Kelly,
You're right about the oil pump drive. Looks like I got a little over zealous! Thanks for pointing it out, I wouldn't want to mislead anyone. I'm looking for a 500 hp street motor, and am VERY confident that with a little tweaking this system will work out perfectly for me. If for whatever reason it doesn't, I'll be the first to report my findings and go down a different road. Your GTS is one of my faves as well!
Michael
quote:Originally posted by Cyboman: I'm looking for a 500 hp street motor, and am VERY confident that with a little tweaking this system will work out perfectly for me. If for whatever reason it doesn't, I'll be the first to report my findings and go down a different road.
500 HP from a normally aspirated 5 liter engine with street manners and high mileage will be quite the challenge. I'd normally associate that power range for street engines with 20-40% more displacement, but couldn't come even close to delivering on the mileage if 20 mpg is the target. Please keep us posted on how you are progressing.
Best,
Kelly
A whole lot of folks have modified motors running Ford's EEC IV controls, quite successfully. Dan's comments about lumpy cams giving them fits is correct. Lunati VooDoo cams and Comp Cams Extreme Energy cams were designed with fast lobes and low overlap to work with factory fuel injection. And piggy back controllers like Tweecer are also solutions for these issues. I don't see a problem.
2 decades ago I helped a fellow install EEC IV fuel injection in a 289 powered classic Mustang. I had no previous experience installing fuel injection. We acquired most of the parts from the wrecking yard, and bolted them in. The engine fired up and idled smoothly with the first twist of the ignition key. We hopped in for a test ride, and the engine motored away better than it had ever ran before, as if the fuel injection system had been oem. The engine was not equipped with a lumpy cam, it was just a strong little small block Ford. Really quite impressive how easy the installation was and how great the results were.
So there is a place for these things in the hot rod universe.
-G
2 decades ago I helped a fellow install EEC IV fuel injection in a 289 powered classic Mustang. I had no previous experience installing fuel injection. We acquired most of the parts from the wrecking yard, and bolted them in. The engine fired up and idled smoothly with the first twist of the ignition key. We hopped in for a test ride, and the engine motored away better than it had ever ran before, as if the fuel injection system had been oem. The engine was not equipped with a lumpy cam, it was just a strong little small block Ford. Really quite impressive how easy the installation was and how great the results were.
So there is a place for these things in the hot rod universe.
-G
> That's a harsh statement, as many people are using these systems with great success.
> I myself had great success using this system on 2 different vehicles and don't consider
> myself "without brains".
I apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean to attack you but rather Mass-Flo.
Mass-Flo makes many claims on their website which are falsehoods. Of all the
fuel injection approaches (Alpha-N, speed density, mass air flow), mass air flow
is the most susceptible to reversion and the Mass-Flo system's placement, right
over the center of the plenum, makes it especially sensitive to reversion.
A person needs to educate themself about which fuel injection control strategy
is best for a particular application. Previously, I've posted a description of
each strategy and their recommended applications and limitations so I won't go
in detail here but it certainly not a no-brainer.
With the Mass-Flo system, as long as your cam overlap is modest, you shouldn't
have any problem but be aware are still tables built into the EEC-IV that may need
editing. For instance, with the EEC-IV, narrow band O2 sensors are used to trim
the air-fuel mixture during cruise. However, at WOT the system switches to tables.
Even if the engine seems to run well, I strongly suggest monitoring with a wide
band O2 sensor to see what the actual air-fuel ratio is. I've tuned systems that
were dangerously lean and others that were very rich that drove flawlessly.
> And piggy back controllers like Tweecer are also solutions for these issues.
Please explain to me how a Tweecer can cure the reversion problem with a
mass air meter. The EEC-IV only operates on the signals from the mass
air meter. It doesn't know if those signals are generated by induction flow
or by the reversion flow. BTW, the Tweecer is not a piggy back controller like
AFM's PMS. Rather it's an editor. Even piggy back controllers like the PMS
won't cure the reversion problem if used in a mass air mode. AFM knows this
and lists the cruise RPM at which their cams will smooth out at.
> 500 HP from a normally aspirated 5 liter engine with street manners and high
> mileage will be quite the challenge.
What's your parts list look like for this build? Do you intend to stay with
a production block? If so, be aware we ran into main cap walk problems at 400
RWHP, even with the Sportsman block. This was a drag race Mustang which
experiences higher shock loads than a street car but we found it was directly
related to shift RPM. Assuming you are staying with a hydraulic roller, for
the RPM range you'll likely need, take a close look at Anderson Ford Motorsports
line of "hi-rev" cams. They have been tested and turn the RPM they advertise.
