Dave I moved your Post to it's own Topic, I hope that doesn't create any confusion...George
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi George, I have been a POCA member for a few years but have only recently lurked on this forum. I have a car that is mostly completed and have considered motor combinations for a long time. I have learned more from your posts about Fords in a couple of weeks that in the past several years. You provide an incredible service to the club. I would appreciate your opinion on the following: My dream is to have a smooth running street motor that (hate to admit this) I could say is 427 ci (or close) maybe 4.125 x 4.00. I would like over 400hp, but I would sacrifice power for driveability. I am commited to the new Edelbrock 351C 2V heads which I have in hand, and the Dart 9.2 aluminum block (already have very expensive exhaust that I want to fit properly), and planned on the TWM efi. (might have to settle for the new intake that matches the heads with carb for the time being). Anyway do you think these heads will work at all with that much motor, and can a 4.00 stroke work in a 9.2 block without the pin/ring problems? Would it be smarter to limit the stroke to 3.85, or what about a 3.5 stroke and 4.125 bore? Would I be smarter to just build the thing to 351ci? Katrina has halted the project, but I am moving forward with buying the pieces and parts and would much appreciate your input. Thanks for all you do, Dave Ferrato
Dave, Welcome to the DTBB!
your kind words are appreciated, thank you. I'm sorry to read that Katrina impacted your life, for that you have my wishes for your continued recovery from the devastation.
My first thought is a fuel injected all alloy 427 Clevor sounds pretty BITCHEN! Way to go Dave, I'm sure there are many owners that would love to have the same motor in their engine bay.
The Eelbrock heads are so new, I just don't know what their capabilities are out of the box. I've yet to read any feedback from an owner running those heads. The flow figures certainly aren't as good as those of the Australian AFD / CHI 2V heads. In general, Edelbrock heads for any motor have a reputation for not being the top heads out of the box, but head porters are normally capable of porting & extracting much more performance from them. Your performance goals seem modest enough that I'm sure one way or the other, out of the box or ported, the heads will be capable of making a good compliment to your motor.
Don't be self conscious about wanting that magic 7 liter displacment. Who wouldn't?! From what I read & hear from other owners, you are not alone. The issues with stroker motors in a Cleveland or Windsor package tend to boil down to rod length to stroke ratio (R/S ratio) and the wrist pin intersecting the oil ring groove, as you have alluded to. The piston is pulled pretty far out of the hole at BDC, but I'm not aware of any kits where that has become an achilles heel.
The R/S ratio issue is a non issue according to some very very highly respected engine builders. There are others however that believe it is important. So there are skilled practioners on both sides of the issue, all with mechanical engineering degrees. In a conversation with a well respected engine builder a while back, he kindly put it this way: the R/S ratio is an issue, but not the most important one, there are other issues that supercede it, it is not given the importance in regards to high rpm race engines it once was. With the advent of inexpensive Chinese stroker cranks the industry has blown the past rules regarding R/S ratio out of the water.
One example of this is the new Z06 Corvette motor. It's 427 cubic inches, with a 4.125" bore & 4.00" stroke. The SBC motor has a shorter deck height than the Cleveland motor. I haven't read how long the rods are in that motor, but I feel safe in writing the R/S ratio of that motor must be less than 1.5:1, yet that motor has a 7000 rpm red line (if my memory is correct).
I know of a fellow Pantera owner who has hired a very big name engine builder to build his 4" stroker motor, and this builder is going with a 6.2" rod because he comes from the school that R/S ratio is important. When I built solid lifter Cleveland engines, I always stuffed 6" rods in them because the engines seemed to run better above 6000 rpm. Small block Chevy guys did the same thing. I had it drilled into my head that the R/S ratio was important. Members of the camp that place more importance on the R/S ratio normally want a minimum ratio of 1.55:1.
The other side of the coin is that when the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove, the motor burns oil. Some people don't mind dumping a quart of oil in their crankcase every so often, some don't drive their cars very often or for long distances, these folks don't think oil burning is an issue to sweat over. Speaking solely for myself, if I built an expensive high performance street motor, the last thing I want to see it doing is burning oil. Additionally, I drive my Pantera long distances, I don't want to have to tote along several quarts of oil on my trips.
For a reliable, smooth running street motor as you have described, I would place more importance on the location of the wrist pin, than I would the R/S ratio. The normal 4.00" stroker kit for a 9.2" deck height block and pistons with Cleveland valve notches includes a 6" long rod. The R/S ratio of these kits is 1.5:1, and the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove. The 3.85" stroker kits have the same length rod, the crank throw is only 0.075" shorter, yet the wrist pin misses the oil ring groove. So it would seem your choices are to either build a 427 cubic inch motor and tolerate oil burning, or build a 411 cubic inch motor and avoid oil burning.
But I have a twist for you. Spend the extra money for a set of custom sized rods, and order them in a length of 5.925". Use them with a 4" stroke crank. You'll be able to use a piston with the same compression height as the 3.85" stroker kit, therefore the wrist pin will miss the oil ring groove. The R/S ratio of this combination will be 1.48:1, which I bet is better than the Z06 Corvette motor, it is the same as the R/S ratio of the production 400 cubic inch small block Chevy, which had a 3.75" stroke crank. This should be acceptable for a street motor with a red line of 6000 rpm to 6500 rpm.
Before you think that's a brilliant solution, price the rods, but don't throw any bricks at me, OK? lol................
Your friend on the DTBB
your kind words are appreciated, thank you. I'm sorry to read that Katrina impacted your life, for that you have my wishes for your continued recovery from the devastation.
My first thought is a fuel injected all alloy 427 Clevor sounds pretty BITCHEN! Way to go Dave, I'm sure there are many owners that would love to have the same motor in their engine bay.
The Eelbrock heads are so new, I just don't know what their capabilities are out of the box. I've yet to read any feedback from an owner running those heads. The flow figures certainly aren't as good as those of the Australian AFD / CHI 2V heads. In general, Edelbrock heads for any motor have a reputation for not being the top heads out of the box, but head porters are normally capable of porting & extracting much more performance from them. Your performance goals seem modest enough that I'm sure one way or the other, out of the box or ported, the heads will be capable of making a good compliment to your motor.
Don't be self conscious about wanting that magic 7 liter displacment. Who wouldn't?! From what I read & hear from other owners, you are not alone. The issues with stroker motors in a Cleveland or Windsor package tend to boil down to rod length to stroke ratio (R/S ratio) and the wrist pin intersecting the oil ring groove, as you have alluded to. The piston is pulled pretty far out of the hole at BDC, but I'm not aware of any kits where that has become an achilles heel.
The R/S ratio issue is a non issue according to some very very highly respected engine builders. There are others however that believe it is important. So there are skilled practioners on both sides of the issue, all with mechanical engineering degrees. In a conversation with a well respected engine builder a while back, he kindly put it this way: the R/S ratio is an issue, but not the most important one, there are other issues that supercede it, it is not given the importance in regards to high rpm race engines it once was. With the advent of inexpensive Chinese stroker cranks the industry has blown the past rules regarding R/S ratio out of the water.
One example of this is the new Z06 Corvette motor. It's 427 cubic inches, with a 4.125" bore & 4.00" stroke. The SBC motor has a shorter deck height than the Cleveland motor. I haven't read how long the rods are in that motor, but I feel safe in writing the R/S ratio of that motor must be less than 1.5:1, yet that motor has a 7000 rpm red line (if my memory is correct).
I know of a fellow Pantera owner who has hired a very big name engine builder to build his 4" stroker motor, and this builder is going with a 6.2" rod because he comes from the school that R/S ratio is important. When I built solid lifter Cleveland engines, I always stuffed 6" rods in them because the engines seemed to run better above 6000 rpm. Small block Chevy guys did the same thing. I had it drilled into my head that the R/S ratio was important. Members of the camp that place more importance on the R/S ratio normally want a minimum ratio of 1.55:1.
The other side of the coin is that when the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove, the motor burns oil. Some people don't mind dumping a quart of oil in their crankcase every so often, some don't drive their cars very often or for long distances, these folks don't think oil burning is an issue to sweat over. Speaking solely for myself, if I built an expensive high performance street motor, the last thing I want to see it doing is burning oil. Additionally, I drive my Pantera long distances, I don't want to have to tote along several quarts of oil on my trips.
For a reliable, smooth running street motor as you have described, I would place more importance on the location of the wrist pin, than I would the R/S ratio. The normal 4.00" stroker kit for a 9.2" deck height block and pistons with Cleveland valve notches includes a 6" long rod. The R/S ratio of these kits is 1.5:1, and the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove. The 3.85" stroker kits have the same length rod, the crank throw is only 0.075" shorter, yet the wrist pin misses the oil ring groove. So it would seem your choices are to either build a 427 cubic inch motor and tolerate oil burning, or build a 411 cubic inch motor and avoid oil burning.
But I have a twist for you. Spend the extra money for a set of custom sized rods, and order them in a length of 5.925". Use them with a 4" stroke crank. You'll be able to use a piston with the same compression height as the 3.85" stroker kit, therefore the wrist pin will miss the oil ring groove. The R/S ratio of this combination will be 1.48:1, which I bet is better than the Z06 Corvette motor, it is the same as the R/S ratio of the production 400 cubic inch small block Chevy, which had a 3.75" stroke crank. This should be acceptable for a street motor with a red line of 6000 rpm to 6500 rpm.
Before you think that's a brilliant solution, price the rods, but don't throw any bricks at me, OK? lol................
Your friend on the DTBB
Attachments
Images (1)
By the way Dave, is that you on the vintage motorcycle in your avatar?
Looks like a BSA single, but its too dark to be sure.
I learned to turn wrenches as a young lad on Triumphs. I've ridden bikes my whole life.
Your friend on the DTBB
Looks like a BSA single, but its too dark to be sure.
I learned to turn wrenches as a young lad on Triumphs. I've ridden bikes my whole life.
Your friend on the DTBB
Thanks so much George for the quick reply. Sorry if I posted in the wrong place. First time. Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke. At least now I feel like I can go ahead and order the block at 4.125 bore instead of 4.00. Just checked the 06 GM parts catalog and all your info on the LS7 engine is correct. My primary mechanical vice is old British motorcycles. The picture is from an AHRMA race last year where I competed in pre 1940 GP class where at 55 I am usually the youngest in the class. Oldest is Al Knapp at 83 who I have no chance of ever beating. The bikeis a 1936 Norton 490cc International factory race bike. I have also Vincents,Triumphs and BSAs. Thanks again. I will keep you posted and I'm sure to take further advantage of your help. Dave Ferrato
Hi George, really enjoyed seeing your car in the club magazine. I thought I was the only one who combined the L rear bumper with Kirk's carbon fronts. I got one of the first sets he made but havent installed them yet. My block came in. I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?Again, love your car. Dave
Hi Dave, thanks for the compliment you gave 6018. Hope all is going well in regards to recovery from Katrina.
The subject of 351C intake manifolds is a very challenging subject to cover. The combinations of heads, port sizes, port heights, block choices and deck heights create several possible combinations of parts. There are intake manifolds available for just about every possible combination. There are also adapters available allowing intake manifolds to be employed in combinations they weren't designed for. Many (but not all) Clevor specific intake manifolds are machined for the 9.5" oem deck height Windsor block. However a competent machine shop can remove the proper amount of material from a Clevor intake manifold and make it compatible with blocks having a 9.2" deck height.
