Messages

121

Ace, Aceca & Greyhound Forum / Leaking Gas tank- How to repair?

« on: November 18, 2006, 11:35:17 »

Tennessee is 5 hours behind UK if that’s any use.

122

General Forum / Ace Brooklands Thread Ctd from CRS Forum!

« on: November 06, 2006, 22:42:52 »

I don't dispute chromweld is good stuff, although heavy. Whether chromweld was used or not, for Ace owners keen to loose weight there must be considerable saving to be had fabricating the front and rear subframes using aluminium section. Just a thought...
   
   Max

123

General Forum / Very Cheap '98 ACE

« on: November 05, 2006, 23:59:06 »

What happened.... you mean as far as the hood? Story goes the hood manufacturer in Germany went broke (or refused to supply due to non-payment) leaving the Company with new Aces, but no hoods. Solution? Removed the hoods from cars sitting in their showroom - hence mine has all the mechanism, but no actual hood. When I bought the car from Duncan Hamilton in '99 (who acquired it from AC) I had the option of the last remaining hardtop or he'd have a hood made. I went for the hardtop, which is OK, but on a warm summer's day you can't beat driving with the top down - something I can't do unless I'm convinced it won't rain!
   
   How was Goodwood? A good day?
   
   I'd look forward to meeting up ace4.6. Try and make it within the next couple of weeks, while there's a chance of the weather holding up and before we get fouled up with Christmas....ah Christmas - there's a happy thought!! Send me an email so as we can arrange something.
   
   maxallan@bretoncourt.fsbusiness.co.uk
   
   Cheers Max

124

General Forum / Very Cheap '98 ACE

« on: November 05, 2006, 20:50:52 »

At that price it's almost worth buying for spares.... I could do with a hood to replace the one nicked by AC.

125

General Forum / Ace Brooklands Thread Ctd from CRS Forum!

« on: November 03, 2006, 20:49:05 »

Keith. The weather looks set fair for the weekend, so Goodwood should be good for "Go". Enjoy the day. If the weather continues to hold up thu November, and you fancy meeting up, give me a shout! (Same invite applies to anyone else with a Brooklands within reasonable travel distance.)
   
   Max

126

General Forum / Ace Brooklands Thread Ctd from CRS Forum!

« on: November 02, 2006, 01:09:45 »

I'm based Headcorn, Kent, Keith - not a million miles from Surrey, but have just sent the road tax back for a refund, as I don't use the car in the winter. In fact, apart from exhibiting at a couple of car shows and the occasional run down to the coast I've not used it at all this summer - much to the annoyance of my partner, who can't see the point spending years modifying the car only to leave it sitting in the garage!
   
   The Aceca resides in Lancaster.
   
   I too was surprised learn the iron block 302 is lighter than the all alloy 4.6 (even more so once aftermarket alloy heads are fitted – saving 25lb). Apparently, the superior casting techniques used in the small block Ford produced a unit that compared favourably in weight to an alloy casting. That, plus the additional cams, valve gear and multiple chains of the 4.6 made for a heavier lump. That said, I’ve no doubt the 4.6 looks more impressive….
   
   To be honest I doubt mine needs an anti-roll bar – it doesn’t seem to roll excessively. But I don’t know of any car these days that’s not fitted with one, which makes me wonder whether fitting one would further improve the handling.
   
   I stand to be corrected, but I suspect none of the Aces were fitted with stainless (chromweld) chassis. Mine is a comparatively early Ace (No 44), which according to the handbook should have a stainless chassis, but any bare patches readily rust if I don’t keep the garage heated, so I reckon it was another example of wishful thinking on the part of AC.
   
   Like I say, I’ve sent the road tax back now, so wouldn’t want to venture too far in the car. But if you care to come out this way for a run, you’d be more than welcome to a spot of lunch and a comparative test drive round the lanes.
   
   Cheers Max

127

Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum / CRS Cobra engine upgrades

« on: November 01, 2006, 19:31:47 »

The improvements must only have been to the last few cars made; Autocar in it's  February 99 road test of the Ace described the steering as the worst of any current car they'd driven!!
   
