Running a 165 ECM along side a 7427 PCM

[Racprops]

I am building a 93 Custom Van a new drive train.

It is a low RPM Torque Monster SBC 383 that thanks to Roards Veritable roller lifters will produce a torque curve from 1000 to 3000RPMs and power curve from 2500 to 4700 RPMs though a 4L80e and a US Gear Dual Range Overdrive.

It is hoped and believe my special engine will with the 5 gears be able to cruse at around 80MPH and 1600RPMs and get 25+ MPG.

It will not run over 5000RPMs.

I am running 193 Swirl Port heads, stock headers.

All of this will be fed by a 87 Camaro TPI system and controlled by a original 165ECM with its full Lean Burn Cruse custom tuned for best operation.

The 4L80e rebuilt with all the upgrades will be controlled by a 93 7427 PCM acting as the transmission only controller.

This is where I am asking for help: how to set these two controllers up.

My plan so far is to mainly hook both systems up at the same time:

The 165ECM gets all the Camaro sensors, VSS, Knock, IAT, MAF, TPS, Engine Temp, Tach. More of less a full Carmaro set up from a coplet wiring hardness from a 87 Camaro.

The 7427 PCM is the problem, as it will only be controlling the transmission, I am unsure what it needed to operate normally. This is not a drag racer but a RV Cruiser. This will be hooked up using the 93 Stock Van's wring.

So what controls shifting??

I think: VSS, RPMs, TPS(?) and MAP as load sensor. I have read Engine Temp is also need, but why?

I plan on having knock, IAT, and fuel injectors turned off by a programmer.

VSS and RPMs is easy to share being a electronic signal. MAP is also easy to plug into the manifold by its self.

The TPS Throttle Position Sensor is a bug-loo, as it is a sensor managed by the PCM I think I cannot run the PCM and the ECM off the same sensor, so the big question is does the 7427 PCM controlling only the transmission need the TPS??

I am hoping it only needs the MAP to judge load and thus respond to throttle changes requiring a down shift or to do a up shift.

Other wise I will need to figure out a way to add TBI TPS to the Throttle Body of my TPI intake.

Rich

[steveo]

i understand your plan and i know you could probably make it work BUT i disagree with your complicated approach.

my thoughts are if you have VSS, TPS, RPM, and MAP, and disable a lot of codes, you can likely get the 7427 to act as a standalone.

connecting the same sensor to two different ECMs can be problematic. they each send their own reference voltage. it can be a wiring nightmare although anything is possible if you understand analog signalling.

so here's a really big question for you

why not just convert the 7427 to batch fire mpi and dump the other ecm, having one ecm controlling everything?

were you aware the 7427 is plenty capable of feeding a TPI rig? it has been done quite a few times

[Fast355]

i understand your plan and i know you could probably make it work BUT i disagree with your complicated approach.

my thoughts are if you have VSS, TPS, RPM, and MAP, and disable a lot of codes, you can likely get the 7427 to act as a standalone.

connecting the same sensor to two different ECMs can be problematic. they each send their own reference voltage. it can be a wiring nightmare although anything is possible if you understand analog signalling.

so here's a really big question for you

why not just convert the 7427 to batch fire mpi and dump the other ecm, having one ecm controlling everything?

were you aware the 7427 is plenty capable of feeding a TPI rig? it has been done quite a few times

Personally I would delete the OBD1 stuff entirely, EFI Connection 24x reluctor behind a Holley vortec timing cover, convert to coil near plug, get an inexpensive LS swap harness and use a DBC 0411 or P59.

The early GM MAFs are garbage and the only 165 I have ever tuned I went to $12P MAP based code in.

USA made swap harness I am about to use to replace the Proflow 4s garbage ECU setup I am currently running.

https://highperformanceinjectors.com/products/dbc-1997-2006-ls1-standalone-wiring-harness-w-4l80e-4-8-5-3-6-0-5-wire-maf-delhi-connectors

[In-Tech]

Personally I would delete the OBD1 stuff entirely, EFI Connection 24x reluctor behind a Holley vortec timing cover, convert to coil near plug, get an inexpensive LS swap harness and use a DBC 0411 or P59.

The early GM MAFs are garbage and the only 165 I have ever tuned I went to $12P MAP based code in.

USA made swap harness I am about to use to replace the Proflow 4s garbage ECU setup I am currently running.

https://highperformanceinjectors.com/products/dbc-1997-2006-ls1-standalone-wiring-harness-w-4l80e-4-8-5-3-6-0-5-wire-maf-delhi-connectors

Hiya's,
My original thought was to just use the '7427 to handle it all. Man, that wiring harness price is great. Using a 24x crank and 1x cam sensor distributor is perfect. Sequential spark and fuel would be super neat on a TPI. I like it :)

[Racprops]

Gentlemen, I am NOT building a Hot Rod, I am building a MPG low RPM 383 its power curve is from 1000 to 3500 and HP to 4500RPMs.

