Author Topic: Taking the turbo plunge! (Read 71681 times)

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #90 on:** May 03, 2015, 01:15:38 AM »

It doesn't matter; a manual Pinto cable and gear ought to fit in the T5 just fine.

FYI, World-Class T5s came in '86+ cars. I have one and you have one.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #91 on:** May 03, 2015, 01:20:28 AM »

Quote from: 65ShelbyClone on May 03, 2015, 01:15:38 AM

It doesn't matter; a manual Pinto cable and gear ought to fit in the T5 just fine.

FYI, World-Class T5s came in '86+ cars. I have one and you have one.

So the wc t5 comes with both mechanical and electrical speedo out? I was under the impression the wc were electrical and the non-wc were mechanical. I like the idea of the wc t5, much tighter feel to it.

Wittsend · « **Reply #92 on:** May 03, 2015, 01:48:41 AM »

My '88 TC donor had the electronic speedo even though the face was typical analog. So, I'm thinking they all were electronic. A word of caution..., I used the gear from the C-4 on my T-5. It had a tip on it and when clamped down it caused the gear to bind on the opposite side of the housing. The end result of that was the gear on the output shaft forced itself backwards - out of mesh. Prying with screwdrivers would not get to clip to snap back into place. I was almost going to pull the tailshaft when I found that the vertical tube of 90's era halogen "torch" light just fit over the shaft and inside the bearing. A quick whack and the gear was reset. However, I did cut the tip off to avoid the binding.

I also cut up the T/C fuel/return lines, part of the line is plastic and needs to be shortened. There is a barbed repair coupler I used to join the cut parts.

Don't waste any time considering the hydraulic clutch. It is an oddball configuration that internally parallels the steering column and has no allotted space in the Pinto. Get the bellcrank housing. You will need to elevate the cable mount over the crossmember, but that is easy enough with a piece of flat steel.

Here is a link to my two part build. Perhaps some of the information is helpful. http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?topic=11908.msg76893#msg76893

Lastly here is a shot of my engine compartment with the '88 T/C harness (and stock Pinto harness). Quite a few wires even when encased in the plastic wrap. Especially around the master cylinder.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #93 on:** May 03, 2015, 02:28:18 AM »

On the clutch subject, I'm toying with the idea of a different master cylinder, with similar capacities as the tbirds, mounted backwards up under the dash, like up near the dash bracing. That way the direction of travel at the top of clutch pedal will match the direction of the reversed master cyl. Then run the line out and down.

Wittsend · « **Reply #94 on:** May 03, 2015, 10:53:26 AM »

The reverse clutch M/C is a possibility, but frankly the bell crank is simple, straight forward and available. I feel you would be reinventing the wheel to go hydraulic. And again, space might be tight. That general area under the Pinto dash I packed with the cruise control and intermittent wipers stuff so I be hard pressed to see up there and advise on the hydraulic feasibility.

oldkayaker · « **Reply #95 on:** May 03, 2015, 04:40:35 PM »

A clutch master cylinder under the dash is feasible, the first link shows one method. The second link covers non-OEM clutch hydraulic replacement lines for use with a 87-88TC hydraulic clutch slave cylinder.
http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/71950-My-74-Turbo-Pinto-little-bit-different/page3
http://forum.turboford.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058523;p=0

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #96 on:** May 03, 2015, 10:33:06 PM »

I don't have my mind set on the hydraulic clutch, but it would be so nice. The cable is easier to install, but I've stuffed a few master cylinders in some dark corners before. I need to decide fairly soon though, so I can get this party started!

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #97 on:** May 04, 2015, 12:44:19 PM »

Is there a way to tell if the tbird is setup with system that allows full boost in all gears, or the one that limits 1st and 2nd?