   Why it took the Ac "engineers" so long to sort out the problems baffles me. Although a repairer of Jaguars for many years, I cannot claim any particular expertise in what makes a car handle well. But applying the reverse of the adage “if it looks right, it probably is right” – one look at the steering geometry said it was all wrong!! Yet sorting the steering and ride were hadly rocket science - just time consuming. Current dilemma - do I attempt to put the icing on the cake by fitting an anti-roll bar, or is that a mod. too far?? Has anyone tried it?
   
   Max

128

Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum / CRS Cobra engine upgrades

« on: October 31, 2006, 22:50:38 »

Keith. I got it a bit wrong - it's an Aceca he built from scratch using a body shell obtained from the Factory at around the time the company went pear shaped, in which he fitted a quad cam 4.6. He has two Aceca's and a Brooklands Ace.
   
   I was contemplating switching mine to a 4.6 using one of the ex Jensen units recently advertised on ebay. But I'd already imported the power-adders for the 5.0L and was advised against the switch by various contacts in the States. Collectively, they reckoned with the stuff I'd got I was up to the same grunt with less weight than the 4.6. Pity, because I quite fancied a 4 cam, but in the end logic prevailed.
   
   What was the handling like on the later cars? Mine's a 94 and the ride and handling were atrocious. Fortunately, after much modification to the steering and suspension it's now a pleasure to drive.
   
   Did you see my reply to your enquiry about a car cover?
   
   Max

129

General Forum / AC Brooklands Car Covers

« on: October 29, 2006, 23:17:57 »

Hi Keith,
   
   Specialised Car Covers, West Yorkshire Tel: 01943 864646 made the cover for my Brooklands Ace.
   
   Although they assured me they had a template for the Brooklands it didn't come out a perfect fit. In fairness, they offered to alter it if I sent it back with photos showing where it was tight/loose. But it does the job, so didn't bother in the end.
   
   Quote "The Webflex-TLP cover is made from a special membrane that protects your car from rain, dirt and abrasion, as well as overnight dampness, due to special micropores that breathe, enabling water vapour to escape."
   
   Max
   Kent
   Number 44

130

Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum / CRS Cobra engine upgrades

« on: October 29, 2006, 21:00:37 »

Hi Ron
   
   I too was/am puzzled. A flick through a Summit or Jeg's catalogue will reveal a wealth of power-adders for the 5.0L - including 94-95's. And earlier this year I imported a pair of AFR's, Trickflow upper and lower intake, Crane 1.7 rr's and Ford Racing 65mm TB plus ceramic stainless headers and have had no "issues" (apart from the occasional stall previously mentioned). It therefore came as a suprise to read that changes to the 94-95 ECU prevented modifications to 302's.
   
   I posted the Mustangworks article in response, as it explains where the later ECU differs to previous ECU's and why it is less willing to accomodate modifications to the engine. I'm no expert, but believe it is possible to reprogram it if necessary (rather than burn a new chip which is expensive over here) using a tweecer, which is able to change the ECU codes, as opposed to a PMS that only alters the info the ECU receives. Maybe others out there can shed more light on the matter?
   
   Regards emissions: unlike the USA where (according to a buddy of mine in Tennessee) most states don't even bother with emission testing, over here the powers-that-be are obsessed with car pollution. I doubt our emissions are tighter, but getting American V8's through does seem to be thwart with difficulty. I had to nigh on "cook" my own engine to get it through last time. And a mate, also with an Ace, but fitted with a brand new 4.6 DOHC and ECU, had his fail !!
   
   Cheers Max
   
   Kent

131

Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum / CRS Cobra engine upgrades

« on: October 28, 2006, 01:08:52 »

Sorry messed up previous post.
   
   Below is article regarding changes made to the EEC used on 94-95 Mustang engines members might find interesting. As far as I'm aware it is possible to reprogram the EEC to accomodate engine mods using a "tweecer" hooked up to a laptop. I sure hope so, because my Brookland Ace has developed a tendancy to stall since doing the usual heads/intake mods - a bit uncool when the masses are awaiting an impressive launch away from the lights - and no amount of fiddling with the TB has solved the problem. Even tried cleaning the O2 sensors to no avail, so reckon a tweecer is the only solution - if I can make it work!!
   
