• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

Why did Ford go returnless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jones331
  • Start date Start date Mar 31, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
N

n0v8or

10 Year Member
Aug 23, 2003
604
8
39
Rhode Island
Mar 31, 2005
#21
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #21
YtnGT - your description of the system is pretty darn accurate. It's not as precise as you might imagine, because the PCM can compensate for variations in differential pressure "on the fly", and recalculate every individual injector pulse.

Regarding the black relay in trinityGT's post, it's a standard Bosch automotive relay capable of switching up to a 30A lamp load. These cost Ford less than a buck in quantity. A relay that can reliably switch an inductive (fuel pump) load and operate during cold cranking is a little more expensive - like $1.20. The diagnostics are EPA mandated and must be OBD2 compliant; that adds a 50 cent serial transceiver IC, plus an 18 cent power conditioning IC. Add to that a housing, bracket, and connector, and the whole deal represents less than $2.50 in Ford (actually Visteon, who builds the Ford modules) cost.
In comparison, the PWM fuel pump driver IC with integral OBD2 port costs $1.38 and the driver MOSFET 17 cents (my company makes both). Add in the PC board, housing, bracket, and connector, and the total easily meets or beats the relay solution. What finally tips the scale is warranty labor costs . . . the mechanical relay has 2X the failure rate of the solid state module over the emissions warranty period.
 

Mike97gt

it doe snot
Founding Member
Jan 26, 1999
10,633
7
89
the people's republic of massachusetts
Mar 31, 2005
#22
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #22
i see some of the engineers chirped in on this one... one of the reasons ford went too the returnless system is it provided a more controlable fuel system for emmisons purpose.. also with the ability too change the fuel presure they can increase the presure at high load conditions... this increases the dynamic range of the injectors by alowing for a lower injector pulse width..

i do know this... ford dont care how easy any off there engine controls are going to be for modifications.. in fact when i went too a svt class the instructor spent most of his time telling us how too spot different mods and what part of the warrenty it will void...
 

White Stang

Member
Feb 11, 2004
467
0
16
Ft Lauderdale
Mar 31, 2005
#23
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #23
this is good stuff while we are on the subject does anyone know where you can get the 03 predator gas pumps driver module and how much?
 
Y

YtnGT

Founding Member
Sep 23, 2002
202
0
0
TX
Mar 31, 2005
#24
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #24
n0v8or said:
YtnGT - your description of the system is pretty darn accurate. It's not as precise as you might imagine, because the PCM can compensate for variations in differential pressure "on the fly", and recalculate every individual injector pulse.
Click to expand...

Yes I was aware of that strategy (was trying not to bore anyone). It is a reall nifty thing that ford thought of. It really damps the effect of FP variations on individual cylinder fuel delivery. BUT in my case with wet nitrous, the fuel pressure control loop variations causes more or less fuel to be delivered with the N20. FYI returnless control systems really dont like the step change in fuel demand when the fuel solenoid opens. So my N2O a/f moves around with fuel pressure.
 

Jones331

Banned
Oct 2, 2004
142
0
0
Oakland CA
Mar 31, 2005
#25
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #25
Thanks alot guy's you have been more help than I could ask for. I think I'll just leave the fuel side of things alone,and special thanks to the Ford employee's who steped this thing up...................jj
 

def1eppard

Founding Member
Apr 28, 2002
889
0
0
DFW, TX
Mar 31, 2005
#26
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #26
My butt uses returnless style pooping.
 

trinity_gt

10 Year Member
Jan 31, 2003
3,125
81
99
Canada
Apr 1, 2005
#27
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #27
n0v8or said:
Regarding the black relay in trinityGT's post, it's a standard Bosch automotive relay capable of switching up to a 30A lamp load. These cost Ford less than a buck in quantity. A relay that can reliably switch an inductive (fuel pump) load and operate during cold cranking is a little more expensive - like $1.20. The diagnostics are EPA mandated and must be OBD2 compliant; that adds a 50 cent serial transceiver IC, plus an 18 cent power conditioning IC. Add to that a housing, bracket, and connector, and the whole deal represents less than $2.50 in Ford (actually Visteon, who builds the Ford modules) cost.
In comparison, the PWM fuel pump driver IC with integral OBD2 port costs $1.38 and the driver MOSFET 17 cents (my company makes both). Add in the PC board, housing, bracket, and connector, and the total easily meets or beats the relay solution.
Click to expand...

So $1.20 for an inductive-load capable, completed relay in quantity versus $1.38 for just the ASIC, let alone the interconnects, other semis, the PWB, assembly and test labour and capital, and of course the NRE costs up front. Sorry...I don't buy that the FPDM comes out to cost substanitally the same as a simple Bosch relay.

If I was to walk into a Ford dealer and ask for a Bosch relay and a FPDM for a 2002 Mustang GT, can you tell me, roughly, what they'd charge me for each? I don't really feel like doing so but a call to my local dealer will prove which one is the more expensive part. I'd expect Ford to charge $500 or more for an FPDM and less than $15 for a relay. Assuming this is correct, why the vast disparity for two parts that you say are substantially equivalent in terms of cost?

The issue was one of going from a return-system that utilizes a fixed-speed pump, relay and FPR to a returnless that trades the FPR for a pressure sensor and the relay with a FPDM. I'm going to assume that a fuel pump happy with being PWMd at 9500Hz costs about the same as a fuel pump motor designed solely for a DC voltage in the 5-24 volt range. I think that the main driving force at work here are federally mandated emissions requirements under OBD-II but I don't buy that the move to a returnless system saved Ford a bunch of money. Indeed, I rather think the move to a returnless system in fact costs Ford more per vehicle on the assembly line and that we, the customer are eating that cost.

What finally tips the scale is warranty labor costs . . . the mechanical relay has 2X the failure rate of the solid state module over the emissions warranty period.
Click to expand...

There are thousands (millions?) of cars on the roads today utilizing the KISS-philosophy relay and have zero reliability issues with them.

Anyway, very cool discussion n0v8or. Nice to have gearheads and geeks here involved in the design of components on our cars.

Now if only someone from Tremec would show up so we could pummel him over the 3650 synchros
 

hotdog71

Member
Dec 8, 2004
427
0
16
Seattle, Eastside
Apr 1, 2005
#28
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #28
YtnGT said:
http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/general-info/jimbells-supercharged-perf-guide.pdf

Read the article on the right hand side, that should explain the decision to go returnless.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting article.

However your car should not ping when you open the throttle up fully on any car. If it does and your running the correct grade of fuel (i.e. manufacture stated) then it's a poorly utilized application for that vehicle. What ever part of the fuel system is not up to the job.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it a bad system just not very good for this application, as it is standard.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
98 gt fuel pressure issues
  • chasecollier1984
  • Jun 2, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
0
Views
34
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Jun 2, 2026
chasecollier1984
C
M
01 mustang 3.8 fuel pressure issue
  • Mhaley2006
  • May 29, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
70
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 29, 2026
Mhaley2006
M
Resolved Holley terminator integration into CCRM
  • BrandonMP
  • Feb 25, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
1
Views
213
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Feb 27, 2026
BrandonMP
SURGING IDLE / NO IDLE CHECKLIST FOR 1999–2004 MUSTANG GT (4.6L 2V) - Work In Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Aug 30, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
815
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2025
Noobz347
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
290
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?