4.6 numbers?

[TurboShortBus]

the only way to increase fuel in the motor is to switch to 24lb injectors (per the rules).

Is that legal? Or, is a revision coming?

7.21.3 Injectors may be of any origin, but must have the same OEM rating and use the OEM fuel rail.

I only see this regarding upgrading to 24 lb injectors:

8.5.10 Early GM 305TPI cars may use 24lb injectors as long as the stock fuel rails are used.

Is the purpose here to create a "spec" recommendation for 4.6L SOHC Fords, or just to sort out one particular combination?

 

Mark

[Glenn]

Is the purpose here to create a "spec" recommendation for 4.6L SOHC Fords, or just to sort out one particular combination?

 

Mark

 

To create a SPEC for the 4.6 mod motors. But as I said earlier, This one car is the only one I know of that is having an issue. If others are having issues, they are not informing us of that.

[Glenn]

the only way to increase fuel in the motor is to switch to 24lb injectors (per the rules).

Is that legal? Or, is a revision coming?

7.21.3 Injectors may be of any origin, but must have the same OEM rating and use the OEM fuel rail.

I only see this regarding upgrading to 24 lb injectors:

8.5.10 Early GM 305TPI cars may use 24lb injectors as long as the stock fuel rails are used.

Mark

 

Are the 24's not an OEM injector allowed in the update/back-date rule?

[ShadowBolt]

the only way to increase fuel in the motor is to switch to 24lb injectors (per the rules).

Is that legal? Or, is a revision coming?

7.21.3 Injectors may be of any origin, but must have the same OEM rating and use the OEM fuel rail.

I only see this regarding upgrading to 24 lb injectors:

8.5.10 Early GM 305TPI cars may use 24lb injectors as long as the stock fuel rails are used.

Mark

 

Are the 24's not an OEM injector allowed in the update/back-date rule?

 

 

Yes they are. Some of the Cobras had 24lb. injectors and a larger MAF. I had both on my old Fox.

 

 

Jerry

[TurboShortBus]

Are the 24's not an OEM injector allowed in the update/back-date rule?

Is this injector swap/update/backdate seen as taking 24 lb injectors from a DOHC 4V Cobra and swapping them into a SOHC 2V GT, per 7.3? I guess the same thing is being done to build aluminum-blocked SOHC 2V 4.6s.

7.3 Update/Backdate Non-body Components

Non-body components may be updated/backdated within cars of the same manufacturer on the eligible manufacturers/models list (i.e. 1982-92 GM Early components may NOT be interchanged with 1993-97 GM Late components) unless noted elsewhere in these rules.

 

To create a SPEC for the 4.6 mod motors.

Will a spec be created for stock 4.6L SOHC engines from 1999-2004 (which have the PI heads and intakes, but do not have higher compression from using different bottom ends)? Or, are they not having problems hitting 260/300?

 

Mark

[Glenn]

7.3 Update/Backdate Non-body Components

Non-body components may be updated/backdated within cars of the same manufacturer on the eligible manufacturers/models list (i.e. 1982-92 GM Early components may NOT be interchanged with 1993-97 GM Late components) unless noted elsewhere in these rules.

 

5. ELIGIBLE MANUFACTURERS/MODELS

Manufacturers:

Ford Motor Company (Early Ford)

Eligible Early Ford makes and models:

1979-95 Ford Mustang 5.0 V8 including 1993-1995 Cobra (1993 and 1995 Cobra R models excluded)

1979-86 Mercury Capri 5.0 V8

1996-2004 Ford Mustang 4.6 SOHC V8

1996-04 Ford Mustang 4.6 DOHC N/A V8*(2000 Cobra R and 2003-2004 Cobra models excluded; 4.6 DOHC may run CMC2 only)

Ford Motor Company (Late Ford)

Eligible Late Ford makes and models:

2005-2010 Ford Mustang GT (CMC2 only)

 

Everything that is considered "Early Ford" can swap (update/backdate) non-body components between them. This does not mean you can create a combo that requires tuning in order to work and that will force our hand to allow tuning. It will not.

 

 

As I said before, this is the first I'm hearing of the 4.6's having issues getting anywhere close to the number. We have allowed a couple additions to help them get closer to the limit, but it has been minor stuff.

Thus the reason this post was started. To find out if this was a common problem or if it is an isolated case.

 

So far we have two examples to work from - one makes the numbers and AFR just fine and the other doesn't and the AFR is really lean.

