Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42
  1. #1

    Default Characterizing Ford's final 2-bl 5.0L intake manifold

    A few years back I picked up a manifold off a late 1985 Lincoln LSC 5.0L HO CFI, it has a casting number of RF E5AE-9425-BB (E5 indicated 1985)

    Was hoping for an improved design over the much more common E2ZE-9425-CA intake manifold, and perhaps Ford tweaked the design to address the front cylinders running lean (a common problem on CFI HO 5.0 police cars).

    The intake ports measure 0.81 - 0.82 inches wide by 1.56 to 1.57 inches tall. This size appears similar to what I think is the 83-85 4 BL manifold measured here:
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...ort+dimensions

    The flange for the CFI or 2-bl looks taller to me but its been a while. Took some drop measurements from the top of the flange to the port floor
    3.6 inch deep left side (drivers)
    2.2 to 2.3 inch deep on right side (passenger side)
    1.635 inch diameter x2 at top flange


    Will add E2ZE-9425-CA dimensions when I can find them.
    1985 LTD LX original owner

  2. #2
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Confirmation. Ford did a lot of sorting out for the last 1985 model year.

    The E2ZE 9425 CA manifold has an sequential number too, but any 2-bbl intake fits the CFi

    Kurt84GT350 had a roller cam, 1982 intake manifold engine in his, worked fine!
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...under-the-hood



    Quote Originally Posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~jopeterson/
    CFI cars at full throttle ran lean on the front cylinders & rich at the back! The Fix should work on LX's too!
    Quote Originally Posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~jopeterson/Restrictor.htm
    "The Fix" Another Binnie discovery! According to a book he has, the high velocity Gas coming out of the CFI injectors when hitting the Butterflies, is directed more to the rear cylinders causing the front cylinders to run lean during full throttle operation! This may be happening due to the Butterflies not centered (design requirement) & not fully vertical at full throttle.

    Interesting to note that I have always had some "pinging" at full throttle even running 91 octane, while the Fairlane's SEFi (port injection) 90 Roller motor (same long block) never pings with 89 Octane! Also a few years ago, I asked Edelbrock if their Performer would work with the CFi & they wouldn't recommend it! Seems to be something to this.

    The Factory Fix to even up the flow was to add a 20% Deflector Plate!

    It was a thin SS plate with a gasket on either side. It was a straight "knife" edge, sticking our about 1/4" from the back of the bore.

    Hard to find, not all Police cars had them as it apparently was a late fix during the 85 production run. None yet on other non "HO" 5.0 CFI cars.

    Interesting in that the V6 CFi's have a horse-shoe shaped deflector edge with the open end to the center. It is a one piece molded plastic sticking out about 0.1"

    For CFi's, I got alloy E0VY-9424-A, cast iron E3AZ-9424-C, not any official E5 variant. The E2 was the common 1 year only GTand RS 2-BBL, not ever used for CFi as it had no provision for the sapcer. But its a great reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by diyford.com/ford-small-block-engine-interchange-induction-system
    .....CFI engines used a spacer beneath the throttle body to accommodate the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve and improve torque. Although these manifolds were nothing more than 2-barrel carburetor castings, they had unique Ford part numbers: E3AZ-9424-C for cast iron, and E0VY-9424-A for aluminum. The E3AZ manifold is identical to what Ford used on the late-1970s 302-2V V-8
    The E5 and E6 variants might have been reported by earlier FEP posts.

    I've seen 2-bbls right on up to E6 DE 9424 AB, and I'm pretty sure it was dual purpose as the FeedBack 2150 replaced the CFi and VV7200 on some 5 liters, it was a stand in carb for the unliked Variable Venturis, which were still serviced and provided for some US and Canada squad cars.