They don't publish their cams specs but I can provide them if you.
> I'd normally associate that power range for street engines with 20-40% more
> displacement, but couldn't come even close to delivering on the mileage if
> 20 mpg is the target.
Mike Drew reports he gets 18 MPG for the 526 HP 408C I put together for his
Pantera, better than the engine it replaced that made half the power. I could
probably get that to 19 MPG by leaning his cruise mixture but to get any better
(with that 500+ HP engine), it would really need taller gearing. The stock
overall gear ratio of Pantera is just too short, compared to say a 5.0L Mustang
with a T-5 OD ratio of 0.68 and a 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 final drive ratio, to get
really good gas mileage.
Dan Jones
> I myself had great success using this system on 2 different vehicles and don't consider
> myself "without brains".
I apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean to attack you but rather Mass-Flo.
Mass-Flo makes many claims on their website which are falsehoods. Of all the
fuel injection approaches (Alpha-N, speed density, mass air flow), mass air flow
is the most susceptible to reversion and the Mass-Flo system's placement, right
over the center of the plenum, makes it especially sensitive to reversion.
A person needs to educate themself about which fuel injection control strategy
is best for a particular application. Previously, I've posted a description of
each strategy and their recommended applications and limitations so I won't go
in detail here but it certainly not a no-brainer.
With the Mass-Flo system, as long as your cam overlap is modest, you shouldn't
have any problem but be aware are still tables built into the EEC-IV that may need
editing. For instance, with the EEC-IV, narrow band O2 sensors are used to trim
the air-fuel mixture during cruise. However, at WOT the system switches to tables.
Even if the engine seems to run well, I strongly suggest monitoring with a wide
band O2 sensor to see what the actual air-fuel ratio is. I've tuned systems that
were dangerously lean and others that were very rich that drove flawlessly.
> And piggy back controllers like Tweecer are also solutions for these issues.
Please explain to me how a Tweecer can cure the reversion problem with a
mass air meter. The EEC-IV only operates on the signals from the mass
air meter. It doesn't know if those signals are generated by induction flow
or by the reversion flow. BTW, the Tweecer is not a piggy back controller like
AFM's PMS. Rather it's an editor. Even piggy back controllers like the PMS
won't cure the reversion problem if used in a mass air mode. AFM knows this
and lists the cruise RPM at which their cams will smooth out at.
> 500 HP from a normally aspirated 5 liter engine with street manners and high
> mileage will be quite the challenge.
What's your parts list look like for this build? Do you intend to stay with
a production block? If so, be aware we ran into main cap walk problems at 400
RWHP, even with the Sportsman block. This was a drag race Mustang which
experiences higher shock loads than a street car but we found it was directly
related to shift RPM. Assuming you are staying with a hydraulic roller, for
the RPM range you'll likely need, take a close look at Anderson Ford Motorsports
line of "hi-rev" cams. They have been tested and turn the RPM they advertise.
They don't publish their cams specs but I can provide them if you.
> I'd normally associate that power range for street engines with 20-40% more
> displacement, but couldn't come even close to delivering on the mileage if
> 20 mpg is the target.
Mike Drew reports he gets 18 MPG for the 526 HP 408C I put together for his
Pantera, better than the engine it replaced that made half the power. I could
probably get that to 19 MPG by leaning his cruise mixture but to get any better
(with that 500+ HP engine), it would really need taller gearing. The stock
overall gear ratio of Pantera is just too short, compared to say a 5.0L Mustang
with a T-5 OD ratio of 0.68 and a 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 final drive ratio, to get
really good gas mileage.
Dan Jones
quote:
> I'd normally associate that power range for street engines with 20-40% more
> displacement, but couldn't come even close to delivering on the mileage if
> 20 mpg is the target.
Mike Drew reports he gets 18 MPG for the 526 HP 408C I put together for his
Pantera, better than the engine it replaced that made half the power. I could
probably get that to 19 MPG by leaning his cruise mixture but to get any better
(with that 500+ HP engine), it would really need taller gearing. The stock
overall gear ratio of Pantera is just too short, compared to say a 5.0L Mustang
with a T-5 OD ratio of 0.68 and a 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 final drive ratio, to get
really good gas mileage.
