What parts are needed for a Windsor swap? Is a special clutch required, or can one for a Mustang be used? Thanks.
Michael
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
i ran a mustang clutch in both winsor and ci.
Headers, alt bracket, water pipe mods. All relatively cheap and avail from vendors.
I've read a thousand times that the Pantera clutch is specific and not a Mustang clutch, but Wayne is proof that a reg Mustang clutch works fine.
Will
I've read a thousand times that the Pantera clutch is specific and not a Mustang clutch, but Wayne is proof that a reg Mustang clutch works fine.
Will
Thank you both. Will any Windsor front sump oil pan work?
Michael
Michael
Michael,
Are you putting in a new motor for me?
I hope all is well,
Mark
Are you putting in a new motor for me?
I hope all is well,
Mark
Here is a pretty good website that steps through the process http://www.flipturn.org/pantera/Windsor.html There is a link at the bottom of each page that takes you to the next phase. I think someone makes a water neck that solves the intake problem now.
Mike
Mike
What's going on Michael? You going big?
Let us in on it.
Will
Let us in on it.
Will
Mike,
The clutch is the same the throw out bearing is different. The pantera bearing is unique. But a 351 W and C have aprox the same deck height only the heads obviously different ...but the headers you can use shorties for the W and the water pump ? you can get the outlet for the W on the same side as the C. Oil Pan ... I have to check if a mustang pan works with the clross member.
R
The clutch is the same the throw out bearing is different. The pantera bearing is unique. But a 351 W and C have aprox the same deck height only the heads obviously different ...but the headers you can use shorties for the W and the water pump ? you can get the outlet for the W on the same side as the C. Oil Pan ... I have to check if a mustang pan works with the clross member.
R
Here's the plan: Go small.
I'm going to transplant a 5.0 from a Mustang and graft Ford's factory mass air EEC-IV fuel injection system into my Pantera. It's an experiment to see how it goes, and I think it'll go well!
I had an '86 Mustang GT that I bought new when I was 18. I loved that car, and it NEVER gave me an ounce of trouble! Not even when I converted it to mass air flow and cranked the motor up to about 400hp with a stock ECU. It is a VERY easy system to trouble-shoot as well. All you need is a multimeter and a handful of replacement sensors and you're good to go! People are making RIDICULOUS hp numbers with these systems. Improved driveability, mpg, and emmissions are also advantages.
The motor mounts and ZF bolt right up, the lower radiator hose should also line right up. There are a few solutions to the upper water neck that can be employed. Working the throttle cable should be a small challenge. Front sump oil pans are readily available and cheap. For now, I'll move my A/C compressor to the side, and just run the alt in it's place. The biggest issue will be the exhaust. I figure some block hugger headers (or the like), and a trip to a muffler shop should get me going for the initial testing. The wiring isn't that difficult either. I'm confident that I can do this all for around $500, including the complete motor and F.I. harness with all of it's peripherals. If the Mustang clutch won't work, then it will be a tad more.
Once it's in and the bugs are worked out, it's on to phase 2. Either I don't like it, and out it goes (which I doubt), or more likely I can then decide if I want to go with a Windsor based motor, or a Cleveland and make an F.I. intake for it. At that point, it'll just be an engine swap. Either way I go, I'd upgrade the exhaust at that point with coated off the shelf parts.
I know many of you are probably shaking your heads in scorn and/or disbelief because my Pantera is an original GT5-S, and should stay as such. My attitude towards MY Pantera is that I paid for the right to do with it as I please, and this would indeed please me! The consolation is that I don't cut factory wiring. I always find a way to connect to it, or jump out of factory connections. All of it will be easily reversible. I personally think it will be a vast improvement. The system is also the same vintage as the car: Ford started using it in 1986, and that is the year of my Pantera. Besides, Si's came stock from the deTomaso factory with this motor and F.I. system.
Opinions are welcome, positive or negative.
Larry, can I borrow your flame suit?
Michael
I'm going to transplant a 5.0 from a Mustang and graft Ford's factory mass air EEC-IV fuel injection system into my Pantera. It's an experiment to see how it goes, and I think it'll go well!