   
   EEK vs. EEK:
   THE SHOWDOWN
   By: Mike Wesley
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   Some of you may be asking why the 94-95 Mustangs seem like they are so much slower than the older cars. We've all seen them at the strip running quite a bit slower. They are heavier, but the difference in times doesn't add up to the difference in weight. What gives? Well, a lot of it has to do with the differences between the '94 - '95 Mustang EEC and the '93 or older EECs. In 1994 Ford did a major redesign of both the EEC hardware and EEC software. The end result was a much 'cleaner', 'smoother' running car. If you own one of these Mustangs or know someone who has one, you've probably heard of problems getting them to start, idle, and run like a stock 1987 to 1993 5.0 after doing some modifications. Well, you can thank the Feds and Ford for that. Ever increasing emission requirements led to major changes inside the EEC to produce better control of the powertrain. Of course this hurt the overall ability to modify the car. It became much more sensitive to minor changes. With tighter requirements for warranty, the '94 - '95 Mustang owner ended up with an engine that made the same power numbers on the dyno, but not the same numbers at the track. Let's go through some of the major differences and see if we can find the trouble spots. This will be broken down over a series of articles, because it is very complex.
   
   
   
   
   PART 1 - EEC SPARK:
   In the '93 and older EECs, spark advance at WOT (Wide Open Throttle) was based purely on RPM. When you went into WOT, the EEC jumped to a separate spark function to give whatever Ford thought was the best spark curve. Of course we all know they didn't really make it, because you can pick up some power by advancing the distributor. This wasn't their fault since the calibration was designed to run everywhere with different types of fuels. Everytime you went to WOT in a 93 or older car, you ran basically the same spark curve run after run. If you look at figure 1, you can see a stock WOT spark curve taken from a 93 5.0 GT 5spd.
   
   In the '94 - '95 cars, Ford made a major change to the spark calculations. The WOT spark function was deleted and now the car uses the same spark tables for both part throttle and WOT spark calculations. The problem with this is the spark table is based on RPM and Load. The formula for Load is basically the amount of incoming air, ratioed against how much 1 cylinder can hold at standard pressure/density. You can sort of think of Load as volumetric efficiency. The EEC uses the MAF to determine Load. It is a direct measurement of how much air is entering the engine. You might be wondering what the big deal about Load is. Well, since Load is used in the spark calculations, any change in Load will affect how much advance you get. Since the EEC uses the MAF to determine Load, any change in the MAF will change the Load calculation. Changes in the cam and anything that puts more air into the cylinders will also affect Load. Change the flow characteristics and you change Load. Let's see how this works.
   
   To simplify the whole spark calculation, we are going to combine all the spark calculations into one table and use actual Load values seen during testing. In reality there are quite a few of them for different things. If you look at Figure 2, you'll see a spark table from a 1994 5.0 GT 5spd. When you go into WOT, the EEC will pull spark values from the top two rows of the table. Figure 3 traces a test run done with a bone stock 94 GT. Notice how as RPM increases, Load decreases and spark advances a bit. The decrease in Load is due to volumetric efficiency of the engine dropping off. A typical 5.0 is not the most efficient engine around. If you compare the spark values calculated by the 94 EEC to the 93 values, you'll see they are not too much different. Change something on the engine and it's a whole new ballgame. Let's take a MAF change as an example. Figure 4 shows a MAF transfer function for an aftermarket MAF that we tested along with the stock curve. Notice how the aftermarket MAF's curve doesn't always follow the stock curve? When the EEC looks at the aftermarket MAF and converts the voltage into airflow using a built-in lookup function, it will calculate differing amounts of Load as RPM increases. In our example, we'll use 5500 RPM and 4.6 volts out of the MAF. In our baseline car at 5500 RPM, the EEC calculated a Load of .78. Input that into the spark table and we get an advance a bit over 26 degrees. Going back to figure 4, at 4.6 volts the aftermarket MAF 'fools' the EEC into thinking MORE air is entering the engine than what really is so it calculates a higher Load. With this particular MAF on our baseline car, we saw a Load value of .91 and the resultant spark advance was 25 degrees. Wow! By changing the MAF, we lost about 1.4 degrees of spark advance! On the dyno, this particular car lost about 14HP when the aftermarket MAF was installed. Some of this was due to the loss in spark and fuel which we will get to in a later article. It looks like there is a simple fix to this by bumping the distributor up. Sounds good, and it will help get back the loss in top end spark. However, there could be a catch if we now look what happened to this car at 2500 RPM. The baseline car had a Load value of .75 @ 2500 RPM and spark was 24 degrees. After putting on the MAF @ 2500 RPM, the Load was .65, and spark was roughly 26 degrees. Hmm. We got more bottom end spark with the MAF since it 'fooled' the EEC into thinking LESS air was entering the engine. Looks good so far and the car did make more power at 2500 RPM than it did stock. Now to fix the top end spark loss, we bumped the distributor up 5.5 degrees. This included the 'normal' 4 degrees everyone puts into the car plus the extra spark to compensate for what we lost with the MAF. Now the car made up the lost power plus some on the top end and lost 10 HP at 2500 RPM. Why?
   