 

If anyone has any knowledge to add, please post up.

Hint - this would be a great time for Kimifan to contribute w/ his infinite Ford knowledge.

[TurboShortBus]

So, combining parts from 2 different engines is permitted via the update/backdate rule (PI heads and intake on a non-PI bottom end, or on a Cobra bottom end), but simple electronic tuning, no matter how minor, even if your only goal is to get rid of the factory anti-theft system, is not?

 

It looks like plenty of time and money have been spent on the permitted hardware, and it's not working properly for one particular car. For relatively little money, and even less time, a program could be shotgunned at this car and it would be on the track in a couple of hours.

 

It's not my decision, and maybe there are other reasons of which I am not aware, but it seems to me that if you simply released the hounds and said, "Do what you gotta do with OEM parts and tuned OEM ECUs to hit these HP and TQ limits" (within reason), plenty of headaches could be eliminated.

 

Mark

[Glenn]

So, combining parts from 2 different engines is permitted via the update/backdate rule (PI heads and intake on a non-PI bottom end, or on a Cobra bottom end), but simple electronic tuning, no matter how minor, even if your only goal is to get rid of the factory anti-theft system, is not?

 

It looks like plenty of time and money have been spent on the permitted hardware, and it's not working properly for one particular car. For relatively little money, and even less time, a program could be shotgunned at this car and it would be on the track in a couple of hours.

 

It's not my decision, and maybe there are other reasons of which I am not aware, but it seems to me that if you simply released the hounds and said, "Do what you gotta do with OEM parts and tuned OEM ECUs to hit these HP and TQ limits" (within reason), plenty of headaches could be eliminated.

 

Mark

 

There are lots of folks who don't like the "OEM Frankinstine" motor that results from the 4.6 mod motors. We all know this combo was never offered in any legal car. This is a carryover problem from our previous National Director (since his car had it).

 

I agree w/ tuning if its limited to emissions and anti-theft. Even a simple checking of a box to stop variable voltage fuel pump pressure control. I do not however agree w/ following down the path of SCCA T2 and PCM tunes are open. I've seen the results of costs involved w/ this first hand. Lots and lots of money spent on the dyno in search of max power thru the rpm band at the expence of durability.

The Directors are more open minded about allowing limited changes to the PCM than ever before. But I'm sure we will not allow unlimited tuning.

If we allow tuning of any sort (tuning defined be altering the OEM software in the PCM/ECM) it will likely only be legal if done by an approved tunner and locked thereafter.

 

W/out a teardown rule in place, folks could go hog wild inside the motor and make it all work w/ a tune. The OEM tune sort of ties your hands to some degree.

Of course we all know current rules do not prevent cheating. Howerever, think about it. If the top 5-6 guys are cheating, not one of those 5-6 stand out from the other w/ regards to lap times or on track performance. But if only 1 of those guys is doing it, they stand out much moreso than the others.

 

Like I said, most of the Directors are not afraid of the PCM/ECU, but we are afraid of the costs our racers could face to keep up w/ the Jones'es.

 

By the way, some Directors have the hardware to look at OEM tunes for some cars already. More platforms to come soon. If your cheating w/ the PCM/ECM, come clean now or fix it.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Like I said, most of the Directors are not afraid of the PCM/ECU, but we are afraid of the costs our racers could face to keep up w/ the Jones'es.

 

Now where would that occur in this series?

 

Oh wait ... brakes. Nevermind.

[TxCMC22]

I'm glad to see the discussion being brought to the table, my goal is simply to make the 4.6L ford motor run safe, at legal power, within the rules. If what I am doing is cheating, well at least I am being up front about it. I "cheat" because I believe there is truly an issue with this motor and the rules, always has been an issue... Sure I could get around the rules without anyone knowing. When the lean issue showed itself during the rules change test, I could have fixed it with a tune, but I refused to go that route. My car doesn't idle correctly, and this is a redneck way to fix the issue, but I fixed it using knowledge. I refuse to take the easy road. I have communicated with the directors, and the people in my series, not hiding my changes. If people have taken the easy road for a fix, I totally understand!!! but please be man enough to come forward if you have. I would like the rules to be changed so that I wouldn't have to cheat, whatever that rule change may be. I will not race my car if it's running lean, an issue all tuners I have spoken believe is impossible. If you find a tuner that thinks otherwise, please have him/her call me. 214-636-2212. Send me an e-mail, [email protected], or call the national director to speak with him. I don't believe anyone has put as much time/effort/money into this issue as I have, and maybe I should take others advice and simply tune the computer, but I try to live my life with honor and integrity.

