actually just asked this question over in a thread I started a few minutes ago. We shall wait and see what everyone thingks about EDIS together.

 

[zm830101]

matter of fact i just read the thread that you just posted
TTT:SNSign:

 

[zm830101]

67cope351w...not sure if this helps you at all, but i just found this thread over at the corral. has some good links as well as some other good info
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=673981

 

[zm830101]

still looking for any pics of edis installs in classic stangs

 

[ForceFed70]

I'm in the process of converting my 1970 351W to EFI using a megasquirt ECU.

However, I havn't given ignition a heck of alot of thought. I want to get the car running with the ECU controlling fuel only, then step up to controlling ignition.

With the megasquirt I have the option of using EDIS, TFI, or even my factory points distributor. I was planning on using the factory dist 1st, then switching to EDIS later...

 

[zm830101]

is it possible to use the explorer compouter in an early model car with a t5? i don't want to use an aftermarket ems/ecu. is it possible to just chip the explorer ecu and have it function properly? i have heard that the harness from the explorer is far more integrated and is difficult to convert for use in a stang application with a manual tranny. i am by no means a tuner and given that kind of power i would not be able to resist tinkering. i would rather just pay somebody to get my tune right, chip it and forget it. is this a viable option with the explorer edis and ecu components?

 

[68rustang]

Somebody on here used a distributorless ignition engine. They were Australian and they had a wicked polished scratch built intake. I want to say their SN was maxwell but I could be way off.

 

[302 coupe]

marshall not maxwell

 

[LMan]

whats the benefit of EDIS in a classic Mustang?

 

[68rustang]

marshall not maxwell

Like I said probably I was probably way Off

 

[68rustang]

whats the benefit of EDIS in a classic Mustang?

more time tinkering less time driving?

 

[ForceFed70]

whats the benefit of EDIS in a classic Mustang?

Same benifit as in a new vehicel

There are 3 main benifits.

1) No mechanical parts (anything mechanical breaks or wears out faster).
2) No more cap/rotor to wear out or get water inside. (no distributor at all for that mannor)
3) Higher spark energy. Jumping the spark from the rotor to the cap(to then fire the plug) wastes alot of spark energy.

 

[LMan]

mmmmkay.

 

[zm830101]

the fact that you are eliminating the dizzy also opens up the door to a few different intake otions i.e. forward mounted throttlebody etc.

 

[65fastback2+2]

i had a complete mountaineer 5.0...its just carbed in my car now, but if I remember right when planning, the ecu doesnt quite work as its for an auto car.

 

[Bullitt]

Same benifit as in a new vehicel

There are 3 main benifits.

1) No mechanical parts (anything mechanical breaks or wears out faster).
2) No more cap/rotor to wear out or get water inside. (no distributor at all for that mannor)
3) Higher spark energy. Jumping the spark from the rotor to the cap(to then fire the plug) wastes alot of spark energy.

just cause it's electronic doesn't mean it's fool proof. i remember my shop teacher in highschool saying that 9 out of 10 problems on a car are electrical... not to say that EDIS is bad, but hard to make a blanket statement like this compared to a good aftermarket ignition w/ distributor.

 

[ForceFed70]

just cause it's electronic doesn't mean it's fool proof. i remember my shop teacher in highschool saying that 9 out of 10 problems on a car are electrical... not to say that EDIS is bad, but hard to make a blanket statement like this compared to a good aftermarket ignition w/ distributor.

I couldn't disagree with you more. As more and more parts become electronic...you're sure as heck going to see a higher percentage of electronic related failures. Problems are often related to electronic components... but that's because every damn component is electronic. Why does a TPS sensor wear out? Because it has a mechanical component... same goes for the vast majority of electronic failures.

I'm curious to see if you can name a purely electronic part that commonly fails in todays newer vehicles. Don't say the ECU because that's really not that common and because it was usually another failed componnt that caused the ECU to fail. (For example shorted inputs/outputs). Blaiming the ECU when it fails is like blameing the block when you put a hole it in.

The big auto manufacturers switch to electronics for a reason. A large part of that is relyability. These guys spend billions of $$ on research and development.... if the advantages of a mechanical system outweigh the advantages of an electronic system, they would do it in a heartbeart.

They also spend WAY more money on their R&D than most aftermarket companies. In fact.. most aftermarket companies use technology developed and proven by OEM manufacturers to build and design their product. Holley is a great example. It's easy to improve something that's already been built for you.. it's much harder to develop from scratch.

True.. just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's better. But don't fool yourself into thinking OEM manufacturers do it just so it can be electronic. They do it because it makes sence. Either to provide a better product or to save money...often both.

 

[stangman67]

I would have to say a common no start condition, ignition related of course, would be crank/cam position sensors. Both these seem to have a somewhat frequent failure rate, of which their job is to trigger a signal when a magnet, or metal object rotates by. I see no mechanical components here. Also, coils on Triton motors are pretty much electronic, and they fail all the time.

 

[ForceFed70]

I would have to say a common no start condition, ignition related of course, would be crank/cam position sensors. Both these seem to have a somewhat frequent failure rate, of which their job is to trigger a signal when a magnet, or metal object rotates by. I see no mechanical components here. Also, coils on Triton motors are pretty much electronic, and they fail all the time.

From my experience missing tooth sensors like the cam position sensor very rarely fail. Unless the sensor position is changed for some reason.. but that's not a part failure.

Ignition coils on SOME vehicles maybe. But that's a flaw with the design and not the choice of using a coil. In this case we don't really have a choice anyway. I should also point that a coil generally fails as a side effect of something else. For example: Worn out or shorted spark plugs and wires are really hard on coils.

Maybe it would be better to see if we can find electronic parts that fail more often that their mechanical counterparts.