ABS and TC

[Grizlbits]

Wildhorsesracing:

 

Please give me all the details or a link on how to run ABS on an 86 mustang running a carb and no real electronics to speak of for $500. Oh yeah, and how to install in 10 hours or less. If it was that easy, I would have already done it. Bring on the Tech!

[Grizlbits]

You could also make the case for EFI, better throttle response, more control over the power curve, repeatability, etc. Why not ban everything that is new and improved and go back to stone age carburetion?

 

Ha! I know many many cars that have problems with electronics, ignition, blah, blah, blah. Luna comes to mind, but there are many others. A well setup carb is often trouble free. I have had very few issues with my carb. My A/F ratio only varied .2% over the entire RPM range on the dyno with a $400 Barry Grant carb. Not bad for stone age.

[turbolx]

Seriously, if the rules changes such that any car may run a "factory" ABS unit, I completely expect to see first hand development of controls software in the exact same manner that I already use on thousands of "factory" PCM's.

 

The argument camparing ABS/standard to carb/efi holds little engineering wieght with me simply becuase there is no mechanical equivalent to an ABS system. Carb's simply vary the velocity across a venturi at part throttle and mechanically draw less fuel to maintain (pretty close to) the right mix. EFI just gives us slightly more finite control with slightly less top end power potential. There is no similar trade-off in the braking arena.

 

Likewise, many of the newer EEC's have tables allows for a good tuner to reduce the intrusiveness of the TC system. It's basically a spark retard vs. commanded torque table. All one has to do is change values to make the EEC think it's pulling 30% torque out when it's really only pulling 5% to drastically change the off corner throttle response at WOT. No arguments here against running a good differential, just the electronic "steroid" under otherwise slippery conditions.

 

Let's keep the drivers in this series so I don't have to make a bunch of money helping people get sneaky with electronics.

[mwilson7]

What I really want to see is how to add ABS to a 60's vintage Camaro, Mustang or Cuda for $500. This should be great tech!!

[mwilson7]

I believe you will be able to see the pics on this site:

http://photos.yahoo.com/v8cobra99

 

That will make for a nice addition to the AI-West scene! Let us know how you do!

 

Looks like there are still a few pounds to lose in the car (door panels, headliner, etc)

[Keith]

I believe you will be able to see the pics on this site:

http://photos.yahoo.com/v8cobra99

 

Nice looking car.

 

After thinking about it further, I don't care either way about ABS or TC. When funds permit, I will reinstall the ABS in my car if it's still legal. My car is so far away from being on the edge of the rules (currently +641lbs overweight for hp/tq) that ABS/TC are the least of my problems right now.

 

I guess what I am saying is I don't care either way. If the rule stays the same, bans it, makes it "open" or comes up with some sort of weight penalty, I really don't care.

 

Sorry. After thinking about it, it is just not an issue for me.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Wildhorsesracing:

 

Please give me all the details or a link on how to run ABS on an 86 mustang running a carb and no real electronics to speak of for $500. Oh yeah, and how to install in 10 hours or less. If it was that easy, I would have already done it. Bring on the Tech!

 

7 of my friends run ABS on their Fox3 cars. 3 run AI. Granted, all of them are EFI cars, but there shouldn't be any difference, as the ABS equipment doesn't talk to the EEC - induction is irrelevant to the discussion. '99 was the first year the ABS unit "talked" to the EEC for TC.

 

AAMOF, a local AI racer is planning to install ABS on his carbed Fox3 car this winter.

 

As for costs, in a Fox 3 car already using SN95 brake parts ( axles and hubs w/ the exciter rings ), you can easily do ABS for less than $500 - try $200-$250 for the DIY'er. I don't think it can be installed and tested in 10 hours, but certainly done for less than $500. Hell, a friend just bought an ABS controller/module for less than $10 on ebay.

