I know there are durability differences between the e4od and the 4r100, but what about the 1994 transition to the powerstroke? Were there immediate component upgrades done in 94' for the powerstroke? I'm just wondering because after I do a few things I'm going to have the e4od left over from my 94' idi turbo. It was made in Jan. of 94'. Guy I work with wants to put it in his 96' with the powerstroke. The transmission is in great shape, I just don't want it to fail on him if it's not up to snuff for that powerstroke's extra torque. Thanks for any info.

 

I think the E4OD got the upgrades in 95. IDI e4od uses 4-stud converter, PSD uses a heavier 6-stud converter.

 

Hmmmm....... That would mean that the first year of powerstroke was tested on the ol' idi e4od. Wonder how it held up.....

 

In all actuality, i doubt that the gen1 psd made enough more power than the turbo idi for the transmission to even notice. Everyone knows the rating of the idi turbo was deflated to boost the PSD sales, and that the gen1 psd might even have been a little overestimated. The two people ive talked to that have owned both, claim the psd was faster empty but the idi towed better. Im thinking the transmission was "upgraded" to fix known weak spots with the transmission, and to adapt it to the more electro-advanced psd's PCM.

 

I just realized a flaw in your question.

There is no 1994 PSD E4OD. All '94 PSD's were 5spds.

 

You are right. Problem solved then, ay?

I thought about it, I'm just going to have him run the tranny and if it goes out on him he can pay me to rebuild it . It is in good shape like I said, so should be fine on a stock PSD right?

Just noticed you are the fella I need to talk to. I was going to PM you but I figured since I had your attention.... Russ said you might be able to send me a link for his cam v stock on the dyno. I'm trying to do the research and get what's best for the project. I will continue to do the searching, but if you have some good links or any advice on the cam grinds that have been run on the dynos and there differences I would appreciate it. Trying not to blow up my rebuilt engine, at least not without doing my homework.

 

Guess it depends on what your project is.

Russ's cam increases intake lift and duration, stays close to stock LSA. It is what would be considered an RV cam. Its been in use for a long time, and works.

My cam is brand new. Increases intake lift and duration, exhaust lift and duration, quicker ramp rates on both, and a much wider LSA. It is a turbo specific camshaft. You will lose some bottom end power (sub 1600rpm) but have a much broader powerband, better efficiency, and more power potential.



the highest is Justin Anderson engine with my cam, middle is Russ w/ his cam, and the lowest is a stock engine AFAIK.

Russ and Justin's trucks are identical other than Russ has 3.55 and Justin has 4.10. The 3.55 will generally generate slightly higher numbers on an engine that can turn them.

This is my dyno sheet:



Working on getting them to send me a sheet with RPM instead of speed shown.

60mph is about 2150rpm. The end drop off is 3500rpm. If you want to figure out the other RPM's, type 28" tall tire, 4.10 R&P, .76 final ratio into a calc.

Difference the lowest runs and highest was timing. Difference between the two highest was the way I rolled into the throttle.

My truck is a Dually, theirs are SRW. about 29% drag vs 24% drag as per the coast down tests. (measures parasitic loss)

 

Man, Nice numbers. Thanks for the graphs. I like the broader power band idea on your cam but I'm looking to gain more down low because of what I'm running. But it's an experiment so it will take some testing to see what's best for the setup.

Any timing changes that need to be made for either of the two cams? On the dyno results, did you need to make the timing adjustment because of the cam or was it some dyno tuning?

Right now cam choice will be easy for the most part. Tough one is trying to figure out if I should use my 94' 7.3 (200,000k) or my rebuilt 6.9. My 7.3 needs a cam because of a bad lifter that caused it a problem, so I figured while I was thinking cam replacement I'd go a re-grind. What's your opinion? Since I'm going for higher numbers should I go with the 7.3 or do a cam switch and put a better cam in my 6.9. I like the 6.9 because of thicker cylinder walls but I believe the 7.3 heads are better. Sorry for all the ? but you guys have the experience so any advice from the experts I take into consideration.

 

You can run more retarded timing on my camshaft because it makes the engine more efficient. Stock and on Russ's cam they are running the 8.5-9.5*

Both Racin's engine and mine are set @ 6*

as for advantages, the only advantage the 7.3 really has over the 6.9 is bigger head studs. I run over 30psi of boost on a daily basis so far for 4,000 miles and no issues. With my Water/Meth I have hit 40+psi a few times for 10second or so periods.

My cam will allow for running more boost due to the drop in drive pressure/cylinder pressure from the larger LSA

6.9 heads are better than 7.3 for a few reasons.... cooling jackets in the corners, injectors sit further into the pre-cup.... Also 6.9's have better pistons for performance, IMO. The 7.3 really was an "emissions engine".

You can do it with both engines, but as I said, and many agree... the 6.9 is the better base for performance.

 

Thanks for the input. I heard rumors about the 7.3 being a smog engine in that way but didn't know how true they were.

I don't think I'll be running more than ten pound boost so my 6.9 head studs should hold up under that. I will probably run the new cam in the 6.9 then and swap the cam and lifters from it to the 7.3. Do you sell your cams like Russ does? If so I can keep it as one of my options.

Did you have to make any push rod or valve spring changes with the cam? I think I went for a higher quality spring when I rebuilt the engine but I can't remember now. I was going to get PS springs for it but didn't see the reason for them at the time. I don't see it making a difference, but I'm sure you've been through all that.

Back to your dyno results, Do you have Mel's pump and injectors on that engine? I read through some threads but I don't think I caught your project in my searches.

 

yeah it should be ok.it's not the direction to go in on purpose as '95 got more upgrades.
the solenoid pack and torque converter will need to be for the PSD.you can use the solenoid pack from the old e40D psd trans if it tests good,but its best to use a new converter.
as far as having diode protection for it,i guess you will,cus those are in the '95+ pcm.
just double checked this with some pdfs i have,and looks like it'll work.don't blame me if it don't though.
should be good to go with both those things swapped.post back when its done,with the results.

 

Oh I'll come right back and blame you. You can be sure of that.

I still have the old torque converter from the 2003 4r100 I swapped into my bronco, that should work. It only has a few thousand miles on it.

 

NO!, not a chance.

Truth be told the "moose camp" has been unable to get anything over 200hp and 460tq. They got beat by a stock pumped truck this last dyno day.

I run a DB4 injection pump and Stage1 sticks.

 

Really? I'm surprised. I figured from all I heard that the moose pump was the way to go. Now, I'm not to familier with it, but I thought it pushed more fuel per revolution and from there could be turned up as you would a stock pump if needed. So all this good stuff I hear about his injectors, is that wrong? I mean, I'd love to save the money and go buy a muscle car, but I am now confused as to what is most effective. It always seemed to me that more fuel all at once would be better than the longer duration of fuel you would get from turning up the pump. Or at least better for your timing and less chance of damage to the engine.

Please, I want to hear more. Experience tells all.

 

There are alot of divided opinions on this subject, however the general consensus over here is that the IDI doesnt need the super fine mist pattern due to being IDI. The turbulence from the air/fuel exiting the pre-cup atomizes the fuel. Where as too fine a mist creates to much fuel to detonate in the pre-cup creating power loss through less thermal efficiency, and more of the fuel is expanding against the head/pre-cup instead of the piston.

As far as the moose pump vs. db4.. no comparison, the db4 has 4 plungers vs. 2 in the db2. 120cc is about the most a db2 can produce, and at that level its reliability is compromised. The db4 is capable of 150cc, so far reliably, maybe even 180cc.