Since you are interested in individual runner (IR) fuel injection (FI), I shall limit my thoughts to those intake manifolds. I'm not aware of any IR intake manifolds manufactured for 351C 2V heads mounted on a 9.2" deck 351W block. However, you have a couple of good alternatives.
The ports, intake manifold bolts, etc of the 351W heads align very closely with those of the 351C 2V heads, the Windsor ports are just a bit smaller. So an IR manifold designed for a 351W could be adapted for your application. The manifold would have to be machined for the 9.2" deck height of your block and 8 of the intake bolt holes (which are all verticle in the Windsor) must be drilled to mate with the non-verticle bolt holes in the cleveland head. Finally the coolant pasages in the Edelbrock heads would require plugging & drilling for the Windsor style coolant passages. The advantage in proceeding in this direction is that you would have at your disposal the Windsor style thermostat housing cast into the Windsor intake manifold. I think you will find that the manifolds sold by TWM are designed for 351W motors.
A second route to take would be to employ two of the 4 runner IR style manifolds (or 4 butterfly throttle bodies) that bolt directly to the heads with no valley cover joining the two sides. These manifolds require the engine builder to fabricate a simple sheet metal cover for the lifter valley. Hilborn manufactures such 4 butterfly IR throttle bodies. PI Motorsports sells a complete IR FI system using the Hilborn throttle bodies. I'm only guessing, but I would assume Hilborn manufactures a 4 butterfly throttle body for 351C 4V ports & 351W ports, so again you would end up employing parts designed for a Windsor head. A thermostat housing adapter, available from several sources, would have to be employed in this application.
take care
your friend on the DTBB
The subject of 351C intake manifolds is a very challenging subject to cover. The combinations of heads, port sizes, port heights, block choices and deck heights create several possible combinations of parts. There are intake manifolds available for just about every possible combination. There are also adapters available allowing intake manifolds to be employed in combinations they weren't designed for. Many (but not all) Clevor specific intake manifolds are machined for the 9.5" oem deck height Windsor block. However a competent machine shop can remove the proper amount of material from a Clevor intake manifold and make it compatible with blocks having a 9.2" deck height.
Since you are interested in individual runner (IR) fuel injection (FI), I shall limit my thoughts to those intake manifolds. I'm not aware of any IR intake manifolds manufactured for 351C 2V heads mounted on a 9.2" deck 351W block. However, you have a couple of good alternatives.
The ports, intake manifold bolts, etc of the 351W heads align very closely with those of the 351C 2V heads, the Windsor ports are just a bit smaller. So an IR manifold designed for a 351W could be adapted for your application. The manifold would have to be machined for the 9.2" deck height of your block and 8 of the intake bolt holes (which are all verticle in the Windsor) must be drilled to mate with the non-verticle bolt holes in the cleveland head. Finally the coolant pasages in the Edelbrock heads would require plugging & drilling for the Windsor style coolant passages. The advantage in proceeding in this direction is that you would have at your disposal the Windsor style thermostat housing cast into the Windsor intake manifold. I think you will find that the manifolds sold by TWM are designed for 351W motors.
A second route to take would be to employ two of the 4 runner IR style manifolds (or 4 butterfly throttle bodies) that bolt directly to the heads with no valley cover joining the two sides. These manifolds require the engine builder to fabricate a simple sheet metal cover for the lifter valley. Hilborn manufactures such 4 butterfly IR throttle bodies. PI Motorsports sells a complete IR FI system using the Hilborn throttle bodies. I'm only guessing, but I would assume Hilborn manufactures a 4 butterfly throttle body for 351C 4V ports & 351W ports, so again you would end up employing parts designed for a Windsor head. A thermostat housing adapter, available from several sources, would have to be employed in this application.
take care
your friend on the DTBB
A 4.0" stroke will work fine for your application though the 3.85" stroke
will be more conservative. If you got the 9.5" deck version of the block,
you could go with as long a stroke as 4.1". The Edelbrock heads will work
but are restrictive on a healthy 351 and very restrictive on a big inch
stroker. On my 407 cube motor, the Edelbrock heads are down 75 to 100 HP
to my C302B heads according to my Dynomation simulation program. 400 HP
would be a no brainer, though. A friend's 418 dyno'd at 556 HP at 5800 RPM
and was very driveable.
> Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all
> probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke.
You needn't go with custom rod lengths. There are many sizes available
off-the-shelf these days including 6", 6.125", and 6.2".
> I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will
> fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of
> what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?
You will need to plug the Cleveland cooling passage in the head and open
a new one for the Windsor coolant routing. The Ford Motorsport heads
like the C302B's were drilled for both and came with instructions that
should work on the Edelbrock heads but I would verify that with Edelbrock
first. You could do as George suggests and mill, drill, and port match a
Windsor intake but there is a better way. Independent runner intakes for
9.2" deck blocks with 2V heads are available from Redline in Australia:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album08
Dave Wharren is running one in a GT40 replica. They don't have the
Windsor waterneck for the thermostat but that is no big deal. You can
run an external thermostat housing. PME makes a remote thermostats that
bolts to Windsor blocks and positions the thermostat horizontally:
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/
Click on thermostat housing.
I'm doing something similar to what you are doing and have the same issue.
In my case (C302B high port heads on a 9.2" Fontana block), intakes with
waternecks are available but my engine builder prefers to take the coolant
out the front of the heads so I went with the PME housing.
Dan Jones
will be more conservative. If you got the 9.5" deck version of the block,
you could go with as long a stroke as 4.1". The Edelbrock heads will work
but are restrictive on a healthy 351 and very restrictive on a big inch
stroker. On my 407 cube motor, the Edelbrock heads are down 75 to 100 HP
to my C302B heads according to my Dynomation simulation program. 400 HP
would be a no brainer, though. A friend's 418 dyno'd at 556 HP at 5800 RPM
and was very driveable.
> Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all
> probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke.
You needn't go with custom rod lengths. There are many sizes available
off-the-shelf these days including 6", 6.125", and 6.2".
> I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will
> fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of
> what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?
You will need to plug the Cleveland cooling passage in the head and open
a new one for the Windsor coolant routing. The Ford Motorsport heads
like the C302B's were drilled for both and came with instructions that
should work on the Edelbrock heads but I would verify that with Edelbrock
first. You could do as George suggests and mill, drill, and port match a
Windsor intake but there is a better way. Independent runner intakes for
9.2" deck blocks with 2V heads are available from Redline in Australia:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album08
Dave Wharren is running one in a GT40 replica. They don't have the
Windsor waterneck for the thermostat but that is no big deal. You can
run an external thermostat housing. PME makes a remote thermostats that
bolts to Windsor blocks and positions the thermostat horizontally:
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/
Click on thermostat housing.
I'm doing something similar to what you are doing and have the same issue.
In my case (C302B high port heads on a 9.2" Fontana block), intakes with
waternecks are available but my engine builder prefers to take the coolant
out the front of the heads so I went with the PME housing.
Dan Jones
Dan, how do these strokes look for durabilaty with the available blocks. My XE block tested the same thickness as my D2AE-CA block.
We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
Regarding the Redline manifold, I considered it & shrugged it off. My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be modified to mate with the Windsor block, and you are still left with having to use a thermostat housing adapter. I figured a machined Windsor manifold would result in an end product better matched to the application. If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
your friend on the DTBB
your friend on the DTBB
Attachments
Images (1)
> We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
What do you base that upon? Dave McLain used a standard 351C block for his
Engine Master's entry with 4" stroke and 6" rod. He said it worked out
just fine and I know of several similar street engines running with no
problems. A local Pantera owner is also doing a 4" stroker 351C. A friend
runs a 4.1" stroke with 6.125" rod in a 9.5" deck block, also with no
problems. 3.85" is conservative but it depends upon the RPM you plan to
turn. My Fontana uses a 3.85" stroke but my back-up motor will likely be
a 4" stroke.
Dan Jones
What do you base that upon? Dave McLain used a standard 351C block for his
Engine Master's entry with 4" stroke and 6" rod. He said it worked out
just fine and I know of several similar street engines running with no
problems. A local Pantera owner is also doing a 4" stroker 351C. A friend
runs a 4.1" stroke with 6.125" rod in a 9.5" deck block, also with no
problems. 3.85" is conservative but it depends upon the RPM you plan to
turn. My Fontana uses a 3.85" stroke but my back-up motor will likely be
a 4" stroke.
Dan Jones
> My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be
> modified to mate with the Windsor block
True. I forgot about that issue. I have an intake I modified that way.
It's pretty easy to do.
> If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
If it were my choice, I would have picked cylinder heads for which the
proper intake is available :-) Actually, that's what I did, though I
still used the remote thermostat housing. BTW, one of the Windsor Pantera
guys talked me into the remote thermostat housing as he had trouble with the
Windsor waterneck clearing the firewall.
Dan Jones
> modified to mate with the Windsor block
True. I forgot about that issue. I have an intake I modified that way.
It's pretty easy to do.
> If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
If it were my choice, I would have picked cylinder heads for which the
proper intake is available :-) Actually, that's what I did, though I
still used the remote thermostat housing. BTW, one of the Windsor Pantera
guys talked me into the remote thermostat housing as he had trouble with the
Windsor waterneck clearing the firewall.
Dan Jones
WOW! George, Dan and Doug, thanks so much for your input. A lot to research and think about. The TWM interest was because it looked like the system might fit under the engine cover and I liked the fuel rail locations. I do know Duane Hilborn and I will get in touch with him also. Thanks again. I will look into these alternatives and be back for more advice. Dave Ferrato
quote:If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
George, they come in mechanical too so you don't have to use a computer to get them to work. I bet they ain't any harder to tune than webers.
quote:Originally posted by george pence:
Regarding the Redline manifold, I considered it & shrugged it off. My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be modified to mate with the Windsor block, and you are still left with having to use a thermostat housing adapter. I figured a machined Windsor manifold would result in an end product better matched to the application. If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
your friend on the DTBB
George, Is this the picture of the Hilborn or the Redline setup?
Redline isn't that forthcoming with technical information about thier setup. I asked twice, that's it, I'm not going to ask them s*** anymore. Basically what they are saying is that here is the assembled kit, $6000 please.
They sell it as a pre-assembled unit.
They were supposed to get back to me with a detailed list of the components and never did.
I think they are being purposely evasive. I can't believe that they are unknowledgeable about the setup but that is certainly a possibilaty.
They supply it with a big port weber ida manifold. I suppose it is thier manifold. They didn't specify.
I would need to transfer everything over to my small port Hall IDA manifold. I'm not sure what that would intale and if it is completely possible.
That is why I asked for more specific information about it.
I would also point out that this is how they were about the 48 ida setup. That's why I didn't buy that from them too.
I simply have never been a fan of Redline and at this point probably never will.
As far as the blocks go Dan, this is coming from my builder now not me, both were measured at .170 to .180 bore thickness and .100 thrust thickness sonically.
I just wanted to know who broke what and you have answered that for me. TY.
If I build a 427, looks like I gotta wait for the "new block".
I don't think I will go with that many cubes though. 48mm webers are restrictive for those cubes. They really should be 58mm and I'm not commiting to reinvent the wheel, again. Been there done that.
George is Nora bending over looking at your Webers?
Doug,
that's the Hillborn set up, that pic is from PI Motorsports' web site.
I'm not familiar with the Red Line system you refer to, but I would assume they employ throttle bodies mounted on an IR manifold. The Hillborn system is a one piece affair, a much nicer design in my not so humble opinion.