Dan Jones
18 MPG from a Carbureted 408? I suppose we need to qualify this discussion with how his car is geared and what cruise speed we're talking but for the stock -2 Pantera ZF configuration he would be turning at least 2500 rpm and that's with the OE wheel diameter. Many are running smaller diameters. If he's getting 18 MPG from his 408 at that speed, I'm surprised. I'd be even more surprised to achieve that mileage with a 5 liter engine cammed for 500 HP and geared to use it.
Best,
K
> 18 MPG from a Carbureted 408?
Yes.
> I suppose we need to qualify this discussion with how his car is geared and
> what cruise speed we're talking but for the stock -2 Pantera ZF configuration
> he would be turning at least 2500 rpm and that's with the OE wheel diameter.
Stock -2 ZF gearing with 305/50/15 tires. I've got an email into Mike to ask
about the speed.
> I'd be even more surprised to achieve that mileage with a 5 liter engine
> cammed for 500 HP and geared to use it.
Agreed. A normally aspirated 302 Windsor will need a lot more overlap to make
500 HP and fuel economy will suffer.
Dan Jones
Yes.
> I suppose we need to qualify this discussion with how his car is geared and
> what cruise speed we're talking but for the stock -2 Pantera ZF configuration
> he would be turning at least 2500 rpm and that's with the OE wheel diameter.
Stock -2 ZF gearing with 305/50/15 tires. I've got an email into Mike to ask
about the speed.
> I'd be even more surprised to achieve that mileage with a 5 liter engine
> cammed for 500 HP and geared to use it.
Agreed. A normally aspirated 302 Windsor will need a lot more overlap to make
500 HP and fuel economy will suffer.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> 18 MPG from a Carbureted 408?
Yes.
Sounds very impressive Dan and I suppose it could be indicative of a high state of tune. But then again, mileage has never been a design parameter in any engine build of mine, and I've never been willing to run that lean but instead with preference toward insuring it's fat enough at the limits.
Best,
K
I run 392W w/ 430hp ford create engine with Mass-Flo system. Runs great with no problems.
Mike go for it I almost did a 5.0 so I would love to see you do this..!
Mike go for it I almost did a 5.0 so I would love to see you do this..!
quote:Originally posted by DEVIL:
I run 392W w/ 430hp ford create engine with Mass-Flo system. Runs great with no problems.
Happen to have the cam specs for that?
Best,
K
quote:Originally posted by Panterror:quote:Originally posted by DEVIL:
I run 392W w/ 430hp ford create engine with Mass-Flo system. Runs great with no problems.
Happen to have the cam specs for that?
Best,
K
Yes i do...
566 Int. / 576 Exh.
232 / 240 duration @.050
On the dyno it made 375hp @ 5400rpm and 415ft-lbs @ 4400rpm at the wheels.
If was to remove the GT40 heads and replace them with AFR heads it should add 75hp at the flywheel.
quote:Originally posted by DEVIL: Yes i do... 566 Int. / 576 Exh. 232 / 240 duration @.050 On the dyno it made 375hp @ 5400rpm and 415ft-lbs @ 4400rpm at the wheels.
Ahhh Mark, now you're teasing me. Since you mentioned your mass flow install worked well for you, I was most interested in LSA and timing of cam events. As Dan mentions, there is a point where you will never be able to reconcile the BSFC of your injector settings, the O2 reading from a broadband sensor, and the lb/min of air indicated by the mass flow sensor. You must not be there yet. Those specs are right in line with the 392 crate kit below but it is not any more revealing.
http://www.fordracingparts.com...p?PartKeyField=10757
quote:If was to remove the GT40 heads and replace them with AFR heads it should add 75hp at the flywheel.
Seems about right. The engine in my car at the moment has a fairly tame hydro roller with similar duration and lift and and made 536 ft-lb @ 4750 rpm and 518 HP at 5250 rpm at the flywheel. All North of 500 ft-lbs between 3 krpm and 5.5 krpm. It has BF301 heads which with this cam is barely scratching their potential, but they do flow well. It's a 427 CI and the intake isn't the best match to the combination (open plenum single plane spider with Holley 750HP series) but it's a nice running street motor with good street manners.
However, as we all know, it's never enough. -More to come.
Hopefully this is useful discussion for Michael. If not, apologies for the thread drift.
Best,
K
quote:Originally posted by Panterror:
Hopefully this is useful discussion for Michael. If not, apologies for the thread drift.
Best,
K
No, this is a good discussion. All of these parameters need to be considered to arrive at the right combo anywho.
As you were gentlemen!
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I'll cancel my head CAT scan appointment!
Michael