I had an '86 Mustang GT that I bought new when I was 18. I loved that car, and it NEVER gave me an ounce of trouble! Not even when I converted it to mass air flow and cranked the motor up to about 400hp with a stock ECU. It is a VERY easy system to trouble-shoot as well. All you need is a multimeter and a handful of replacement sensors and you're good to go! People are making RIDICULOUS hp numbers with these systems. Improved driveability, mpg, and emmissions are also advantages.
The motor mounts and ZF bolt right up, the lower radiator hose should also line right up. There are a few solutions to the upper water neck that can be employed. Working the throttle cable should be a small challenge. Front sump oil pans are readily available and cheap. For now, I'll move my A/C compressor to the side, and just run the alt in it's place. The biggest issue will be the exhaust. I figure some block hugger headers (or the like), and a trip to a muffler shop should get me going for the initial testing. The wiring isn't that difficult either. I'm confident that I can do this all for around $500, including the complete motor and F.I. harness with all of it's peripherals. If the Mustang clutch won't work, then it will be a tad more.
Once it's in and the bugs are worked out, it's on to phase 2. Either I don't like it, and out it goes (which I doubt), or more likely I can then decide if I want to go with a Windsor based motor, or a Cleveland and make an F.I. intake for it. At that point, it'll just be an engine swap. Either way I go, I'd upgrade the exhaust at that point with coated off the shelf parts.
I know many of you are probably shaking your heads in scorn and/or disbelief because my Pantera is an original GT5-S, and should stay as such. My attitude towards MY Pantera is that I paid for the right to do with it as I please, and this would indeed please me! The consolation is that I don't cut factory wiring. I always find a way to connect to it, or jump out of factory connections. All of it will be easily reversible. I personally think it will be a vast improvement. The system is also the same vintage as the car: Ford started using it in 1986, and that is the year of my Pantera. Besides, Si's came stock from the deTomaso factory with this motor and F.I. system.
Opinions are welcome, positive or negative.
Larry, can I borrow your flame suit?
Michael
Cyboman,
How did this go???
How did this go???
Jack,
It hasn't gone anywhere yet. I'm still in the parts gathering stage. I'm hoping to get to it right after the new year. It's not something I want to tie up my car for the season, though.
It was just posted that Trick Flow is coming out with a 351C lower intake for Ford's factory fuel injection. That would simplify the process GREATLY. I'm waiting to see if Santa thinks I was a good enough boy this year! (It's gonna be a close one!)
More on the Trick Flow Intake here:
http://www.stangtv.com/feature...kes-from-trick-flow/
It's something I'm definitely going to do; I'm very much looking forward to it.
Michael
It hasn't gone anywhere yet. I'm still in the parts gathering stage. I'm hoping to get to it right after the new year. It's not something I want to tie up my car for the season, though.
It was just posted that Trick Flow is coming out with a 351C lower intake for Ford's factory fuel injection. That would simplify the process GREATLY. I'm waiting to see if Santa thinks I was a good enough boy this year! (It's gonna be a close one!)
More on the Trick Flow Intake here:
http://www.stangtv.com/feature...kes-from-trick-flow/
It's something I'm definitely going to do; I'm very much looking forward to it.
Michael
quote:My attitude towards MY Pantera is that I paid for the right to do with it as I please, and this would indeed please me!
Damn right , do as you wish. Just as long as you drive it! And you head up north again to hang with your Canadian friends!
Will
Frankly, I liked Michael's original idea. A 5.0 liter V8 making 400 to 450 horsepower (naturally aspirated) at 6000 rpm is the kind of power I want for a sports car, especially for an older sports car that does not have electronic traction control. I say this because I want my Pantera to have good drivability, 365 days per year, in all types of weather, in all traffic conditions. It should be safe and controllable, and I only want the tires to break loose when I want them to, no surprises. I should be able to leave from a dead stop in slick road conditions safely, without spinning the tires. I should be able to accelerate in a corner without looping the car.
-G
-G
George,
So far, I'm still moving forward down the 5.0 avenue (mostly due to the fact that I don't think Santa is buying my 'reformed' status
). I think that Ford's factory EEC-IV FI system (as used on the '89-'93 5.0 Mustang) can be easily adapted to our Panteras. The entire system is stand alone. With this new Trick Flow intake, adding a high pressure fuel pump, and O2 sensors to the exhaust would be all that is required to get it going on a Pantera. I'd have to go back and check my notes, but if I remember correctly, the wiring harness only needs 3 wires connected to make it operational.