Wittsend · « **Reply #98 on:** May 04, 2015, 01:15:07 PM »

That is an interesting question. With the T-5 I only recall the back up light switch and the speedometer wiring. So, how would the ECU know what gear you are in??? Maybe for the Automatic cars there was boost limitations? I have heard such, but only having a T-5 car I can't speak from experience. The 5 speed ECU for the 87-88 cars was LA-2 and LA-3 respectively. For the automatic cars I'd think there was likely an on/off type switch and either by completing or defeating a circuit (however Ford did it) the ECU can be fooled??? Regardless of what was done in the lower gears it was my understanding that the final HP rating for the Automatic cars was about 20 HP lower than the 5 speed cars. Hopefully someone can confirm this.

These two ECU's were deemed to have a faster processor over the 86 and older. I'm not sure what the SVO ECU had, but I believe the 5 speed version was rated at 205 HP VS 190 HP for the 87-88 T/C 5 speed. Probably a bit of apples to oranges comparison given various parts differences.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #99 on:** May 04, 2015, 09:26:06 PM »

Quote from: 76hotrodpinto on May 04, 2015, 12:44:19 PM

Is there a way to tell if the tbird is setup with system that allows full boost in all gears, or the one that limits 1st and 2nd?

All of the cars that allowed for a"high" boost level of 14-15psi also had a limiter of sorts. The system actually limited boost to the baseline wastegate spring setting (~10psi) below 4000rpm regardless of gear. An EEC-IV had no provision for sensing what specific gear the trans is in. You can make it run full boost all the time by simply bypassing the boost control solenoid.

On the other subject of transmissions, my 'Bird had a speedo sender. Mustangs with WC T5s had a cable for the speedo and a speed sensor for the EFI and/or cruise control.

Quote from: Wittsend on May 04, 2015, 01:15:07 PM

The 5 speed ECU for the 87-88 cars was LA-2 and LA-3 respectively. (snip) These two ECU's were deemed to have a faster processor over the 86 and older. I'm not sure what the SVO ECU had, but I believe the 5 speed version was rated at 205 HP VS 190 HP for the 87-88 T/C 5 speed. Probably a bit of apples to oranges comparison given various parts differences.

There are also LB_ ECUs that came in the same TurboCoupes and they are interchangeabl e with the LA2/3. SVOs all had the older P-series computers.

Only the '85.5 SVO was rated at 205hp. It was derated to 200hp (on paper only) for the actual '86 model year so the '86 GT 5.0 would look more powerful. The '84-85 SVO was only rated at 175hp. There are actually a lot of differences for such a short-lived, low-production car. The SVO's story is a neat one and fascinating, but ultimately tragic.

Putting an SVO T3 turbo on an '87-88 Turbo Coupe would effectively upgrade the engine to complete '85.5 SVO spec. Putting an intercooler on my '86 engine would do the same. A stock non-intercooled 2.3T at 15psi is good for about 170rwhp.

Wittsend · « **Reply #100 on:** May 04, 2015, 10:59:16 PM »

OK, I'm not trying to dispute here, I'm just confused. I had a friend with an Auto 87 TC and recall him saying the HP was limited to about 165 or 175. His 87 Auto car also had a single exhaust as opposed to the dual of the 5 speed. If the LB computers are compatible (and by that I mean plug N' play equal HP) with the LA's where does the different HP ratings between the Auto and 5 speed cars come from?

I always thought (by what I read) that the LA-3 (and "P_" SVO series) were the most desirable ECU to have. I have shied away from the LB series believing they were less desirable that the LA's. And, I even sold a LA-2 thinking that the LA-3's were better. All a mote point now, as I have an LA-3 in the car and two more LA-3's stashed in my "private reserve." But now I'm feeling a bit foolish if my LA-3 ONLY quests were being unnecessarily persnickety.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #101 on:** May 05, 2015, 12:27:49 AM »

This is the turbo boost specification for all the various 2.3T models. It says boost was allowed to hit 15psi in 1st and 2nd gear for the '87-88 TC, but there was no way that the ECU could know what gear you were in.

http://beta.askatech.com/askatechlive/aatfileshare/references/fasttrack/f023.pdf

Wittsend · « **Reply #102 on:** May 05, 2015, 10:50:17 AM »

Thanks for the link. It explains a lot. However, it pretty much comes back to what I had understood:

1. "On vehicles with a manual transmission (the LA ECU), with the switch in the PREMIUM position, boost is controlled by the EEC-IV processor, and can go as high as 16 psi depending on rpm, vehicle, speed, and transmission gear selection.

