Fiveology MAF ground wire
FTE Chapter Leader
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 12,340
Likes: 1,314
From: Central Mississippi
Well, by God, RI & PA ain't that far apart & the north east has plenty of friggin' tracks. Settle it then, instead of just shooting blanks for every reply of Brad's.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,379
Likes: 2
The first thing that isn't right is the hp and torque aren't equal at 5252 RPM. I am not a math-a-scientist but that is where those numbers should cross on a dyno graph.
The second thing about it that seems very strange is you are producing your max hp and torque at ~3000 RPM? That seems very wrong.
I have over 300 RWHP on my truck but at 3000 I just barely got it breathing. That power doesn't come, in my 5.8, until just after 5K
Posting Guru
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 3
From: Menifee, CA
I wonder if the numbers are wrong because something was wrong with the calibration on the dyno...
The first thing that isn't right is the hp and torque aren't equal at 5252 RPM. I am not a math-a-scientist but that is where those numbers should cross on a dyno graph.
The second thing about it that seems very strange is you are producing your max hp and torque at ~3000 RPM? That seems very wrong.
I have over 300 RWHP on my truck but at 3000 I just barely got it breathing. That power doesn't come, in my 5.8, until just after 5K
The first thing that isn't right is the hp and torque aren't equal at 5252 RPM. I am not a math-a-scientist but that is where those numbers should cross on a dyno graph.
The second thing about it that seems very strange is you are producing your max hp and torque at ~3000 RPM? That seems very wrong.
I have over 300 RWHP on my truck but at 3000 I just barely got it breathing. That power doesn't come, in my 5.8, until just after 5K
Fleet Owner
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 21,437
Likes: 76
From: Gilbert, PA
I wonder if the numbers are wrong because something was wrong with the calibration on the dyno...
The first thing that isn't right is the hp and torque aren't equal at 5252 RPM. I am not a math-a-scientist but that is where those numbers should cross on a dyno graph.
The second thing about it that seems very strange is you are producing your max hp and torque at ~3000 RPM? That seems very wrong.
I have over 300 RWHP on my truck but at 3000 I just barely got it breathing. That power doesn't come, in my 5.8, until just after 5K
The first thing that isn't right is the hp and torque aren't equal at 5252 RPM. I am not a math-a-scientist but that is where those numbers should cross on a dyno graph.
The second thing about it that seems very strange is you are producing your max hp and torque at ~3000 RPM? That seems very wrong.
I have over 300 RWHP on my truck but at 3000 I just barely got it breathing. That power doesn't come, in my 5.8, until just after 5K
A BIG BLOCK creates its power at a much lower RPM range than small block
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 377
Likes: 6
The only time they won't is if the HP and the TQ aren't scaled the same on the graph. Say if HP is 0-400 but TQ is 0-1000.
I didn't see the sheets you guys are talking about, the banks ones don't even go up to 5k.
Now, since when are we blindly believing manufacturer HP claims anyways?
Fleet Owner
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 21,437
Likes: 76
From: Gilbert, PA
Actually yes, they DO have to cross. That's the #1 tip off of a fake sheet. HP is a calculation of torque and rpm, 5252 is the number they will always be the same at. It's a mathematical fact of life.
The only time they won't is if the HP and the TQ aren't scaled the same on the graph. Say if HP is 0-400 but TQ is 0-1000.
I didn't see the sheets you guys are talking about, the banks ones don't even go up to 5k.
Now, since when are we blindly believing manufacturer HP claims anyways?
The only time they won't is if the HP and the TQ aren't scaled the same on the graph. Say if HP is 0-400 but TQ is 0-1000.
I didn't see the sheets you guys are talking about, the banks ones don't even go up to 5k.
Now, since when are we blindly believing manufacturer HP claims anyways?
Governed out at 4500
http://www.bankspower.com/products/s...7.5L%20EFI%7C1
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,379
Likes: 2
the engine doesnt go to 5k thats why
Governed out at 4500
Banks Power | 87-97 Ford - 7.5L EFI>>PowerPack® System
Governed out at 4500
Banks Power | 87-97 Ford - 7.5L EFI>>PowerPack® System
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Finished the install. Took a few days from start to finish (including the optional K&N intake) because I ruined my original 60 pin connector. I'll caution you about what I did to mangle it in a sec.
The truck isn't running though. It fires right up with just a tap of the ignition, revs to 1200-1500, plumets, then dies. If I hold throttle to about 1500 it stays running but misses in a fairly consistent rythm. I'm working with Bryan from Fiveology on diagnosing the issue. He's been extremely helpful and has offered to send out a new PCM or MAF if it comes to that.
Now, my connector. On the back of the connector is a plastic piece (usually blue) that covers the unused terminal ports for your PCM. some of the covered ports are required to be used with the swap. The instructions say to carefully drill a hole in the back of the cover to expose the opening on the other side. Well, what it doesn't mention is; it's not just a flat plastic cover. In the "blanks" there are plastic "bullets" inserted into the empty port. Drilling the back of the cover can force the bullets into the connector breaking the tiny little retainer tabs, making the connector useless. That's what happened to me.
I know guys have drilled the back of the cover, but I don't know how they got the bullets out without damaging anything.
I was able to find a spare 60 pin and had to transfer everything over. I did it wire by wire so I was unable to carry over a rubber piece from the old connector that helps hold the terminals in place. That's one of the things I'm inspecting for a possible error. I'm wondering if without that rubber piece, the pins on the PCM might be pushing a terminal or two backwards, rather than creating the connection.
The truck isn't running though. It fires right up with just a tap of the ignition, revs to 1200-1500, plumets, then dies. If I hold throttle to about 1500 it stays running but misses in a fairly consistent rythm. I'm working with Bryan from Fiveology on diagnosing the issue. He's been extremely helpful and has offered to send out a new PCM or MAF if it comes to that.