 

I will ask this of all directors in this series. Please come forward if there are competitors in your region running this motor, year model car (99-04). If there are not, maybe post up anyway just so we know. I am getting frustrated with directors telling me my car is the only one having the issue, when they haven't proven me wrong on the issue. I would think they would reserve their uneducated guesses for a time when they could prove their opinions. I have proven mine, every step of the way, in ever way I know I can. I am stating facts here, not opinions, I have researched, talked to experts, and read my ass off to fix this issue, and I'm not done. So please feel free to prove my research wrong, but until you do, please hold your personal opinions to yourself... bring some facts to the table and I am more than willing to listen...

 

If it turns out I am wrong in my research, I will formally apologize to the entire board of directors, my competitors under the national umbrella of CMC, and anyone else who thinks they deserve it. I'm only trying to better the series in my actions, this I will not apologize for.

[Glenn]

I am getting frustrated with directors telling me my car is the only one having the issue, when they haven't proven me wrong on the issue. I would think they would reserve their uneducated guesses for a time when they could prove their opinions.

 

I know of 2 99-04 CMC cars running in TX. I know of no others. If there are some out there, I'll let those Regional Directors provide that info.

So of the 2, one runs like crap and one doesn't. Give me 2 that run like crap and one that doesn't and I'll side more w/ you than against. Give me 2 that don't run like crap and 1 that does and I'll side against you more than for you. Until then, I'll have to remain neutral at this point.

 

Things to consider. You complained about your car being down on power last year and told us the fix would be a timing adjuster. You were convinced this would fix your lack of power issue. We spent our time watching this thing being adjusted at the dyno (my time is worth something as well) for hours only to discover your running lean, way lean at that. We moved forward w/ other info we had/were given and allowed this part in the rules to help the mod motor guys get to the number. That part is now legal. Since that time, you have now come to us and said there was no way to fix the lean issue and the computer would need to be tuned or tricked. We have allowed you to trick the computer and even run the car this way as a points collecting driver. This fix seemed yo have resolved your lean issue.

So when you were down on power last year, did you not think to verify the health of your motor? And by health, I mean to include AFR. No, you assumed the fix to your lack of power was mods. Mods allowed and now your lean. Lean before as well. Now the new fix is more mods. One in particular that is taboo to say the least.

Now, the timing adjuster has proven to work, but we (TX) only have one example of it working. I have not seen any reports from others (CMC cars) who have installed it and reported the desired results.

So don't expect the Directors to prove you wrong. Your a 1 of 2 example from where I stand.

I could come to you w/ you being a Director and tell you my car runs hot over 4K. The other 1 LT1 car in the series does not seem to have this issue. He must have tuned the PCM to limit timing above 4K to keep the motor from getting hot. Am I right? Or is the cause something else? You have one of two cars w/ a problem? Who is correct?

If both cars had this issue, there could be some merit to what I'm saying. If I'm only 1 out of a few, it sheds doubt on my case.

Lets say you believe me and put the other 1 LT1 on the dyno and force him to reflash the PCM and spend his time and money for nothing more than my POV. A POV your now responsible for acting on. Not to mention your time and costs to follow this guy to the dyno, and to a tuner... etc...

Turns out 6 months later, I got blown head gaskets and my issue is now resolved. Does my "sorry" fix everything? Does that other LT1 racer feel better about being wrongly accused? Do you get your time back? Your credibility?

 

So, don't tell me about how pissed you are about me (or Al or Rob) not acting on your word. There is more to it than an "I'm sorry" will fix if we follow the wrong path.

 

Kudo's to you for following the honerable path. Glad to see you have working to get the mod motor guys here to provide data. But lets stop w/ the dressing down of the Directors. My "un-educated guess" has no merit of bearing here. I'm un-educated w/ regards to Mod motors and Fords, but possibly no more so than you about LT1's and LS1's. I trust there are some very educated Mod motor guys here, and a solution/answer will be found. It may not happen overnight.

[mitchntx1548534714]

I think Jeremy has something here.

 

My LT1 doesn't make the same number as all the other LT1 motors in this region.

 

Mine unrestricted only makes 255/305. James', Glenn's, Steve's all make around 280/315 unrestricted.