My money went into the engine and dual transmissions.

It is designed to run at 1500RPMs on the highway.

Upgrading to a hotter PCM is not needed and too costly, I might as well just buy a newer van…IF I was made of money that is and want the new crap.

And everything I can find on Sequential fuel injection show almost no change from the 165’s batch firing, in fact it is said laying fuel onto the back of HOT intake valve helps vaporizing the fuel even for a millisecond.

Sequential fuel injection really only helps with pollution control and even then it is very small.

Spark is always Sequential.

You all work on older Trucks you should understand my needs.

The 165 has a programmable Lean Burn Cruse that BY ITS SELF can give 5 to 10 MORE MPG as can the TPI its self can add 20 to 30% more MPG, torque and HP over any carb.

The Highway Mode drops in at a nice cruse and fades out under load smoothly.

The 7427 also has a lot of programming settings for control of the 4L80e and I am told I can get a partial throttle down shift instead of the classic full throttle to the floor downshift, like my 03 Ford Explorer with its 5R55s does.

This is a Stealth RV Van…a road cruiser not a drag racer. I plan on 2 to 6K road trips where a 25+MPG VS the crappie stock 14MPG can really matter and I can feel less cheated with today’s gas prices.

[dave w]

Many gearhead-efi members including myself share ideas and information that come form personal experiences, including the school of hard knocks (waisted time and waisted money)

There is considerable truth to the statement: The More you Know about EFI the Less you Pay for EFI.

I'm sure many gearhead-efi members will agree with the above statement.

4L80E with 16197427 ECM Links below:

http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/showthread.php?8579-16197427-Stand-Alone-4L80E-Controller&

http://mattw.dyndns.org/4L80E/

[dave w]

The original writeup was for a 1227749 (tel:1227749), most of the information in the .pdf also applies to the 1227165

[Fast355]

Many gearhead-efi members including myself share ideas and information that come form personal experiences, including the school of hard knocks (waisted time and waisted money)

There is considerable truth to the statement: The More you Know about EFI the Less you Pay for EFI.

I'm sure many gearhead-efi members will agree with the above statement.

4L80E with 16197427 ECM Links below:

http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/showthread.php?8579-16197427-Stand-Alone-4L80E-Controller&

http://mattw.dyndns.org/4L80E/

Absolutely agree. My LS PCM recomendation was due to actually running them. He has a fantasy of lean cruise adding 5-10 mpg in something the weight of his van with the aerodynamic loada of his van. I have run well implemented lean cruise on many of my vehicles for 2 decades now. G20 and Express van both saw about 2-3 mpg improvement on flat, level road at highway speeds. 5-10 mpg is fantasy land even if the engine were moving a slick Corvette or Camaro. My buddies 71 Chevelle saw the biggest improvement I have seen and it was about 4 mpg. It has a 6.0L/4L80E and a 4.10 rear gear so it is singing along at ~2,500 rpm at 70 mph with very little engine load.

I suggested the 0411 or P59 because it is a far better PCM for what he is attempting to do than a stone age 165 and its matching MAF that even 10-15 years ago was nearly impossible to find a quality MAF sensor replacement for.

Ignition timing and fuel injection timing based off a crank sensor are far more accurate than a distributor. With dual timing maps and inidvidual cylinder retard capability the 0411/P59 results in less wasted torque and fuel. The LS PCMs also offer the ability to alter injection timing with engine temperature which is a big benifit. Can spray the fuel on the back of a closed valve with a cold engine and shift to spray as the exhaust valve closes with a hot engine, minimizing wasted fuel during split overlap. With even a stock L31 I can reduce the pulsewidth for the idle fueling as much 10-15% shifting hot injector timing to spray the fuel with a closed or almost closed exhaust valve. I have also mentioned to the OP that for torque at 1,500 rpm the TPI is actually about the worst single intake for that setup.

[steveo]

totally agree. also despite its reduced precision, the 7427 is capable of highway lean cruise on a budget. there's just no need to try to run two ecms here. if this were my build on a budget i would simply run the 7427 with speed density in open loop and tune leaner AFRs where required.

[Fast355]

totally agree. also despite its reduced precision, the 7427 is capable of highway lean cruise on a budget. there's just no need to try to run two ecms here. if this were my build on a budget i would simply run the 7427 with speed density in open loop and tune leaner AFRs where required.

That would easily work as well. I have done that with both TPI and the old Edelbrock TBI to MPFI intake setup. The old MAFs are junk in my experience. The 7427 is absolutely capable of open loop psuedo highway mode and it works well.

