Ford Mustang Forums banner
21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
OP, your statement that you frequently climb to 10,000 feet makes me want to rethink what I said about fuel pumps
John, thank you for sharing that story and for giving my fuel pump question some more thought. I'm thinking that a dual pump setup would likely be better as well since the vast majority of my driving will just be cruising around and will not necessitate such a large flow all the time. How do you make sure that the flow of fuel from the second pump is received by the engine in time to meet the increased demand? Does the second fuel line from the second pump stay pressurized all of the time so that the added fuel pressure is received instantaneously? Is there something special that I need to do to that second line to make sure that it doesn't drain when not in use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Michael, thanks for the response. That's very encouraging to hear that you have had no problems with your setup without the COP's. Your setup is likely much more aggressive than I will be building so that seems to suggest that the COP's aren't a necessity by any means. That being said, are the COP's easy enough to add later if I don't opt to include them in my build from the start or does that end up costing a lot more and require a full new harness or something? If they can be added later relatively easily, then I don't see any need to run them right away...I can just add them if I run into problems.
You will need a new harness dedicated to coil on plug Ignition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,205 Posts
OP, your statement that you frequently climb to 10,000 feet makes me want to rethink what I said about fuel pumps.

While it is true that I currently run twin 450s with no problems (and I need them for my power level on E85), a 450 running full time may not be good for you. Why do I say that? In 2000, I drove my car from MA to CA which of course included climbing over the Rockies. At the time I had a T-Rex. At high elevation my fuel started to boil from the combination of heat and less atmospheric pressure. Needless to say, as a 21 year old kid thousands of miles from home all my myself, I felt a little uneasy, but that's a story for another time.

Given the intended usage of your car, I'm wondering if you would be better served with a twin pump setup with a smaller pump running full time and a larger pump as the auxiliary. For example, a 255 (or maybe even smaller) as the main pump plus a 450 kicking in only where there is high demand. That way you circulate much less fuel under the majority of driving situations but still have enough when you're WOT.

I've never mixed pumps before (I've run twin 255s, twin 340s, and twin 450s) so I can't say for certain if this is a good idea. I would suggest a call to a place like Walbro or Aeromotive to get opinions from professionals in the industry.
Just PWM the fuel pump. I’m doing that with a single 450. Keeps the fuel from cooking while I do open track.
 

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Just PWM the fuel pump. I’m doing that with a single 450. Keeps the fuel from cooking while I do open track.
That's what I was planning on doing, but based on the answers I have received to my questions it doesn't sound like the Pro-M system has that functionality. I'll have to reach out to Chris Richards to see if I can get a definitive answer to that question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
That's what I was planning on doing, but based on the answers I have received to my questions it doesn't sound like the Pro-M system has that functionality. I'll have to reach out to Chris Richards to see if I can get a definitive answer to that question.
You would need a fuel pump controller to do it.

With a twin pump setup the two pumps are Y’d into a single larger line. All the lines are pressurized by the primary pump up to the outlet of the second pump which has a check valve so fuel doesn’t flow backwards through the pump. As soon as the second pump is triggered the additional fuel flow is instantaneous.
 

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
You would need a fuel pump controller to do it.

With a twin pump setup the two pumps are Y’d into a single larger line. All the lines are pressurized by the primary pump up to the outlet of the second pump which has a check valve so fuel doesn’t flow backwards through the pump. As soon as the second pump is triggered the additional fuel flow is instantaneous.
That makes sense. I spoke with Chris Richards this morning and he confirmed that the Pro-M system does not have PWM controls for the fuel pump. He suggested running dual 255 lph pumps using one of the two controllable outputs to turn on the second pump.

I asked him about the harness for the COP and he also confirmed that if I were to try to add the COP later, I would have to replace the entire harness. He said that he does not make custom harnesses, so I would be limited in my mounting options for the COP to the valve covers or firewall as that's about all the harness would reach. I asked him if I could cut and extend the harness to route and reach the harness to another location and he said that I should NOT do that. I know it would be a ton of work because there are a ton of wires in the COP portion of the harness, but it would seem to me that if I was meticulous with my work and soldered/shrink wrapped all of my connections (there would be two joints on each wire in order to add in a longer section of wire) that it could be done. Maybe I'm not thinking of something. Has anyone done much modifying of the harness? Does it cause voltage/amperage drops that messes up the EMS system or calibration of something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
That makes sense. I spoke with Chris Richards this morning and he confirmed that the Pro-M system does not have PWM controls for the fuel pump. He suggested running dual 255 lph pumps using one of the two controllable outputs to turn on the second pump.