 

I think I should be able to get a set of 1.6 rockers so that I can be competitive.

[TxCMC22]

Until then, I'll have to remain neutral at this point.

 

Things to consider. You complained about your car being down on power last year and told us the fix would be a timing adjuster. You were convinced this would fix your lack of power issue....

 

We have allowed you to trick the computer and even run the car this way as a points collecting driver. This fix seemed yo have resolved your lean issue.

 

So when you were down on power last year, did you not think to verify the health of your motor? And by health, I mean to include AFR..... One in particular that is taboo to say the least.

Now, the timing adjuster has proven to work, but we (TX) only have one example of it working. I have not seen any reports from others (CMC cars) who have installed it and reported the desired results....

So don't expect the Directors to prove you wrong. Your a 1 of 2 example from where I stand.

 

So, don't tell me about how pissed you are about me not acting on your word. There is more to it than an "I'm sorry" will fix if we follow the wrong path.

 

Kudo's to you for following the honerable path. Glad to see you have working to get the mod motor guys here to provide data. But lets stop w/ the dressing down of the Directors. My "un-educated guess" has no merit of bearing here. I'm un-educated w/ regards to Mod motors and Fords, but possibly no more so than you about LT1's and LS1's. I trust there are some very educated Mod motor guys here, and a solution/answer will be found. It may not happen overnight.

 

I would like to speak on a deeper level here Glenn. First off, I'm not pissed, I'm frustrated. There is a big difference. I have been pissed at you, once when you tried to coach me in my "over aggressive" driving style this past weekend. That was me pissed...

 

Second, I would not argue with you, or any other Camaro driver, on your motors, without doing at least twice the research I have done on my 4.6L, even if I was a director. And until that research was concluded, I wouldn't give you an opinion, a fact, or for that matter a hint of my thoughts regarding the issue. I would simply say I'm uneducated in the situation. If I were a director, I would put some focus on the issue, some time into the issue, and at make an educated guess. Would you like to speak to the tuners I have spoken to? here is a list.

 

Sean Highland Motorsports (519) 421-2291 can't remember the guys names

HPP Racing (972) 395-9844 talk to Manny

Dallas Mustang 1-800-Mustang talk to Archie

 

Mods to mention, Stock 19lb injectors, long tube headers, pulleys, Stock intake (or cold air), with or without the timing adjuster, stock computer, stock fuel system.

 

The most educated guys on MOD motors have spoken, and there was a decision that his attitude was the issue, not the stock configuration of the motor. I know 100% that my car is stock, and I don't think Jerry can confirm his is. Also, there are only 4 sensors in closed loop making decisions. TPS, MAF, and Fuel Pressure. I have replaced my Fuel Pressure sensor from Ford since the last dyno, my TPS is reading Full throttle, and the MAF... well we know about the MAF...

 

Ask the 55 if the timing adjuster helped him get to power. It was necessary! I have offered up my extra computer multiple times, if you want to get to the bottom of the issue, take it, flash it in the 55 with no pats so I can use it as my spare computer, put the stock GT tune on it (again) and put the 55 on the dyno. If he's still under 14/1 AF ratio throughout the RPM range, I will drop the entire issue, until then........ I am not apologizing for my actions.

 

You admit you are uneducated on the 4.6L computer, as does Jerry on this issue, and for the other so called 4.6's running the same setup as myself, I have not heard from them since May 19th 2010...

 

I should have taken the advice of many, just skipped the red tape and tuned the computer... I wouldn't have to argue with someone that doesn't think what I am doing is right by the rules...

[TxCMC22]

I think Jeremy has something here.

 

My LT1 doesn't make the same number as all the other LT1 motors in this region.

 

Mine unrestricted only makes 255/305. James', Glenn's, Steve's all make around 280/315 unrestricted.

 

I think I should be able to get a set of 1.6 rockers so that I can be competitive.

 

What's your A/F ratio? between 12-14, awesome, we don't have the same issue Mitch...

[mitchntx1548534714]

I think Jeremy has something here.

 

My LT1 doesn't make the same number as all the other LT1 motors in this region.

 

Mine unrestricted only makes 255/305. James', Glenn's, Steve's all make around 280/315 unrestricted.

 

I think I should be able to get a set of 1.6 rockers so that I can be competitive.

 

What's your A/F ratio? between 12-14, awesome, we don't have the same issue Mitch...

 

Mine is the oppopsite end of yours ... mine runs stupid rich. The quarter panel is yellow after a weekend.