Nora is not bending over looking at Webers, she's bending over so you can look at her Wahoos.
LOL ..............................
your friend on the DTBB
that's the Hillborn set up, that pic is from PI Motorsports' web site.
I'm not familiar with the Red Line system you refer to, but I would assume they employ throttle bodies mounted on an IR manifold. The Hillborn system is a one piece affair, a much nicer design in my not so humble opinion.
Nora is not bending over looking at Webers, she's bending over so you can look at her Wahoos.
LOL ..............................
your friend on the DTBB
Well she's welcome to jiggle my Webers anytime. I wonder if I can jiggle her wahoos?
George,
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
quote:Originally posted by accobra:
George,
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
Red Line's system does mount on a Weber manifold. They won't sell it seperately at this point. I think they quoted me $4995 with the manifold. Maybe it was $5395? No matter, it's a no go for me.
They wouldn't explain or supply installation instructions any further without a purchase of the system.
Doug,
Yea I would imagine if they did exclude the manifold they would deduct a 100.00 and I'm not sure that we would like their set up .. to spend that kind of money I want to know exactly what I'm getting. I'm gonna give it a shot and I'll let you know what they tell me. I gonna tell them I have webbers and want to convert to EFI. even a pic would do me justice.
Yea I would imagine if they did exclude the manifold they would deduct a 100.00 and I'm not sure that we would like their set up .. to spend that kind of money I want to know exactly what I'm getting. I'm gonna give it a shot and I'll let you know what they tell me. I gonna tell them I have webbers and want to convert to EFI. even a pic would do me justice.
Thanks. They were very uncooperative or unknowledgeable, take your pick.
My situation is even more precarious then yours. I have a small port intake to match the A3 heads.
They only have one size availble for thier setup.
I have to assume that it is for the big ports.
I would also want ot see the installation instructions and especially the "tuning" section first before I bought it (if you know what I mean).
I doubt very much that this is a "plug and play" setup regardless of what they say.
IR setups tend to be tempermental regardless of FI or carbs. It's the nature of the beast.
My situation is even more precarious then yours. I have a small port intake to match the A3 heads.
They only have one size availble for thier setup.
I have to assume that it is for the big ports.
I would also want ot see the installation instructions and especially the "tuning" section first before I bought it (if you know what I mean).
I doubt very much that this is a "plug and play" setup regardless of what they say.
IR setups tend to be tempermental regardless of FI or carbs. It's the nature of the beast.
I am going to get in touch with Hilborn asap and try to get their tuning instructions for their system. Maybe that will shed some light. Or, perhaps PI has the instructions to share?
It sounds like some of you are getting serious about FI. It is worth mentioning to you guys that Dennis Quella at Pantera Performance was offering an IR FI setup specifically for the Pantera.
I was told that it runs like a factory set-up, "it runs like your Bronco does", was the quote.
It uses a Weber 48IDA manifold and FI castings that look like 48 IDA's.
If he still has them I would go with his setup rather then Hilborn or Redline personally. It is not a universal kit and is engineered just for the Pantera.
I was told that it runs like a factory set-up, "it runs like your Bronco does", was the quote.
It uses a Weber 48IDA manifold and FI castings that look like 48 IDA's.
If he still has them I would go with his setup rather then Hilborn or Redline personally. It is not a universal kit and is engineered just for the Pantera.
Traded some emails with Hilborn. Here is a little info. I will call them this week to dig deeper. Regards, Dave Ferrato
"Along with not needing a laptop, our ECU does not require a MAP, MAF or O2 sensor. It is commonly referred to as an "Alpha N" computer. How can it possibly work without all those sensors you ask? When tuned, the ECU uses a maximum wide open throttle setting to identify the part throttle settings using TPS, coolant temp, RPM and acceleration inputs. We may not be as exact as a laptop to tune system, but we have given access to fuel injection for those who do not want to buy a laptop and learn complicated fuel maps, spend big dollars to hire a professional tuner, or have been waiting in the wings for the technology that we currently offer."
"Along with not needing a laptop, our ECU does not require a MAP, MAF or O2 sensor. It is commonly referred to as an "Alpha N" computer. How can it possibly work without all those sensors you ask? When tuned, the ECU uses a maximum wide open throttle setting to identify the part throttle settings using TPS, coolant temp, RPM and acceleration inputs. We may not be as exact as a laptop to tune system, but we have given access to fuel injection for those who do not want to buy a laptop and learn complicated fuel maps, spend big dollars to hire a professional tuner, or have been waiting in the wings for the technology that we currently offer."
I forgot about Dennis' system, and I believe it can be had in a configuration that fits under the engine cover/deck lid.
A computer can control an "Alpha N" configuration as well. That mostly means it replaces MAP sensor with TPS. I have been played with the lasp top tuning a little and have more to do. It is not very hard and it a lot of fun! Amazing what you have control over.
Gary
Gary
Also you guys should be aware that Weber does make an EFI that looks just exactly like it's carbs. Hilborn also make full mechanical fuel injection systems for the Cleveland that you don't have to have NO computer for. You just need to fiddle with it like you do the Webbers and it will never be tame on street machines. So if you are real old school and hate new fangled computer crap, like me, you can get the good old mechanical system brand spanking new out of the box. If I had half the money I would get that, but it is more just a pipe dream for guys like me. Hilborns and bundle of snakes. What else could anyone want????
quote:Originally posted by #5972:
I forgot about Dennis' system, and I believe it can be had in a configuration that fits under the engine cover/deck lid.
Dave, don't forget your cylinder heads either. The PPC system is designed for 4V size ports.
Your friend on the DTBB
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
Also you guys should be aware that Weber does make an EFI that looks just exactly like it's carbs. Hilborn also make full mechanical fuel injection systems for the Cleveland that you don't have to have NO computer for. You just need to fiddle with it like you do the Webbers and it will never be tame on street machines. So if you are real old school and hate new fangled computer crap, like me, you can get the good old mechanical system brand spanking new out of the box. If I had half the money I would get that, but it is more just a pipe dream for guys like me. Hilborns and bundle of snakes. What else could anyone want????
Detom. That is the drawback to EFI. It takes tallent to hide the wires!
Ok so we have
Redline
Hillborn
TWM Induction .. afriend told me to look at their website
WHo else .. do I see a group purchase ??
Ron
Redline
Hillborn
TWM Induction .. afriend told me to look at their website
WHo else .. do I see a group purchase ??
Ron
quote:Detom. That is the drawback to EFI. It takes tallent to hide the wires!
Yeah, unless you route them inside a stainless steel tube. Then they just look like another fuel line. All pretty and shiney.
First,congratulations George on your new role at PI. That's great news for all of us. As far as my Edelbrock heads you are right. I have sort of "backed" into this engine build trying to utilize specific parts from some of my clients. I realize the heads may need porting or at least matching depending on which system I end up with. I will try to get some measurements from the respective intakes, but is seems like the Clevor direction will limit the choices.
> I realize the heads may need porting or at least matching depending on which
> system I end up with. I will try to get some measurements from the respective
> intakes, but is seems like the Clevor direction will limit the choices.
If you were to sell the Edelbrock heads, you could purchase Ford Motorsport
C302B, Brodix BF300, CHI, or AFD heads and use one of Kelly Coffield's
intakes. Not only would you get the proper itake manifold but you'd get
a better flowing and better matched head for your application. Kelly makes
the intakes for a variety of canted valve heads (4V, A3, B351, C302, etc.)
for Cleveland, Windsor, or Clevor blocks and you can get them with or without
a Windsor-style waterneck and rear seal. The intake has cast-in injector
bungs so you can run the low profile (and less expensive) throttle plates
that fit under the stock screen and decklid or the taller TWM style Weber
look-a-like throttle bodies with integral injector pockets. You can even
run 16 injectors if you want (small idle injectors in the manifold and larger
injectors in the TWM's).
I don't have his most recent pictures up but there are some pictures of
Kelly's handiwork at:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=3
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=4
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=2
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=1
Kelly is a Pantera owner who started this casting project because the proper
intakes for these head and block combinations were not available. He had
put together a group purchase on intake assemblies (intake manifold, throttle
bodies, linkage, air cleaners, etc.). IIRC, Kelly had 48, 50, and 55mm
throttle plates available. The larger throttle bodies are best for large
displacement engines and those with large intake valves.
Dan Jones
> system I end up with. I will try to get some measurements from the respective
> intakes, but is seems like the Clevor direction will limit the choices.
If you were to sell the Edelbrock heads, you could purchase Ford Motorsport
C302B, Brodix BF300, CHI, or AFD heads and use one of Kelly Coffield's
intakes. Not only would you get the proper itake manifold but you'd get
a better flowing and better matched head for your application. Kelly makes
the intakes for a variety of canted valve heads (4V, A3, B351, C302, etc.)
for Cleveland, Windsor, or Clevor blocks and you can get them with or without
a Windsor-style waterneck and rear seal. The intake has cast-in injector
bungs so you can run the low profile (and less expensive) throttle plates
that fit under the stock screen and decklid or the taller TWM style Weber
look-a-like throttle bodies with integral injector pockets. You can even
run 16 injectors if you want (small idle injectors in the manifold and larger
injectors in the TWM's).
I don't have his most recent pictures up but there are some pictures of
Kelly's handiwork at:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=3
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=4
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=2
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-irefi?page=1
Kelly is a Pantera owner who started this casting project because the proper
intakes for these head and block combinations were not available. He had
put together a group purchase on intake assemblies (intake manifold, throttle
bodies, linkage, air cleaners, etc.). IIRC, Kelly had 48, 50, and 55mm
throttle plates available. The larger throttle bodies are best for large
displacement engines and those with large intake valves.
Dan Jones
What are the controls this setup?
> What are the controls this setup?
The computer choice is up to the user. Dennis at PPC used to use the
Haltech but may have switched when Haltech pulled their U.S. distributor.
I forget what Kelly chose (FAST?). I suppose you could run a Megasquirt
or hacked GM if you wanted. I'm leaning towards Electromotive because I
want to blend speed density and Alpha-N control approaches and also want
spark timing control. Many of the aftermarket ECU's are speed-density or
Alpha-N. Speed-density (alone) does not work well on highly modified engines
that lose manifold vacuum upon any throttle opening. With independent runner
throttle bodies, once off idle, throttle position is a better indication of
load than a MAP sensor. This is because a small opening in the throttle
body will cause manifold vacuum to go to atmospheric. Beyond say 10-15%
throttle opening, there is little response to a MAP. Alpha-N is the way to
go with naturally-aspirated independent runner but it doesn't do much for
part load/part throttle fuel economy. That's where it's beneficial to blend
in the MAP. Mike Trusty has been running IR EFI for many years. It's been his
experience that MAP dependant ECU's don't handle IR systems (with or without
big cams) well. The MAP changes so rapidly, even with a mild cam, that at
just off throttle the MAP goes almost to atmosphere which makes the ECU think
the throttle is wide open even though the throttle position doesn't verify
that. Add in the hard to get rid of pulsations even with manifolded vacuum.
In his experience what works best is a system that can look at both throttle
position and MAP and allow you to give one or the other more authority in
different power ranges. I know some guys give throttle position all of the
authority. That works but doesn't do anything for part load/throttle economy.
Electromotive has a blend mode in their software which is a function that
allows you to blend the authority between the throttle position and MAP.
John Meaney (the guy behind most of the aftermarket EFI systems like FAST
and Big Stuff3) says his latest and greatest Big Stuff3 unit allows the user
to tailor the cell width for both rpm and load (MAP or TPS%) and that by
increasing the resolution you can get the sensitivity I'm after. Still not
sure if I buy that yet.
