Formulating arguement to explain my gas milage

[Mike Poore]

As many of you know, I've been reporting gas mileage in the 29-30mpg on interstate highways during long trips and at speeds in the 70mph range. (speed limit + 5) Also, I've been blaming the increase from ~26mpg on the installation of the Pro-Guard skid plate.

Others have not seen this increase, and I've been wondering why, so here's a thought I'm working on.

My recollection of the computer control in my ''88 5.0 LX and later the '97 Cobra was that it "learned" by my driving habits to adjust itself from gas sipping (best economy) to "let's boogie". Is this the same situation with the present generation cars, and if this is the case, do the "Tuner chips" do this as well?

Let me stop here, and get your thoughts on this point, then continue.

[SergntMac]

My recollection of the computer control in my ''88 5.0 LX and later the '97 Cobra was that it "learned" by my driving habits to adjust itself from gas sipping (best economy) to "let's boogie". Is this the same situation with the present generation cars, and if this is the case, do the "Tuner chips" do this as well? Yes, Mike, the MM EEC has "adaptive learning" which stores certain engine settings for future use. This memory bank is somewhat volatile, it can get wiped clean by disconnecting the battery for a while (maybe overnight?), or, by flash tuning the EEC.

I cannot say the use of a flip chip disrupts adaptive learning, unless it's been reprogrammed to make an adjustment when engaged. Adaptive learning can be switched off in the programming, either in part, or completely. This is why I suggest to those using a HHP to flash the EEC, that they need to do a few WOT passes with the new programming to commit new parameters to memory. However, most seem to do this anyway as a side effect of trying out their new tune. But, if not done accidently, or, intentionally, the car may act up for a day or two, and could lead to an impression of other problems such as hard starting, or rough idle when cold.

With respect to your excellent mileage, have you checked your speedo for correct calibration? You could be over reporting your actual miles traveled by virtue of a tire swap, or, a gear change, and that could lead to incorrect MPG. I know I have a 1 MPH error, and I factor that in when I'm crunching numbers. Like a thyroid, it can be underactive, or, overactive, and you can always check your speed and mileage against a GPS reading, or, during a dynotune. Hope this helps...

[Mike Poore]

Yes, Mike, the MM EEC has "adaptive learning" which stores certain engine settings for future use. This memory bank is somewhat volatile, it can get wiped clean by disconnecting the battery for a while (maybe overnight?), or, by flash tuning the EEC.

I cannot say the use of a flip chip disrupts adaptive learning, unless it's been reprogrammed to make an adjustment when engaged. Adaptive learning can be switched off in the programming, either in part, or completely. This is why I suggest to those using a HHP to flash the EEC, that they need to do a few WOT passes with the new programming to commit new parameters to memory. However, most seem to do this anyway as a side effect of trying out their new tune. But, if not done accidently, or, intentionally, the car may act up for a day or two, and could lead to an impression of other problems such as hard starting, or rough idle when cold.

With respect to your excellent mileage, have you checked your speedo for correct calibration? You could be over reporting your actual miles traveled by virtue of a tire swap, or, a gear change, and that could lead to incorrect MPG. I know I have a 1 MPH error, and I factor that in when I'm crunching numbers. Like a thyroid, it can be underactive, or, overactive, and you can always check your speed and mileage against a GPS reading, or, during a dynotune. Hope this helps...
Sure does, Mac, and that was the answer I was hoping for. Now, it's becoming clear what's going on, since Dan made, basically, the exact same trip as me, and didn't report the same results, with his Pro-Guard installed. Now, thanks to your info, I'll go ahead and post my thoughts on what's going on.

Yes, on the GPS. I run a Garmin Street Pilot, and the speedo's right on the money.

[Mike Poore]

Ok, with Mac's info, here's what I think is going on: My MM is completely stock. No gears, no "tuner" chip, stock, original tires. It's got 20K on the speedo, and is an '04, December '03 build. I use 93 octane fuel, Amsoil in the crankcase and carrier unit, stock fluid in the transmission, tires pumped to 35psi.

The stock "chip" is an adaptive unit, that is, it compensates for many factors, but most importantly, for this arguement, how you're driving. For instance, by the second pass down the strip, it's in "Let's Boogie" mode; however, if you're on the interstate doing nearly the speed limit, and using the cruise control, it's gonna optimize for fuel efficiency.

So in all eight instances, when I reported gas mileage at nearly 30mpg with the Pro-Guard installed, it was under the following conditions: I had topped off the tank, entered the interstate, put the cruise control at the speed limit +5 and drove to the next gas stop. And, except for the time when we stopped at Barry's, then followed the guys to Detroit, these were the conditions. (we went a little over my 5+ rule, then)

As far as I know, the only difference between my MM and Dan's is the chip, and, perhaps, gears. It may be, that many of the "tuner" chips are not adaptive, and unless you have a hand held unit, may be in "Let's Boogie" all the time, with no adaptive function whatsoever.