I have also run both the TPI and a dual plane MPFI manifold. Under ~2,500 rpm the dual plane mpfi manifold eats the TPIs lunch in torque production.

[steveo]

on rigs like my big heavy jeep (no highway lean cruise) i just run open loop super lean with lots of timing in cruise range. great economy. just gotta read your plugs to see if you went too far and your combustion chamber temp is too high. no need for a special program for that

[Racprops]

Well interesting ideas, running open loop..how?? Cut the O2 sensor?? tell me more.

I know that these lean burn cruse do not tell how lean, I have tested a 2000 Ford 4.6 step by step from 14.7 to 18.0 and found its MPG peeked ay16.5. Reading the Air Fuel Ratios.

My set up is a low torque 383 running in a second overdrive so at 75MPH it is running a 1500RPMs.

The 165 was good enough for for nearly 10 years in Camaros and Corvettes.

It had a true Highway Mode that will automatically fade into lean curse and fade out as needed.

Plus we are trying to stop the lean cruse from cycling in and out so its duty cycle will be as close to 100% rather that the factory setting around 50%.

So this month I hope to swap out the dead 350 and its 4L60e with my custom 383 and its 4L80e and dual range overdrive.

This dream and project has taken 26 years to do.

Frankly I am afraid to fire it up, and to have to wait until some 500 miles to break in a rebuilt engine, transmission and NOS (New) Dual Range Overdrive to start seeing if this is a great idea and the van gets 25MPG+ or a total waste of my dreams, time and money.

And the frustrating fact that when I started this quest, my ideas were still valuable for a fair number of Vans, trucks and cars might be able to use some of my ideas.

Vans, Trucks and cars have move so far from these systems that only 20+ older Vans, Trucks and cars might be able to use.

So I maybe one of the very few that can benefit from all of this.

As I am compiling the ECM (Engine Control Module) running the fueling systems and a PCM (Power Control Module) to control the transmission systems I am seeing how complex the control systems have become.

The ECM uses ONE O2 sensor, a throttle position sensor, a MAF air flow sensor, an incoming air temp sensor, an coolant temperature sensor, RPM readings, and a knock sensor, oil pressure sensor.

A new car now have: 4 O2 sensors, a crankshaft position sensor, cam shaft position sensors (one per cam) fuel pressure, a throttle position sensor, a MAF air flow sensor, and a MAP sensor, an incoming air temp sensor, an coolant temperature sensor, RPM readings, and a knock sensor, oil pressure sensor, and maybe more:

How many sensors are in a car engine?
There are around 15-30 sensors in a modern car engine if you don’t include the solenoids. You can find over 70 sensors in a modern car if you count every sensor in the whole car.

And ALL this stuff has barely made driving a car any better..not in MPG any way.

ALL this tech and cars still get about the same MPG.

And Trucks, Vans and SUVs still seem to get the same crappy MPG thay got with old carbs and no overdrive.

My 1974/78 Chevy G20 Vans running a 350s with 4 barrel carbs and simple 3 speed transmissions, and the same rear end a 3.43 gear: 14MPG.

My 1993 Chevy G20 Van, now with Fuel Injection, and a 4 speed transmission with a .70 overdrive into a 3.42 rear end gets…wait for it…14MPG…WTF??

Is this a fix?? Is my van PROGRAMED to get poor MPG??? Is this possible??


Well I have TWO Ford Explorers, one a 02 with a 4.0 V6, with a 5 speed transmission with a .70 overdrive and a 3.73 rear end.

And a 03 with a 4.6 V8, with a 5 speed transmission with a .70 overdrive and a 3.73 rear end.

Both get the about the same reported MPG, with the V6 getting 19MPG and the V8 18MPG at 65MPH.

As I have seen cars get great MPG at around 1500RPMs so I tested both SUVs at 1500MPH which is 50MPH.

And WOW both SUVs showed 28 to 32MPG at 1500RPMs…

But speed up to 60MPH and WTF now they are getting 18MPG…they both lose around 10MPG just going 10MPH faster.

But then things return to a normal loss of 1MPG per each 5MPH faster so they both get 16MPG at 75/80MPH…again WTF.

How odd is this?? My 2000 Grand Marques and 03 Crown Vic with a 4.6 V8 only does the normal loss of 1MPG per each 5MPH faster…so they have a steady loss of MPG with faster speeds.

There is NO drop of 10MPGs at any speed change of any 10MPH.

I believe instead of using the computers to make as much MPG in cars and Trucks, Vans and SUVs especially are using the computers against us.

I hope to show that we can get better MPG.

I rest my case.

