Explorer air temperature sender - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

dodgie · 03-14-2004, 15:44

I will soon be fitting an explorer manifold to my ED, and I have to position the air temperature sender somewhere.
I know it can be tapped into runner #5 but my lower is ported and the walls are thin so I would rather leave that alone.
I also know the AU has a air temperature sender in the rubber intake duct, but I will require the AU duct and sensor for it to look half decent.
My question is can I tap the upper intake on the underside (plenum side of the runners) and position the sensor under there without any detrimental effects.
I am hoping someone may have tried this, as it will also be out of site.
Any other thoughts will be appreciated.

ebxr8240 · 03-14-2004, 16:29

Anywere in induction system.Some cars have them on air cleaner...But must be in high flow area's like air cleaner inlet pipe on engine side..You'll have to extend loom...

dodgie · 03-14-2004, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Anywere in induction system.Some cars have them on air cleaner...But must be in high flow area's like air cleaner inlet pipe on engine side..You'll have to extend loom...

Extending the loom would be just a matter of soldering in a length of similar wire right?
I will see how I go for space under the plenum (injectors, fuel rail etc) and maybe tap one in there.

Big Mick · 03-14-2004, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodgie

Extending the loom would be just a matter of soldering in a length of similar wire right?
I will see how I go for space under the plenum (injectors, fuel rail etc) and maybe tap one in there.

G'day dodgie,

Re: extending the loom, you are correct.

I thought about repositioning mine prior to the TB as per the AU's. Then I thought that the temperature it reads in the number 5 runner may be higher than what it would read prior to the TB due to heat soak from the engine. Thus the ECU may perform differently because it sees a lower temp. This is all just speculation as I don't know one way of the other.

I like your idea, only problem is that you would have to remove the upper manifold to service the sensor if it failed, as unlikely as this maybe.

Mick

dodgie · 03-14-2004, 18:51

Hey thanks Mick,
If the sensor does fail, it could probably be tested at the soldiered join, or it may throw me a fault code to let me know its stuffed.
As the failure of the sensor is unlikely (touch wood),I am going to give it a go under the plenum.
At least taking the upper off isnt too hard ,and the sensor may still get some heat soak if it is still attached to the intake manifold somewhere.
Does anyone know if heat soak is an issue with these sensors?
Also depends if there is enough room under there. I may get a phenolic spacer as well to help me out .

Cheers!

PigDog · 03-14-2004, 19:18

I'll be getting my explorer manifold on soon, I already have the AU inlet pipe with the sensor so i'm just planning on extending the wire and plugging the air temp sender in there. Hopefully it'll work out!

ebxr8240 · 03-14-2004, 21:44

It is a tuning advantage to let the senser read cooler air.The latter models have them on inlet duct..

dodgie · 03-15-2004, 00:06

Yeah, on second thought I might see if I can get the AU inlet pipe with the sensor.
Saves the hassle of tapping into the manifold.
I will have to see how much the new items are, as I don�t think I will find used ones.
I hope the AU sensor is compatible with the EECIV.
Can anyone confirm that they are?
PigDog, when are you changing your sensor over? You can be my guinea pig, as my manifold will not be going on until June.

PigDog · 03-15-2004, 00:09

I'm making every effort to get the manifold and 1.72 RR's on by the Heathcoate drag day in May

XR8 Lamah · 03-15-2004, 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

It is a tuning advantage to let the senser read cooler air.The latter models have them on inlet duct..

While it would eliminate the potential heat soak probs, wouldn't giving the sensor lower that realistic temps only cause it to richen the mixture ? ( I would assume that the AU's would have taken this into account a little within the ECU programming).
Or are we talking about a such a ridiculously small variance that its irrelevant ?

I've pondered this one previously, but never really reached a firm conclusion...