So, to sum up, what has the ProGuard done for me? In my case, with everything being completely stock, in an '04, built in Dec '03, with Amsoil in the crank, and rear, and 20K on the odometer, my gas mileage went from 26mpg to 29.6mpg on interstate highways doing, basically the speed limit, with the cruise control on. That's better than a 10% increase ...significant, in my book. :)

[SergntMac]

...significant, in my book. Ditto...Mine too, and thanks, Mike, for breaking it out for us.

I think we should expect to learn that there is a lot more for us to learn here, about EEC programming. The SCT Pro Racer crap gives us a whole Hell of a lot of control over adaptive stuff, but it's shy on instruction on how to manipulate it. Jerry W. will be in my area this coming Friday, maybe I'll pick up some more 411 for us?

[hdwrench]

i have an 04 stock just have aftermarket air filter, mobil 1, flowmasters. i get 19-20 mpg out of a tank and i commute 50 highway miles each way. i usually run OD off in the city (OD on at probably 55+)... but with basically 100 highway miles when i drive to work i thought the MPG would be better. dunno

[TripleTransAm]

It may be, that many of the "tuner" chips are not adaptive, and unless you have a hand held unit, may be in "Let's Boogie" all the time, with no adaptive function whatsoever.


I don't think the chips have any adaptive function whatsoever. I believe they just contain a new set of calibrations or possibly adjustments to calibrations already loaded on the PCM itself (most likely why you need to provide what is currently loaded in your PCM when ordering a chip). I imagine the PCM checks if anything is present at the port when it 'wakes up' and if so, it goes to work reading the new values to substitute over the preloaded ones.

I don't have any concrete data but I'd find it hard to believe that fuel mixtures would be altered depending on driving habits. The purpose of the whole closed-loop control system is to make sure that given a whole bunch of inputs, the resultant mixture ends up being 14.7:1 (or whatever the situation calls for, but I believe it's almost always 14.7:1). Would a PCM be allowed to fudge the numbers just because it happened to be driven by a more aggressive driver? I'd see the EPA screaming bloody murder...

This story/rumour *might* be a result of a characteristic of factory O2 sensors... they are narrowband, which means their outputs peak in either direction within a very narrow window. Using guessed numbers, it would be like pegging the O2 sensor voltage when the detected ratio was 14.6:1 or lower, and pegging it on the other end when the ratio was 14.8:1, with the full 1 V swing happening between those ratios. Because of the need for richer ratios at WOT (like 12.5:1 etc.), you can forget about using the O2 sensor outputs to run the show, so most if not all factory PCMs disregard the O2 sensor values at WOT altogether.

Since every engine's needs can vary, how does the PCM make sure it's doing things properly for YOUR particular engine? I'm not sure if all PCMs do it the same way but I know many of them would take the data gathered in the operating mode *just* before WOT as a baseline, a sort of educated guess to be used as a base and then offsetted to arrive at the richer WOT results. As has been said before, this is probably why custom on-the-dyno tunes yield such better results than a cookie-cutter tune, because each engine will need a different offset to apply on the original educated guess to get to the best results.

So maybe a more aggressive driver will allow the PCM to learn how to better guess what's needed to do a good job at WOT, but I don't think it works the other way around. At lower power demands, the PCM won't go looking anywhere near the values stored for higher power demands (below WOT) and so it'll just keep doing its best 14.7:1 job.

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a good technical explanation of how it really works.


Side note: if driving smoothly really did put the PCM into a snooze mode, I wouldn't have been able to pull the string of 14.6s and eventually the 14.56 after practically tip-toe'ing to the track. Why did I take it easy? Story has it that the LS1s like the one in my WS6 drop down to a less aggressive timing curve after detecting a certain number of knock situations. The idea being that knock has to actually happen before being heard, so rather than risk a situation of knock / pull timing / give it back / knock / pull timing / give it back / etc. it just eventually gives up and backs off for good, until it detects a certain amount of fresh fuel has been added to the tank during a fill up. This helps in situations of getting a batch of bad gas, etc. So not knowing if my Marauder had the same logic, I didn't take any chance having the car pull back timing for good with my half-91 octane / half-94 octane brew that was in the tank that fateful evening. Hence why I drove very gently to the track.

[JMan]

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a good technical explanation of how it really works.




TTA, you're dead on. The idea of adaptive learning is sometimes misquoted. The PCM actually derives info for differing load situations and constantly updates them on a weighted moving average. Load is derived from inputs such as engine speed, throttle position, coolant and air temps., air mass and flow, EGR (On Fords), knock sensor and vehicle speed/gear. Those learned parameters help it to 'predict' what to do when that specific situation comes up next. So it is literally a "learned" response (Similar to a calculator. e.g. 2+2+2=6, 2+3+3=8).

For example, you're driving along at 50mph at a steady cruise and want to pass the idiot backing up traffic. When you change the throttle by pushing on the go-pedal, the fuel enrichment, timing, gear change, torque convertor, EGR and canister purge all default to the "average" of the previous events that match that criteria. Coolant and air temperature only enrichen up to a certain cut-off temperature and then are literally dormant sensors at that point. The knock sensor doesn't have any effect until a knock is detected. Code clearing (Generically) or PCM programming erase all those "learned" responses therefore requiring a brief period of re-learning. After the initial responses are set, they are constantly adjusted each time an individual load zone is encountered (Moving Average).