Dan Jones
The computer choice is up to the user. Dennis at PPC used to use the
Haltech but may have switched when Haltech pulled their U.S. distributor.
I forget what Kelly chose (FAST?). I suppose you could run a Megasquirt
or hacked GM if you wanted. I'm leaning towards Electromotive because I
want to blend speed density and Alpha-N control approaches and also want
spark timing control. Many of the aftermarket ECU's are speed-density or
Alpha-N. Speed-density (alone) does not work well on highly modified engines
that lose manifold vacuum upon any throttle opening. With independent runner
throttle bodies, once off idle, throttle position is a better indication of
load than a MAP sensor. This is because a small opening in the throttle
body will cause manifold vacuum to go to atmospheric. Beyond say 10-15%
throttle opening, there is little response to a MAP. Alpha-N is the way to
go with naturally-aspirated independent runner but it doesn't do much for
part load/part throttle fuel economy. That's where it's beneficial to blend
in the MAP. Mike Trusty has been running IR EFI for many years. It's been his
experience that MAP dependant ECU's don't handle IR systems (with or without
big cams) well. The MAP changes so rapidly, even with a mild cam, that at
just off throttle the MAP goes almost to atmosphere which makes the ECU think
the throttle is wide open even though the throttle position doesn't verify
that. Add in the hard to get rid of pulsations even with manifolded vacuum.
In his experience what works best is a system that can look at both throttle
position and MAP and allow you to give one or the other more authority in
different power ranges. I know some guys give throttle position all of the
authority. That works but doesn't do anything for part load/throttle economy.
Electromotive has a blend mode in their software which is a function that
allows you to blend the authority between the throttle position and MAP.
John Meaney (the guy behind most of the aftermarket EFI systems like FAST
and Big Stuff3) says his latest and greatest Big Stuff3 unit allows the user
to tailor the cell width for both rpm and load (MAP or TPS%) and that by
increasing the resolution you can get the sensitivity I'm after. Still not
sure if I buy that yet.
Dan Jones
Dan, how do the mechanical injectors work?? Would they be easier to install????
I'm actually glad that I got an answer like this from you Dan. I trust your analysis of the subject.
It emphasises to me exactly what I suspected. This is much too complicated for me.
I don't need to reinvent the wheel or write a multi-million dollar F1 engine management program considering the optimum performance under as many variables as I can identify.
I could deal with adjusting an air/fuel ratio for consistent power through the rpm range and probably optimize my spark curve.
Having a set of idle injectors in the manifold for economy, high volume injectors in the throttle bodies for maximum power and writing a program that enables engine function for both MAF and TPS isn't beyond me, I just have better things to do with my life.
My statement stands about the IR EFI systems, don't expect them to be plug and play.
If you have to have one, stay with the PPC.
I know how to deal with my dirty Webers. They are just a plain MS degree level.
I don't want to embark on a 14 year self financed fellowship doctorate for the EFI.
Thanks for sharing your information. I appreciate it.
It emphasises to me exactly what I suspected. This is much too complicated for me.
I don't need to reinvent the wheel or write a multi-million dollar F1 engine management program considering the optimum performance under as many variables as I can identify.
I could deal with adjusting an air/fuel ratio for consistent power through the rpm range and probably optimize my spark curve.
Having a set of idle injectors in the manifold for economy, high volume injectors in the throttle bodies for maximum power and writing a program that enables engine function for both MAF and TPS isn't beyond me, I just have better things to do with my life.
My statement stands about the IR EFI systems, don't expect them to be plug and play.
If you have to have one, stay with the PPC.
I know how to deal with my dirty Webers. They are just a plain MS degree level.
I don't want to embark on a 14 year self financed fellowship doctorate for the EFI.
Thanks for sharing your information. I appreciate it.
Doug my buddy. These are right up your alley. Check it out. You can have fuel injection without computer crap!!!
http://www.hilborninjection.com/category.asp?Id=99
http://www.hilborninjection.com/category.asp?Id=99
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
Doug my buddy. These are right up your alley. Check it out. You can have fuel injection without computer crap!!!
http://www.hilborninjection.com/category.asp?Id=99
TY for the help DT.
In my humble opinion the only thing that makes the Hilborn FI system streetable is the computer.
Of course it does depend upon what one calls streetable and may infact also depend upon what is is.
> Dan, how do the mechanical injectors work?
I assume you are referring to the constant flow mechanical injection systems
like the Hilborn and Kinsler set-ups used in drag racing and sprint cars.
They use a mechanical fuel pump to constantly supply fuel to the injectors
(nozzles) in direct proportion to the engine RPM. The fuel becomes
pressurized due to the restrictions provided by the fixed orifices of the
main bypass jet and the nozzles. A barrel valve is used for idle and the
part throttle. Not really recommended for street operation but there are
various ways to add bypasses and enrichment circuits. There are also timed
schemes like the Lucas mechanical timed injection used in Can Am.
> Would they be easier to install?
They are mechanically more complex to install but don't require an ECU but
have considerably more plumbing.
Dan Jones
I assume you are referring to the constant flow mechanical injection systems
like the Hilborn and Kinsler set-ups used in drag racing and sprint cars.
They use a mechanical fuel pump to constantly supply fuel to the injectors
(nozzles) in direct proportion to the engine RPM. The fuel becomes
pressurized due to the restrictions provided by the fixed orifices of the
main bypass jet and the nozzles. A barrel valve is used for idle and the
part throttle. Not really recommended for street operation but there are
various ways to add bypasses and enrichment circuits. There are also timed
schemes like the Lucas mechanical timed injection used in Can Am.
> Would they be easier to install?
They are mechanically more complex to install but don't require an ECU but
have considerably more plumbing.
Dan Jones
> Having a set of idle injectors in the manifold for economy, high volume
> injectors in the throttle bodies for maximum power and writing a program that
> enables engine function for both MAF and TPS isn't beyond me, I just have
> better things to do with my life.
IR EFI is no more difficult than throttle body injection or mass air SEFI
or any of the other approaches. You don't have to make it complicated but
the flexibility is there. Alpha-N is the simplest EFI approach and can be
used successfully on IR. Some of the ECU's even have a simulation program
built in. You enter your engine parameters and the program calculates a
basic fuel map for you.
> My statement stands about the IR EFI systems, don't expect them to be plug
> and play.
I say pretty much the same thing about carbs.
> If you have to have one, stay with the PPC.
If you think the PPC system is plug-and-play, think again.
Dan Jones
> injectors in the throttle bodies for maximum power and writing a program that
> enables engine function for both MAF and TPS isn't beyond me, I just have
> better things to do with my life.
IR EFI is no more difficult than throttle body injection or mass air SEFI
or any of the other approaches. You don't have to make it complicated but
the flexibility is there. Alpha-N is the simplest EFI approach and can be
used successfully on IR. Some of the ECU's even have a simulation program
built in. You enter your engine parameters and the program calculates a
basic fuel map for you.
> My statement stands about the IR EFI systems, don't expect them to be plug
> and play.
I say pretty much the same thing about carbs.
> If you have to have one, stay with the PPC.
If you think the PPC system is plug-and-play, think again.
Dan Jones
Thanks Dan. To sum it up I guess you can get the mechanical hilborns to work, just not real well. Like you would constantly have trouble starting the car and have to change plugs once a week and like that. I think I will stick with the stock holley carb for now. But maybe someday if I decide to make a full race Pantera.
I have no argument with anyones IR EFI system. That's mostly I suppose because I haven't done one yet.
I can state that as for me I wouldn't consider buying anyones system unless I can see the installation and tuning instructions first.
Perhaps there is no problem with them at all and it is the infinate tunabilaty that makes the tuning go on for infinity?
I didn't suggest to go with PPC's system because it is plug and play. I seriously doubt any of them are.
At least with a Weber 48IDA system one purchases the hardware and the tune from the builder. The tuning choices are not endless.
I would expect at least an IR EFI setup would come with substancial tech support.
I can state that as for me I wouldn't consider buying anyones system unless I can see the installation and tuning instructions first.
Perhaps there is no problem with them at all and it is the infinate tunabilaty that makes the tuning go on for infinity?
I didn't suggest to go with PPC's system because it is plug and play. I seriously doubt any of them are.
At least with a Weber 48IDA system one purchases the hardware and the tune from the builder. The tuning choices are not endless.
I would expect at least an IR EFI setup would come with substancial tech support.
Some of you guys seem to be trying to avoid the computer controlled FI. Is it because you are afraid it is too complicated? I realize that a lap top is a must but I must say that tuning one is not hard. In fact I think you will find it educational. I would not try to convince some one who really does not want to do it but it is not that hard.
One of the great advantages to computer controlled EFI is it can do so many things. For instance, it cuts fuel in deceleration to keep the engine from chugging in a slow down. You can change at how long it waits before it drops the fuel, what rpm it picks it back up. You have control. You can change what rpm the engine runs when cold, changes in fuel for warm up, changes in timing, changes in acceleration parameters, and on, and on, and on. Does this seem complicated? Not really. The manuals that come with most of these explain what the software does and how it handles each think fairly well. If you pick a base engine to start from you don't have to set all of this but if you find the engine a little rich in acceleration, pull out the laptop and change the number a bit. It really is a lot simpler then pulling a carb and changing the accelerator pump, drilling bleeds, feeds, emulsions, putting it back together and seeing where you are.
With a narrow band closed loop system, cruise and medium throttle will be controlled at 14.7. You pick a point where if you go beyond it goes to open loop. You generally don't want to make full throttle runs at 14.7 and most systems are set up to go open loop for heavy throttle usage so you can make it richer.
With a wide band loop you can control the mixture you want to run at any point. If you want to cruise down the highway at 15.5:1 just set it. If you want it to drop to 12.7 as soon as you get in the throttle, it's there!
I know some of you may be a little gun shy of the computer but the computer allows you to change the EXACT parameter you seek to change...and that is so cool!
My only problem is I had to order a new laptop battery. Otherwise I am going to need a long extension chord for the drive!
Gary
One of the great advantages to computer controlled EFI is it can do so many things. For instance, it cuts fuel in deceleration to keep the engine from chugging in a slow down. You can change at how long it waits before it drops the fuel, what rpm it picks it back up. You have control. You can change what rpm the engine runs when cold, changes in fuel for warm up, changes in timing, changes in acceleration parameters, and on, and on, and on. Does this seem complicated? Not really. The manuals that come with most of these explain what the software does and how it handles each think fairly well. If you pick a base engine to start from you don't have to set all of this but if you find the engine a little rich in acceleration, pull out the laptop and change the number a bit. It really is a lot simpler then pulling a carb and changing the accelerator pump, drilling bleeds, feeds, emulsions, putting it back together and seeing where you are.
With a narrow band closed loop system, cruise and medium throttle will be controlled at 14.7. You pick a point where if you go beyond it goes to open loop. You generally don't want to make full throttle runs at 14.7 and most systems are set up to go open loop for heavy throttle usage so you can make it richer.
With a wide band loop you can control the mixture you want to run at any point. If you want to cruise down the highway at 15.5:1 just set it. If you want it to drop to 12.7 as soon as you get in the throttle, it's there!
I know some of you may be a little gun shy of the computer but the computer allows you to change the EXACT parameter you seek to change...and that is so cool!
My only problem is I had to order a new laptop battery. Otherwise I am going to need a long extension chord for the drive!