Rich

[steveo]

And ALL this stuff has barely made driving a car any better..not in MPG any way.

that's where you're dead wrong

modern vehicles with variable cam timing controlled by neural networks and precise spark and injection control make vastly more power and achieve incredible efficiency for a given displacement

[1project2many]

The 165 was good enough for for nearly 10 years in Camaros and Corvettes.

Well, you've just arrived at the heart of the issue. The 165 was "good enough" even though vehicles with a more recent design were getting a better ecm. OEM choices are based on economy and profit. That's what business is. But you're in a different space.

Think of it this way... the 5.7 / 350 was "good enough" until the LS engine was introduced. But you're using a 383 instead. Why? And if you're using a better version of the factory engine what is stopping you from using a better version of the factory ecm? The 7427 has more features and more tunable tables. The LS pcm has more tables and features than the 7427 and it has a faster processor.

If you want to run dual pcm's, follow the instructions in the pdf previously posted.

[Fast355]

Well, you've just arrived at the heart of the issue. The 165 was "good enough" even though vehicles with a more recent design were getting a better ecm. OEM choices are based on economy and profit. That's what business is. But you're in a different space.

Think of it this way... the 5.7 / 350 was "good enough" until the LS engine was introduced. But you're using a 383 instead. Why? And if you're using a better version of the factory engine what is stopping you from using a better version of the factory ecm? The 7427 has more features and more tunable tables. The LS pcm has more tables and features than the 7427 and it has a faster processor.

If you want to run dual pcm's, follow the instructions in the pdf previously posted.

The 165' was also only used for about 3-4 years. 85 had a 1 year only ECM with a seperate maf burn off aka "burnout" module as I like to call it for its ability to commonly fail which then killed the MAFs by baking the sensing wires during a prolonged burnoff session and then in 1990 GM moved on to the far superior speed density 7730 ECM and the underhood 7727 equivalent.

[Fast355]

Manufacturers are not utilizing computers to deliver the best fuel mileage possible. They are using them to meet the emissions requirements for the length of the federally mandated emissions law requirements and warranties of those systems. It really surprises me that a modern drive by wire vehicle goes full throttle at all now. 15-20 years ago the EPA was talking about closing the WOT emissons loophole thus OEMs would be using the drive by wire to decrease engine load to a point that the system would never use wide open throttle enrichment, thus always operating at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for cleaner emissions. I feel like modern controllers are calibrated first and foremost for emissions and warranty requirements, secondary to that for CAFE fuel economy, with drivability and power a distant third and fourth to the first two requirements.

[steveo]

'good enough'

that's the only reason one should use an antique ECM

or because you're poor like me, or like a challenge

if you desire real control, upgrade

the 1980s and early 1990s ecms were a dark era in fuel injection

tuning mid 90s and up ecms is a very different experience

im not saying you can't make the car just fine with this dual ecm plan, in fact its something i might do if i had the parts laying around, it's just that it's really not optimal for what you're doing and your goals

[tayto]

have you spent the last 20 years playing with your current ECU and tuning it? are you planning on tuning this yourself? do you have a datalog cable, chip burner, emulator, etc? you are setting yourself up for heartache/failure if you think your gonna tune this thing solo. thats why I mentioned an LS PCM on gmt400.com so you can at least get someone local to help tune.

[dave w]

This thread has some interesting information and debates.

I often wonder if the debate about which is easier to tune 1227165 (MAF) vs. 1227730 (Speed Density) is factor for wanting to use the 1227165?

Back in time, before TunerPro RT, the debate winner was for MAF. Fast forward to now, with Tuner Pro RT, the Speed Density is the clear winner of the 1227165 vs. 1227730 which is easier to tune debate.

The internet is filled with information about how MAF is easier to tune than Speed Density. It's interesting to point out, NONE of the MAF supporters mentioned or even referenced the tuning software used for tuning the MAF system.

[Fast355]

This thread has some interesting information and debates.

I often wonder if the debate about which is easier to tune 1227165 (MAF) vs. 1227730 (Speed Density) is factor for wanting to use the 1227165?

Back in time, before TunerPro RT, the debate winner was for MAF. Fast forward to now, with Tuner Pro RT, the Speed Density is the clear winner of the 1227165 vs. 1227730 which is easier to tune debate.

The internet is filled with information about how MAF is easier to tune than Speed Density. It's interesting to point out, NONE of the MAF supporters mentioned or even referenced the tuning software used for tuning the MAF system.

The 165 can run $12P MAP code as well but that is code developed off the Australian Holden 308 V8 application 808 ECM which shares its back bones so to speak with the 165. I find speed density much more accurate than those early MAF setups.