Virtually all feedback comes from the oxygen sensors - all four of them! All load input is from the above mentioned sensors. Any fault on either end, either feedback or input sensors, sways the moving average. Those stupid little resistors you can buy on e-pay for the air temp sensors are a good example. They lower the ACT reading back to a level that adds enrichment. Of course, the O2 sensors see that and adjust it back to where it supposed to be after a drive cycle or two, eliminating the effect and burdening the system overall. Since I don't have a flame suit, I won't mention the oiled air filter / contaminated airflow meter elements and their resultant effect on performance, efficiency or economy.
:flamer:

Again good post TTA,
J

[Smokie]

Going back to Mike's 29 highway mpg, I believe the reason is no different than a bonestock MM running a 15.3 quarter mile and another bonestock MM running a 14.9; same track, same day, side by side.

The few times that I had an opportunity to run highway from gas station to gas station my car did 26.3 mpg. N/A.
With the blower, four adults and travel baggage coming home from the Shootout after stopping twice to shop and once to pee, my car got 23.6 mpg.

I think the differences in mpg are more related to the car as an individual and the driver's habits.

[SergntMac]

I don't think the chips have any adaptive function whatsoever.

TTA, you're dead on. The idea of adaptive learning is sometimes misquoted. Sometimes keeping things brief shortchanges the exchange of 411. Read up here...

http://fordfuelinjection.com/?p=2

[TripleTransAm]

Oh my gosh, what an awesome read! Thanks for the link!

Dumb question: what are we on our MMs? EEC-IV or V?

[TripleTransAm]

Oh my gosh, this is SO well written!!!!!!! Seriously, this link has to be sticky'ed somewhere!

[LordVader]

Thanks Sarge...that was indeed an eyeopening article. Never too old to learn some new tricks!

[Agent M79]

Mike, just out of curiosity, how are you calculating your gas mileage?

[SergntMac]

Dumb question: what are we on our MMs? EEC-IV or V? Good question, /Steve, thanks.

I've been calling this thing an "eek" since I first Jerry W. call it that. The correct term for the Marauder is EEC-VI, and for all Marauders everywhere.

"PCM" is dated. PCMs do not have our adaptive capabilities.

"Intel inside", eh?

[Smokie]

Sarge thanks for the info, I am getting educated beyond my intelligence.....:eek:

[TripleTransAm]

"PCM" is dated. PCMs do not have our adaptive capabilities.

Actually, all engine-control computers (whether you call them an ECM or PCM or whatever) have adaptive capabilities, as described in that link you provided. It's just that the older ones (like what's in my GTA) have a much lower resolution, no doubt due to the limited processor performance of the early-mid 80s when those ECMs were designed. Lately, these computers control so much more than just engine (for example, transmission, etc.) that they are labelled Powertrain Control Modules. EEC is just Ford's brand name for their ECM/PCM (I think I just recently read an old Motor Trend or R&T from the late 70s where they described the "new" EEC).

In my GTA, there are 16 "cells" arranged 4x4, where one axis is load and the other is RPM, I believe. MAF (no MAP) and other parameters determine load, RPM feeds the next axis, and you arrive at a certain cell. In that cell there are long term ("BLM") and short term ("Integrator") adjustments, with values of 128 indicating "in the middle" and extremities at 0 and 255 (remember, good old 8-bit computing!). Floor it, and the ECM looks at how things were behaving in the cell immediately before going WOT. Each cell has it's set of adjusters, and in reading them I can see that my 5.0l TPI has a tendency to want to run lean at idle or just off idle (because the ECM has adjusters in those cells that are richening the mixture quite a bit). However, the other cells are bang on at 128 or thereabouts. Vacuum leak at idle? Dirty injectors not providing adequate fuel at the 'normal' pulse-widths? No idea. Might actually find out this winter when I tear into it to replace all gaskets in the intake path and maybe *maybe* ship out the injectors to get cleaned/balance-tested.

I don't know the exact details of OBD-II but for sure it ain't just 4x4 cells, from what I've heard. MUCH more resolution. But the adaptive concept remains.

Useless ECM trivia: the 1985 Tuned Port Injected GM F-bodies had a one-year-only ECM model, that was so weak and slow that you had to choose a low-speed data reading speed when connecting a scan s/w to the ECM and driving the car normally, which provided a pitiful refresh rate. Switch to the normal (high) speed data rate, and the ECM would be too overloaded to provide adequate engine protection - you risked inducing deadly knock and other nastiness. 1986 and onwards brought a new and improved ECM with no such limitations.

[Mike Poore]

This has been one hell of an eye opening discussion, and has gone far beyond what I had hoped, thanks to Mac et.al.

Here's what I think we've learned:

1. All MM's are not the same
2. I believe there's a difference in the EEC of the '03's & '04's (mine's an '04)
3. Adding a "tuner" chip or making changes in the EEC most likely will effect fuel consumption.
4. Changing rear end ratio will effect fuel consumption.
5. Installing the Pro-Guard will decrease fuel consumption at highway speeds.