   Due to what the MAF was telling the EEC, and how it changed Load and advanced the spark 2 degrees, our bump in the base advance made the total spark advance at 2500 RPM a bit over 30 degrees. Way too much advance at 2500 RPM. Figure 5 shows the relationship between torque and spark advance. The very top point in the curve is called MBT or Maximum Brake Torque spark. It's basically the amount of spark advance that produces the maximum amount of torque. If you go above or below the MBT point, you lose torque. As you continue to advance the spark, you'll reach a point in the curve called BDL spark or Borderline spark. This is the amount of spark advance where the engine just begins to knock. On a normally aspirated, low compression engine, BDL occurs at advance values higher than MBT. On high compression or supercharged engines, BDL can occur at advance values lower than MBT. Raising the octane value of the fuel moves the BDL point higher up. Going back to our low RPM example, further testing found the MBT point at 2500 RPM to be 28 degrees. Now came the question of what to do. Should we lower the base advance to get the bottom end power back and sacrifice some top end power, or leave it alone? However, should we go for the top end power, but sacrifice the bottom end? That choice is up to the owner. We opted to actually re-calibrate the EEC to run MBT spark at all RPM points by changing the spark tables. Now of course all this might go the other way depending on the MAF. It can 'fool' the EEC into lowering the Load at higher RPM which will give you more advance. It's really hard to tell what you are going to end up with.
   
   Another thing the '94 - '95 cars do with spark is retard it during a shift. The automatic cars REALLY pull out the timing, but the 5spd cars do it also. Inside the 5spd EEC calibration is a thing called Tip-in Retard. Any time the throttle is moved from a more closed position to a more open position, it can pull out some timing. When you shift a 5spd car, most people lift off the gas during the shift. The EEC senses this, and when you push on the gas again it pulls some timing out. The older EEC didn't have this 'feature'. You lose more torque during a shift on a '94 - '95 car than a '93 or older car. Why did Ford do this?? We think warranty. Ford had to replace a zillion T-5's in the older cars. Alot of them broke due to overshifting and power shifting, but alot of them broke as a result of too much transient torque. If you could reduce the torque output of the engine during a shift, the transient torque would be lower. The trans wouldn't break as easily, and thus the Tip-in Retard was born. How much timing is pulled out during a shift varies, but it can pull out as much as 15 degrees. There is not much you can do to 'fix' this except to re-calibrating the EEC.
   
   The '94 - '95 automatic cars have a torque modulation strategy installed in them to vary spark during shifts. When the EEC thinks it's time to change gears, it can pull out massive amounts of timing so the shift is nice and smooth. As far as we know there are two reasons for this. First is warranty. The AODE trans is not all that strong in stock form. By reducing the torque during shifts, you can extend it's life. Second is shift feel. For some reason Ford doesn't want you to 'feel' the car shift. Ever notice that just about all Ford vehicles with electronic transmissions shift like Town cars? Smooth and sloppy. Even performance vehicles like Mustangs and Lightnings have weak kneed shifting. What fun is that? The downside to this smooth, sloppy shifting is increased wear. Ford tends to slip the trans too much during gear changes slowly burning it up. Manually shift your car, and you'll see it shifts much better. During manual shifts you run through different sections of the trans control strategy. The older EECs with AODs (sometimes called DOA's) really had no idea a trans was attached to the engine. They did not spark retards during shifts and could actually shift quite well. They broke more often, but shifting was better. Adding a shift kit to a '94 - '95 car can help the shift feel by increasing fluid pressures inside the trans, but this does nothing to the engine torque loss during a shift.
   
