[Roadrunnner]

Ive talked to Lonnie twice about tuning my car. It sounds like he knows his stuff. He flaked out when I mentioned the forum. Also his unwillingness to work with curtain peoples parts pushed me away. He's really butt sore about some kind of bad deal that I dont feel like getting into. He did tune my old 94 4.6 and it was great though

 

[theterminator93]

Yeah, that's part of why I'm sick of dealing with him. The other part is how he - on multiple occasions - insulted me for being a part of the forum/asking his opinions on things I've read here and even tried guilt tripping me for varied reasons. He also admitted to me that my "custom tune" was actually his "standard performance program that has worked well for countless other vehicles". He portrays himself as some sort of tuning god. If you question anything he says, get ready to RUN!

I got sick of it, so to Don Lasota it is with me. Co-writer of the SCT tuning manuals, better tuning rates, he actually uses YOUR datalogs to perfect your tune, and he's about 2 hours from me.

 

[Allan]

Figured something had happened at some point. I haven't talked to him in ages. I haven't been here in the forums regularly for ages.

Either way, good topics here, might as well stay. OBD II is on my Sport to-do list. There's more on my list than in my car!

 

[Roadrunnner]

Figured something had happened at some point. I haven't talked to him in ages. I haven't been here in the forums regularly for ages.

Either way, good topics here, might as well stay. OBD II is on my Sport to-do list. There's more on my list than in my car!

While it interests me I doubt Ill do it. I understand about the list thing. Their never done completely

 

[91 XR7]

Thinking of lists.. i have 4 MN12's, each one has a decent lists that'll never happen. HECK my wife wants me to sell them for a song to get rid of them

I was thinking of doing this kind of swap (OBD to OBD2) on my Supercoupe using a '96/7 NA 3.8 T-bird as a parts car. But then i got a wife :tongue: Too me it won't be that hard to do, other then having to tear into the front of the engine (Timing cover change, ect, ect)

I also toyed with the idea of doing a Explorer setup on my '91 XR7 too, Mostly just to do it and i had `dreams' that i can't afford Nor the time to do them

And the whole Lonnie thing, GREAT person back in the '90's (joined here in '97 when i bought my '91 XR7) More then helpfully, ect.. But things started not to work out for him, he got sour/grumpy, and he didn't seem to care about other opinions. (like mine of how the idle/timing changed in my Car depending on if it was in gear or not)

I still have a bunch of Pictures of his car that he sent me Via Email.

 

[Splattered]

That's the plan. I can't use Lonnie, however, he once killed my father. My father recovered eventually, but still....I can't use him.

Was this before or after you took an arrow to the knee?

 

[EvilMooseofDoom]

Was this before or after you took an arrow to the knee?

Before I took an arrow to the knee, while taking an arrow to the shoulder, but after Justin Beiber sucked.

 

[CDW6212R]

Hello, bump for a good project thread source.

Where is the Thunderbird 4.6 engine harness connector on OBDII models? If they are at the back, for a 302 car I'd use the Explorer engine harness. The engine harness includes a connector to the trans harness, and the Explorer version fits perfectly of course. If the main connector is located at the back on both, use the proper engine bay harness for the car, and make any wiring changes at the engine connector.

Also note that for an Explorer PCM there are three choices. 1999+ has the new returnless fuel system, so match that to your car(fuel rail and injectors too). 1998 had the first PATS system, so if you don't plan to reprogram the PCM(Excal flasher), get a 96/97 computer so you don't have the PATS module to deal with.

I'm planning to rewire my 91 LSC this Spring. It's going to take more work, since my old EECIV engine bay harness is vastly different than any OBDII wiring. I also will have to convert my TEVES ABS system, and move or convert my air suspension. I see a 99 Mustang engine bay harness and ABS module being my starting point.

I'll also pull my dash(cracked and I have another), to modify the dash harness with several new things. I have spare Explorer wiring from my old 99 Explorer rebuild. I'm hoping I can swap the steering column to use the high end clock spring, to add the steering wheel and radio controls. Maybe I can also add the GEM module from an Explorer, which has cruise control and electrical relays, monitoring etc. Lots to think about, we'll see how it goes. Regards,

 

[theterminator93]

The engine harness runs through the bulkhead connector between the firewall and the passenger shock tower. On my 97 there is another connector on the driver's side, same location. I can't recall what specific sensors/items it carries off the top of my head however.

The transmission harness runs through the dash.

 

[Don 95Vert]

Two things to keep in mind when doing a PCM swap, especially when using a PCM from some other family of vehicle. First the ignition types have to be the same. Second, the auto transmissions must be the same type. AODE & 4r70W are OK, but not 4R70w and E4OD.