[steveo]

yeah definitely. keep in mind while GM was doing their early MAF systems, the Japanese were still using vane airflow meters in a lot of their cars. for their time they were very advanced. the history of fuel injection is a long and crazy one. participating in it on a running vehicle is like playing nintendo video games on a tube tv while the rest of the world has an xbox

[steveo]

.... of course i still play nintendo games and have never seen an x box. so if you want to play with old car computers, you are in good company. but lets not live a lie that some antique lean cruise routine is going to out-do a modern ECM somehow

[Fast355]

.... of course i still play nintendo games and have never seen an x box. so if you want to play with old car computers, you are in good company. but lets not live a lie that some antique lean cruise routine is going to out-do a modern ECM somehow

Agreed, especially considering the modern PCM also has an even better version of the lean cruise. With 8 coil packs there is more spark energy available to more effectively fire the leaner mixture as well. Could easily run 0.060" gapped plugs and have all the spark energy needed for that lower compression engine.

[Racprops]

Well, you've just arrived at the heart of the issue. The 165 was "good enough" even though vehicles with a more recent design were getting a better ecm. OEM choices are based on economy and profit. That's what business is. But you're in a different space.

Think of it this way... the 5.7 / 350 was "good enough" until the LS engine was introduced. But you're using a 383 instead. Why? And if you're using a better version of the factory engine what is stopping you from using a better version of the factory ecm? The 7427 has more features and more tunable tables. The LS pcm has more tables and features than the 7427 and it has a faster processor.

If you want to run dual pcm's, follow the instructions in the pdf previously posted.


I am subject to a lot of bad reports of engine failures with the newer engines and car, seem the newer they become the faster and more costly repairs.

Lots of reports of major problems with every transmission from the Ford 5R55s on up.

I know a SBC can take beating and keep on Ticking, and the same for a 4L80...and my Doug Nash Dual Range Overdrive. I CAN tow in the 4L80 in 3rd and in the DN Overdrive so I will be in 3rd overdrive.

With the newer many gears you really need to be in the 1:1 gear to tow.

So as my 93 G20 Van came with a SBC I want as close to a 400 I could get, so a383, and as I wanted torque a longer stroke gives that.

So what can a newer super PCM do better in my set up??

The 165 has a adjustable Highway mode, and it fades in and out automatically...need to pass something, just put your foot in it return to cruising speed and it fades back into highway mode. As I may not be the driver on long trips my co drivers need to not blow up my engine is we hit a hill, I NEED the system to be automatic.

I have seen some grade that snick up on you...and that might harm a manual lean burn.

So two questions how would one kick a system out of Closed Loop??

And what PDF?? the one where your running a carb and using the PCM as a TCM??

Rich

[Racprops]

Agreed, especially considering the modern PCM also has an even better version of the lean cruise. With 8 coil packs there is more spark energy available to more effectively fire the leaner mixture as well. Could easily run 0.060" gapped plugs and have all the spark energy needed for that lower compression engine.

Or I can add a MSD coil....or captaincy discharge system and do Multisparks for a longer duration.

The main advantage to all the newer stuff it it might last longer...and keep the smog better controlled, almost all these improvments ina STOCK car is to keep smog control, after all why the hell are not getting 40 to 70MPG??

Rich

[dave w]

Often the best plan for a project is low cost and simplicity. How much budget combined with technical skills. Often low cost and simplicity is a tug-of-war of compromises. OBD1 vs. OBD2 is a huge factor low cost and simplicity. If it was my 93 Custom Van I would likely keep the OBD1 EFI with some low cost modifications. There is a huge gap between planning a project and getting many miles of smiles. First comes the miles of smiles, then get more smiles per gallon.

19926

19927

19928

19929

19930

19931

[Racprops]

What I am doing is common, there a bunch of aftermarket Transmission controllers, all costing about 1K. SO many are doing them when running a non-stock transmission.

All I am doing it just using a 7427 AS a transmission controller.

Other wise it is just like doing a old style TPI swap into a different car or truck and I have a couple of manuals on how to do that.

I can see NO reason to run a OBDII and perhaps allow in gas wasting programing.

I truly believe the 86 to 89 SBC TPI was a special Intake system.

One that was dropped not because it did not work but for the very reasons I am so excited about them.

And one is that they make low end power or torque, which when the engine is tuned for it I believe will make great LOW RPM power which can make great MPG.

The TPI introduced performance fans to the merits of electronic fuel injection, it was TPI that launched the modern EFI performance era back in '85. Unlike previous carburetors (including the computer-controlled varieties), the TPI system offered precise metering of the fuel under all operating conditions.

Fuel efficiency and emissions were optimized by balancing fuel delivery to each individual cylinder. Unlike carbureted, TBI, and even the Cross-Fire EFI systems, TPI provided fuel injectors for each port, thereby balancing power production (and fuel usage) in each cylinder.

