secondary throttle control module

[dbcopper]

My 1996 Mk VIII needs a new or used, working throttle control unit for the control of the secondary throttle body on bank #1, (the right side). The part number is F6L95514AA according to my mechanic. Apparently this part is no longer manufactured by Ford. Without this, my car becomes a useless pile of parts and collects dust. Any help or tips or solutions will be appreciated and welcome, I love this old car!

I bought another Mk VIII, 1995 year model, hoping to rob this item from it. I did, only to find that Ford changed this part many times, including mid-year and mine is considered the car with the "bastard" part for this engine.

I will send any interested Mk VIII owners images of the spare car if you wish. It has a lot of good sheet metal, glass, and other parts. It runs and could be driven, although I don't recommend it since it is not registered. I will make really good deals on all or part.

Thanks,

 

[driller]

I believe the part you are looking for is the Intake Manifold Runner Control for the passenger side. The '96 uses an exclusive part for that model year that is different from the earlier and later model years since it was the 1st Mark VIII to utilize OBD2.

Like the earlier model years, it is vacuum controlled whereas the later model years are mechanically controlled via an electrical modulator.

There is a vacuum solenoid that normally applies vacuum to keep the IMRCs closed below approximately 3000 rpms after which the vacuum is shut off by the solenoid and the IMRCs open by springs.

But unlike the earlier years, the '96 IMRC controllers have an electronic feedback back to the PCM.

New replacement parts are discontinued and unless you can source one from an individual your best alternative is a treasure hunt at junkyards.

Did your mechanic specifically say what was wrong with the IMRC controller on the car? Is it just 'stuck'? Did he apply vacuum to the actuator?

 

[KStromberg]

I 2nd driller's last sentence. A lot of times these buggers stick from carbon buildup and just need a good cleaning. It is a common issue and will have some mechanics assuming the whole unit is bad when that is indeed not the case. Has your mechanic visually inspected the runners or is he going off of a check engine code or something?

 

[psychostang]

Start praying to the Lincoln Gods now.

 

[dbcopper]

Throttled by Ford, Lincoln or somebody!

Throttled by Ford, Lincoln or somebody!

Thanks for the ideas to each to commented. Yes, the mechanic and I both discovered that a "stuck" controller was not the problem. It is now off the engine, in hand, and the diaphram is definitely leaking. It seems that creating some kind of a bypass, or other mechanical device would be the right thing to do, except for the need to "fool" the computer into thinking it was getting the needed information.

It is a crime to have an otherwise great car that is nearing the trash heap for want of a dollar diaphram. Today I am going to take it apart (the controller module) to see what repairs can possibly be done. I have the good '95 unit with a good diaphram and if I can dismantle and exchange it with the '96 unit, then the only issue will be to mate the top and bottom back together with a system that is positive and reliable. BTW, in case you don't know, the '95 cannot simply replace the '96 item ... the '96 has the computer sensor built in and I have no idea where to take that reading from if not on the unit itself.

Wish me luck or send other ideas if you have them. Other wise, there may be two Mk 8's for sale for parts soon. Damn shame, don't you think?

 

[dbcopper]

ps. to my previous post ... this has happened to me with this car once before in 2007 or 8. At that time, I found a set of secondary intake runners with the modules attached on eBay. No such luck this time. If this sounds like a redeux to some, it is. It's my second go-around with this issue ... I guess the lack of part support is just Ford's way of saying, "get rid of the good old cars and buy a new piece of junk"!

 

[driller]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J3 Safari/6533.18.5)

What are you doing wrong is what I would be asking if this is the second time!

You could likely run deletes and program the IMRCs out of the tune - that is what I would do before I scrapped the car over the IMRCs.

 

[Ford nut]

You are going to have to hit the internet boards hard.
Pm me and I can give you a list of forum's
Put what you need in the for sale sections.
And pray.
Or mod your car/tune to delete the IMRCs as driller suggested.

 

[billcu]

I've seen the inside of the vacuum actuator or whatever they are called. There is a peice of metal that can rub on the rubber diaphragm and it just wears a hole in it. Bad design.:frown:

I'd like to believe there's some way you could get a different one to work with a little work.

Different size actuators were used on older cars on carburetors, intake systems, hide away headlights, HVAC systems, ect.

 

[driller]

Do you have any pics?

 

[billcu]

Here's one from a Corvette headlight. Probably too big, but just an example. I think this one is a double action also.

 

[Roadboss]

Here are ones that came out of my 96

 

[driller]

I wonder how the '96 actuator differs from the earlier ones, especially with the feedback module. This is one from a '93...

 

[dbcopper]

All helpful comments are welcome ... with the possible exception of the comment by "driller" ... what I am doing wrong is driving the car ... I doubt that there is anything any operator could do to cause excessive wear and tear on this item. The comment by Bill is the most accurate, "it's a baaaad design"!

Reprograming the computer is not in my interest range nor do I have the time to explore that route. For now, I am waiting for a national search for the throttle body with actuator attached. If that comes through, we're good ... if not, I'll be working on adapting the 1995 actuator off my '95 "parts car and trying to "fool the computer" with jumpers off the other bank.

If that method works, I'll report it here ... sooner or later there will be another '96 with this problem and a solution really ought to be available rather than putting the old hot rod out to pasture.

I am attaching a couple of images of the actuator in case it pings someone's memory into realizing they have one in the attic.

 

[psychostang]

Do not waste your time in trying to fool the puter. Both signal returns combine, just before reaching the main harness connector. Pins 1 and 10 are ground and signal return. The computer must see over 1.6 Volt. If it doesn't, it puts on the check engine light. Which bank it faults depends upon how much voltage it see's. The 2 prox switches send slightly different voltages to the puter. IF you can't find another control, you have 2 options. Make deletes out of them, install 3.73 or 4.10 gears, reprogram computer. Or perform "C" head conversion, reprogram computer. Unfortunately, this is the way of the 96.

 

[dbcopper]

I have pics ... of which item is the question ... the parts car, the offending part, the object car ... plenty of pics and a camera at the ready!

 

[dbcopper]

Wow, informative and discouraging ... anybody want two parts cars?

 

[Roadboss]

On your nation wide search you stated " Throttle Body with actuator attached" The correct description of these is Intake Manifold Runner Controls (IMRC's).

 

[psychostang]

The only other thing you can do, is take the IMRC actuator apart and see how big of a hole you have. Yoy may be able to put some real sticky tape in there to seal the hole. Or maybe some rubber sealer type stuff. I had to replace both of mine, about a year before they went obsolete. Cost me $271.xx a piece. The list was $471.xx a piece. Unfortunately, no aftermarket manufacturer makes replacements.

 

[98mark8lsc]

I've got a set that I removed from a 96 a couple months ago.

I haven't had a chance to check them out yet, and I'm out of town until the end of next week, so I won't be able to check them until then...