In my case, when traveling on interstate highways in good weather, using the cruise control, and driving ~70 mph, the addition of the Pro-guard increased my fuel economy by 13.46%. That's using the average of 26mpg before and 29.5mpg after installation.

If you have power adders, ie: supercharger, 4:11 gears, and EEC mods, and are getting 20mpg, on the interstate, then added the Pro-guard, the 13.46% increase would net you 2.7mpg or, ~23mpg. +,-.

Bottom line: Do I think my reports of 29+ mpg on the interstate with the pro-Guard is unusually high? No I don't.

I believe anyone who has a completely stock '04 running synthetic lubricants and uses the cruise control should expect nearly the same results.

If you've added gears, and a chip, and are running around town with your foot in it, most of the time, the Pro-guard isn't gonna do much for you, except keep you from tearing your bumper off when you run over a curb.

If, however, you do a significant portion of your driving at highway speeds, with or without power adders, I think the Pro-Guard will net the 13.46% increase I've experienced.

MATH: Subtract the first number from the second number: 29.5 - 26 = 3.5

Divide the answer by the first number: 3.5 / 26 = .1346 or 13.46%

I've really appreciated the tone and thoughtfulness of the participants in this discussion.

[hdwrench]

:confused: i still drive my basically unmodded MM on 100 mile commutes everyday (highway miles basically no stop and go) and minimal city driving. 19-20 MPG

:confused: i have stock gears no tuner and I run mobil1. so i dont see how i'd get 9 mpg less than another basically stock 04 running mainly highway miles. dunno

[Mike Poore]

:confused: i still drive my basically unmodded MM on 100 mile commutes everyday (highway miles basically no stop and go) and minimal city driving. 19-20 MPG

:confused: i have stock gears no tuner and I run mobil1. so i dont see how i'd get 9 mpg less than another basically stock 04 running mainly highway miles. dunno

I'm doing about 23 under those same conditions.

What I'm talking about is topping off the tank, entering an interstate, driving 400 miles, with the cruise control on, filling up, and doing it all over again, in optimum weather conditions. And what I think we've been saying, is that the adaptive function of the EEC is gonna net those results in an unmodified '04.

[Agent M79]

Mike, I've never had a 'broken in' completely stock MM. I started modding around 2,500 miles which I've been told is well short of 'break-in'.

When I can pull all highway on a tank, I'll get about 25 MPG. My normal drive is roughly 1/2 'city' and 1/2 'highway' and I am getting about 18 MPG without trying to go easy on it. Spirited where possible, one might say.

I've been tracking the miles since my last fill up to the current one and dividing that by the gallons of gas from my last fill up to find my 'miles per gallon'. I am keeping a lifetime running average (18.7), the average of the last 3 tanks (17.9 - I had one tank where a good chunk was spent VERY spirited), and the the last tank.

I can't think of another way to do the math and want to see if that's how you are doing it.

There is a Pro Guard in my future and I will see if I have a rise in my mileage.

[Mike Poore]

I can't think of another way to do the math and want to see if that's how you are doing it.

There is a Pro Guard in my future and I will see if I have a rise in my mileage.

Your method and mine are the same.

On the interstate runs, I only considered fuel economy between fill-ups when I got off the highway, filled up, then got back on and did it all over again. I did NOT consider, for instance, driving around Detroit, during our trip to MMVlll. And, for the experiments, made sure there was no off interstate driving during the tests.

Was it a example of what we can expect in usual every day driving? Of course not, and like the EPA estimates was skewed toward the absurd; but these were experiments to test the difference in fuel economy with and without the Pro-guard installed, and frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to do it. :D

[TripleTransAm]

One very important variable: actual road speed that is considered "highway".

At least we all are experiencing the same aerodynamics (if I can disregard air resistance due to height above sea level), so we don't have to worry about which speed is best for what car. The next trick is putting the engine at a speed where it's most efficient at propelling the car for a certain unit of fuel consumed.

In other words, an important variable in the comparison is to make sure the speeds remain identical between both examples.

The difference in fuel consumption between 68 mph and 75 mph on my car (constant speed cruising, same roads each time) is notable. I don't have PURE numbers but it's the type of difference that is visibly noticeable on the fuel gage at certain trip odometer points. For example, the difference between hitting the 3/4 notch when you've gone 155 km versus 125 km, etc. Very noticeable. Same with my other cars: my WS6 provided fuel mileage in the upper 27s at a cruise of 60 mph, but ballooned to 33 mpg at 70 mph.

So make sure you quote what your speed was during a controlled run.

Also, the longer the controlled run the better. Or, more specifically, the more fuel consumed, the better. Auto shutoffs at the station pumps are so inaccurate and the smaller the fillup, the greater percentage of error that deviation in fillup will produce. In other words, a 0.5 gallon slop is much less noticeable when filling up 20 gallons versus that same 0.5 gallon inaccuracy when filling up 5 gallons. Example: I've gone to fill the tank on my GTA for storage purposes when the tank was already "full" to begin with, from a fillup the day before. After what was essentially a 2 block drive to the gas station, I calculated that 'fillup' just for kicks. 9 mpg? I don't think so... obviously not a useful data point in my spreadsheet.