Gary
In cars like a Mustang, carbureted cars produce in the range of 100hp more then EFI. twEECer included.
How long did it take to tune the system? 15 minutes, 15 days, 15 years? What...you mean it still isn't done?
Laptops are fun in cars. In fact I like to thow them out the car window, usually...but not always at speed. They break up better that way.
With the Webers, I just throw the fouled plugs at the Inglese Inductions poster on the wall.
How long did it take to tune the system? 15 minutes, 15 days, 15 years? What...you mean it still isn't done?
Laptops are fun in cars. In fact I like to thow them out the car window, usually...but not always at speed. They break up better that way.
With the Webers, I just throw the fouled plugs at the Inglese Inductions poster on the wall.
I tuned for about 30 min and got it pretty drivable. I can turn the key and it starts with no interventiona nd runs pretty good. I expect it will take me about an hour to get most things where I want it but I want to get the lap top battery first. Most of it can be done before I ever drive it. The final tuning will be done while driving. But the nice thing is once set, it's set. If you have a fat spot or a flat spot that's bugging you, you just pull out the laptop and change it.
And no I don't buy the 100hp difference.
Gary
And no I don't buy the 100hp difference.
Gary
> In cars like a Mustang, carbureted cars produce in the range of 100hp more
> then EFI. twEECer included.
That's simply not true. My buddy Marc runs the fastest hydraulic roller
cammed 5.0L-based Mustang in the country. It's fuel injected and last year
it made right at 550 HP at the rear wheels on the dynojet. Doesn't take
long at all to get it in tune with the wide band 02. I spent more time
doing this weekend tuning a 428CJ with carb in a Cobra replica. The wide
band 02 makes it so easy to tune it feels like cheating but it still took
4 hours to get it ready for the dyno.
In cases where a carb can pick up 100 HP in a Mustang, the guy did not have
the EFI system spec'd out properly. You have to run the proper manifold
runner length for the RPM range you're try to tune to and make sure the rest
of the bits can support the fuel and air flow.
Dan Jones
> then EFI. twEECer included.
That's simply not true. My buddy Marc runs the fastest hydraulic roller
cammed 5.0L-based Mustang in the country. It's fuel injected and last year
it made right at 550 HP at the rear wheels on the dynojet. Doesn't take
long at all to get it in tune with the wide band 02. I spent more time
doing this weekend tuning a 428CJ with carb in a Cobra replica. The wide
band 02 makes it so easy to tune it feels like cheating but it still took
4 hours to get it ready for the dyno.
In cases where a carb can pick up 100 HP in a Mustang, the guy did not have
the EFI system spec'd out properly. You have to run the proper manifold
runner length for the RPM range you're try to tune to and make sure the rest
of the bits can support the fuel and air flow.
Dan Jones
Now wait a minute here. Where is the O2 sensor on a Pantera??? Where does theknock sensor plug in. I can't remember where the crankposition sensor is either. It IS a little more complicated and yeah there are more components to break or go bad. No I will gladly conceed the point that it would run tons better with EFI. But mechanical FI does sound simpler to me. Set theidle at 2000 rpm. The throtle becomes an on/off switch pretty much. Runs terrible, hardly ever starts, but once you get it rolling, runs like a striped ass ape. So as long as you don't use it for daily driving, good old mechanical fuelie is tuff to beat.
Looks like we have the beings on another grudge match race huh?
I want to add my voice to those who like fuel injection.
There are 3 types right? Speed Density, Alpha-N and Mass Air Flow. (I'm ignoring mechanical FI)
One of the last hot rod projects I was involved in, quite some time ago now, was the retro-fit of a Ford EEC-IV fuel injection system into a classic Mustang. This was before kits to do so were readily available, I helped the owner "roll his own" using many parts salvaged form the used auto parts emporium (wrecking yard). The system was literally plug and play. We installed the parts, engineered the wiring, installed & hooked up sensors, turned the key and the car immediately started and ran like a car with fuel injection, where as the last time the car had ran, it ran like a car with a carburetor. What a difference! This experience made me a believer.
The Alpha-N boxes and Speed Density boxes that were sold with many aftermarket fuel injection systems in earler times I believe were poorly engineered, too primitive, or possibly they just didn't consider who the end user was, what ever the case, many people purchased them and could never get them tuned properly so they gave up and went away with a bad attitude regarding fuel injection. I believe the latest generation of boxes on the market are much better in that respect. I have seen in ad copy from each manufacturer where great attempts have been made to make their systems more "plug and play", i.e. more user friendly for the less than technically astute end users.
If you want easy to install fuel injection my recommendation is a Mass Air Flow system using Ford EEC-IV or EEC-V electronics. Of course, those folks wanting the independent runner look, must resort to Alpha-N or Speed Density controls.
Whether we are talking carburetors or fuel injection, many people including myself have found aftermarket independent runner systems to be "fussy". However, I have worked on & been around motorcycles for over 4 decades that almost always use independent runner intakes, whether they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 cylinders, and they have ALWAYS run perfectly BITCHEN from idle to very high red lines. In all weather, all year 'round, and over a wide range of altitudes, they start & pull with out a hitch throughout their power bands. So indepenent runner systems can work, IF they are engineered properly.
And they certainly look bitchen!
your friend on the DTBB
There are 3 types right? Speed Density, Alpha-N and Mass Air Flow. (I'm ignoring mechanical FI)
One of the last hot rod projects I was involved in, quite some time ago now, was the retro-fit of a Ford EEC-IV fuel injection system into a classic Mustang. This was before kits to do so were readily available, I helped the owner "roll his own" using many parts salvaged form the used auto parts emporium (wrecking yard). The system was literally plug and play. We installed the parts, engineered the wiring, installed & hooked up sensors, turned the key and the car immediately started and ran like a car with fuel injection, where as the last time the car had ran, it ran like a car with a carburetor. What a difference! This experience made me a believer.
The Alpha-N boxes and Speed Density boxes that were sold with many aftermarket fuel injection systems in earler times I believe were poorly engineered, too primitive, or possibly they just didn't consider who the end user was, what ever the case, many people purchased them and could never get them tuned properly so they gave up and went away with a bad attitude regarding fuel injection. I believe the latest generation of boxes on the market are much better in that respect. I have seen in ad copy from each manufacturer where great attempts have been made to make their systems more "plug and play", i.e. more user friendly for the less than technically astute end users.
If you want easy to install fuel injection my recommendation is a Mass Air Flow system using Ford EEC-IV or EEC-V electronics. Of course, those folks wanting the independent runner look, must resort to Alpha-N or Speed Density controls.
Whether we are talking carburetors or fuel injection, many people including myself have found aftermarket independent runner systems to be "fussy". However, I have worked on & been around motorcycles for over 4 decades that almost always use independent runner intakes, whether they have 1, 2, 3 or 4 cylinders, and they have ALWAYS run perfectly BITCHEN from idle to very high red lines. In all weather, all year 'round, and over a wide range of altitudes, they start & pull with out a hitch throughout their power bands. So indepenent runner systems can work, IF they are engineered properly.
And they certainly look bitchen!
your friend on the DTBB
quote:Originally posted by george pence:
The Alpha-N boxes and Speed Density boxes that were sold with many aftermarket fuel injection systems in earler times I believe were poorly engineered, too primitive, or possibly they just didn't consider who the end user was, what ever the case, many people purchased them and could never get them tuned properly so they gave up and went away with a bad attitude regarding fuel injection. I believe the latest generation of boxes on the market are much better in that respect. I have seen in ad copy from each manufacturer where great attempts have been made to make their systems more "plug and play", i.e. more user friendly for the less than technically astute end users.
DTBB
Depending on the software many if not most can switch between Speed Density and Alpha-N and can even run different modes at different throttle or other sensor positions.
quote:(I'm ignoring mechanical FI)
I noticed that.
George, I don't think that it is necessarily the look that is the main factor to pick an IR system.
I think that is the abilaty to tune each cylinder as indepently as necessary for maximum performance.
Weber carbs theoretically can be tuned to each runner. Mine are not.
It is the promiss of computerized IR EFI to be able to do this.
The Ford system works well for replacing a single Holley 4v. It has a common plenum. That is what it was designed for.
How much more complex is a v8 with an IR setup? Isn't it something like 8 to the power of 8?
Add to that a system with no oxygen sensor and a mathamatical compromise between TPS and MAF.
A compromise that most likely will have to vary according to things like air temp, humidity, altitude, engine load and fuel quality, for each cylinder.
I think that although there is a basic script available to fall back upon, the variables for a car that is expected to be comfortably street driven and perform like an Indy car are too great.
To say it is going to be "tempermental" may be an understatement, which is all that I was ever trying to say to begin with.
Webers certainly are tempermental. I do not deny that.
I didn't intend to get into a technical discussion with people who obviously have vested interest in the marketing of these systems.
Not to doubt anyone or be argumentative, but I presume that those of you speak from practice and not theory and have used all of the formentioned systems?
As I said, I don't have the time and interest anymore (I'm really getting old and cranky) to do the testing and development. When it's plug and play, call me.
I think that is the abilaty to tune each cylinder as indepently as necessary for maximum performance.
Weber carbs theoretically can be tuned to each runner. Mine are not.
It is the promiss of computerized IR EFI to be able to do this.
The Ford system works well for replacing a single Holley 4v. It has a common plenum. That is what it was designed for.
How much more complex is a v8 with an IR setup? Isn't it something like 8 to the power of 8?
Add to that a system with no oxygen sensor and a mathamatical compromise between TPS and MAF.
A compromise that most likely will have to vary according to things like air temp, humidity, altitude, engine load and fuel quality, for each cylinder.
I think that although there is a basic script available to fall back upon, the variables for a car that is expected to be comfortably street driven and perform like an Indy car are too great.
To say it is going to be "tempermental" may be an understatement, which is all that I was ever trying to say to begin with.
Webers certainly are tempermental. I do not deny that.
I didn't intend to get into a technical discussion with people who obviously have vested interest in the marketing of these systems.
Not to doubt anyone or be argumentative, but I presume that those of you speak from practice and not theory and have used all of the formentioned systems?
As I said, I don't have the time and interest anymore (I'm really getting old and cranky) to do the testing and development. When it's plug and play, call me.
> I think that is the abilaty to tune each cylinder as indepently as necessary
> for maximum performance.
That's not why I'm going with IR EFI. I'm doing it to tame a big cam in
a 90 degree V8. Since the runners are isolated from each other, reversion
from adjacent cylinders does not foul the intake stroke, allowing a longer
cam duration with a streetable idle and better low-to-mid range performance.
Kirby Schraeder runs a PPC-sourced IR EFI system on his 377 cubic inch
Cleveland stroker (iron 4V heads with Weber lower and 48mm TWM throttle
bodies). He runs a fairly large overlap 288FDP Crower solid flat tappet oval
track cam on the street. Specs on his cam are 254/258 degrees at 0.050"
(288/294 degrees advertised), 0.569"/0.580" lift (0.022"/0.024" clearance hot)
with 105 lobe centers. That's a lot of overlap for a street car. According
to Kirby, with a 700DP Holley on a Ford aluminum dual plane intake manifold,
it had a wild idle and wouldn't start pulling well until 3000 RPM (Crower
rates the cam range as 3500 to 7000 RPM). When he installed the independent
runner EFI, the first thing he said was "Where'd my idle go?". He noted it
now pulls 5th gear from 1500 RPM. Kirby also noted it's tough staying off
the 7200 RPM rev-limiter in lower gears.