Even fuel delivery is difficult (if not impossible) in a typical carbureted (or TBI) application, so the air/fuel is tuned to the leanest cylinder. Unfortunately, this also means other cylinders run rich. This cylinder imbalance decreases power while increasing fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.

Designed to flow air (the injectors are positioned at the base of the intake to flow fuel only into the head port), control of just air (Called a DRY Manifold) allows the designers to move the air at its best ways without the dropping out of suspension of the fuel or puddling of fuel within the manifold."

This is always a problem with any manifold handling wet air, air and fuel together. And often means what is good for the air may not be good air and fuel.

The TPI systems incorporated tuned runner lengths to optimize power production at the lower rev ranges. With long, small-diameter intake ports, the TPI system enhanced low- and mid-range torque production.

To illustrate this point, torque production from a typical L98 Vette motor exceeded horsepower production by roughly 100 lbs-ft. Rated at 250 hp, the TPI system helped the 350 pump out an amazing 350 lbs-ft of torque.
This is done by a thing called Ram Air Injection, or even better Newton’s third law: A body (Or AIR) remains in motion at a constant speed until acted upon aother force. Air flow though the tubes want to keep flowing but the valves stop this even for a second and the air behind the valve PILES up and in fact make some positive pressure JUST waiting to get into the chamber.

It is RAMED Charged.

Naturally this overabundance of mid-range torque came with a penalty. The same runners in the TPI system that were designed to enhance power production below 5000 rpm, lost efficiency rapidly thereafter. TPI motors were all about instant gratification. There was never any waiting the cam to get in its power range of Come on, just plenty of torque to get things going in a hurry.

It is often forgotten that TORQUE is really what gets your car off the line, HP helps keep it moving.

Unfortunately, the long runner lengths quickly put an end to the party.

At lease for the High RPM HP people.

They say speed is what kills MPG and sure the faster you go the more gas you use. BUT is it truly the speed OR is it the RPMs of the engine??

My testing has shown low RPMs seems to be the best for MPG, this is a time proven fact, low gears, 2:73 always make better MPG on the highway over say a 4:11.

But the market in the automotive world is always for performance which is seen as higher HP and higher RPMs.

Those aims do not really make better MPG. They make speed.

But even Ford made their own versions of the Tune Port intakes for their 4.6 which I believe is why they make so much power out of a little 4.6 281 CI engine.

And before they retuned the 4.6 from 200HP to 240HP these engines could do 30MPG at 65MPH.

The jump to 240HP lost about 4 to 5 MPG reducing the MPG to 25/26. They did it by moving the power curve upward.

2000 Ford Crown Victoria
Horsepower 200 @ 4250 RPM Torque 275 @ 3000 RPM

Performance Improved w/dual exhaust option:
2003 Ford Crown Victoria
Horsepower 224 @ 4900 RPM Torque 272 @ 4100 RPM

SO 2000 30MPG with a Torque peak of 3000RPMs

2003 25/26MPG with a Torque peak of 4100RPMs.

Also like the SBC TPI The Ford version also is limited to around 5000RPMs.

Power takes Gasoline…

I have seen this all the time: More HP and Torque comes at a higher RPMs and means less MPG.
More vooom vooom….less MPG.

More:

I REALLY began to question the MPG on a road trip in the stock 93 TBI Van, around 2018 we took a trip to Sedona AZ which is near Flagstaff, Sedona is 4,350 feet above sea level, Phoenix is 1.086 feet above sea level. This is a serious climb, as I love to go fast I was keeping up with most of the highway traffic and doing 75/80MPH and a fair amount of that was at WOT and in Third gear.

The trip is 119.3 Miles and takes 2.2 hours.

I filled up before starting and filled up in Sedona and read the MPG: 14MPG.

I was OK that as it did not seem bad for hauling a big van up these mountains at 80MPH often is 3rd gear at full throttle.

We drove around a little, had lunch which include Rattle Snake, and hiked a nice trail. And drove back DOWN to Phoenix…

And I filled the tank at the same gas station and got WTF 14MPG!!!

Downhill and no change. 14MPG???!!!

OK Here is what I think, the car companies figured…everyone KNOWS trucks, vans and SUV have never gotten good MPG. Partly as I feel they were built to run a little rich just in case they are pulling a trailer or hauling a load.

Everyone KNOWS this.

So they (Car companies) can program the newer trucks PCMs to get those same historical MPG and no one will be the wiser…

So even if car with a new fuel injection system and an over drive can get 5 to 10 MPG just with those improvements, they program these Trucks, Vans and SUVs to get the same poor MPG and tell us IT’S A TRUCK. They are bricks you cannot get good MPG.