Now, my connector. On the back of the connector is a plastic piece (usually blue) that covers the unused terminal ports for your PCM. some of the covered ports are required to be used with the swap. The instructions say to carefully drill a hole in the back of the cover to expose the opening on the other side. Well, what it doesn't mention is; it's not just a flat plastic cover. In the "blanks" there are plastic "bullets" inserted into the empty port. Drilling the back of the cover can force the bullets into the connector breaking the tiny little retainer tabs, making the connector useless. That's what happened to me.
I know guys have drilled the back of the cover, but I don't know how they got the bullets out without damaging anything.
I was able to find a spare 60 pin and had to transfer everything over. I did it wire by wire so I was unable to carry over a rubber piece from the old connector that helps hold the terminals in place. That's one of the things I'm inspecting for a possible error. I'm wondering if without that rubber piece, the pins on the PCM might be pushing a terminal or two backwards, rather than creating the connection.
I unplugged the MAF and it runs just fine, maybe a little lumpy but not missing and dying like with the MAF hooked up.
Does that mean faulty MAF, or PCM somehow not reading it correctly?
After that though I picked up some more codes:
"MAF sensor fault" (obviously )
"Loss of ignition diagnostic monitor signal / spout grounded"
Is the spout connector fault also from running without the MAF?
Feels like I'm SO close to getting this bad boy running right
Laughing Gas
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 811
Likes: 1
From: West Central Southern MN
If you re pinned the eec harness according to brian's directions, unplugged the maf, and it ran better, something is very wrong. You need to double check your re pinning. Another thing you need to check is that you followed the directions properly about grounding that black harness wire in your initial question.(yes this thread was straight up jacked)
I received a WAY1 eec in my fiveology kit, so there will be differences between mine and yours. In the instructions it indicates that if there was an existing pin in a certain location(can't remember which position) that the wire needs to be grounded to the intake. My connector did not have a pin present in this location, so I didn't need it.
You have made me nervous about mine, because I haven't started it up yet. I did double check my pins before I put the eec back in though. I would run another self test also.
I received a WAY1 eec in my fiveology kit, so there will be differences between mine and yours. In the instructions it indicates that if there was an existing pin in a certain location(can't remember which position) that the wire needs to be grounded to the intake. My connector did not have a pin present in this location, so I didn't need it.
You have made me nervous about mine, because I haven't started it up yet. I did double check my pins before I put the eec back in though. I would run another self test also.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
If you re pinned the eec harness according to brian's directions, unplugged the maf, and it ran better, something is very wrong. You need to double check your re pinning. Another thing you need to check is that you followed the directions properly about grounding that black harness wire in your initial question.(yes this thread was straight up jacked)
I received a WAY1 eec in my fiveology kit, so there will be differences between mine and yours. In the instructions it indicates that if there was an existing pin in a certain location(can't remember which position) that the wire needs to be grounded to the intake. My connector did not have a pin present in this location, so I didn't need it.
You have made me nervous about mine, because I haven't started it up yet. I did double check my pins before I put the eec back in though. I would run another self test also.
I received a WAY1 eec in my fiveology kit, so there will be differences between mine and yours. In the instructions it indicates that if there was an existing pin in a certain location(can't remember which position) that the wire needs to be grounded to the intake. My connector did not have a pin present in this location, so I didn't need it.
You have made me nervous about mine, because I haven't started it up yet. I did double check my pins before I put the eec back in though. I would run another self test also.
I was insanely meticulous when repinning, I took pictures, wrote original pin location on the wore before repinning, verified wire color, etc... so I really don't think pinning is the problem.
I ended up grounding to an intake manifold bolt and check for good ground, it's solid.
I spoke to Brian on the phone and he said it's possible eithet the MAF or EEC is bad. I put an email in to him to get clarification on backprobing the MAF, kinda confused on that. Haven't heard back yet.
I would hope since the truck DOES run with the MAF disconnected, it can't be something SERIOUSLY wrong....right?!?!
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,868
Likes: 9
From: Rhode Island
HOG0 and WAY1 are both AHACB strategy ECUs. They're both from 94-95 F-150 5.0 E4OD California trucks.
If the ECU does not have a chip of some kind in the back of it, it means all the calibration for the 460 (which has 24 lb/hr injectors) is being done through a modified MAF.
It should run significantly rich with the MAF unplugged, as the computer still thinks it has the 5.0 19 lb/hr injectors.
If the ECU does not have a chip of some kind in the back of it, it means all the calibration for the 460 (which has 24 lb/hr injectors) is being done through a modified MAF.
It should run significantly rich with the MAF unplugged, as the computer still thinks it has the 5.0 19 lb/hr injectors.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
HOG0 and WAY1 are both AHACB strategy ECUs. They're both from 94-95 F-150 5.0 E4OD California trucks.
If the ECU does not have a chip of some kind in the back of it, it means all the calibration for the 460 (which has 24 lb/hr injectors) is being done through a modified MAF.
It should run significantly rich with the MAF unplugged, as the computer still thinks it has the 5.0 19 lb/hr injectors.
If the ECU does not have a chip of some kind in the back of it, it means all the calibration for the 460 (which has 24 lb/hr injectors) is being done through a modified MAF.
It should run significantly rich with the MAF unplugged, as the computer still thinks it has the 5.0 19 lb/hr injectors.
Ironically though, with the MAF plugged in and I fight with the throttle to keep it running, the exhaust is stupid rich. I can smell it from the cab.
When I run it MAF disconnected, no throttle play needed, I can put my head next to the tail pipe and not get a whiff.
This all has me so baffled.