Swapping a 3.7L v6 into my 1966 Mustang, looking for a bit of ECU info

wicked93gs

Member
Sep 30, 2006
587
4
18
Nashville TN
20191102_153343_zpsumkxwx4i.jpg


20191104_161443_zpsdafgsulb.jpg


20191105_125836_zpssoccathu.jpg


20191106_111314_zpsu08cqvct.jpg


20191109_153605_zps7vgbgrhx.jpg


The engine and transmission are physically in place, sitting on engine and trans mounts I fabbed up, along with a S197 tunnel grafted in(I wanted an easy bolt-in offset handbrake and it was the easy way to go since I had to do tunnel mods anyway).

Anyway, my question to you guys is what my options are for tuning the stock ECU...what I really need is control over aspects like the drive-by-wire system...preferrably I would like to be able to ditch that part and just replace it with a cable system using a TPS signal for the ECU. From my reading on drive-by-wire systems they are essentially just 2 TPS sensors with inverted readings to fault check against one another to feed the ECU info for the PWM throttle body actuator(IE, the pedal gives a TPS signal that is fed to the ECU, which tells the TB to open to x%, and then checks the TB TPS to reference whether the stepper motor needs to continue to open or close). Ideally I would like to simplify this system if possible because I will be building an adapter plate to use some BMW ITBs(the stock intake manifold wont work because it wont allow me to run an effective shock tower brace...which is a MUST in a vintage mustang). Making an adapter plate for this application is just one more in a long list of pieces I need to fabricate....but it presents a challenge in somehow making a drive-by-wire system actuate a cable TB system correctly(not to mention I hate drive-by-wire, it just doesn't act right...not so bad with an auto, but annoying as hell with a manual transmission...my 05 Mazda 6 has a manual trans and drive-by-wire...its horrible for several reasons). Aside from that my other option is to simply use Megasquirt 3 to run everything...which is fine, it has the capability...I just dont feel like spending months tuning the engine from scratch for the basic fuel and spark maps, for the Ti-VCT, for the adaptive knock control, etc etc if I can get the stock ECU to do what I want and run cable-operated ITBs smoothly. I suppose I can always take the TB stepper motor and attach it to a cable-linkage wheel if I had to, but its really not an elegant solution(though it might be my only one).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaggedGT
  • Sponsors(?)


wicked93gs

Member
Sep 30, 2006
587
4
18
Nashville TN
Well, I may have found a possible solution...later BMW M3s use a linkage-type stepper motor to control the ITBs on their v8s...if the Ford ECU is sending standard PWM stepper motor signals to control the stock single TB, and if the BMW stepper motor uses standard PWM signals to operate then its simply a matter of substituting one stepper motor for the other...but IF its a Can-Bus signal coming from either the BMW or Ford ECU signal and the PWM are generated inside the TB actuator as a stand-alone can-bus module then I am out of luck. Its hard to tell really. Can-Bus is a 2-wire system and both the Ford and the BMW actuators have more pins than that...but the Ford actuator also returns a TPS signal(The BMW has a separate TPS sensor) so its really unknown whether they are each their own can-bus module or just a standard stepper motor
 

a91what

SendMeUrDataLog
Mod Dude
Apr 6, 2011
9,345
5,528
204
30
Hillsborough county
Very cool project! If you do decide to run an MS3 let me know, I can simplify the tuning process for you. I can usually knock out a complete tune in a couple of hours. On a Vi-VCT system it will take longer to get the cams setup properly for phasing than to actually tune it. The simplest way to deal with the variable cams is to use a MAF sensor [will require an airbox of some kind]

Now for the stock stuff, you will still have to [obviously] tune the engine. The ITB are going to require you to touch every single parameter in the stock ecu, prepare for that.. even the stock load tables will be null... Ti-VCT will need a different cross point ect...
 