I asked him about the harness for the COP and he also confirmed that if I were to try to add the COP later, I would have to replace the entire harness. He said that he does not make custom harnesses, so I would be limited in my mounting options for the COP to the valve covers or firewall as that's about all the harness would reach. I asked him if I could cut and extend the harness to route and reach the harness to another location and he said that I should NOT do that. I know it would be a ton of work because there are a ton of wires in the COP portion of the harness, but it would seem to me that if I was meticulous with my work and soldered/shrink wrapped all of my connections (there would be two joints on each wire in order to add in a longer section of wire) that it could be done. Maybe I'm not thinking of something. Has anyone done much modifying of the harness? Does it cause voltage/amperage drops that messes up the EMS system or calibration of something?
Any modifications to the harness will invite intermittent electrical problems later down the road (misfires, stalling, etc.). Solder joints get weak and break over time, and splice joints separate from changes in under hood temperatures. If you were to add COP wires to the harness you would be better off adding the wires uninterrupted from the ECM connector all the way to the COP connector without any splicing. This means unraveling the harness covering, tracing wires from connector to connector.... I'm sure you could do it, but it would be a painful process (for you, the end user) and you may be better off ordering a COP Pro-M harness instead (you could have them install the crank trigger kit in the new COP harness and use the old harness for spare connectors). It may be better to do like Mike Plummer and see if you actually "need" COP. His car has 800+hp and he still uses distributor ignition, which is amazing. I use COP on my car because it was easy to install (initial install) and I was trying to set my fox mustang up like a modern car. Happy motoring regardless of your choice of ignition system.

V/r, Jim T
 

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Any modifications to the harness will invite intermittent electrical problems later down the road (misfires, stalling, etc.). Solder joints get weak and break over time, and splice joints separate from changes in under hood temperatures. If you were to add COP wires to the harness you would be better off adding the wires uninterrupted from the ECM connector all the way to the COP connector without any splicing. This means unraveling the harness covering, tracing wires from connector to connector.... I'm sure you could do it, but it would be a painful process (for you, the end user) and you may be better off ordering a COP Pro-M harness instead (you could have them install the crank trigger kit in the new COP harness and use the old harness for spare connectors). It may be better to do like Mike Plummer and see if you actually "need" COP. His car has 800+hp and he still uses distributor ignition, which is amazing. I use COP on my car because it was easy to install (initial install) and I was trying to set my fox mustang up like a modern car. Happy motoring regardless of your choice of ignition system.

V/r, Jim T
That all makes sense. Seems like it might be worth just trying to make a CD box work. It can obviously be done since Mike Plummer is doing it with a much more extreme combo than mine will be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
That all makes sense. Seems like it might be worth just trying to make a CD box work. It can obviously be done since Mike Plummer is doing it with a much more extreme combo than mine will be.
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that it can't be done with a CD box. It defintiely can work. The issue is the reliability. That's why Michael keeps a spare in the trunk... and he has had to call upon the backup, I believe multiple times. In contrast, you don't hear about people carrying spare D585 coils around with them. That's all I was trying to get at.
 

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that it can't be done with a CD box. It defintiely can work. The issue is the reliability. That's why Michael keeps a spare in the trunk... and he has had to call upon the backup, I believe multiple times. In contrast, you don't hear about people carrying spare D585 coils around with them. That's all I was trying to get at.
Understood. I've been running an MSD box in my mustang for about 10 years (granted I don't drive my car a ton) and have never had a problem with it. Does the Pro-M system or the supercharged engine add extra strain on the CD or is it just that CD boxes are notorious for failing, regardless of the setup. With the exception of being stranded on the side of the road due to a CD box failure (which could happen from countless other things failing), I guess I don't see it as the end of the world if I had to replace a CD box every 5-10 years...though obviously not ideal. I' would certainly rather use the COP setup if I could figure out a place to mount them that wasn't in the way and didn't ruin the look of my engine. I'm seriously considering unraveling the COP harness and replacing all of the COP wires from terminal to terminal with longer wires that would allow me to reach a different mounting location. How many wires are there that would need to be extended? I'm assuming there are like 4 wires per plug so 32 wires total? Though in looking at the plug end of the harness that connects to the coil, it looks like those plugs are sealed and I wouldn't be able to remove and then reinstall the wires to the plugs that connect to the coils. Can anyone confirm this for me? Maybe I just replace the wire from the ECU connecting point and then add in a longer section of wire that uses a GM Weather Pack connector to connect back into the harness that runs to the coils?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
Not all CD boxes are bad. I ran MSD boxes years ago and would not want to run one today if I had a choice.