2. "On automatic transmission vehicles (the LB ECU), switch position does not make any difference. The maximum boost is controlled by the EEC-IV processor at all times. Maximum boost pressures on automatic transmission vehicles vary between 6 and 11 psi depending on rpm and vehicle speed.

This is why I'm confused about the LA and LB ECU being interchangeabl e. I can't see how the LB ECU limiting to between 6-11 psi would be as capable horsepower wise as the LA that can go as high as 16 psi.

Also the **** seems to be a notation for the overboost alarm (it appears in that column) rather than an ECU control of the boost in various stated RPM ranges. That part of what Ford presents is confusing because even if it were to be debated that **** was ECU boost control or an overboost alarm point how would it be known what gear the manual transmission is in regardless of the position one takes???

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #103 on:** May 05, 2015, 11:22:17 AM »

Are you guys keeping the premium switch, or bypassing it?

Wittsend · « **Reply #104 on:** May 05, 2015, 11:30:05 AM »

I have kept my premium switch. Without it engaged the ECU works at lower boost levels for "Regular" fuel. I'm sure you can hardwire it as long as you always bought premium fuel. For whatever reason Ford has a relay in the switch wiring system.

As far as I know 65SC is running an aftermarket system and I think it completely bypasses the EEC - IV system. His inclination is on a good dose of power where as my goal was to economically transfer over the '88 T/C system "as/is."

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #105 on:** May 05, 2015, 12:16:47 PM »

I think I'm going to keep mine as well, just switch the switch to something that matches my style more. Something more toggle-ish.

Wittsend · « **Reply #106 on:** May 05, 2015, 02:09:53 PM »

Just so I could have gauges I quickly made a gauge mount out of a 2X4 and some strips of wood for the T/C gauges. As things go, I'm still using it and then eventually tacked on the Premium switch. Not ideal, but functional. I have too many cars to perfect just one. I've got the three pod factory gauge set that mounts in the heater control area, but that is on my "some day" list.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #107 on:** May 05, 2015, 02:34:13 PM »

I would have kept the octane switch if I was using an EEC.

Quote from: Wittsend on May 05, 2015, 10:50:17 AM

Thanks for the link. It explains a lot. However, it pretty much comes back to what I had understood:

1. "On vehicles with a manual transmission (the LA ECU), with the switch in the PREMIUM position, boost is controlled by the EEC-IV processor, and can go as high as 16 psi depending on rpm, vehicle, speed, and transmission gear selection.

That just means that the octane switch being set on 'regular' will lock out the ECU's ability to raise boost. (Incidentally it pulls some ignition timing as well.)

Quote

2. "On automatic transmission vehicles (the LB ECU), switch position does not make any difference. The maximum boost is controlled by the EEC-IV processor at all times. Maximum boost pressures on automatic transmission vehicles vary between 6 and 11 psi depending on rpm and vehicle speed.

This is why I'm confused about the LA and LB ECU being interchangeabl e. I can't see how the LB ECU limiting to between 6-11 psi would be as capable horsepower wise as the LA that can go as high as 16 psi.

That's because absolute boost numbers aren't dictated by the ECU. The wastegate actuator is what sets the minimum boost pressure and the bleed orifice in the boost control solenoid circuit is what sets the maximum boost pressure. All the ECU does is switch between high and low, which is why an LB3 can be used in place of an LA3

Quote

Also the **** seems to be a notation for the overboost alarm (it appears in that column) rather than an ECU control of the boost in various stated RPM ranges. That part of what Ford presents is confusing because even if it were to be debated that **** was ECU boost control or an overboost alarm point how would it be known what gear the manual transmission is in regardless of the position one takes???