[merc6]

Being my other car is a 4cyl, lightly taping the gas on the mm is damn near half throttle on the 4cyl. only time I burn gas is when I enter "sprited driving" loop

[JMan]

For the record, all Marauders use the same processor (PCM as Society of Automotive Engineers has deemed it for all OBDII cars.). It is the EEC-V ("Eek-five" for you acrinomial geeks) Ford processor - the same one used in the late 90's in the Formula1 Cosworth Ford V-10 cars. Those cars had a three litre, N/A, which produced 850hp @ 14,500rpm (That's right, 180 cubes > 850 horses). They also were allowed to use Traction Control back then. Of course, that was tied into the PCM also. There was no reason for them to re-invent the wheel apparently!

Whereas the procession may differ between PCM's, they are all the same units. Obviously, a Mazda/Ford Escort of similar vintage would have the same PCM, yet different procession. My car probably has the same catch-code as half of your's, but the programming is obviously different. Both the EEC-IV and EEC-V are known to be ones of the, if not the best, most bullet-proof processors out there. Yes, better than any of the Euro or Asian stuff. I work for or with many of those Euro/Asian manufacturers but I am on my fifth Panther! And yes TTA, we are tied in big-time with General Motors, but I gave up on them when they quit building real cars. You possess an amazing amount of knowledge for a layman. Are you really a layman?

Great inputs in this thread, sorry to derail it [AGAIN]!

My car gets :censor: mileage also. I average in the 18's with mixed driving and have gotten 23.7mpg on my max, cruising @ 70mph w/o the A/C. My former Marquis would throw up just shy of 29mpg driving @ 85mph with the A/C on and some in town driving added in. What a let down this car has been in the fuel economy department. But I love the car and nobody teases me about their grannie's car being just like it! I'm going to have to get an SCT/PRP just so I can boost my mileage up - at least that's my story and I'm . . .

J

[SergntMac]

For the record, all Marauders use the same processor (PCM as Society of Automotive Engineers has deemed it for all OBDII cars.). It is the EEC-V ("Eek-five" for you acrinomial geeks) Ford processor - the same one used in the late 90's in the Formula1 Cosworth Ford V-10 cars. I'm reading this and wondering WTF? Then I page back and find my typo, I typed "IV" not "VI", which is correct. Beginning with MY 2003, all FMC products moved to the EEC-6, or, six, for us Roman numeral challenged. The Marauder had four software versions in 2003, FTSL, BMDO, CRD0 and CRD1, and one in 2004, MAV2. Actually, there were literally dozens of calibrations created, but only these five were put to use. Sorry for any inconveinence.

[Agent M79]

I am certainly not making any attempt to maximize my fuel economy. My fuel consumption has settled into a pattern and I only track it for diagonostic purposes and curiosity.

I don't seriously have an expectation that the Pro-Guard is going to alter my mileage, but if it does, I'll certainly post it here. I would guess I would be sensitive to a change over time as granular as 0.5 to 1.0 MPG change. I have no other mods planned for many more miles.

When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery?

[SergntMac]

When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery? I've heard five to 30 minutes, and most of this advice was to insure that the memory indeed got cleaned out. However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?

[TripleTransAm]

When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery?


In the old days it was as short as 30 seconds, but I don't know if newer PCMs keep a backup power source for short term power losses. I'm inclined to say charging a battery would take several hours, so it should be safe to say the settings are wiped.

[JMan]

I've heard five to 30 minutes, and most of this advice was to insure that the memory indeed got cleaned out. However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?

Sarge, you're right-on on that. For all intents and purposes, you have five minutes to safely change a battery without supplemental voltage. You will lose memory in five minutes for radio, A/C, etc. though.

Now, on the EEC thing, if I can attach this info system doc to this, it shows the '03 Marauder diagnostic flow chart. It specifies EEC-V for this car. I don't have current enough s/w to show you '04. But I'm certain it's the same. Disregard the CNG/Flex Fuel title. That is Ford's blanket way of covering all "like" car lines (Read: Panthers) with the same diagnostic flow charts.

J


8002

[Agent M79]

However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?

YES! Simple and easy. (And I am still talking about batteries, not my dating habits.)

[SergntMac]

Now, on the EEC thing, if I can attach this info system doc to this, it shows the '03 Marauder diagnostic flow chart. It specifies EEC-V for this car. I don't have current enough s/w to show you '04. But I'm certain it's the same. I'm not a professional wrench, but my resources are credible. I'm just an owner who's learning curve has become really twisted since I bought a Marauder. I've been a sponge on everything, but it doesn't do me any good if it's not true, so, I'm always ready to change my mind when better 411 is at hand. I am not compelled to change my mind at the present time.