I have been running a Crane HI6 box for over 30 years and it is still going strong today.

COP is great, but not always needed. I was looking into buying another big name ecu last year and the head guy/designer told me not to waste my money.

One of my friends makes about 2000hp on his sbf Ford and he is running a crank trigger, with MSD and dist. Turns 8800rpm, 25-30lbs of boost, 12:1 compression and he burns multiple fuels including methanol. It never skips a beat. He sells and installs many different ecu"s.

Just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
Understood. I've been running an MSD box in my mustang for about 10 years (granted I don't drive my car a ton) and have never had a problem with it. Does the Pro-M system or the supercharged engine add extra strain on the CD or is it just that CD boxes are notorious for failing, regardless of the setup. With the exception of being stranded on the side of the road due to a CD box failure (which could happen from countless other things failing), I guess I don't see it as the end of the world if I had to replace a CD box every 5-10 years...though obviously not ideal. I' would certainly rather use the COP setup if I could figure out a place to mount them that wasn't in the way and didn't ruin the look of my engine. I'm seriously considering unraveling the COP harness and replacing all of the COP wires from terminal to terminal with longer wires that would allow me to reach a different mounting location. How many wires are there that would need to be extended? I'm assuming there are like 4 wires per plug so 32 wires total? Though in looking at the plug end of the harness that connects to the coil, it looks like those plugs are sealed and I wouldn't be able to remove and then reinstall the wires to the plugs that connect to the coils. Can anyone confirm this for me? Maybe I just replace the wire from the ECU connecting point and then add in a longer section of wire that uses a GM Weather Pack connector to connect back into the harness that runs to the coils?
In my experience, and others will have different ones, CD boxes are notorious for failing. Pro M and blowers don't make them worse. I also have a suspicion, but can't prove, that newer CD boxes are of lower quality than ones from many years ago. That may expain why stangjumper has been running strong for 30 years. Then again, maybe not. Might just be luck of the draw. As I said, I ran an MSD DIS4 and it failed after a few years. Michael has been through multiple AL6s. Another friend and member on here is on his third AL6. Another friend and member had a failure with an AL6 and two Accel boxes... I could keep going. Possibly of note - all of these are street cars.

It's not as simple as just replacing the wires with longer ones. The wires for the D585 coils inlude pull up resistors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Not all CD boxes are bad. I ran MSD boxes years ago and would not want to run one today if I had a choice.

I have been running a Crane HI6 box for over 30 years and it is still going strong today.

COP is great, but not always needed. I was looking into buying another big name ecu last year and the head guy/designer told me not to waste my money.

One of my friends makes about 2000hp on his sbf Ford and he is running a crank trigger, with MSD and dist. Turns 8800rpm, 25-30lbs of boost, 12:1 compression and he burns multiple fuels including methanol. It never skips a beat. He sells and installs many different ecu"s.

Just my .02
I agree with this post. I use COP because I live in a emission test state (AZ) and COP ignition enables me to pass with flying colors at normal driving speeds because of the precise control the Pro-M EFI gives me over fuel and spark. My spark plugs stay clean (no carbon, or residue). Race cars don't need COP, in fact race cars need the simplest ignition system possible. I'm sure no one wants to troubleshoot multiple coils at the racetrack in between runs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
I agree with this post. I use COP because I live in a emission test state (AZ) and COP ignition enables me to pass with flying colors at normal driving speeds because of the precise control the Pro-M EFI gives me over fuel and spark. My spark plugs stay clean (no carbon, or residue). Race cars don't need COP, in fact race cars need the simplest ignition system possible. I'm sure no one wants to troubleshoot multiple coils at the racetrack in between runs.
I have passed ny strict emissions testing using my crane box, stroker, heads, cam, intake, 83lb injectors and Vortech. This was strapped down to a chassis dyno and a simulated drive up to 60mph with multiple starts/stops. Plugs came out clean. No reason they shouldn't if everything is up to par.

Bottom line, if it is tuned properly, any ecu should be able to pass testing and run well.

With that said, all ecu's are not created equal. And yes, race cars are different than street cars without a doubt. Funny thing is his race car starts right up and purs like a kitten, no surging/bucking etc. It is tuned well, by him. He knows what he is doing. Car "could" be driven on the street without issue if he wanted. He has multiple cars so this one is track duty only.