I had one of those Mustangs back in the day, and NEVER had an issue with it's drivabilty in the many years of hot summers and cold winters. It took modifications of 400hp on the factory settings with no issues and 20 mpg on the highway.
To tune and troubleshoot, all you need is a scanner to read codes (that can be had for $50 or less these days), and a handful of sensors - all of which are very cheap should one need replacing. I even know how to go into the computer to turn off the distributor and turn on crank trigger and coil packs. I can even turn on a knock sensor for additional timing control (pinging from a bad batch of gas, or if under boost).
ANY Ford dealer or decent mechanic can sevice this system. Parts, including the ECM (computer), can be found ANYWHERE!
This system (with crank trigger) would eliminate the roll pin issue that our Clevelands can suffer and leave us stranded (which happened to me with my '74). Do I run a bronze or steel gear with my cam, and how long will it last? Points or electonic internals? MSD, Mallory, or Ford distributor? Pertronix Ignitor? <-- No longer issues!
For those who like the original carb/aircleaner look, Mass Flo EFI makes this system for the Cleveland for around $3,200: http://www.massfloefi.com/mass...351c-efi-system-p-19
Once you get this system going, you can more or less forget about it. It doesn't need further attention. If a sensor does fail (or goes out of parameter), you will be notified via a check engine light that you can run right to your dash (it can be a tiny inconspicuous led if you like). The computer will hold the code and lead you right to the culprit. That's a HUGE advantage over carburated systems!
I think this system is a no-brainer.
Michael
So far, I'm still moving forward down the 5.0 avenue (mostly due to the fact that I don't think Santa is buying my 'reformed' status
). I think that Ford's factory EEC-IV FI system (as used on the '89-'93 5.0 Mustang) can be easily adapted to our Panteras. The entire system is stand alone. With this new Trick Flow intake, adding a high pressure fuel pump, and O2 sensors to the exhaust would be all that is required to get it going on a Pantera. I'd have to go back and check my notes, but if I remember correctly, the wiring harness only needs 3 wires connected to make it operational.I had one of those Mustangs back in the day, and NEVER had an issue with it's drivabilty in the many years of hot summers and cold winters. It took modifications of 400hp on the factory settings with no issues and 20 mpg on the highway.
To tune and troubleshoot, all you need is a scanner to read codes (that can be had for $50 or less these days), and a handful of sensors - all of which are very cheap should one need replacing. I even know how to go into the computer to turn off the distributor and turn on crank trigger and coil packs. I can even turn on a knock sensor for additional timing control (pinging from a bad batch of gas, or if under boost).
ANY Ford dealer or decent mechanic can sevice this system. Parts, including the ECM (computer), can be found ANYWHERE!
This system (with crank trigger) would eliminate the roll pin issue that our Clevelands can suffer and leave us stranded (which happened to me with my '74). Do I run a bronze or steel gear with my cam, and how long will it last? Points or electonic internals? MSD, Mallory, or Ford distributor? Pertronix Ignitor? <-- No longer issues!
For those who like the original carb/aircleaner look, Mass Flo EFI makes this system for the Cleveland for around $3,200: http://www.massfloefi.com/mass...351c-efi-system-p-19
Once you get this system going, you can more or less forget about it. It doesn't need further attention. If a sensor does fail (or goes out of parameter), you will be notified via a check engine light that you can run right to your dash (it can be a tiny inconspicuous led if you like). The computer will hold the code and lead you right to the culprit. That's a HUGE advantage over carburated systems!
I think this system is a no-brainer.
Michael
> I think this system is a no-brainer.
If by no-brainer, you mean for use by people without brains, then I agree.
That mass-flo set-up has to be about the worst set-up for a lumpy idle cam.
Mass air sensor is very sensitive to placement and that set up looked bad.