 

So oue issues are similar.

 

Don't be hating

[Glenn]

I would like to speak on a deeper level here Glenn. First off, I'm not pissed, I'm frustrated. There is a big difference. I have been pissed at you, once when you tried to coach me in my "over aggressive" driving style this past weekend. That was me pissed...

I did no such coaching. I mearly pointed out your error, how it was your fault and your penalty was asigned. A penalty I agreed w/. I encouraged you to appeal. As for coaching, I did no such thing.

 

Second, I would not argue with you, or any other Camaro driver, on your motors, without doing at least twice the research

I have done on my 4.6L, even if I was a director. And until that research was concluded, I wouldn't give you an opinion, a fact, or for that matter a hint of my thoughts regarding the issue. I would simply say I'm uneducated in the situation. If I were a director, I would put some focus on the issue, some time into the issue, and at make an educated guess.

I've not argued w/ you about your issue and that it doesn't exist. I've argued w/ you about how to go about resolving it. I offered avenues to proceed down. Its funny that you seem to place all the blame on me over what you consider a lack of "research". There are a number of Series Directors that are informed Ford guys, why not question them and their lack of interest? I feel I am making more of an atempt to help than any of them and I'm the least educated of them all about Fords. Any advice I have offered to help resolve the issue w/ regards to T/S'ing has been from the goodness of my heart.

 

 

 

Would you like to speak to the tuners I have spoken to? here is a list.

Sean Highland Motorsports (519) 421-2291 can't remember the guys names

HPP Racing (972) 395-9844 talk to Manny

Dallas Mustang 1-800-Mustang talk to Archie

 

I would love to talk to those guys. But do I think they will tell me anything different than what they told you? No. I would rather talk w/ a tuner I know and trust. I don't have one. I was hoping one of the other Directors would though.

 

Mods to mention, Stock 19lb injectors, long tube headers, pulleys, Stock intake (or cold air), with or without the timing adjuster, stock computer, stock fuel system.

Give me more. Comp ratio, year of block, heads, pistons.

 

The most educated guys on MOD motors have spoken, and there was a decision that his attitude was the issue, not the stock configuration of the motor. I know 100% that my car is stock, and I don't think Jerry can confirm his is. Also, there are only 4 sensors in closed loop making decisions. TPS, MAF, and Fuel Pressure. I have replaced my Fuel Pressure sensor from Ford since the last dyno, my TPS is reading Full throttle, and the MAF... well we know about the MAF...

I'm confident based on your word that your motor is compiled of all stock parts. I don't think that has ever been questioned. Best way to find out if a compeditor is legal, file a protest. I'll be forced to find out. Otherwise, I can't go off your word on that one.

 

 

Ask the 55 if the timing adjuster helped him get to power. It was necessary!

I didn't say otherwise. Glad you brought the tech on that item. Good job.

The point of bringing it up was to show that you had a solution to a problem only to discover your problem was not what you thought it was. Could this be the case again? I have to proceed carefully.

 

I have offered up my extra computer multiple times, if you want to get to the bottom of the issue, take it, flash it in the 55 with no pats so I can use it as my spare computer, put the stock GT tune on it (again) and put the 55 on the dyno. If he's still under 14/1 AF ratio throughout the RPM range, I will drop the entire issue, until then........ I am not apologizing for my actions.

What is the costto program out the PATS and to put it back later? I'll write you a check right now, get it done.

 

You admit you are uneducated on the 4.6L computer, as does Jerry on this issue, and for the other so called 4.6's running the same setup as myself, I have not heard from them since May 19th 2010...

And that is a shame. This series is founded on each of us helping the other overcome issues and get everyone upto speed so we are all equal.

 

I should have taken the advice of many, just skipped the red tape and tuned the computer... I wouldn't have to argue with someone that doesn't think what I am doing is right by the rules...

If you can sleep well at night, then go ahead. Once you get caught, you will get the same penalty as everyone else. The last time this penalty was handed out, the guy got a year off.

 

By the way. I working on learning more since none of our other Ford Directors are taking point on this.

[TxCMC22]

I was hoping one of the other Directors would though.

 

Give me more. Comp ratio, year of block, heads, pistons.

 

... file a protest. I'll be forced to find out. Otherwise, I can't go off your word on that one.

 

What is the cost to program out the PATS and to put it back later? I'll write you a check right now, get it done.