I figured it out in typing this reply...the ECU determines transmission gear based on signals from the vehicle speed sensor and engine RPM.

Wittsend · « **Reply #108 on:** May 05, 2015, 02:45:21 PM »

So, it seems one should be careful what bleed orifice they use if they are mix/matching parts because a little, tiny hole can sure make a difference. Which, BTW I assume the boost can be altered simply using (making) a smaller orifice? This seems rather simple and cheap over the more expensive boost controls.

The speed control and the engine RPM likely do make sense, but it must have a wide, delayed range given the action of gear changes and tire slippage.

For those of us who forgo the speed sensor for the manual speedometer, do you think there is any adverse effect to the ignition/fuel/boost the ECU is allowing? There are some Tee speedometer drives out there (I have one for a Halda Twinmaster) if I need to reestablish it.

Lastly, what is your take on the **** referring only to the overboost alarm. http://beta.askatech.com/askatechlive/aatfileshare/references/fasttrack/f023.pdf If you look at the larger table (83-86) the notation at the bottom definately is stating such saying "pressure warning." It is my inclination to see it as such for both (also given the column it appears in) and not an indicator of actual boost levels under and above certain RPM's.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #109 on:** May 05, 2015, 07:18:08 PM »

Quote from: Wittsend on May 05, 2015, 02:45:21 PM

So, it seems one should be careful what bleed orifice they use if they are mix/matching parts because a little, tiny hole can sure make a difference. Which, BTW I assume the boost can be altered simply using (making) a smaller orifice? This seems rather simple and cheap over the more expensive boost controls.

It is cheap and it does work, but I hear that small changes to the bleed diameter result in large changes to boost. A smaller orifice will decrease the maximum boost, BTW.

Quote

The speed control and the engine RPM likely do make sense, but it must have a wide, delayed range given the action of gear changes and tire slippage.

I think the powertrain engineers figured that there wouldn't be any wheelspin with a 3400lb+ chassis and that if there was, ramping up the boost would only make it worse. It's my understanding that boost was limited below 4000rpm in order to preserve the transmissions.

Quote

For those of us who forgo the speed sensor for the manual speedometer, do you think there is any adverse effect to the ignition/fuel/boost the ECU is allowing? There are some Tee speedometer drives out there (I have one for a Halda Twinmaster) if I need to reestablish it.

The ECU probably falls back to some default behavior if it detects a VSS failure, but I don't know what that behavior is.

Quote

Lastly, what is your take on the **** referring only to the overboost alarm. http://beta.askatech.com/askatechlive/aatfileshare/references/fasttrack/f023.pdf If you look at the larger table (83-86) the notation at the bottom definately is stating such saying "pressure warning." It is my inclination to see it as such for both (also given the column it appears in) and not an indicator of actual boost levels under and above certain RPM's.

It seems to indicate what the nominal boost levels are under which conditions although it is not at all clear. The overboost buzzer is typically tripped by a pressure switch, not the ECU, which would explain why I've never heard of one that triggered below ~17-18psi.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #110 on:** May 05, 2015, 11:14:30 PM »

Stripped the motor down to the block and head on the exhaust side. It came apart more gracefully than the other motors. Pretty clean for a driver too. Been tagging every plug as I go, and some hoses. Will strip down the other side tomorrow and tag more wires. Can't wait to start the loom separations... not. I have some nice diagrams though, and it is a mostly isolated system, just bundled with SO MUCH other stuff.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #111 on:** May 06, 2015, 12:00:47 AM »

After pulling out the power steering pump and associated bracketry, I remembered that I don't want another hydraulic system on the pinto, so I'm hunting for the bellhousing and fork to run a cable.