 

Unfortunately, the link from the Corral doesn't exist any longer - there was a link for putting ABS in a Fox3 car. I'll get you the writeup, as a local friend did it for the corral.

[mwilson7]

Once again please explain how this system can be retrofitted on a 65-73 Mustang or a 67-92 Camaro, or any other non ABS equipped car.

 

I know it can be done on a 79-93 Mustang but how about all of those other cars?

[Jim P.]

Once again please explain how this system can be retrofitted on a 65-73 Mustang or a 67-92 Camaro, or any other non ABS equipped car.

 

I know it can be done on a 79-93 Mustang but how about all of those other cars?

 

Been there, done that - I have already installed a complete SN95 brake system on this car (w/ABS for the rear brakes):

it was my 'test mule' for years, brakes so hard that I am adding 5pt harnesses so that the front seat passengers don't hit the windshield.

 

And am building a '68 Coupe and planning on adding it as well. Here's a pair of links to my research:

Early Mustang Spindle

 

Fox Spindle

 

An SN95 axle with all the brackets cut off is the perfect width with Cobra 'R' clone wheels to fit under a '71, I am considering adding an aftermarket SN95 TQ arm setup this time under the '68 and dropping the leaf springs in favor of coilovers.

 

Thus, I am speaking from experience about adding ABS, most AI/AIX mustangs already have SN95 brakes, adding the ABS from a 94-96 would be an (inexpensive) breeze.

 

 

"My name is Jim Pantas and 3 out of 5 Ford engineers agree with my posts"

[racercosmo]

 

"My name is Jim Pantas and 3 out of 5 Ford engineers agree with my posts"

 

Wow, 3 out of 5 of anybody agreeing with you seems like a feat.

[mwilson7]

Once again please explain how this system can be retrofitted on a 65-73 Mustang or a 67-92 Camaro, or any other non ABS equipped car.

 

I know it can be done on a 79-93 Mustang but how about all of those other cars?

 

Been there, done that - I have already installed a complete SN95 brake system on this car (w/ABS for the rear brakes):

it was my 'test mule' for years, brakes so hard that I am adding 5pt harnesses so that the front seat passengers don't hit the windshield.

 

And am building a '68 Coupe and planning on adding it as well. Here's a pair of links to my research:

Early Mustang Spindle

 

Fox Spindle

 

An SN95 axle with all the brackets cut off is the perfect width with Cobra 'R' clone wheels to fit under a '71, I am considering adding an aftermarket SN95 TQ arm setup this time under the '68 and dropping the leaf springs in favor of coilovers.

 

Thus, I am speaking from experience about adding ABS, most AI/AIX mustangs already have SN95 brakes, adding the ABS from a 94-96 would be an (inexpensive) breeze.

 

 

"My name is Jim Pantas and 3 out of 5 Ford engineers agree with my posts"

 

Not to doubt you but then why don't you mention that the car pictured above has ABS in your ad selling it?

 

"351 Cleveland, FMX, 3.08 Posi (8.8" disk brake rear!), 1" lowering springs, Monroe Air Shocks, Edelbrock Performer Carb & Intake, MSD Ignition, MSD Billet Distibutor, MSD HiPo Coil, hedman headers, flowmaster exhaust

email us [email protected] or call us 704/436-8211 "

 

How did you adapt the the spindle to the front and what type of testing have you done to make sure that the ABS is working correctly? Can you also explain how you got a 4 wheel ABS system to only work on the rear wheels?

Edited August 4, 2004 by Guest

[Guest]

 

"My name is Jim Pantas and 3 out of 5 Ford engineers agree with my posts"

 

Right......

[RichardP]

I installed ABS on my Fox Mustang AI car using the article that is now mysteriously missing from the Corral Tech Articles. It wasn’t hard and I spent quite a bit less than $500 doing it. I would guess it took a bit longer than 10 hours but it takes anal-retentive people a long time to get anything done on a race car. The basics of the install are: mount the controller, tap into all the brake lines, provide power to the controller, mount the sensors, and wire the sensors to the controller. Lots of tedious work but nothing a basic mechanic can’t do.