   So you can probably see, tuning a '94 - '95 Mustang can be tricky. The engine remained basically the same, but the brains controlling it changed. In the next article, we'll discuss the fuel system and how minor changes to the engine can have drastic effects on how the engine runs.

132

Mk IV, Superblower, CRS and other Continuation Cars Forum / CRS Cobra engine upgrades

« on: October 27, 2006, 21:56:59 »

quote:Originally posted by Alan Faulkner-Stevens
   
This note is about the feasability of engine upgrade work on the first 25 odd CRS cars produced plus the implications of any modifications. These are cars fitted with the American specification 302ci engine. The later produced cars had an Australian specification engine fitted. From checks on numerous CRS cars, ones built around 1999/2000 period it appears they were fitted with engines produced in 1994 and most appear to be originally intended for the Mustang model. This may also be the case in some Superblower vehicles. These engines have a very different ECU than vehicles with computer engine management systems built up to 1993. A check on the printed label on the ECU and subsequent decifering can verify the actual application. But 1994 and 1995 produced ECUs have been programmed in such a way as to make any mechanical upgrade undertaken on the engine impossible to recalibrate via reprogramming of the ECU. This is not the case on earlier units.
   When Ford engineers were calibrating the 1994/95 units new very strict emission standards had been introduced into the States and they knew any engine upgrade work could throw off the emission calibration thus rendering the car illegal. Therefore the ECU has been produced in such a way as to not allow any modifications.
   There is only one way to upgrade and engine and ensure it both runs correctly and is fully legal and that is to replace the original ECU with a fully programmable unit with can be calibrated via a lap-top computer whilst the car is on a rolling road.
   I shall now raise a slightly contentious issue now which is the replacement of engines which are fitted with catalitic convertors and are computer controlled with an engine which has a carburettor induction system.
   If you have a vehicle say produced in the year 2000,when that car was registered it had to meet all current constuction/certification and emission rules applicable for that year. Each CRS was individually certified by gaining a S.V.A. [Single Vehilce Approval] thus vefiying the car was legal according the rules set down for a year 2000 motor car.
   AC Cars did this for each CRS manufactured. Once your computer system has gone and a carburettor fitted in its place there is very little chance of that engine ever meeting the tight emission laws applicable to that year and thus passing an MOT Test.
   Unless you can convince the D.V.L.A. otherwise when you take the modified car for an MOT things can get difficult. The tester logs on and the details of your car, chassis and registration number, are fed into the computer. Up comes details of your car saying manufactured in 2000 and therfore the tester knows how far he or she has to check.
   Remember after the emission test the recorded details are sent directly back to the DVLA who then know whether your car passed or failed.
      Tuning a CRS engine is not an impossible task it just requires a little more dedication and determination and worst of all slightly more money than first anticipated. But hey, AC members are made of sterner stuff, aren't they?
   Alan Faulkner-Stevens
   

133

Ace 'Brooklands' Forum / Speedo removal

« on: April 11, 2014, 17:55:24 »

Has anyone had cause to remove their speedo? Looks to me it will require removing steering column and still be a struggle!!![]

134

Ace 'Brooklands' Forum / Location of ECU diagnostic plug

« on: June 27, 2013, 00:18:54 »

Does anyone know if the ECU service/diagnostic plug is readily accessible from the engine compartment or is it stowed with the ECU behind the heater/air con box. If the former, what sort of plug am I looking for?

135

Ace 'Brooklands' Forum / Sure is quiet here....do I need to start a fight?

« on: May 14, 2013, 22:26:32 »

I wish I had some bit of knowledge to share, or a stupid question to ask....
   
   Hey I do have one...what’s folk’s thoughts on the current trend of car show organisers to charge owners to exhibit their cars? [!]