Wittsend · « **Reply #112 on:** May 06, 2015, 10:40:51 AM »

When I dissected my '88 harness I laid it out on the patio and spread it out like it is located in the car. The biggest problem I had was when a wire color was used for multiple purposes. It would branch off in multiple directions and I'd have to chase it 4 or 5 different places. A wire to the VAM may go through the TPS and other places (as an example, not exact) before it gets to the ECU. There is a resistor wire in the steering column. It says specifically on it "do not cut" but you have to to get it out. I never changed its length, but I did solder it. No other turbo swap person has ever mentioned it so maybe it is less critical than implied. There are also diodes imbedded in the harness. I can't recall if they have any function for engine management.

As I said before I used the T/C steering column, fuse box, relay box, wiper box and cruise control box. So, that added significantly to the problem. My T/C also had ride control and ABS and those computers took a connector similar to the ECU (meaning many, many wires). Be careful about the grounds. They are soldered mid harness and branch all over the place. I'm pretty sure the only thing going towards the back of the car is the fuel pump wiring (Primarily a Pink/black wire I recall). I highly recommend you keep the shut off switch.

All the best. If you are doing just the engine management, while not easy, it should be far simpler than the route I took.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #113 on:** May 06, 2015, 11:52:23 AM »

Can I come use your patio? Aahahahaaa... I'm just stripping out the engine management systems. And maybe the power seat circuit, I may be putting those seats in too. Could be the most comfortable car seats I've ever rested my cheeks on!

Wittsend · « **Reply #114 on:** May 06, 2015, 12:05:21 PM »

I liked the T/C seats a lot too. And thus, installed them in my Pinto. They do seem different though. I'm 6' tall and long waisted (sitting I'm about as tall as someone 6'4"). I found that the power seat mechanism created too much of a problem height wise and mounted them to the Pinto rails. The seats are very tight side to side and it makes pulling out the difficult Pinto seat belt even harder. Here is a link to what I did.

http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?topic=11742.msg75729#msg75729

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #115 on:** May 06, 2015, 07:19:46 PM »

Quote from: Wittsend on May 06, 2015, 10:40:51 AM

The biggest problem I had was when a wire color was used for multiple purposes. It would branch off in multiple directions and I'd have to chase it 4 or 5 different places. A wire to the VAM may go through the TPS and other places (as an example, not exact) before it gets to the ECU. There is a resistor wire in the steering column. It says specifically on it "do not cut" but you have to to get it out. I never changed its length, but I did solder it. No other turbo swap person has ever mentioned it so maybe it is less critical than implied.

That was a PITA with mine too. Grounds went every which way and weren't always the same color (to be fair, most were yellow...or was it orange?) and some +12v wires branched every which way. Many were covered with melted tape adhesive. I remember the coil wires being daisy-chained to a bunch of other junk like HVAC or emissions sensors.

Quote

There are also diodes imbedded in the harness. I can't recall if they have any function for engine management.

Yes they do. There's one for the idle valve that is reverse-biased so it protects the ECU driver from inductive kick when the valve is switched off. All the other solenoids and relays that are controlled by transistors have a flyback diode somewhere for that purpose.

76hotrodpinto · « **Reply #116 on:** May 06, 2015, 11:28:46 PM »

Getting there. What's the deal with the fuel line connectors at the fuel rail? How do they disconnect. I removed the clip, bit I didn't get any further than that with them.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #117 on:** May 07, 2015, 12:21:19 AM »

The clips are just a redundant safety feature; there is a garter spring inside the [spring-lock] connector that you have to release with a special tool in order separate them.

I found this video in a Google search:

Mine has Bundy fittings with plastic (one-time use) safety clips since it's pre-'87. I like the spring-locks better though.

Wittsend · « **Reply #118 on:** May 07, 2015, 12:27:04 AM »

There is an orange ground wire at the turbo and another gray ground I believe near the coil. This is all from memory and I'm sleepy so accept this advice with caution.

Oh, yes, and periodically mutter a "Thank You" that you have a donor car to pull all this stuff from. :-)

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #119 on:** May 07, 2015, 12:30:44 AM »

The orange one on the turbo is the oxygen sensor ground, so yeah, orange must have been grounds.

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: Taking the turbo plunge! (Read 71681 times)