 

By the way. I working on learning more since none of our other Ford Directors are taking point on this.

 

I was hoping someone would speak up, but apparently there aren't a lot of us...

e-mail sent with more...

 

File a protest? Consider it filed. I will go search for the paperwork to file it. I have already discussed with Jerry this possibility, we are both ok with it. He understands it's not personal...

 

Cost is around 100-120 to re tune the computer, will make a call in the morning.

 

Well then, thank you for taking point on it. Glad someone is...

[tacovini]

[CMC#11]

Is there a "master list" with all CMC competitors in the Nation?

Will each regional director take a minute to look at his personal list of competitors and reply with how many 4.6 drivers he has in his region? If zero, then issue dropped for that region. If 1 or more please talk with that individual and get as much information possible from that driver about his setup.

 

If Jerry and Jeremy are the only two drivers in the nation w/ a 4.6 setup like this then at least they know where to research. Until then please help out and provide as much information as possible about your fellow racers.

[AllZWay]

I think Jeremy has something here.

 

My LT1 doesn't make the same number as all the other LT1 motors in this region.

 

Mine unrestricted only makes 255/305. James', Glenn's, Steve's all make around 280/315 unrestricted.

 

I think I should be able to get a set of 1.6 rockers so that I can be competitive.

 

Actually mine is like yours... it only makes 255ish and 295ish torque unrestricted. Of course it had 135K street miles and now 4 years of racing, so I have discounted mine as just be a tired old engine.

 

It seems everyone's makes more power than my engine. I have a spare that when I get time I am going to switch and see if I can get an engine that has to be restricted down to the number.

[GT4Point6]

I keep seeing Glenn post about why no one else is complaining about the same thing. It's simple, from what I've seen, not very many mod motors in CMC, and two, how many have upgraded to the CMC2 spec? Two, three???

 

I was the first to run the mod motor that I am aware of and it has it's pro's and con's. The 2V will NEVER have the TQ curve in CMC2 of the other motors with 70 more CID, period. I don't know the answer but it will need some help to keep up in CMC2 or it/drivers will fall out and that won't be good for the series. It's a very reliable motor and that is one of it's attractions. Change the oil and plugs and go racing, that is what I have done for six years on a 60k mile stock motor. Not so much as a valve/cam cover removal since day one.

 

The Series did put a lot of money and time into getting the 305 up to CMC2 spec, we all remember that right? Right?

 

How about a database with scanned dyno sheets that is available to all the CMC drivers? Let everyone see how the 4.6/5.0/5.7 compares in CMC2 trim.

If we are open about the numbers and have to be right?, why not have the directors collect and scan all dyno sheets? They have to have a copy of them anyway. Not hard, not expensive, could be eye opening. Make a link available for only the drivers to view.

 

There are no "secrets" on a dyno sheet so you shouldn't be afraid to share them, unlike drivers who won't share their spring rates...

[Glenn]

I have been asking for 3+ years for guys to get the dyno file data and email it to me so I could compile this info. The software to open the files is free from the Dyno Jet website. You can open as many files as you want on the screen and compair on the same graph.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Actually mine is like yours... it only makes 255ish and 295ish torque unrestricted.

 

Sorry James ... I thought that was your restricted number.

 

Yours is an SD motor, right?

 

I'm beginning to think that is the answer ... convert to an speed density set up. No MAF, different intake and camshaft.

[TurboShortBus]

I have offered up my extra computer multiple times, if you want to get to the bottom of the issue, take it, flash it in the 55 with no pats so I can use it as my spare computer, put the stock GT tune on it (again) and put the 55 on the dyno. If he's still under 14/1 AF ratio throughout the RPM range, I will drop the entire issue, until then........ I am not apologizing for my actions.

What is the costto program out the PATS and to put it back later? I'll write you a check right now, get it done.

Again, has anybody tried to simply swap the key tumblers while swapping ECUs? It takes about 5 seconds per car, and the only "fancy" tool you need is a nail about 2" long if you still have the plastic trim around the steering column.

 

Mark

[mitchntx1548534714]

Would this work for the PATS bypass?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/555FW-Keyless-Anti-Theft-Bypass-Older-Ford-PATS1-/110438614804?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19b6a78714

 

The GM side uses a similar module with great success

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/GM-VATS-PASSkey-II-Bypass-Module-LS1-and-LT1-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem3361cd0bedQQitemZ220684159981QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

 

No longer use a key.