So one fix personally, I am planning on running a 87 Camaro 165 OBDI Computer was not as programed with this MPG killer program, and with these old ECMs they can easily be reprogrammed unlike the OBDIIs.

And these already are High Way Mode ready, which is better called Lean Burn Cruise, they just need to be turned on and programed for even better MPG than stock. I am going to run this on my 93 Van. Sadly, this cannot be done on hardly any other cars.

Lastly, IF the fact it is a van then it pushing through the air IS the main and ONLY fact then how did this van get 29MPG highway???


Rich

[Fast355]

What I am doing is common, there a bunch of aftermarket Transmission controllers, all costing about 1K. SO many are doing them when running a non-stock transmission.

All I am doing it just using a 7427 AS a transmission controller.

Other wise it is just like doing a old style TPI swap into a different car or truck and I have a couple of manuals on how to do that.

I can see NO reason to run a OBDII and perhaps allow in gas wasting programing.

I truly believe the 86 to 89 SBC TPI was a special Intake system.

One that was dropped not because it did not work but for the very reasons I am so excited about them.

And one is that they make low end power or torque, which when the engine is tuned for it I believe will make great LOW RPM power which can make great MPG.

The TPI introduced performance fans to the merits of electronic fuel injection, it was TPI that launched the modern EFI performance era back in '85. Unlike previous carburetors (including the computer-controlled varieties), the TPI system offered precise metering of the fuel under all operating conditions.

Fuel efficiency and emissions were optimized by balancing fuel delivery to each individual cylinder. Unlike carbureted, TBI, and even the Cross-Fire EFI systems, TPI provided fuel injectors for each port, thereby balancing power production (and fuel usage) in each cylinder.

Even fuel delivery is difficult (if not impossible) in a typical carbureted (or TBI) application, so the air/fuel is tuned to the leanest cylinder. Unfortunately, this also means other cylinders run rich. This cylinder imbalance decreases power while increasing fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.

Designed to flow air (the injectors are positioned at the base of the intake to flow fuel only into the head port), control of just air (Called a DRY Manifold) allows the designers to move the air at its best ways without the dropping out of suspension of the fuel or puddling of fuel within the manifold."

This is always a problem with any manifold handling wet air, air and fuel together. And often means what is good for the air may not be good air and fuel.

The TPI systems incorporated tuned runner lengths to optimize power production at the lower rev ranges. With long, small-diameter intake ports, the TPI system enhanced low- and mid-range torque production.

To illustrate this point, torque production from a typical L98 Vette motor exceeded horsepower production by roughly 100 lbs-ft. Rated at 250 hp, the TPI system helped the 350 pump out an amazing 350 lbs-ft of torque.
This is done by a thing called Ram Air Injection, or even better Newton’s third law: A body (Or AIR) remains in motion at a constant speed until acted upon aother force. Air flow though the tubes want to keep flowing but the valves stop this even for a second and the air behind the valve PILES up and in fact make some positive pressure JUST waiting to get into the chamber.

It is RAMED Charged.

Naturally this overabundance of mid-range torque came with a penalty. The same runners in the TPI system that were designed to enhance power production below 5000 rpm, lost efficiency rapidly thereafter. TPI motors were all about instant gratification. There was never any waiting the cam to get in its power range of Come on, just plenty of torque to get things going in a hurry.

It is often forgotten that TORQUE is really what gets your car off the line, HP helps keep it moving.

Unfortunately, the long runner lengths quickly put an end to the party.

At lease for the High RPM HP people.

They say speed is what kills MPG and sure the faster you go the more gas you use. BUT is it truly the speed OR is it the RPMs of the engine??

My testing has shown low RPMs seems to be the best for MPG, this is a time proven fact, low gears, 2:73 always make better MPG on the highway over say a 4:11.

But the market in the automotive world is always for performance which is seen as higher HP and higher RPMs.

Those aims do not really make better MPG. They make speed.

But even Ford made their own versions of the Tune Port intakes for their 4.6 which I believe is why they make so much power out of a little 4.6 281 CI engine.

And before they retuned the 4.6 from 200HP to 240HP these engines could do 30MPG at 65MPH.

The jump to 240HP lost about 4 to 5 MPG reducing the MPG to 25/26. They did it by moving the power curve upward.

2000 Ford Crown Victoria
Horsepower 200 @ 4250 RPM Torque 275 @ 3000 RPM

Performance Improved w/dual exhaust option:
2003 Ford Crown Victoria
Horsepower 224 @ 4900 RPM Torque 272 @ 4100 RPM

SO 2000 30MPG with a Torque peak of 3000RPMs

2003 25/26MPG with a Torque peak of 4100RPMs.

Also like the SBC TPI The Ford version also is limited to around 5000RPMs.