 

Installing ABS onto a platform that wasn’t available with ABS isn’t that much harder. The only real difference is mounting the sensors and the exciter rings at the four corners. You just have to have a toothed ring that rotates with the wheels and a sensor that sits next to the teeth. That would require a bit of fabrication but it’s not rocket science. I run all SN95 stuff on the front of my car so that part was a trivial bolt on but at the rear I’m not running Mustang stuff so I had to fab up mounts for the sensor. I know Griggs racing has made ABS work on Ford 9” rear ends. Again, just straightforward fabrication work.

 

Making sure the ABS is working once you install it isn’t hard either. The ABS controller does it’s own diagnostic work. You just ground a pin and it flashes a light in sequence to tell you what’s wrong. I have mine set up on the dash with a light and a three position switch. I can turn the ABS on/off and do the diagnostic checks from the driver’s seat without any tools.

 

For me, having ABS on the track is important. I think I’m probably a hint faster without it when I’m by myself on the racing line. When I’m off line in the dust and marbles in a pack of 15 cars doing unexpected things at the start of the race, I find it a needed safety item. I started racing without it and scared myself silly a few different times. It doesn’t take much savings in body work to pay for the installation of ABS. The increased tire life is nice too but I don’t find the Toyo’s to be hugely susceptible to flat spotting. Hoosiers are of course a much different story.

 

That’s my $.02.

 

Richard Pedersen

NASA TX AI #91

[mwilson7]

I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE HOPES THAT YOU WILL ALL READ IT

 

SO I WILL ASK THIS AGAIN!!!!!! SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE OWNER OF A VINTAGE CAR IS SUPPOSED TO INSTALL ABS ON THEIR CAR?

 

I KNOW IT CAN EASILY BE RETROFITTED TO 79-93 MUSTANGS AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED!!! WHAT IS THE OWNER OF A 67-92 CAMARO SUPPOSED TO DO?

 

You guys honestly aren't recommending that people install a Mustang ABS system on another brand of vehicle are you? You are all really scaring me if you are.....

 

It just seems like an unfair advantage that is being given to Mustangs.

[Guest]

How do you adapt a dual mastercylinder set up to ABS? Modern ABS controlers are programed with EBD (electronic brake distribution) giving the car a dynamic brake bias. The OEM's program this type of 'intelligence' based on the brake system (oem), the tires/wheels (oem) and the mass of the vehicle. These are things that are not taken into account when the systems are retrofitted to an earlier year car. The 1995 ABS system that was stock on the Mustangs are a far cry from the current systems and the current systems pale in comparison to what 'someone' could get if they had a contact at Bosch, who for nearly 90% of the oem's calibrate the ABS systems.

 

Also, how does a person apply an ABS system to a car with a dual mastercylinder setup?

 

My main objection is that ABS takes away some driver skill that is required to go fast. I don't think that EFI or coil on plug technology do that. Having intestinal fortitude is something that is required to drive deep into a corner and ABS takes that away.

 

That is just my opinion.

 

I am Brian P. Tone and 3 out of 5 Regional Directors agree with me.

 

***For the record the last statment above is to be taken in a humerous manner and not to be seen as threating, problem starting, negative attitude or any other hateful activity.***

[RichardP]

You guys honestly aren't recommending that people install a Mustang ABS system on another brand of vehicle are you? You are all really scaring me if you are.....

 

That's the one I installed so it's the one I know. It will work fine on a 67-92 Camaro. If you don't want to use that one, try one from a newer Camaro. Or rip one off of a Toyota if you think that would be to your liking. To simplify things greatly, you just need one that is a stand alone system and not integrated into the engine computer. I used one from a '94 Mustang, which is pretty archaic from an ABS technology standpoint. Works fine. Sorry to scare you...

