the pin-outs are exactly the same between the 2 sensors.
the only difference is the Ford's scale is 50-125Hz for 0-100% ethanol, and GM's sensor is 50-150Hz for 0-100% ethanol.

part number: F6DF-9C044-AA


my ECA is scaled correctly for both sensors, and would produce the same output voltage 0-5v scale, regardless of what sensor is attached.

the Ford sensor can be found on 1996-2001 Taurus's with the FFV option. and the 1999-2000 Ford Ranger FFV option.
the junkyard I went to today, had at least 2 (i got them both) the guy behind the counter called it a fuel pressure regulator "that'll be $8 a peice.."
LOL!

here is a breakdown:

FORD:

1996 - 2000
Ford
Taurus
3.0 L
2
Near passenger side shock tower

1999 - 2000
Ford
Ranger
3.0 L
V
Driver’s side of transmission cross member

1999 - 2000
Mazda
B3000 (Selective)
3.0 L
V
Driver’s side of transmission cross member

GM:

2000 - 2002
Chevy
S-10
2.2 L
5
Passenger side, front frame rail, behind wheel well

2000 - 2002
GMC
Sonoma
2.2 L
5
Passenger side, front frame rail, behind wheel well

2003
Chevy
S-10
2.2 L
H
Passenger side, front frame rail, behind wheel well

2003
GMC
Sonoma
2.2 L
H
Passenger side, front frame rail, behind wheel well

2002 - 2005
Chevy
Trucks, Suburban, Tahoe
5.3 L
Z
Mounted to frame directly under driver’s feet

2002 - 2005
GMC
Trucks, Yukon, Tahoe
5.3 L
Z
Mounted to frame directly under driver’s feet

 

Ok, then my ecu code itself works fine with both sensors, it is only ECA what needs attention but thats easy to do. And thanks for chiming in, great to see development happening around Keep us updated, I will check your thread in future too.

 

Since we dont have either of those vehicles in AU, would someone be kind enough to get me a sensor from the US?

 

Ok guys, first VIII (9653) with stock ecu modified to true flexfuel yesterday. Full tuning not done yet but everything seems to work fine, we tested several ethanol contents and interpolation kept fuel trims in order during cruising, also WOT AFR's were fine with all contents tested (75, 65, 55 and 45% of ethanol). Testing and tuning continues, I will report later how it works in the long run. We used FIC1100 injectors and all I can say is that these injectors were extremely easy to tune for both fuels, also all start conditions tested seems to be just fine without any big modifications to tuning tables (basically only primer pulse tuned).

 

That's excellent news!!


-Bink

 

Looks like we're/you're close.

 

Awesome news!

hopefully we'll have some testing like this on the subaru ECU soon as well.
my ECA seems to be working great on the bench, going to put it in the car tonight, and make sure it's the same as the bench testing.

 

Well done mate, keep up the good work!

 

Im going to start working on this immediately. Thanks for the information!

 

why do you say that? Should it not be linear?

 

For fuel linear should be ok. For ignition linear may not be the best if you can still run MBT with lower ethanol content than 85%.

 

hmm, I guess we will see if the MBT is more of an exponential growth with timing compared, even though my timing maps are very similar... but I can understand if others are running much more timing than their 93/91 octane map.

I would also recommend being able to hard-set whatever octane value we want for tuning purposes. I for one, will never run anything higher than 85%, and I believe our 93 gasoline has no less than 10%.

 

Little update to this, testing goes on with 9653 and no problems so far but to be honest not too many miles with mixed fuel as once you get used to the power E85 gives you don't want to fill with regular gas When it gets warmer I will make more tests.

I'm also planning to install full flex set to two IX in two or three weeks and will report later how it goes.

 

I'm very glad Im on 9653! Care to share your xml?

 

This would be AWESOME guys. Still patiently waiting