It may not matter if you run an "EFI cam" with wide lobe centers but but
big port and big inch Clevelands like narrow lobe centers. The mass air
sensor doesn't know the direction of flow so will respond to reversion
flow as if it were induction flow. Anyt sort of overlap in that cam and
you'll confuse the sensor. Moving the sensor farther away helps but there
are limitations. The Mass-Flo guys claim you never have to tune their
system which is a lie since they use an A9L EEC-IV. There's a reason things
like the EEC Tuner, TwEEcer and PMS exist.
Dan Jones
If by no-brainer, you mean for use by people without brains, then I agree.
That mass-flo set-up has to be about the worst set-up for a lumpy idle cam.
Mass air sensor is very sensitive to placement and that set up looked bad.
It may not matter if you run an "EFI cam" with wide lobe centers but but
big port and big inch Clevelands like narrow lobe centers. The mass air
sensor doesn't know the direction of flow so will respond to reversion
flow as if it were induction flow. Anyt sort of overlap in that cam and
you'll confuse the sensor. Moving the sensor farther away helps but there
are limitations. The Mass-Flo guys claim you never have to tune their
system which is a lie since they use an A9L EEC-IV. There's a reason things
like the EEC Tuner, TwEEcer and PMS exist.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Cyboman:
... I don't think Santa is buying my 'reformed' status ...
Me neither!
quote:Originally posted by Cyboman: This system (with crank trigger) would eliminate the roll pin issue that our Clevelands can suffer and leave us stranded (which happened to me with my '74). Do I run a bronze or steel gear with my cam, and how long will it last? Points or electonic internals? MSD, Mallory, or Ford distributor? Pertronix Ignitor? <-- No longer issues!
Michael, sounds like it may be a good option for you for all the reasons you mentioned as being desirable to you but I dont think going crank trigger will eliminate the potential for roll pin shear. Shimming the oil pump to higher relief pressure, using a high volume pump where not necessary, poor quality roll pins, and potentially some feedback from heavy valve train in the C are chief culprits.
It can happen in any engine though they are somewhat less suspectable. A good quality roll pin with another 50 cent pin stuffed inside of the first roll pin will eliminate the issue altogether. The additional mass of the ignition components is a neglible factor in shear.
You still need a plug with gear (with roll pin) and shaft to drive the oil pump. If you have a roll pin failure with crank trigger you may indeed be able to get home if it shears and simply slips a little, as long as it can still drive the oil pump, which is not a given. If it can't, you'll still be stranded when it shears unless you want to drive home on zero oil pressure. At least roll pin shear shuts down you igniition for you when you loose your oil pump!
Choosing crank trigger also is not related to required cam gear material. This is purely a matter of choice of type of cam and core material. Perhaps you are referring to production hydro-roller lifter 5.0 engines that were early examples of the use long wearing steel cam gears on steel roller cams?
Either way, I hope the project meets all your goals. Your Targa 5S is one of my favorites on here on the PIBB.
Take care,
Kelly
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> I think this system is a no-brainer.
If by no-brainer, you mean for use by people without brains, then I agree.
That mass-flo set-up has to be about the worst set-up for a lumpy idle cam.
Mass air sensor is very sensitive to placement and that set up looked bad.
It may not matter if you run an "EFI cam" with wide lobe centers but but
big port and big inch Clevelands like narrow lobe centers. The mass air
sensor doesn't know the direction of flow so will respond to reversion
flow as if it were induction flow. Anyt sort of overlap in that cam and
you'll confuse the sensor. Moving the sensor farther away helps but there
are limitations. The Mass-Flo guys claim you never have to tune their
system which is a lie since they use an A9L EEC-IV. There's a reason things
like the EEC Tuner, TwEEcer and PMS exist.
Dan Jones
I agree with Dan on this one. We had a 5.0 Mustang in the shop not that long ago with a stroker motor and lumpy cam. It took us ages to get the idle right not to mention cold start and such. Tweecer and such help but I will take a good MAP based aftermarket ECU over the stock MAF one any day.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> I think this system is a no-brainer.
If by no-brainer, you mean for use by people without brains, then I agree.
Dan Jones
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".
Were you considered "without brains" when you thought of something different and attempted to make it a reality with your engine builds?
Thanks, by the way, for educating me with the benefit of your knowledge, rather than call me an idiot.
Michael
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
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