 

It also shouldn't be a problem to install the system I used on a car with a dual master cylinder/balance bar setup. The ABS controller goes inbetween the master cylinder(s) and the calipers. There is an input for the front lines and an input for the rear lines. The only real difference between that system and my system would be the location of the bias adjustment. My system supplies an equal pressure to the ABS controller and has the standard adjustment knob after the ABS controller. The dual master cylinder setup would supply the ABS controller with different pressures. It would be interesting see what the effects of that would be but I believe it would work just fine.

 

Adapting a more modern ABS system to any car is likely to be problematic.

 

Richard Pedersen

NASA TX AI#91

[Guest]

The dual master cylinder setup would supply the ABS controller with different pressures. It would be interesting see what the effects of that would be but I believe it would work just fine.

 

Since most current systems use the EBD to control the front to rear bias (input is a dual circuits operating at the same pressure) inputting two different pressures via dual MC's will wreak havoc on the ABS controller.

 

EDIT: forgot to swap EBD for ABS

Edited August 4, 2004 by Guest

[mwilson7]

You guys honestly aren't recommending that people install a Mustang ABS system on another brand of vehicle are you? You are all really scaring me if you are.....

 

That's the one I installed so it's the one I know. It will work fine on a 67-92 Camaro. If you don't want to use that one, try one from a newer Camaro. Or rip one off of a Toyota if you think that would be to your liking. To simplify things greatly, you just need one that is a stand alone system and not integrated into the engine computer. I used one from a '94 Mustang, which is pretty archaic from an ABS technology standpoint. Works fine. Sorry to scare you...

 

 

Richard Pedersen

NASA TX AI#91

 

But once you modify (or adapt) the system to the new vehicle you are breaking the rule as it says "unmodified OEM systems". Who's going to quantify exactly what "unmodified" means?

 

I guess I have been hanging around brake guys enough to not take the leap of faith that some people are willing to take with retrofiting ABS.

 

Jim - Please explain how you get a 4 wheel ABS system to work only on the rear.

 

Good discussion at least.....

[924RACR]

Since most current systems use the ABS to control the front to rear bias (input is a single pressure) inputting two different pressures via dual MC's will wreak havoc on the ABS controller.

 

Not true - this would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (such as FMVSS 135) related to braking systems that require two seperate service brake systems - IOW, two independant hydraulic circuits, as the rule is interpreted in passenger cars. That's why brake MC's have 2 seperate circuits, and two output ports (at least) going to 2 seperate circuits in the ABS unit, leading to either a front/rear (TT or H) split or a diagonal (X) split system.

 

FWIW, later years of Mustang and F-body both have Bosch ABS units. Not that they're remotely interchangeable. FWIW, I'm an ABS/TCS/ESP Engineer for said company (hence my interjecting my comments into a thread which would not otherwise concern me). The thought of retrofitting a Mustang ABS unit into a vintage Camaro without modification is the sort of thing that would give me nightmares - even about sharing the track! The idea that these systems, which are designed for use on cars with street tires and stock suspensions, would work better than passably (enough to be a competitive advantage) with race tires (which operate optimally at much higher slip - longitudinally and laterally - than street tires) sounds like a good opportunity for me to show up an AI driver on track under braking in my non-ABS car... though it might not kill you.

 

Again, I invite you to read my original feedback; the idea that the stock OEM system (for that year and make of car) is an advantage is simply not believeable. The thought that retrofitting ABS to non-equivalent cars is rather scary. I would go as far as to recommend, professionally, that THIS be banned as a safety risk - too much opportunity to screw up with technology you don't even know the function of (without going into detailed explanations here), hurting yourselves and others.

 

So, in summary, I would say that allowing the use of existing ABS/TCS systems isn't costing other drivers anything in these circumstances. However, allowing retrofitting and cross-pollination could be very dangerous. As equipped stock, allowing its use would be a simplification to car prep and a crutch for less-experienced drivers, as long as its use is not forced. Beyond that, it doesn't belong.