Independent runner also allows tuning of the inlet tract length generally not
possibly with single 4 barrel plenum type intakes. For my stroker engine, I
needed relatively short runners. Longer runners increased low and mid-range
torque but that came with a big loss of HP in higher RPM ranges.
> How much more complex is a v8 with an IR setup? Isn't it something like 8
> to the power of 8?
No. It's not that much more complex. In fact, Ford used their EEC-IV
speed density computer on their IR EFI F1 Cosworth V8's.
> Add to that a system with no oxygen sensor and a mathamatical compromise
> between TPS and MAF.
What system are you talking about that doesn't use an O2 sensor?
> I didn't intend to get into a technical discussion with people who obviously
> have vested interest in the marketing of these systems.
Who here has a vested interested in the marketing of these systems?
> Not to doubt anyone or be argumentative, but I presume that those of you speak
> from practice and not theory and have used all of the formentioned systems?
Speed density and mass air EEC-IV experience yes. This will be my first
IR EFI system but a couple of my friends run them and love them.
Dan Jones
> for maximum performance.
That's not why I'm going with IR EFI. I'm doing it to tame a big cam in
a 90 degree V8. Since the runners are isolated from each other, reversion
from adjacent cylinders does not foul the intake stroke, allowing a longer
cam duration with a streetable idle and better low-to-mid range performance.
Kirby Schraeder runs a PPC-sourced IR EFI system on his 377 cubic inch
Cleveland stroker (iron 4V heads with Weber lower and 48mm TWM throttle
bodies). He runs a fairly large overlap 288FDP Crower solid flat tappet oval
track cam on the street. Specs on his cam are 254/258 degrees at 0.050"
(288/294 degrees advertised), 0.569"/0.580" lift (0.022"/0.024" clearance hot)
with 105 lobe centers. That's a lot of overlap for a street car. According
to Kirby, with a 700DP Holley on a Ford aluminum dual plane intake manifold,
it had a wild idle and wouldn't start pulling well until 3000 RPM (Crower
rates the cam range as 3500 to 7000 RPM). When he installed the independent
runner EFI, the first thing he said was "Where'd my idle go?". He noted it
now pulls 5th gear from 1500 RPM. Kirby also noted it's tough staying off
the 7200 RPM rev-limiter in lower gears.
Independent runner also allows tuning of the inlet tract length generally not
possibly with single 4 barrel plenum type intakes. For my stroker engine, I
needed relatively short runners. Longer runners increased low and mid-range
torque but that came with a big loss of HP in higher RPM ranges.
> How much more complex is a v8 with an IR setup? Isn't it something like 8
> to the power of 8?
No. It's not that much more complex. In fact, Ford used their EEC-IV
speed density computer on their IR EFI F1 Cosworth V8's.
> Add to that a system with no oxygen sensor and a mathamatical compromise
> between TPS and MAF.
What system are you talking about that doesn't use an O2 sensor?
> I didn't intend to get into a technical discussion with people who obviously
> have vested interest in the marketing of these systems.
Who here has a vested interested in the marketing of these systems?
> Not to doubt anyone or be argumentative, but I presume that those of you speak
> from practice and not theory and have used all of the formentioned systems?
Speed density and mass air EEC-IV experience yes. This will be my first
IR EFI system but a couple of my friends run them and love them.
Dan Jones
I think I started the "no 02 Sensor" stuff when I posted this quote from Hilborn a few days ago:"Along with not needing a laptop, our ECU does not require a MAP, MAF or O2 sensor. It is commonly referred to as an "Alpha N" computer. How can it possibly work without all those sensors you ask? When tuned, the ECU uses a maximum wide open throttle setting to identify the part throttle settings using TPS, coolant temp, RPM and acceleration inputs. We may not be as exact as a laptop to tune system, but we have given access to fuel injection for those who do not want to buy a laptop and learn complicated fuel maps, spend big dollars to hire a professional tuner, or have been waiting in the wings for the technology that we currently offer."
Guys thanks to all of you for posting on this topic I am learning a lot, and really enjoying the process. Dave
Guys thanks to all of you for posting on this topic I am learning a lot, and really enjoying the process. Dave
quote:Originally posted by #5972:
I think I started the "no 02 Sensor" stuff when I posted this quote from Hilborn a few days ago:"Along with not needing a laptop, our ECU does not require a MAP, MAF or O2 sensor. It is commonly referred to as an "Alpha N" computer. How can it possibly work without all those sensors you ask? When tuned, the ECU uses a maximum wide open throttle setting to identify the part throttle settings using TPS, coolant temp, RPM and acceleration inputs. We may not be as exact as a laptop to tune system, but we have given access to fuel injection for those who do not want to buy a laptop and learn complicated fuel maps, spend big dollars to hire a professional tuner, or have been waiting in the wings for the technology that we currently offer."
Guys thanks to all of you for posting on this topic I am learning a lot, and really enjoying the process. Dave
Even a speed density does not have to relly on an O2. The O2 is only for closed loop operation. From what you have said I still don't understand where it get's it's base fuel mapping from. Is there a way you can "tweak" it? It sounds like a computer controled set up where some one else can change the parameters but you can't.
Gary
quote:It sounds like a computer controled set up where some one else can change the parameters but you can't.
Yep, sounds just like the IT department in every major company on the planet. They are so damn concerned you might do something usefull with your computer, they make it so it is so secure that the machine is virtualy worthless.
Yep give me a good old mechanical system and maybe a few vacuum tubes. I can make it work.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
That's not why I'm going with IR EFI. I'm doing it to tame a big cam in
a 90 degree V8. Since the runners are isolated from each other, reversion
from adjacent cylinders does not foul the intake stroke, allowing a longer
cam duration with a streetable idle and better low-to-mid range performance.
Kirby Schraeder runs a PPC-sourced IR EFI system on his 377 cubic inch
Cleveland stroker (iron 4V heads with Weber lower and 48mm TWM throttle
bodies). He runs a fairly large overlap 288FDP Crower solid flat tappet oval
track cam on the street. Specs on his cam are 254/258 degrees at 0.050"
(288/294 degrees advertised), 0.569"/0.580" lift (0.022"/0.024" clearance hot)
with 105 lobe centers. That's a lot of overlap for a street car. According
to Kirby, with a 700DP Holley on a Ford aluminum dual plane intake manifold,
it had a wild idle and wouldn't start pulling well until 3000 RPM (Crower
rates the cam range as 3500 to 7000 RPM). When he installed the independent
runner EFI, the first thing he said was "Where'd my idle go?". He noted it
now pulls 5th gear from 1500 RPM. Kirby also noted it's tough staying off
the 7200 RPM rev-limiter in lower gears.
Dan Jones
Dan, Here I have to disagree with you. In the case of Weber 48 IDA's on an IR manifold, camshaft overlap needs to be limited as much as possible.
The reversion from the valve overlap pushes the raw fuel back out of the stack.
In the INDY cars in '63 and '64 you could clearly see a fuel plum (cloud) starting at the velocity stacks and be drawn behind the car by the aerodynamics.
I have run a cam with as little as 28 degrees of overlap to reduce the reverb.
I now think that as much as 40 degrees is probably ok.
You can make argument with me that because the fuel injector is timing the fuel shot that the reversion is reduced, but it certainly isn't eliminated, not at high rpm.
If one runs a high overlap with an IR manifold at speed for any kind of distance and sooner or later it's gonna be a kaboom baby.
IR manifolds do not fix the reverberation issue. They accentuate it.
quote:Originally posted by comp2:quote:Originally posted by #5972:
I think I started the "no 02 Sensor" stuff when I posted this quote from Hilborn a few days ago:"Along with not needing a laptop, our ECU does not require a MAP, MAF or O2 sensor. It is commonly referred to as an "Alpha N" computer. How can it possibly work without all those sensors you ask? When tuned, the ECU uses a maximum wide open throttle setting to identify the part throttle settings using TPS, coolant temp, RPM and acceleration inputs. We may not be as exact as a laptop to tune system, but we have given access to fuel injection for those who do not want to buy a laptop and learn complicated fuel maps, spend big dollars to hire a professional tuner, or have been waiting in the wings for the technology that we currently offer."
Guys thanks to all of you for posting on this topic I am learning a lot, and really enjoying the process. Dave
Even a speed density does not have to relly on an O2. The O2 is only for closed loop operation. From what you have said I still don't understand where it get's it's base fuel mapping from. Is there a way you can "tweak" it? It sounds like a computer controled set up where some one else can change the parameters but you can't.
Gary
What I interpret that as saying is that they (Hilborn) have written a fuel map for you.
Since you don't have a computer, or need a computer, you don't change it, or you simply can't change it.
Get the instructions first and look under the heading of changing the fuel script or map.
Maybe they give you a chip? (Yes that was a sarcastic remark, sorry I couldn't resist)
George,
How did the performance change on the classic mustang when switching from carb to EEC-IV
Did you get smoother running, more power and better fuel economy??
Just how common is this stuff in breakers yards in the US?
How did the performance change on the classic mustang when switching from carb to EEC-IV
Did you get smoother running, more power and better fuel economy??
Just how common is this stuff in breakers yards in the US?
> Dan, Here I have to disagree with you. In the case of Weber 48 IDA's on an
> IR manifold, camshaft overlap needs to be limited as much as possible.
I was referring to IR EFI which has no such limitation. Webers and non-timed
mechanical injection have that problem because they are constant flow. But
with SEFI, the fuel is not injected on the overlap pulse. I know guys running
260 degree duration (at 0.050" lift) cams with IR EFI and they have no problems
with reversion.
> The reversion from the valve overlap pushes the raw fuel back out of the
> stack.
Not if there isn't any fuel there to begin with. It also depends upon the
length of the stack (i.e. the harmonic you choose to tune). If you pick a
stack length that tunes at the first harmonic, the effect is strong in a
narrow RPM band. Tuning to the second or third harmonic is less sensitive
and broadens the RPM spread.
> What I interpret that as saying is that they (Hilborn) have written a fuel
> map for you. Since you don't have a computer, or need a computer, you don't
> change it, or you simply can't change it.
The Hilborn system uses a computer to perform the fuel injection and requires
tuning but does not use a laptop as the user interface. My guess is it's like
the SDS (Simple Digital Systems) or the PMS (Programable Management System)
which use a handle held interface with buttons. This is a simpler but less
flexible approach.
> I think I started the "no 02 Sensor" stuff when I posted this quote from
> Hilborn a few days ago
There are three popular EFI control schemes:
1. mass air flow
2. speed density
3. alpha-n
None of them require an O2 sensor. A friend runs a mass-air Ford EEC-IV
without O2 sensors, for instance. All of the above control schemes can be
used with or without and O2 sensor. They differ primarily in the way they
sense engine load. Speed density systems use manifold vacuum via a MAP
(manifold absolute pressure) sensor to sense load. Fuel is metered using
the MAP input, engine RPM, and volumetric efficiency tables. Mass air
systems use a MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor to directly measure the amount of
incoming air. Those sensors typically use wires that air exposed to the
air flow. As the air flows over the wire, it changes the voltage drop
across the wire. Tables in the computer convert the voltage drop to air
mass. Alpha-N systems are the simplest, using only RPM and throttle position
to determine load. Note that a MAP sensor can be used with Alpha-N, but it's
used as a barometric pressure sensor to detect altitude changes. You can
also blend the authority of Alpha-N and speed density by weighting the
authority between the throttle position sensor and the MAP (manifold
absolute pressure) sensor.