    Part of the issue was that the CFi intake was also supposed to be the stop gap 2150 Feedback intake, so Ford opened up the E5 for each, and added a flow dam adaptor with the CFi 5.0 HO

    The Lincolns had external EGR changes like this,



    which required other fittings

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Brick View Post
    Page 236 Mustang 5.0 technical reference performance handbook

    1979, 1982, 1985(CFI) E0VY-9424-A

    1984(CFI) E3AZ-9424-C

    Edit:
    I think some of the info in “Mustang 5.0 technical reference performance handbook” is incorrect.

    The general was for E0VY-9424-A

    1980 Granada/Monarch 5.0
    1980-85 Mark xx 5.0
    1984-85 LTD/Grand Marquis 5.0 (exc. Canada)
    1982-85 Continental 5.0
    1982 Mustang/Capri 5.0
    1980-81 T-Bird/Cougar 5.0
    1985 Mustang/Capri w/ CFI



    The problem was known about, and the Holley 2305 carb throttle body, a center point 2-bbl carb, might have fixed it. All it needed was a 1:1 linkage and the fuel from the injectors whould bias inwards to the center or the engine.

    Basically, Ford was locked in the the adges old Stromberg 81 135/60 carb design throttle body, like the 2 jet Rochester, 2209/2210 Holley, 2300 Holley.

    This kinda thing.




    When the throttle is pulled back, the front parts are where the fuel is preferentially taken from, and a flow distibution emerges. In carbs, its not a huge issue if you postion the carb and do a good intake manifold, but with CFi, its much harder as its just a Bosch Type 2 injector with a rather nasty spray pattern.


    Ford decided the Motorcraft VV7200 and 2150, and Motorcraft 1-bbl TBi and 2-BBL 3.8 V6/5.0V8 CFi were gonna be the last of the 100% Ford designed pi55 and dribble leakers....from 1985 onwards, fuel delivery systems were going Port EFI.


    I can't find the picture here anymore, but one of the FEP Zak's, Zac's or ZaXXXX discussed the flow corrector base plate the 1985 5.0 HO Mustang and Capri RS CFi, LTD LX 5.0/ Marquis LTS 5.0 had.

    The E5 manifold was certainly opened up, but the flow corrector under the phonolic spacer did the basic job. It was a case of controlled two pot mix, where the E5 went with the 2-BBL base corrector.

    This was put in place because of the poor roosters tail all Throttle Body/Central Fuel injections exhibit.

    CFi= Central Fuel injection but called 5.0 Fuel Injection or 5.0 HO Fuel Injection on the 15 or 17 inch air cleaner
    TBi Throttle Body injection (GM's term for its 1 and 2-bbl and Crossfire divorced twin 1 bbl )
    CPi= Center Point injection (Austalian term for a modified kind of 2-bbl without a flow bias)

    The 2150 Motorcraft and most 2100 Autolite were annular discharge carbs with a much finer rod operate K cluster that broke the gasoline up into very fine balls which reached the 8 cylinders more evenly. Going to TBi/CFi/CPi worsens the roosters tail compared to a well oganised 2-bbl carb.

    In a wet flow bench, during the 5.0 development work in the 80's, one guy Greg on another forum told us about how bad the all the Motorcraft CFi were for cylnder to cylinder Air Fuel Ratios.

    The Revised intake manifold was in response to the Fox LTD LX and Mecrury Marquis LTS 5.0 police editions, the lower rent Ford-Mercury Lincoln 1980 -1984's with EECIII had a more constrained system with a smaller throttle body, and never needed the modification, but the LSC CFi became a Fox Mustang/Capri HO EFi Central Fuel Injection 5.0 for 1985 I think.

    The issue actually wasn't the CFi as much as the flow bias all back tipping two barrel carbs of the Holley 2300/Autolite 2100/Motorcraft 2150 and any other of its ilk. When any kind of carb emulsion tube and jet are replaced by an Injector, the atomisation is not as fine. Using the ages old geometry of the 2-bbl back tilding throttle blades, the front of the engine is baised for too much fuel at idle, and not enough at the back at idle. Most 4-bbls are able to be contured to starved the fronts a little, and put a little more fuel in the back. The 4180C carb on the HO 5.0's was a four corner idle carb for this very reason.