 

Naturally, these are my opinions, and I have NO stake in the matter at all; I do not have any AI or AIX cars and do not ever plan to run any. Take these comments at face value, unbiased outside observer.

[mwilson7]

AAAAHHH!!! The voice of reason!!! Thank you so much for posting!

 

Hopefully someone in NASA will look at your post carefully and make an educated decision regarding this rule as I can see some very interesting (from an observer standpoint) things happen because someone decides to pursue installing ABS on a car that it wasn't intended to.

 

Not to say that retrofitting 94 ABS into a fox is necessarily bad thing but if someone attempts the same thing on a 68 Mustang the results might be slightly different.

 

It really does seem to me that this rule benefits Mustangs the most and should be eliminated if we truly want a more diverse class. If we want AI to be late model Mustangs only then please disregard my posts on this subject.

[RichardP]

Certainly the ABS programing isn't optimal when you modify the car from the stock conditions (tires, suspension, weight, etc...) but it's been proven to work just fine on thousands of cars all over the world. I'm happy with my crude, improperly programed ABS and intend to continue using it.

 

Richard Pedersen

NASA TX AI #91

[mwilson7]

Since most current systems use the ABS to control the front to rear bias (input is a single pressure) inputting two different pressures via dual MC's will wreak havoc on the ABS controller.

 

Not true - this would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (such as FMVSS 135) related to braking systems that require two seperate service brake systems - IOW, two independant hydraulic circuits, as the rule is interpreted in passenger cars. That's why brake MC's have 2 seperate circuits, and two output ports (at least) going to 2 seperate circuits in the ABS unit, leading to either a front/rear (TT or H) split or a diagonal (X) split system.

 

 

I thought that the parking brake was considered the 2nd or 3rd service brake system on newer cars.

Edited August 4, 2004 by Guest

[Guest]

Since most current systems use the ABS to control the front to rear bias (input is a single pressure) inputting two different pressures via dual MC's will wreak havoc on the ABS controller.

 

Not true - this would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (such as FMVSS 135) related to braking systems that require two seperate service brake systems - IOW, two independant hydraulic circuits, as the rule is interpreted in passenger cars. That's why brake MC's have 2 seperate circuits, and two output ports (at least) going to 2 seperate circuits in the ABS unit, leading to either a front/rear (TT or H) split or a diagonal (X) split system.

 

I think you misunderstood my sentence. They are two seperate circuits (f/r) but they enter the EBD/ABS module at the same line pressure. That was my point, and i have edited the post to reflect that. Thanks.

[924RACR]

Yeah, looks like a bit of confusion/misunderstanding, some if not all on my part. Same pressures entering the unit, but two different circuits leading to 2 distinct service brake systems. And the EBD (DRP, HAB, whatever you wish to call it) electronic proportioning adds another level of confusion to the mix. But you can always push harder on the pedal, so I don't think it's quite as critical to this discussion.

 

But the biggest surprise to me in the whole discussion here is the Mustang bias - F-bodies have ABS too, and it's also (in the later models) from Bosch, so how are the Mustangs at an advantage?

[mwilson7]

 

But the biggest surprise to me in the whole discussion here is the Mustang bias - F-bodies have ABS too, and it's also (in the later models) from Bosch, so how are the Mustangs at an advantage?

 

Because it is VERY easy to retrofit a 94-98 ABS system into a 79-93 Mustang because for the most part the system can bolt in (spindles can be swapped, brackets swapped, etc) while it would be MUCH more difficult to swap over a 4th gen F-body ABS to a 3rd gen F-body as the vehicle architecture is VERY different and not very condusive to backdating parts like the Mustang is.

 

My original question was based on the fact that only a limited number of cars can really take advantage of this rule and it isn't defined very well either.