My old/outdated ecu can do individual cylinder tuning for fuel and spark, all while using a dist.

There used to be pictures posted on the web of the inside of an msd 6a box. It looked like a failed 2nd grader assembled it. After I seen the insides, I would never run one again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
I have passed ny strict emissions testing using my crane box, heads, cam, intake and Vortech. This was strapped down to a chassis dyno and a simulated drive up to 60mph with multiple starts/stops. Plugs came out clean. No reason they shouldn't if everything is up to par.

Bottom line, if it is tuned properly, any ecu should be able to pass testing and run well.

With that said, all ecu's are not created equal. And yes, race cars are different than street cars without a doubt. Funny thing is his race car starts right up and purs like a kitten, no surging/bucking etc. It is tuned well, by him. He knows what he is doing. Car "could" be driven on the street without issue if he wanted. He has multiple cars so this one is track duty only.

My old/outdated ecu can do individual cylinder tuning for fuel and spark, all while using a dist.

There used to be pictures posted on the web of the inside of an msd 6a box. It looked like a failed 2nd grader assembled it. After I seen the insides, I would never run one again.
Everything you said is correct. However, when the OEMs needed to meet stricter emissions standards, they started using COP ignition. GM started in 1998 (LS engines), Ford started in 1999. You may be able to pass without it, but I noticed that my emissions test was much cleaner with COP. I also have that 100,000 mile tune up capability. This is a non-issue with race cars because they are constantly being checked for wear and tear. I agree, COP may not be practical for every user. No one in their right mind (including me) wants to deal with having to unplug 8 coils in order to check valve adjustment every week or after every race. Speaking for myself, however, with COP, I don't think my street car can run any better than it already does. If I was buying a Pro-M system now, I think I would go with the distributor ignition and the crank trigger kit they offer. I think that's the best compromise between COP and distributors regarding Pro-M EFI.
 

·
Registered
1966 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
Everything you said is correct. However, when the OEMs needed to meet stricter emissions standards, they started using COP ignition. GM started in 1998 (LS engines), Ford started in 1999. You may be able to pass without it, but I noticed that my emissions test was much cleaner with COP. I also have that 100,000 mile tune up capability. This is a non-issue with race cars because they are constantly being checked for wear and tear. I agree, COP may not be practical for every user. No one in their right mind (including me) wants to deal with having to unplug 8 coils in order to check valve adjustment every week or after every race. Speaking for myself, however, with COP, I don't think my street car can run any better than it already does. If I was buying a Pro-M system now, I think I would go with the distributor ignition and the crank trigger kit they offer. I think that's the best compromise between COP and distributors regarding Pro-M EFI.
What does that Crank Trigger kit do that makes it a replacement for the COP's? I thought the main reason why someone might need COP's was due to spark blowout? I thought the crank trigger just made the timing of the spark events a little more accurate, not that it made those spark events more powerful?
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Janek

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
What does that Crank Trigger kit do that makes it a replacement for the COP's? I thought the main reason why someone might need COP's was due to spark blowout? I thought the crank trigger just made the timing of the spark events a little more accurate, not that it made those spark events more powerful?
COPs in combination with a crank trigger also enable a higher RPM limit. The crank trigger is not a replacement for COP, but having it ensures timing accuracy is the best it can be with any ignition system, COP or distributor. Just like COP, the OEMs use crank triggers to give the ECU better control over the ignition system. In the case of Pro-M EFI, the crank trigger kit also eliminates the need for a production quality hall sensor in the distributor and eliminates the need for a production quality shutter wheel in the distributor. Just like the way Pro-M EFI eliminated the TFI module as a failure point, the crank trigger takes the distributor out of the equation in regards to a common failure point. Anything we can do to improve ignition accuracy is huge win with the fox mustang. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you could do without it but any daily driven car become more reliable using the crank trigger ignition. Here's a good explanation: Any ignition coil will have an optimum charge and discharge time. This is the time required to throw the hottest spark the coil is capable of. But with a single coil, this becomes a problem. As engine RPMs increase, there is less time between cylinder events, and therefor, less time to achieve optimum charge and discharge. At some point (typically around 3500 RPM), there is simply not enough time anymore, and the spark power begins to diminish. As the RPM's increase, there is less and less time, and eventually, the coil will not have enough power to jump the spark plug gap. This is not typically a problem with naturally aspirated engines, but if you are running relatively high levels of boost, you can experience “Spark Blow Out”. There are three ways to fix this. First, you can decrease the plug gap, but this will only get you so far. The second way is to add a CD box, which puts more current to the primary side of the coil, increasing the output of the coil. While this increases the output, it also shortens the duration of the discharge. It works, but it's not a great method, and these CD boxes are unreliable at best. That's why you will usually see a spare one in the trunk! The third, and by far the best way, is to increase the charge and discharge time. This is done by using multiple coils. A single coil will have to charge and discharge 4 times per engine revolution. Each coil in a Coil Pack system will only have to charge and discharge one time per engine revolution, and each coil in a Coil-On-Plug system will only have to charge and discharge one time for every two engine revolutions! Problem solved!