    In the case of all 2-BBLS except the 1988-1991 Ford Australia with the Nissan/Chrysler injector and the Weber 38 base plate, there is always a flow bias.

    Ford Australia teamed up with Nissan Australia, and used the Nissan Pathfinder and Chrysler K car injector, with the 3 liter V6 1987-1989 Teranno/ Pathfinder VQ30i Throttle body CFi unit.

    Both the engines were completed 1987 designs,

    120 to 161 hp Center Point Injection for Dec 87- 1991 EA 3.2 and 3.9 liter Falcons


    It copied the 38DGAS/DGES carb with its center tipping throttles.




    145 hp Nissan 2-bbl CPi

    and they fixed up the problem.

    The center tipping CPi design has been used many times on European engines because its basically a Weber 38DGAS/DGES clone

    Webcon make a modern version of it.



    It never got added to the CFi Fords in the USA, because Ford had a Better Idea....the Port EFI 5.0.



    The used the ages old information from the German Cologne V4/V6 and English Essex V4/V6 engines which had the same issues.

    Ford USA just used a 2-bbl adaptor to fit a Pinto carb, and fixed the issues.



    That is essentially what the E5 intake does.


    The 1980 to 1986 2-bbl intakes varied a lot between EO VY 9424 A and E6 DE 9424 AB

    They were still making 2-bbl CFI compliant intakes after 1985, here is an E6 9425-AB item




    The difference was the integrated EGR ports for the 2150 series Motorcraft 2bbls, but even any two manifolds that carry the same casting number might not be the same casting....like these two, where the casting font is 180 degrees different...gotta love it!





    The one year only 5.0 GT and RS 2-BBL had larger holes for the 1.21 carb and no undercarb voids for the E2ZE 9425 CA



    and the clearance for the EGR system the EECIII and EECIV system required. The position of the fittings differed due to space limitations of the front CFi dashpot verses the later 2-bbl 1.21.


  3. #3

    Default

    Is this a serious concern for a 3721 edelbrock? I guess it must be at some level. When I get the car back from the shop I will pay attention to any pinging I may hear...

  4. #4
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Based on all the discussions, I'm certain its a "flow speed from the injector hitting the throttle blades" issue.

    The intake is irrellevent. If anyone can post the


    1. 3.8 CFi injector correctors
    and

    2. 5.0 HO CFi injector correctors

    and

    3. 5.0 Standard Output "SO" CFi injector correctors (1985 probably in the first EEICIV XR7's and Thunderbirds, non LSC, non Conti Mark VII, I'm guessing)

    You'll see Ford engineers focused on the Throttle Body Injector and its under the throttle body area with funny Gasket & Stainless Steel xx% Deflector Plate to re-divert flow. 119 HP, 180 or 150 hp respectively, the intakes varied a little underneath, but not enough to vary anything from the normal HO and Standard Output "SO".

    The corrector was based on a whole application, the little 3.8 got it too as a running change, so it was not just SSP long wheel base Foxes, but any "Throttle Body EFi" engine with that Motorcraft 2-bbl "CFi".

    I doubt the intake flow rates would change much with a better intake, the 3721 and 3723's are very good updates. I still think a single plane, such as the Edelbrock Victor Junior is the answer, and would have been an option, but for one thing....the M and F code 5.0 automatics were supposed to be mild automatic combinations, and the CFi with a single plane would have upstaged the 210 hp 4-bbl 5.0 M code.

    Some Ford engineers are rehired, and might not be at liberty to talk about what happened in the Engine Lab in 1983- 1985 when the M code engines were being dyno tuned, so I'll have to check with Gregg...

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    JACook, 84GT350CONV, word up!

    Everything in balance. 3721 sounds good. The one above was an #EDL-7121. It wasn't my car, though.

    http://www.therangerstation.com/foru...d.php?p=557589




    In this instance, though...I go roller cam too.


