Reply to "Windsor Swap"

> That's a harsh statement, as many people are using these systems with great success.
> I myself had great success using this system on 2 different vehicles and don't consider
> myself "without brains".

I apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean to attack you but rather Mass-Flo.
Mass-Flo makes many claims on their website which are falsehoods. Of all the
fuel injection approaches (Alpha-N, speed density, mass air flow), mass air flow
is the most susceptible to reversion and the Mass-Flo system's placement, right
over the center of the plenum, makes it especially sensitive to reversion.
A person needs to educate themself about which fuel injection control strategy
is best for a particular application. Previously, I've posted a description of
each strategy and their recommended applications and limitations so I won't go
in detail here but it certainly not a no-brainer.

With the Mass-Flo system, as long as your cam overlap is modest, you shouldn't
have any problem but be aware are still tables built into the EEC-IV that may need
editing. For instance, with the EEC-IV, narrow band O2 sensors are used to trim
the air-fuel mixture during cruise. However, at WOT the system switches to tables.
Even if the engine seems to run well, I strongly suggest monitoring with a wide
band O2 sensor to see what the actual air-fuel ratio is. I've tuned systems that
were dangerously lean and others that were very rich that drove flawlessly.

> And piggy back controllers like Tweecer are also solutions for these issues.

Please explain to me how a Tweecer can cure the reversion problem with a
mass air meter. The EEC-IV only operates on the signals from the mass
air meter. It doesn't know if those signals are generated by induction flow
or by the reversion flow. BTW, the Tweecer is not a piggy back controller like
AFM's PMS. Rather it's an editor. Even piggy back controllers like the PMS
won't cure the reversion problem if used in a mass air mode. AFM knows this
and lists the cruise RPM at which their cams will smooth out at.

> 500 HP from a normally aspirated 5 liter engine with street manners and high
> mileage will be quite the challenge.

What's your parts list look like for this build? Do you intend to stay with
a production block? If so, be aware we ran into main cap walk problems at 400
RWHP, even with the Sportsman block. This was a drag race Mustang which
experiences higher shock loads than a street car but we found it was directly
related to shift RPM. Assuming you are staying with a hydraulic roller, for
the RPM range you'll likely need, take a close look at Anderson Ford Motorsports
line of "hi-rev" cams. They have been tested and turn the RPM they advertise.
They don't publish their cams specs but I can provide them if you.

> I'd normally associate that power range for street engines with 20-40% more
> displacement, but couldn't come even close to delivering on the mileage if
> 20 mpg is the target.

Mike Drew reports he gets 18 MPG for the 526 HP 408C I put together for his
Pantera, better than the engine it replaced that made half the power. I could
probably get that to 19 MPG by leaning his cruise mixture but to get any better
(with that 500+ HP engine), it would really need taller gearing. The stock
overall gear ratio of Pantera is just too short, compared to say a 5.0L Mustang
with a T-5 OD ratio of 0.68 and a 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 final drive ratio, to get
really good gas mileage.

Dan Jones