> How did the performance change on the classic mustang when switching from
> carb to EEC-IV. Did you get smoother running, more power and better fuel
> economy??
When the stock long runner Ford 5.0L EFI intake is swapped over, you
generally get better low end torque at the expense of higher RPM power.
A shorter runner intake can gain the high RPM power back. Part throttle
fuel economy is generally improved but highway cruise fuel economy can be
slightly better with a well-tuned carb. This is because the car can be
tuned to e lean under those conditions. This can be done with the Ford EFI
system but requires some modification. Cold start-up and idle are generally
improved.
> Just how common is this stuff in breakers yards in the US?
Very common. Ford went SEFI on it's Mustang 5.0L in 1986. It's a straight-
forward swap on early Mustangs since they use the same engine. With a similar
overlap cam and displacement, little to no tuning is required. If you
substantially modify the engine or use a larger displacement engine, you'll
need one of the tuners (PMS, EECtuner, TwEECer, etc.) to get the maps correct.
Dan Jones
> IR manifold, camshaft overlap needs to be limited as much as possible.
I was referring to IR EFI which has no such limitation. Webers and non-timed
mechanical injection have that problem because they are constant flow. But
with SEFI, the fuel is not injected on the overlap pulse. I know guys running
260 degree duration (at 0.050" lift) cams with IR EFI and they have no problems
with reversion.
> The reversion from the valve overlap pushes the raw fuel back out of the
> stack.
Not if there isn't any fuel there to begin with. It also depends upon the
length of the stack (i.e. the harmonic you choose to tune). If you pick a
stack length that tunes at the first harmonic, the effect is strong in a
narrow RPM band. Tuning to the second or third harmonic is less sensitive
and broadens the RPM spread.
> What I interpret that as saying is that they (Hilborn) have written a fuel
> map for you. Since you don't have a computer, or need a computer, you don't
> change it, or you simply can't change it.
The Hilborn system uses a computer to perform the fuel injection and requires
tuning but does not use a laptop as the user interface. My guess is it's like
the SDS (Simple Digital Systems) or the PMS (Programable Management System)
which use a handle held interface with buttons. This is a simpler but less
flexible approach.
> I think I started the "no 02 Sensor" stuff when I posted this quote from
> Hilborn a few days ago
There are three popular EFI control schemes:
1. mass air flow
2. speed density
3. alpha-n
None of them require an O2 sensor. A friend runs a mass-air Ford EEC-IV
without O2 sensors, for instance. All of the above control schemes can be
used with or without and O2 sensor. They differ primarily in the way they
sense engine load. Speed density systems use manifold vacuum via a MAP
(manifold absolute pressure) sensor to sense load. Fuel is metered using
the MAP input, engine RPM, and volumetric efficiency tables. Mass air
systems use a MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor to directly measure the amount of
incoming air. Those sensors typically use wires that air exposed to the
air flow. As the air flows over the wire, it changes the voltage drop
across the wire. Tables in the computer convert the voltage drop to air
mass. Alpha-N systems are the simplest, using only RPM and throttle position
to determine load. Note that a MAP sensor can be used with Alpha-N, but it's
used as a barometric pressure sensor to detect altitude changes. You can
also blend the authority of Alpha-N and speed density by weighting the
authority between the throttle position sensor and the MAP (manifold
absolute pressure) sensor.
> How did the performance change on the classic mustang when switching from
> carb to EEC-IV. Did you get smoother running, more power and better fuel
> economy??
When the stock long runner Ford 5.0L EFI intake is swapped over, you
generally get better low end torque at the expense of higher RPM power.
A shorter runner intake can gain the high RPM power back. Part throttle
fuel economy is generally improved but highway cruise fuel economy can be
slightly better with a well-tuned carb. This is because the car can be
tuned to e lean under those conditions. This can be done with the Ford EFI
system but requires some modification. Cold start-up and idle are generally
improved.
> Just how common is this stuff in breakers yards in the US?
Very common. Ford went SEFI on it's Mustang 5.0L in 1986. It's a straight-
forward swap on early Mustangs since they use the same engine. With a similar
overlap cam and displacement, little to no tuning is required. If you
substantially modify the engine or use a larger displacement engine, you'll
need one of the tuners (PMS, EECtuner, TwEECer, etc.) to get the maps correct.
Dan Jones
Another fascinating topic, my goodness..
The one stament frm DP that "Webers are tempremental" I absolutely have to disagree with thoo...tricky to set up yes, but if you have linkages that stay constant & dont loosen up / or change settings, once you get them right (4x vacume gauges ) they stay right and like the excellent presicion instruments they are, provide a great range of tunning possibilites, even here in JHB at over 6000 ft altitude.( Ive often travelled from here down to the coast without having to touch the WEBERS...and no, I am not a vendor trying to move WEBERS...I just love them.- And i dont mean only for track-days with a car that does very little millage,- i mean mundane street cars that run all day all week etc, - ask the italians......
Thought I'd just toss that into the interesting posting/tread.
Many thks agin to all you knowledgable gentleman, what would we do with out you .....
I have had a set of IDA's on my Cat for many, many yrs,- DCNF's with IR manifold on a 308 V8 Fizzer and numerous Alfas running horisontal DCOE's with NO tempamental displays ever.( for goodnes sake, run of the mill 4 door italian passenger cars have been built and run for ages all over the world fitted with mutiple Weber carbs with no tempementality occuring....a bit of a hassle to set up yes...and Webers are avaiable agin......
The one stament frm DP that "Webers are tempremental" I absolutely have to disagree with thoo...tricky to set up yes, but if you have linkages that stay constant & dont loosen up / or change settings, once you get them right (4x vacume gauges ) they stay right and like the excellent presicion instruments they are, provide a great range of tunning possibilites, even here in JHB at over 6000 ft altitude.( Ive often travelled from here down to the coast without having to touch the WEBERS...and no, I am not a vendor trying to move WEBERS...I just love them.- And i dont mean only for track-days with a car that does very little millage,- i mean mundane street cars that run all day all week etc, - ask the italians......
Thought I'd just toss that into the interesting posting/tread.
Many thks agin to all you knowledgable gentleman, what would we do with out you .....
I have had a set of IDA's on my Cat for many, many yrs,- DCNF's with IR manifold on a 308 V8 Fizzer and numerous Alfas running horisontal DCOE's with NO tempamental displays ever.( for goodnes sake, run of the mill 4 door italian passenger cars have been built and run for ages all over the world fitted with mutiple Weber carbs with no tempementality occuring....a bit of a hassle to set up yes...and Webers are avaiable agin......
quote:Originally posted by Rapier:
...George, How did the performance change on the classic mustang when switching from carb to EEC-IV? Did you get smoother running, more power and better fuel economy? Just how common is this stuff in breakers yards in the US?...
The greatest improvement is felt below 2000 rpm. The engine idles & runs much smoother, like no carburetor is capable of duplicating. Throttle response is more instantaneous. Around town fuel economy improves about 15%. There are no hitches or glitches in the power band as you accelerate. The motor pulls smoother and more consistently. There's no place where the "secondaries come in" which causes a surge in power, its just smooth pullig like an electric motor all the way through the powerband. There's no stumbling when accelerating out of a hard corner or during hard braking.
Breaker yard? Are you sure you blokes speak the same language as us Yanks? Ha, ha, ha .... Like Dan wrote, the parts are very common, Ford sold very many 5.0 liter Mustangs here in the US.
The engine I helped install fuel injection in was a 302 cubic inch (5.0 liter) Windsor, ported heads & bigger valves, Cobra intake manifold, the typical cam I always recommend to people with a power band of 2000 to 6000 rpm. The owner installed higher flow rate fuel injectors and a larger throttle body, and better shorty style headers. We did not have to modify the engine management system at all. The combination of a mass air flow sensor and an oxygen sensor makes the system very tolerant of performance modifications. The engine management system employs adaptive software, which gives it the capability to create new curves (tables) in response to changes you make to the motor. I think it's bitchen.
your friend on the DTBB
quote:Originally posted by Tai Krige:
Another fascinating topic, my goodness..
The one stament frm DP that "Webers are tempremental" I absolutely have to disagree with thoo...bit of a hassle to set up yes...and Webers are avaiable agin......
Ty you must be a very easy going guy, or you live in a climate that is constant.
Here in NY when we go from 98F degrees and 90% relative humidity to 65F and 20% humidity the change in the carbs is very, very noticiable. And do not forget winter at 15F with carbs with no chokes.
They also produce an exhaust that liken diesel soot.
I gotta visit SA.
Thanks Dan,
As I have a stock 351-CJ (I think!) a junk yard EFI system is an attractive idea. I ran my Sunbeam on a $10 junk yard electronic ignition system for years. It could be a cheap way for me to better fuel economony without sacrificing any bhp (I'm happy with the 308bhp I have).
Does the EEC-IV system control the sparks too or just the fuel?
Unfortunately Mustangs of any type are pretty rare in the breakers yards in the UK (I'll check out ebay).
How many $ would you expect to pay for this from a breakers yard in the US?
I'm with Tai on the subject of Webers, they can be reliable - I did 70,000 miles in my Rapier with twin 40 DCOEs. It ran better than with the Stombergs I had before. Got about 14 years trouble free use but they got rather temperamental in the last couple of years with a fault I never could find (maybe I was looking in the wrong place).
As I have a stock 351-CJ (I think!) a junk yard EFI system is an attractive idea. I ran my Sunbeam on a $10 junk yard electronic ignition system for years. It could be a cheap way for me to better fuel economony without sacrificing any bhp (I'm happy with the 308bhp I have).
Does the EEC-IV system control the sparks too or just the fuel?
Unfortunately Mustangs of any type are pretty rare in the breakers yards in the UK (I'll check out ebay).
How many $ would you expect to pay for this from a breakers yard in the US?
I'm with Tai on the subject of Webers, they can be reliable - I did 70,000 miles in my Rapier with twin 40 DCOEs. It ran better than with the Stombergs I had before. Got about 14 years trouble free use but they got rather temperamental in the last couple of years with a fault I never could find (maybe I was looking in the wrong place).
> We did not have to modify the engine management system at all.
That combo is still within the limitations of the basic EEC tables.
> The engine management system employs adaptive software, which gives it the
> capability to create new curves (tables) in response to changes you make to
> the motor.
but there are finite limits. We ran outside what the Mustang Cobra EEC-IV
could compensate for early on and run a piggyback controller that gets tuned
on the dyno and with a wide-band. Also, don't make the mistake that just
because something starts and runs smoothly that the air-fuel or spark tables
are anywhere near optimal. I tuned a Cobra over the weekend with my wide
band O2. It ran great on the street and ran an 11.88 second 1/4 mile but was
dangerously lean everywhere in the RPM range. He's been running it that way
for a long while so I hope he hasn't hurt the pistons but only time will tell.
I got him in the right ballpark and we'll head back to the dyno for final WOT
tuning.
> As I have a stock 351-CJ (I think!) a junk yard EFI system is an attractive
> idea. I ran my Sunbeam on a $10 junk yard electronic ignition system for
> years. It could be a cheap way for me to better fuel economony without
> sacrificing any bhp (I'm happy with the 308bhp I have).
If you keep the CJ cam, you should be within the limitation of the tables.
You might be pushing the limitations of the 19 lb/hr injectors though you
can always try them and see. With the mass-air EEC's, installing larger
injectors often means either re-calibrating the mass air sensor or
tweaking the conversion in the tables. Most upgrade to a larger throttle
body and mass air unit that is matched to the injectors they choose to run.