As far as the crank trigger is concerned check out this article: https://www.motor.com/magazine-summary/performance-perspectives-april2015/ .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
COPs in combination with a crank trigger also enable a higher RPM limit. The crank trigger is not a replacement for COP, but having it ensures timing accuracy is the best it can be with any ignition system, COP or distributor. Just like COP, the OEMs use crank triggers to give the ECU better control over the ignition system. In the case of Pro-M EFI, the crank trigger kit also eliminates the need for a production quality hall sensor in the distributor and eliminates the need for a production quality shutter wheel in the distributor. Just like the way Pro-M EFI eliminated the TFI module as a failure point, the crank trigger takes the distributor out of the equation in regards to a common failure point. Anything we can do to improve ignition accuracy is huge win with the fox mustang. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you could do without it but any daily driven car become more reliable using the crank trigger ignition. Here's a good explanation: Any ignition coil will have an optimum charge and discharge time. This is the time required to throw the hottest spark the coil is capable of. But with a single coil, this becomes a problem. As engine RPMs increase, there is less time between cylinder events, and therefor, less time to achieve optimum charge and discharge. At some point (typically around 3500 RPM), there is simply not enough time anymore, and the spark power begins to diminish. As the RPM's increase, there is less and less time, and eventually, the coil will not have enough power to jump the spark plug gap. This is not typically a problem with naturally aspirated engines, but if you are running relatively high levels of boost, you can experience “Spark Blow Out”. There are three ways to fix this. First, you can decrease the plug gap, but this will only get you so far. The second way is to add a CD box, which puts more current to the primary side of the coil, increasing the output of the coil. While this increases the output, it also shortens the duration of the discharge. It works, but it's not a great method, and these CD boxes are unreliable at best. That's why you will usually see a spare one in the trunk! The third, and by far the best way, is to increase the charge and discharge time. This is done by using multiple coils. A single coil will have to charge and discharge 4 times per engine revolution. Each coil in a Coil Pack system will only have to charge and discharge one time per engine revolution, and each coil in a Coil-On-Plug system will only have to charge and discharge one time for every two engine revolutions! Problem solved!

As far as the crank trigger is concerned check out this article: https://www.motor.com/magazine-summary/performance-perspectives-april2015/ .
You just gave the explanation why COP is superior.

I don’t understand why you’re saying having a single coil with a distributor but a crank trigger is the best compromise. Unless it’s just because you don’t like unplugging 8 coils to pull your valve covers. I simply don’t see why you’d want to go backwards. If that’s the annoyance, I’d move the coils someplace else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
You just gave the explanation why COP is superior.

I don’t understand why you’re saying having a single coil with a distributor but a crank trigger is the best compromise. Unless it’s just because you don’t like unplugging 8 coils to pull your valve covers. I simply don’t see why you’d want to go backwards. If that’s the annoyance, I’d move the coils someplace else.
I'm just saying it might be the best compromise for someone who doesn't already have COP. That may be a better solution than dismantling a wire harness and trying to install COP wiring in a conventional harness like the OP said he was trying to do. It's because the crank trigger gives the ECU the best view of the engine position during operation. If you live in the state of CA and you have to use a distributor to pass a visual inspection at the emissions test station, you can still get the benefits of a better running car while still retaining the original look of the fox mustang engine bay. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, BTW, I wouldn't want to go backwards myself. I pretty much hooked on the COP concept. I went through a lot of trouble to make it work on my own car. I'm in the process of installing a Ford 351W (460 cid, FRPP p/n M-6009-460) using the COP and the crank trigger. With COP and the crank trigger, I at least know that I will have a car that will measure up to modern day drivability standards.
 
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top