Don

 

[XR7-4.6]

The engine harness runs through the bulkhead connector between the firewall and the passenger shock tower. On my 97 there is another connector on the driver's side, same location. I can't recall what specific sensors/items it carries off the top of my head however.

The transmission harness runs through the dash.

The driver side harness is mostly "body" related stuff like headlights, power distribution, ABS, ect. The only circuits that goes to the engine wiring from the driver side are for the alternator and EVO.

 

[Allan]

Monthly bump?

Would it be more efficient for us to forego the Explorer wiring and use the '96-97 MN12 engine harness along with its dash/body harness?

I do realize that under the hood there would be wiring/connector modifications to "plug in" our 5.0s and other equipment to the modular harness.

I would think that the stock '96-97 EEC would be capable to run our old Windsor engines. The question I'd like the answer to is would the PCM be able to make sense of the Explorer camshaft position sensor and the crankshaft position sensor? And if not, is it a simple matter of getting a tune to get the modular engine EEC to recognize the operating parameters of the Explorer sensors? I know nothing about tuning, just trying to foresee any problems.

 

[Allan]

I wasn't suggesting starting with a 4.6 car and changing the drivetrain.

Sometimes I think that would be the easiest way! I look at my '97 and wish the whole electrical system was in my '92.

 

[MadMikeyL]

If I were doing this swap, I would start with an explorer ECM, and a 4.6 tbird wiring harness, and modify the 4.6 harness to fit the 5.0 and repin as needed at the ECM. That would put all the wiring in the right place for where the components are, and then you know you won't have any issues with signal types not matching because the ECM and all the sensors on the engine would be made to work with one another. Another advantage is the 5.0 explorer had a 4R70W trans, so you could easily run a 4R70W behind a 5.0 in an MN12 doing it that way.

 

[Allan]

I was just wondering because I have a spare 4.6L ECM. I posted the question in the EEC section. I still have to get the harnesses.
The M5R2 will eventually go in this car so I'll probably have to get a tune to shut off the auto transmission functions. Or build a really good circuit to compensate. I think a tune would be better.
Do you know what year the Explorers got the COP ignition?

 

[MadMikeyL]

The explorers never got COP. All the 5.0 explorers used a waste spark system. You would have to do some more research, and maybe grab some sensors off a 4.6 and an explorer 5.0 to compare them, to see how many difficulties there would be running the 5.0 on the 4.6 ECM. Both are wast spark systems, with multiport EFI and 8 cylinders, so the main thing that would be an issue is whether the crank and cam sensors output the same signal. If they do, then all the other sensors can be adjusted for in the tune. If they don't, then you would have to find a way to either alter the signal, or adapt another sensor that would use the same signal the ECM is looking for. My thinking is that a project like this you are going to need a tune anyway, so you can shut off any parameters you don't need of the explorer ECM, and the 4.6 tbird harness will plug into the explorer ECM, so you would just need to repin a few things at the connector to match the locations on the explorer ECM, and then lengthen wires and swap connectors as needed to get the 4.6 engine harness to fit the 5.0. Both of those things could be done out of the car, so you could take your time, and have plenty of room to work, and then when you are ready to do the conversion, pretty much everything will be plug and play.

 

[Allan]

Yeah, if the sensors read totally different then I probably would go the Explorer route.
And I agree, assembling stuff on the bench is the best way to go. Rather have everything ready and sorted out before the install.

 

[91 XR7]

I would believe that the Crank sensors would have the same output signal, since they (4.6L and 5.0L Explorer) seem to share the same basic Variable Reluctance (?) sender

Cam sensors seem to be different, Explorer being a Hall effect style Verses the 4.6L Variable Reluctance style.

Now the question would be, if all was equal, the timing of the signals would they be the same?

So to me doing the say '96/7 MN12 harness with a Explorer ECU seems the better way, also you have a good starting point on the harness.

 

[Allan]

Thanks 91 XR7 and Mike for all of this info.

If I find anything related from my old hard drives I'll post it here. I know I've got articles from people adapting these sensors to old hot rod Windsor engines and even 460 motors. I need a secretary.

 

[Rob]

For anyone who is interested, here is the most efficient procedure I could muster to do the 1994/95 4.6L Thunderbird Chassis to 1996/97 Thunderbird 4.6L ECM Swap (this swap eliminates the ICM which in 1996 is built in to the ECM):

This should have its own thread in the 4.6l forum, be stickied, or something! This is the kind of thing that will save some serious time for people without wiring diagrams/pinouts. I can only imagine how much extra time it would take to think of the wire moves plus bypassing the ICM! Thanks, perhaps someday I can use it myself.