I'm going to ask you to return to the link I posted ^ there, and read down that page to where it identifies when EEC five was in use.

http://fordfuelinjection.com/?p=2

EEC-I
*1978
*Ignition timing, EGR, and Smog pump
EEC-II
*1979
*Carb (O2 feedback and fuel stepper motor), Ignition timing, EGR, and Smog pump
EEC-III
*1980
*Central Fuel Injection (no Self-Test functions)
EEC-IV
*1984
*OBD-I (covered in text below)
EEC-V v1.0
*1994
*OBD-II (covered in text below)
EEC-V v2.0
*1999
*Looks just like V but no J3 connector on the back, complete Flash Memory capable
EEC-VI
*2003
*Multiple connectors

The "J3" connector that's missing from EEC five is where we mounted our performance chip when we were started using chips to improve performance. EEC six, has the knock out panel for access to the J3 port. This 411 is good enough for me. If you wish to disagree again, please take it to the editors of the referrence page and tell them they are misleading students like me.

Furthermore, relative to PCM vs. EEC question, a long while back, I put this exact question to the man who knows EECs best, former Ford engineer Jerry Wroblewski, now with SCT tuning. His answer was one of those moments where I wish I had not asked, because my question exposed my lack of knowledge. With my EEC six in his hand, he looked up at me with that "assshat" look on his face and said "don't ask me stupid questions while I'm tuning your car, Mac, it tends to piss me off...It's eek". Therefore, this 411 is likewise good enough for me.

Folks, feel free to call it what you want, I really don't care. I had some 411 on the topic and I passed it along...Just my .02C, hoped it helped.

[JMan]

EEC-V v2.0
*1999
*Looks just like V but no J3 connector on the back, complete Flash Memory capable
EEC-VI
*2003
*Multiple connectors <<<<<<<<



Sarge,
With all due respect,look at your quote above. The multiple connector is the give-away. Our's only have one big 104 pin connector. I'm not the argumentative type, I just wanted to set the record straight. That tends to keep all sounding informed when speaking to others. Once again, no offense was meant here. Thanks all for the info!
J

[SergntMac]

Sarge, With all due respect,look at your quote above. The multiple connector is the give-away. Our's only have one big 104 pin connector. I'm not the argumentative type, I just wanted to set the record straight. There is nothing to look at. The chart was snipped from the website I directed you to, and posted here unmolested. Neither have I misunderstood what it says, and I explained that clearly in my last post on this. One more time.

The missing connector is the J3 port on the PCB, inside the EEC. EEC-V, versions 1.0 (1994) and 2.0 (1999) did not have an access door on the case that could be twisted out by hand, to reveal or provide acces to the J3 port. Folks wanting to chip had to pull the EEC and take it apart to snip the case back. In fact, early directions we shared among ourselves back in '02, said to do that. But, once we pulled the EEC, and found a break out panel, job got done without pulling the EEC at all. Just get under the dash and peel back the twist out panel at the perforations, clean the contacts and plug in the chip.

The expression "multiple connectors" in the chart include this access door to the J3 port.

[Lidio]

I just wanted to make a couple of quick points with out getting to technical about a couple of things and leave it at that. Although this is rather long…. Sorry.

One quick note about maximizing your gas mileage these days. If you really want to squeeze the best possible mileage out of any thing you drive, especially the larger vehicles like our MM’s and full size trucks, etc… The real trick especially in the city is you literally have to drive like the person who’s in front of you usually and really pisses you off when they take off from a light like they forgot which pedal is which… you know those drivers that take about six hours just to get up from 0 to 40mph from a busy street light. This and whole bunch of truly “little-old-lady” conservative driving is what it really takes. Things like long/extended warm up’s, not good. Even slowing down abruptly. It all adds up.

Remote starters are the worse on gas mileage because wimpy, warm blooded puzzy’s like me like to remote start while still getting dressed in the morning when its 25 degree Michigan weather out side and some times I’ll come out side and the remote starter time will have expired it’s 20 minute run timer and turn off the engine unless it sees the key inserted in the ignition. Cold starts and long warm ups are atroshis on MPG’s. If you live or drive in colder climates or conditions you will get worse mileage then lets say driving when its 75 degrees out. Reason for this is even though the computer uses the 02’s to keep the A/F at stoke or 14.7:1… its doing it with colder denser air. So in order to keep it at 14.7:1 in lets say 20 degree air, you will consume more fuel under the same loads and speeds as you would if it were 75 degrees out side.

My MM with the 4.10’s, Trilogy Blower, bigger back wheels and tires, 60ls injectors etc. Got almost 17 in town and 21-22 on the highway with the A/C on and the cruise set at 80mph!! I tested its City/Hwy MPG’s about three months ago when I decided to sell it to make sure who ever bought it didn’t come back on me if it was a pig on fuel because of all the mods I did to it. I drove it very conservatively with very slow take-off’s This is even with a forged heavier aftermarket piston and connecting rod assembly. Believe me though… when I drive it like I normally do which I’m sure lot of us do with and with out a blower, it will never get that kinda mileage cause it goes down the drain quick as soon as you start to drive spiritedly.