    There were two versions of the CFI HO for automatics in the 84 and 85 Mustang (and the Lincoln LSC too). The first one also came out in '84 in Mustangs (and LTD LXs), and it made 165hp with cast iron exhaust manifolds and single exhaust.

    By mid '85 it gained tube headers and dual exhaust and went up to 180hp in the LSC. It got a roller cam in some 85 variants.

    fgross2006, since yours has headers it's now the 180hp capable version. If it doesn't have a roller cam, it should certainly get a better intake, if you can afford it.

    The roller cam CFI 5.0 85's still had TFI, but more than that, the later SEFI pump can support the HO CFI just fine. It went on to power the Lincoln MKs for a couple more years. The HO version of CFI was unique to the Mustang and Linc, with larger throttle bores, and the simple existing-parts solution to add idle air for cold starts , but the EEC added the extra fuel instead of the choke plate. The extra 28% fuel injection flow makes more than enough for 180 hp. They are almost 600 cc injectors. Standard 302/5.0L received smaller bores, 'choke' setup, and 500cc injectors, while V6 engines had the same throttle bores, but only 388cc injectors. When a CFi non HO 84 and 85 made 140 hp, a CFi 3.8 gave 120 hp.



    The stock CFI was starting to get a way better edge on it by 84. It is far and away over the first 1979 EECII, then EECIII effort. Since Ford had decided to move forward with CFI from the LSC and Panthers, it was an natural for an AOD Fox. It started off 120 hp, 207 lb-ft in those. 165 Hp is 38% up on 1979, but it still uses what is really the 79 120 and 140 hp intake with a part number update, yet the 175, 205 hp engines had a whole new 4-bbl.

    In any other car, you'd look at the whole package, but I seriously doubt with those big a$$ injectorts, that there any wrong step with improving on the latent stock set-up, it was being held back, with dating to 1979 intake. Even the existing exhaust, with its improvments, is a complete right first step if you have the stock CFI set up properly.

    Lets remember, like all Throttle Body Injections systems, but especially so when using Bosch injectors for an application not really designed for throttle body, the stock intake is a restriction. On our Aussie and Kiwi builders of 5.0 HO 4-BBL Group A Mustang GT's had to unpick the whole stock 4-bbl HO intake, rework it internally with a die grinder, and then Devcon and two pack Araldite® it it back together to get any more than 260 hp in 1984. The fact that Ford got that much extra out of the CFi is quite stunning.

    One guy I know of, a retired Ford Motor Company Auto Eng who worked on the HO program, had his boss at FoMoCo's Engine Engineering Performance Development Group give him a definition of 'performance'


    It was


    1. component and systems durability,
    2. emissions,
    3. fuel economy,
    4. cost effectiveness, and then
    5. power.


    Power was last, 5th on the list.


    Back in 2003, he related to me and some others this tail. His manager came over one day and told G, hey, look at this. It was a wet flow intake tester. He showed him what a poor roosters tail the 5.0 HO CFi had. These were the same guys that made the 4180 4-bbl 5.0 HO such an insaitable performance and economy engine.


    They did a world of good with giving the 84 and 85 autos the same M code, if they could have matched the two jug CFi to the 4-bbl intake, and get an improvement, they would have.


    The point others have made about Fords CFi is that it was was used for about 7 or 8 years during the transition from carbs to SEFI and MPFI in V8 and V6 cars. As David (PSIG from fordmuscleforums.com ) said "The awesome part is Ford purposely made them with TPS and FPR built-in, and to bolt right onto a standard Holley/Motorcraft 2-barrel flange, so converting old 2v carb cars (289s to 390s or anything with about 300hp or less) to EFI for better performance, drivability, and especially mileage is a snap with the CFI".