Power takes Gasoline…

I have seen this all the time: More HP and Torque comes at a higher RPMs and means less MPG.
More vooom vooom….less MPG.

More:

I REALLY began to question the MPG on a road trip in the stock 93 TBI Van, around 2018 we took a trip to Sedona AZ which is near Flagstaff, Sedona is 4,350 feet above sea level, Phoenix is 1.086 feet above sea level. This is a serious climb, as I love to go fast I was keeping up with most of the highway traffic and doing 75/80MPH and a fair amount of that was at WOT and in Third gear.

The trip is 119.3 Miles and takes 2.2 hours.

I filled up before starting and filled up in Sedona and read the MPG: 14MPG.

I was OK that as it did not seem bad for hauling a big van up these mountains at 80MPH often is 3rd gear at full throttle.

We drove around a little, had lunch which include Rattle Snake, and hiked a nice trail. And drove back DOWN to Phoenix…

And I filled the tank at the same gas station and got WTF 14MPG!!!

Downhill and no change. 14MPG???!!!

OK Here is what I think, the car companies figured…everyone KNOWS trucks, vans and SUV have never gotten good MPG. Partly as I feel they were built to run a little rich just in case they are pulling a trailer or hauling a load.

Everyone KNOWS this.

So they (Car companies) can program the newer trucks PCMs to get those same historical MPG and no one will be the wiser…

So even if car with a new fuel injection system and an over drive can get 5 to 10 MPG just with those improvements, they program these Trucks, Vans and SUVs to get the same poor MPG and tell us IT’S A TRUCK. They are bricks you cannot get good MPG.

So one fix personally, I am planning on running a 87 Camaro 165 OBDI Computer was not as programed with this MPG killer program, and with these old ECMs they can easily be reprogrammed unlike the OBDIIs.

And these already are High Way Mode ready, which is better called Lean Burn Cruise, they just need to be turned on and programed for even better MPG than stock. I am going to run this on my 93 Van. Sadly, this cannot be done on hardly any other cars.

Lastly, IF the fact it is a van then it pushing through the air IS the main and ONLY fact then how did this van get 29MPG highway???


Rich

Long story short those vans do not even come

close to those MPG figures in real world. The 4.3L is an underpowered slug. Throw in some wind, a few hills, a few passengers, a couple hundred lbs of cargo and that 29 mpg 4.3L struggles to get 18 mpg. OBD2 is easy to program and both the P01 and P59 had lean cruise from the factory that was very well implemented. With the coil near plug system you can also easily run 0.060" plug gaps with much longer spark duration than even a CDI system. The CNP coils with a wide gap are much more likely to fire and burn a lean mixture misfire free.

TPI was a fairly poor intake. The LT1 that replaced the L98 made more low-speed torque in the RPm range you are looking to run in. The L31 engines used in boats were cranking out 400 ft/lbs at 2,500 rpm and more than 350 ft/lbs @ 1,500 rpm. Some of them had MPFI dual plane manifolds while others had the L31 style crossram marine manifold. The TPi actually reduces torque in the rpm you are looking to cruise in. I have mentioned this multiple times to you over the years. Real world I had less low-speed torque with a TPI than I did with a dual plane and TBI as well as worse fuel mileage because the engine had to spin more rpm to make up fpr the torque loss.

[1project2many]

I truly believe the 86 to 89 SBC TPI was a special Intake system.

The Helmholtz effect has been known since the middle 1800's. All car makers have made some version of a ram intake over the years. Many cars today use "multi ram" intakes.


OK Here is what I think, the car companies figured…everyone KNOWS trucks, vans and SUV have never gotten good MPG. Partly as I feel they were built to run a little rich just in case they are pulling a trailer or hauling a load.

Everyone KNOWS this.

You're talking about what's going on inside the computer as if it's a secret. Are you aware the folks in this group work with what's inside the computer?


I can see NO reason to run a OBDII and perhaps allow in gas wasting programing.

Hmm... Maybe think of this differently. The programming isn't gas wasting. The programming works to balance emissions, fuel use, and catalytic converter life. You can change the programming so there's little to no balance.

I do agree that the TPI intake is a great torque producer. One of the most fun TPI cars was the '91 Vette with six speed. So much fun to drive and much better behaved than older versions. That car was speed density so it used a 7730.



So one fix personally, I am planning on running a 87 Camaro 165 OBDI Computer was not as programed with this MPG killer program, and with these old ECMs they can easily be reprogrammed unlike the OBDIIs.

The '165 doesn't have any magic. It's your project, and if that's what you want to use then go ahead. The program that runs in the 165 is known and understood. The program in the 7427 is known and understood. The electronics inside the '165 were used in many similar computers. The 7427 takes the electronics in the 165 to a new level so it's possible to run your engine with one computer.