When it comes to the computers in the MM’s… their all pretty much the same. The ‘04s are slightly different in calibration because it supports two knock sensors and not just one. And a couple of other things like down shifts into 1st can occur higher rolling speeds then the '03s. The key thing though that can make an 04 MM get better mileage or slightly better feeling throttle response is that on the 04’s, they actually use the knock sensors to add a few degrees of timing under load. The 04’s don’t just use the knock sensors to pull timing in the event of knock. Even though the 03 MM’s don’t have dual knock sensors, I enable the knock sensors on my tunes to add a couple of degrees of timing under medium loads. This seems to work pretty good. But because I choose to make the converter not lock till 4th gear at about 63 mph, the MPG’s can go down a little, but what I do for the converter schedule makes a world of difference in performance in around town conditions.

One quick thing about adaptive on the modern Ford’s. First off I’m no a big fan of it on high end boosted or any boosted applications because it can take a lot of time and tuning to really make adaptive not do something you don’t want at WOT on a blower car. On real medium to serious efforts that I tune, I turn adaptive off. Adaptive is basically there to make adjustments to the fuel curve based on what the computer sees from the 02’s under conditions while in closed loop. Adaptive helps in adjusting or predicting what to do with fuel curves as things like injectors begin to wear or as the engine begins to get older and weaker or the MAF gets a little dirty, etc... I know that isn’t a super technical explanation of adaptive but its all I’ve got on that one. I’ve turned adaptive off on so many performance Ford’s I’ve tuned, I cant remember how many its been now. Turning off adaptive is in no way a sloppy or bad thing before you guys jump on me. It’s a requirement on the cars that I set up to run on leaded race fuels because the lead ruins the stock 02s in about 3-5 tanks full and then if the 02s and adaptive aren’t off ( or basically run in open loop full time) The A/F will really be off. But I take the time to try to keep them running at about a A/F of 15.2:1 or some times leaner at light loads and then richer at higher loads or WOT. This 15:1 or leaner open loop stuff I do really makes for some decent MPGs on these cars.

A lot of people aren’t aware of this but in 87-93 Ford produced a Mustang that got shipped to some where in the Middle Eastern part of the world. These mustangs literally had Off-Road exhaust pipes with no cats, and no 02s what so ever. They actually had little plugs or terminators plugged into the 02 harness’s where the 02s would normally be plugged in. They had a computer and a eec-4 box code that I figured out about 9 years ago when I used to use Auto-Logic software for custom tuning. Although I knew of these Opec Stangs much earlier becuase of friends that watched them get built in the late 80's at the plant.
This code that these Opec cars came with when tuning and burning chips worked on the popular A9L mustang eec-4 computers. I still to this day with SCT use this Opec file as a staring point when I do a custom tune on 93 and older Stangs. This tuning file has the EGR, Adaptive, Evap, Thermactor controls and both 02, and the 02 heaters turned off. On really built 5.0s where its really common to install big cams and aftermarket heads, turning off all of the above and doing the rest of the tune correctly is what can make for a stable and nice idle even with a big lumpy cam instead of a poor, surging crapy idle like usually happens with the 5.0s when major parts got changed, not just small bolt-ons. I apply a lot from what I learned on these older Opec codes to a lot of the newer stuff when needed these days.


Thanks

[SergntMac]

Thank you, Lidio. I respect your time and attention to this thread.

You add yet another volume of insight to this topic, and some "fresh air" to our discussion. Frankly, I'm done with this. I have exhausted all I know about it. I hope I have been helpful, at least as helpful as what Lidio shares with us.

[Lidio]

Hey guys


As far as I know, the MM's are all considered eec-5. I've attached a pic of a computer right out of an 03 MM and you can see at least on this one its labeled as a eec-5.
As soon as I get an 04 MM here or a MAV2, I'll be sure to look at it as well.
All MMs also have the J-port too. They've all been chip-able to my knowledge. I've yet to see an 04 that would not take a chip as was stated on these forums a couple of years ago when the 04's started to hit the roads brand new.


Thanks

[Mike Poore]

Thanks Lidio, it's an interesting topic, though unfortunately, I didn't get to do the ProGuard tests at the strip, last weekend, as planed. Obviously, anyone who's driving an MM and worrying about fuel economy is driving the wrong car. My interest was to test the skid plate to see if there was a difference in drag coefficient, which seemed likely; and long distance runs on interstates under controlled conditions seemed the best approach.

This thread has had numerous thoughtfully reasoned, responses, and I'm happy with the things I've learned from the experiment and tone of the posts. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experience.

BTW, I had a Feb build '88 LX 5.0 with some strange programing. ie: no rev limiter and some other stuff the guys at my dealership found very interesting.:)

[TripleTransAm]

Obviously, anyone who's driving an MM and worrying about fuel economy is driving the wrong car.

I'm in agreement with your comment as long as we're talking about absolute fuel economy. When I say absolute, I mean compared to EVERYTHING else out there, like a Toyota Echo or something like that.