There are specific EEC-IV's calibrated for 24 lb/hr injectors (the Mustang
Cobra processor) but most are 19 lbs/hr. The standard 5.0L HO SEFI Mustang
was 225 HP and all the components are sized for that. Larger throttle bodies,
EGR spacers, mass air meters, intake manifolds, injectors, fuel pumps are
the norm when you up the power. It's all available but the cost can add up.
The intake manifolding won't work on your 351C. You can modify a carb intake
or try to adapt the 5.0L stuff using adapter plates or mill and drill a
351W lower.
> Does the EEC-IV system control the sparks too or just the fuel?
It controls the spark too. You set base timing with the distributor but
lock out the advance. The spark tables can only be change with an aftermarket
tuning device.
> Unfortunately Mustangs of any type are pretty rare in the breakers yards in
> the UK (I'll check out ebay).
Be aware that very similar looking systems were used on a variety of Ford
5.0L engines. Some were SEFI, others were not. A friend attempted to
swap in an Explorer 5.0L in for his truck 5.0L only to find the truck had
bank fire and a different firing order. Also, some were speed density and
others were MAF.
Dan Jones
That combo is still within the limitations of the basic EEC tables.
> The engine management system employs adaptive software, which gives it the
> capability to create new curves (tables) in response to changes you make to
> the motor.
but there are finite limits. We ran outside what the Mustang Cobra EEC-IV
could compensate for early on and run a piggyback controller that gets tuned
on the dyno and with a wide-band. Also, don't make the mistake that just
because something starts and runs smoothly that the air-fuel or spark tables
are anywhere near optimal. I tuned a Cobra over the weekend with my wide
band O2. It ran great on the street and ran an 11.88 second 1/4 mile but was
dangerously lean everywhere in the RPM range. He's been running it that way
for a long while so I hope he hasn't hurt the pistons but only time will tell.
I got him in the right ballpark and we'll head back to the dyno for final WOT
tuning.
> As I have a stock 351-CJ (I think!) a junk yard EFI system is an attractive
> idea. I ran my Sunbeam on a $10 junk yard electronic ignition system for
> years. It could be a cheap way for me to better fuel economony without
> sacrificing any bhp (I'm happy with the 308bhp I have).
If you keep the CJ cam, you should be within the limitation of the tables.
You might be pushing the limitations of the 19 lb/hr injectors though you
can always try them and see. With the mass-air EEC's, installing larger
injectors often means either re-calibrating the mass air sensor or
tweaking the conversion in the tables. Most upgrade to a larger throttle
body and mass air unit that is matched to the injectors they choose to run.
There are specific EEC-IV's calibrated for 24 lb/hr injectors (the Mustang
Cobra processor) but most are 19 lbs/hr. The standard 5.0L HO SEFI Mustang
was 225 HP and all the components are sized for that. Larger throttle bodies,
EGR spacers, mass air meters, intake manifolds, injectors, fuel pumps are
the norm when you up the power. It's all available but the cost can add up.
The intake manifolding won't work on your 351C. You can modify a carb intake
or try to adapt the 5.0L stuff using adapter plates or mill and drill a
351W lower.
> Does the EEC-IV system control the sparks too or just the fuel?
It controls the spark too. You set base timing with the distributor but
lock out the advance. The spark tables can only be change with an aftermarket
tuning device.
> Unfortunately Mustangs of any type are pretty rare in the breakers yards in
> the UK (I'll check out ebay).
Be aware that very similar looking systems were used on a variety of Ford
5.0L engines. Some were SEFI, others were not. A friend attempted to
swap in an Explorer 5.0L in for his truck 5.0L only to find the truck had
bank fire and a different firing order. Also, some were speed density and
others were MAF.
Dan Jones
Rapier, hi there.
Yes u are right, I have had an occasion wen the webers went 'wonky' on me. ..over feuling the cylinders and eventually causing a 'oil wash away' & re-build, but it was my fault for spotting it so late...the carb bodies do wear causing slop / gaps twixt the choke-tubes and bodies, messing evrything up. However, a quick-fix popp-in of an appropreat sized O ring in a grove between the two, sealed it all up tight with out having to replace anything....This was not on my Pantera but my son's racing Golf Mk1 with DCOEs like yours and since there were very few parts available for Webers then, (not now thk goodness ) we went that route...yea, my IDA's are about as old as your Rapier's DCOE's, and no trouble so far. But as the man says .... we dont live in N.Y. ( I did for 3yrs and know what he means...) almost as bad as your weather hey in the UK...Boy I love South Africa....
Yes u are right, I have had an occasion wen the webers went 'wonky' on me. ..over feuling the cylinders and eventually causing a 'oil wash away' & re-build, but it was my fault for spotting it so late...the carb bodies do wear causing slop / gaps twixt the choke-tubes and bodies, messing evrything up. However, a quick-fix popp-in of an appropreat sized O ring in a grove between the two, sealed it all up tight with out having to replace anything....This was not on my Pantera but my son's racing Golf Mk1 with DCOEs like yours and since there were very few parts available for Webers then, (not now thk goodness ) we went that route...yea, my IDA's are about as old as your Rapier's DCOE's, and no trouble so far. But as the man says .... we dont live in N.Y. ( I did for 3yrs and know what he means...) almost as bad as your weather hey in the UK...Boy I love South Africa....
One more question to u learned folk.
I keep hearing about "cheap" Stroker kits for 351C frm China! Where do u buy these? and +- how much?,...... From the 'normal' vendors? I tried for many months to find a suitable 3.895 / 4" kit, but was unsuceesfull.....not cheap at all....and yes, in atticpation of fitting the stroker, I cammed up quite conservately: Sig Erson Hyd. 298 degrees (as advertized ) but with 5,50 lift with flat tops and the Webers & 180 exh. Runs gr8 as is at 351,( 2500 - 6000rpm's ) but as we all have been told the 4V closed chamber hds can use more cubes......
4.125 & 4.00 with 6" rods as our 'Wunderkind' George recomends?... Where from? I need an assembled/balanced complete kit....there arent many Ford Cleveland motor builders here..., KISS hey !
I keep hearing about "cheap" Stroker kits for 351C frm China! Where do u buy these? and +- how much?,...... From the 'normal' vendors? I tried for many months to find a suitable 3.895 / 4" kit, but was unsuceesfull.....not cheap at all....and yes, in atticpation of fitting the stroker, I cammed up quite conservately: Sig Erson Hyd. 298 degrees (as advertized ) but with 5,50 lift with flat tops and the Webers & 180 exh. Runs gr8 as is at 351,( 2500 - 6000rpm's ) but as we all have been told the 4V closed chamber hds can use more cubes......
4.125 & 4.00 with 6" rods as our 'Wunderkind' George recomends?... Where from? I need an assembled/balanced complete kit....there arent many Ford Cleveland motor builders here..., KISS hey !
Derek,
As of this time there are no fuel injection manifolds you can buy and bolt onto a 351C that would allow you to swap to an EEC-IV system, however there are ways around this dilemma.
Two Pantera owners, Thomas Tornblom of Sweden and Jim Murch of northern California have modified the lower half of a 351W fuel injection manifold from Trick Flow allowing it to mate with the Cleveland engine & heads. Thomas' conversion was on an Australian motor with 2V style heads, Jim's conversion was on a Cleveland with 4V heads. The manifold modifications were extensive and expensive. But the results are BITCHEN.
Thomas has a web site were he details the conversion, its good reading:
http://www.detomaso.nu/~thomast/efi/
Jim's conversion has caught the attention of Trick Flow, and they are promising a fuel injection manifold for the 351C, with 2V size ports. The manifold will most likely be introduced at the same time they introduce the 351C 2V heads they are working on to compete with the new Edelbrock heads.
Quality Roadsters sells complete systems or components that allow a mass air flow fuel injection system to be installed in such a way that it looks like a carbureted system. The system installs on single plane intakes modified to allow installation of fuel injectors. The cool factor of this system is that it maintains the "look" of the stock motor, so its very "stealthy"!
The fuel injection conversion business has grown so big for Quality Roadsters, that they have split it off as a separate company called Mass Flo EFI:
http://www.mass-floefi.com/
CHP and others sell a "power elbow" that bolts on the carburetor mounting pad of a single plane intake manifold. Like the Quality roadsters system, the manifold must be modified to allow the installation of fuel injectors. This system differs from the Quality Roadsters approach in that it does not require a proprietary throttle body or MAF sensor, it employs the standard throttle bodies & MAF sensors designed for the 5.0 liter Ford Mustang motor.
All of these EEC-IV conversions require the use of a "TFI" style distributor. The usual donor is the distributor from a fuel injected 460 cubic inch motor from a Ford pick up truck. That particular distributor employs a remote TFI module, so some folks modify other Ford distributors with integral modules to fit the 351C.
Your friend on the DTBB
As of this time there are no fuel injection manifolds you can buy and bolt onto a 351C that would allow you to swap to an EEC-IV system, however there are ways around this dilemma.
Two Pantera owners, Thomas Tornblom of Sweden and Jim Murch of northern California have modified the lower half of a 351W fuel injection manifold from Trick Flow allowing it to mate with the Cleveland engine & heads. Thomas' conversion was on an Australian motor with 2V style heads, Jim's conversion was on a Cleveland with 4V heads. The manifold modifications were extensive and expensive. But the results are BITCHEN.
Thomas has a web site were he details the conversion, its good reading:
http://www.detomaso.nu/~thomast/efi/
Jim's conversion has caught the attention of Trick Flow, and they are promising a fuel injection manifold for the 351C, with 2V size ports. The manifold will most likely be introduced at the same time they introduce the 351C 2V heads they are working on to compete with the new Edelbrock heads.
Quality Roadsters sells complete systems or components that allow a mass air flow fuel injection system to be installed in such a way that it looks like a carbureted system. The system installs on single plane intakes modified to allow installation of fuel injectors. The cool factor of this system is that it maintains the "look" of the stock motor, so its very "stealthy"!
The fuel injection conversion business has grown so big for Quality Roadsters, that they have split it off as a separate company called Mass Flo EFI:
http://www.mass-floefi.com/
CHP and others sell a "power elbow" that bolts on the carburetor mounting pad of a single plane intake manifold. Like the Quality roadsters system, the manifold must be modified to allow the installation of fuel injectors. This system differs from the Quality Roadsters approach in that it does not require a proprietary throttle body or MAF sensor, it employs the standard throttle bodies & MAF sensors designed for the 5.0 liter Ford Mustang motor.
All of these EEC-IV conversions require the use of a "TFI" style distributor. The usual donor is the distributor from a fuel injected 460 cubic inch motor from a Ford pick up truck. That particular distributor employs a remote TFI module, so some folks modify other Ford distributors with integral modules to fit the 351C.
Your friend on the DTBB
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by Tai Krige:
...I need an assembled/balanced complete kit....there arent many Ford Cleveland motor builders here...
Tai, I think the best way for you to proceed would be to contact Mark McKeown of MME Racing in Maryland, ask him to assemble a kit and ship it to you. He can put all the pieces togther, go through the headaches of finding the parts, he has the knowledge to assemble a kit that will bolt together without any hidden problems to frustrate you.
http://www.mmeracing.com
telephone (310) 246-9225
your friend on the DTBB
Many, many thanks George. Trust you to make it simple, neat.
George & Dan,
Many thanks for the information.
Many thanks for the information.