wicked93gs

Member
Sep 30, 2006
587
4
18
Nashville TN
Well, I have a MS3 unit, and its going to be much simpler NOT to have to mess with drive-by-wire pieces with an ITB setup...I will likely go that way. I have tuned several cars with Megasquirt and in general its very easy...but Ti-VCT is something completely foreign to me...is there a reason I have to have a MAF sensor? I would really rather not run one if I dont have to(even if its harder to tune). Usually I use speed density if using MS3...but was considering Alpha-N since I have heard its easier to set up and run ITBs that way(probably because the lack of a good vacuum signal?). I ended up getting some v8 M3 ITBs for this project....which have a balance tube for each bank that in the stock BMW setup are plumbed together and a IAC valve is used to balance all the TBs via one valve vs a needle valve for each TB...I got those particular TBs because I was hoping the balance tube design would help with getting a clean vacuum signal(I don't truly need vacuum for anything other than tuning since the car is manual brakes)
 

a91what

SendMeUrDataLog
Mod Dude
Apr 6, 2011
9,345
5,528
204
30
Hillsborough county
The issue is the variable nature of the ti-vct the flow will not be the same all the time. Now you have the option of just setting up a cross over point [think older v-tec] the cams will phase in and just tune it slightly rich. you can then use ego correction to take care of the rest.

I suggested MAF as it takes out 80% of the tuning and allows the for a wider variance in the cam. Remember the cams are constantly moving as they are PWM controlled by the ECU this will add in enough variance to drive some crazy tuning a VE table.

I would suggest using ITB mode, this allows a curve to be built with a switchpoint. Using SD under the curve and Alpha-N over the curve, I have experience with this as well. However the last one i tuned was @CarMichael Angelo crazy turbo ITB setup

I have a ton of MS info so feel free to hit me up.
 

wicked93gs

Member
Sep 30, 2006
587
4
18
Nashville TN
Sounds good, I will do that when I get to that point...I have headers to finish fabricating, then the car goes on the rotisserie for misc metal work on the undercarriage I need to finish, then blasting and paint and body work...after that is finished I will try to get the engine running outside of the car as I reassemble everything...so I am probably a couple months out from engine start at this point...or I might move up the MS stuff if it gets too cold to allow me any real progress on paint and body
 

wicked93gs

Member
Sep 30, 2006
587
4
18
Nashville TN
20191209_084232_zpszpdehr0a.jpg

Well, it looks confirmed....The Duratec30 fuel rail using injector spacers(I just bought a set of LS injector spacers) does indeed provide a bolt-up fuel rail solution for a returnless fuel system(or a return-style fuel system for that matter if you remove the Schrader valve from the other end and attach a braided stainless line to the threads(or a hose barb), There is one thing to remember though...the Duratec30 has a port spacing of 102mm vs the 106mm for the Duratec37...so injectors for cylinders 1,3,4,&6 will be angled going into the ports on the ITBs slightly. This will not really affect the function of the injector(except maybe making it spray a touch off-center...but you would never notice that anyway) but it might well affect the useful life of the injector o-rings...you might have to change o-rings every 50k miles or something. The only rail modification you would need to do to get this to fit is to modify the brackets. There are 4 brackets on the fuel rail...and out of the set of 8 throttle bodies...4 of them have bracket mounting bosses...so you would need to make sure to keep throttle bodies 1,3,5, and 8 if you feel the need for all 4 brackets to attach. TBs #1 and 8 each have a throttle position sensor boss(and sensor) that sticks out from the side of the TB by 2 1/4"...so if space is a constraint, its something to keep in mind. The advantage of having 2 throttle position sensors on the ITBs is that supposedly they could effectively replace the TPS sensors in the stock 3.7L throttle body and the 3.7L throttle pedal(this doesn't matter to me, but it gives the potential for people using the stock ECU to ditch the drive-by-wire setup with a small amount of electronic trickery and move to a cable throttle system for those who dislike the inherent lag in drive-by-wire systems...I know it has caused me to stall my Mazda 6 before where a cable throttle(analog system) would never stall