Relative fuel economy (my term) relates to how much performance you get out of a certain overall package for a certain amount of fuel. In that regard, I'm certainly very happy with getting a mixed 20-21 mpg in varied driving situations in a 4500 lb luxury behemoth that ran 14.6s at the track one after another. It was in fact one of the criteria for choosing this class of automobile over an SUV (ie. performance AND good fuel mileage).

As interested as we are in performance, I doubt there's ANYONE on here who would turn his nose up at the possibility of improving their mileage a couple of points without sacrificing performance, especially with our gas prices of late.


I've gotten good results out of driving the way Lidio described to get good mileage... I think the magic RPM is 2000 or just under. In dense urban driving, having the converter flash to no more than 2000 seems to work well, letting the torque multiplication do its best. Takes some effort, but it seems to pay off with a 1 or 2 mpg improvement. Nice, when you go through 3 tankfuls a week. :(


The only downside to the MM's consumption is the apparent thirst at idle. My 2nd MM appears to behave similarly at idle. This is the only thing I find unacceptable for an engine this size and this 'high-tech', because at this point vehicle weight does not come into play.

[GreekGod]

If a simple modification like a Pro-Guard skid plate can gain over 10% increase in highway fuel mileage, I would like to pose 2 questions:Q. #1)-does Ford's wind-tunnel need a "tune-up" and Q. #2)- Should not all the Ford engineers working in the wind-tunnel be blown out the end of the tunnel and sent to the unemployment line at the MESC? To me this sounds like the old (and now discredited) idea of leaving the pick-up truck tailgate down and gaining 1 or 2 mpg on the highway. Skid plate-good idea-:up: , 10%+ gain in highway mpg-:eek:

[Agent M79]

I have ordered my Pro Guard.

There may be a complication, however, because I have also ordered the Art Carr tranny pan.

If my mileage increases will it be the Pro Guard or the tranny pan?

Heh. Everybody says it's easy, so I may install the Pro Guard 1,500 or 2,000 miles before the pan. We'll see.

[Agent M79]

I have the proguard installed now. I have also filled up for the first time. I will keep my eyes on the mileage.

[JUST 1BULLITT]

COOL! GOOD man, keep us posted on your MPG! INTERESTING thread! I'm still too damned HAPPY w/ my 'new toy' to even notice my MPG! LOL! (After a few road trips, I'll likely be very inclined to pay attention and work to improve it!):D

[beemer]

I have found with my bone stock Marauder that 72-75MPH using cruise on the highway has consistantly shown me 27 MPG. :beer:

2003 300A Black.

Best,

Paul :D

[Agent M79]

I am sorry to report that my mileage has not changed since installing the Proguard. Which is quite sad news as 93 octane is $3.09 a gallon.

[duhtroll]

I ditto this. I had my ProGuard on for a few thousand miles and report absolutely no increase in mileage whatsoever. If anything, the MPG went down, but that's a bit of a stretch also. It was pretty much the same until I put in the T/C and then the MPG went way down and I lost a lot of tread on the rear tires simultaneously.

I have kept very careful watch on the MPG, as I go 30 miles one way to work, mostly highway every day. Picking up my daughter after school each day means about 70 miles per day of 3/4 highway and 1/4 in town driving. In short, a very good estimate of mileage. I travel the same speeds to/from work every day - +7 on the highway and +5 in town because it's not worth the hassle of going faster. I also fill up at the same pump at the same gas station nearly every time (I must get there when no one else wants gas). I don't think I can get more consistent than that.

The gears lost me at least 3 MPG when I switched to 4.10s. The ProGuard did nothing to increase mileage, and the TC has had me driving more "recreationally" lately.

I am considering redoing my tunes on my chip - one for everyday 93 octane driving, one for track/recreational use on the same octane, and one for 91 octane should I ever be caught without 93 (though that has never happened it's best to be prepared). But then I'll have to find a dyno tuner somewhere within a few hours who can reburn chips.

Sorry for the partial derail - just adding my $0.02 about the ProGuard and all that other stuff in the back of my mind spilled out. :)

-A


I am sorry to report that my mileage has not changed since installing the Proguard. Which is quite sad news as 93 octane is $3.09 a gallon.

[GreekGod]

If a simple modification like a Pro-Guard skid plate can gain over 10% increase in highway fuel mileage, I would like to pose 2 questions:Q. #1)-does Ford's wind-tunnel need a "tune-up" and Q. #2)- Should not all the Ford engineers working in the wind-tunnel be blown out the end of the tunnel and sent to the unemployment line at the MESC? To me this sounds like the old (and now discredited) idea of leaving the pick-up truck tailgate down and gaining 1 or 2 mpg on the highway. Skid plate-good idea-:up: , 10%+ gain in highway mpg-:eek:

The 1993 Gran Marquis I drive has the digital instrument panel and the owners manual has a detailed explanation of /on checking fuel mileage. After reading the manual, I gained further insight on how to properly check mpg and how difficult it actually is to do. The variables are numerous and a Pro-Guard test would take a very long term, at best, or something akin to the "Myth-busters" TV show test of the pick-up truck tailgate urban-myth.