    Based on what restrictions the 2-bbl gave, anything to improve air flow will work JUST fine. Ak Miller in his Propane updates said that the Speed Density is self compensating, doesn't trigger a check engine light, and is the culimination of about 5 or 6 years of intensive Ford development. Asside from getting away from the hand pump applied to the lates 70's Chuck Missler Rocket Scientist NASA B-Map sensor and totally amazing Duraspark III system, the 1984 EECIV HO CFI is very friendly in comparison, a really simple system.

    The early EECIII's were smart, but way too smart for the average Joe. No easy DTC's with a light, due to a vastly confusing roll out of EECIII detail.

    There was an additional retrorespective test procedure for EECIII cars, meaning for a year or so, no-one could pull codes on the earlier CFI cars; without the Rotunda T79L-50, back in 1981, a $1500 pice of very expensive equipment that was at the time the only way to read codes. In fact, the $100 Rotunda Star analyser, or a common multi meter, would do the job, but the infomation was missing in all Ford publications, and not retrorespectively updated, as Ford pulled the detail after the cars were produced. This was known about in the 1980 model year, and it still catches people out.

    These Five files best describe the issues Ford were dealing with from 1978 to 1982...things only got simpler with the EECIV.


    The MCU and all pre EECIV systems were tained with the same brush of confusion.

    http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/...October_79.jpg
    http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/...ic_process.jpg
    http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/..._1982APRIL.jpg
    http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/..._1982APRIL.jpg
    http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/..._1982APRIL.jpg

    http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/u...&Number=531613
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puAEJ3BYFeY

    .........Back to the intake manifold. Due to a poor roosters tail, Fords CFI and TBI likes single plane a lot better, but I doubt if you'd fit this intake under the hood.


    http://image.hotrod.com/f/9267560+q8...mage_large.jpg

    http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ford-...#ixzz3ig86Xoy3

    "Ford 289 Engine Buildup
    Written by Ed Taylor on October 1, 2001
    Steve Magnante - writer; "


    Photo 8 of 15 | The Keith Dorton-modified 500-cfm Holley carb is the largest allowed in Currie’s Carrera Panamericana class, and it mates to an Edelbrock Victor Jr. single-plane intake with an adapter that’s hogged to match the carb’s bore size. Maximum power on the dyno was made with box-stock calibrations. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3ig86Xoy3 @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook
    ........

  5. #5

    Default

    THanks for all that great info xctasy. Just got the call from the shop... will be picking it up on monday with the new intake. Can't wait to see if it changes anything. Adding the headers and duals moved 0-60 from 9.5ish seconds to 8 seconds. We will see how this does. Wish I had a dyno...

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    In terms of average rim pull at the wheel (it's torque), and time taken to do work, and given a laden weight with driver, the exact Horsepower increase can be determined by a zero to 60 mph test.

    See http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm


    162.5 net flywheel hp at 0-60 mph = 7.997 seconds

    129.1 net flywheel hp at 0-60 mph = 9.503 seconds.

    That's 33.4 more flywheel hp. .

    In the spread sheet, a reduction of 0-60 mph time in a 3000 pound car with 9.5 vs 8.0 sec 1/4 mile is found using a common linear regression.

    Horsepower refers to a unit of power that is equal to 550 foot-pounds (745.7 watts). Horsepower is the power of an engine that is measured. Horsepower is defined as work done over time. Horsepower was originally defined to compare the output of steam engines with the power of draft horses in continuous operation. The SI unit of horsepower is Watt. Horsepower was first used by James Watt, who employed it to compare the power of steam engines with that of horses.Formula
    Rotating Horsepower (HP) = T * (N / 5252) Watt

    Where,
    T - Torque
    N - Speed
    Heck, you can even work out the HP of a squirrel

    Quote Originally Posted by What is Squirrelpower?
    http://www.squirrels.org/faq.html: “There is an old story of an Illinois state police officer that once clocked a gray squirrel, with his radar gun at 20 mph. as it ran across a highway.

    Other research has confirmed similar speeds for squirrels.

    ”I also found information about the average weight of a squirrel – it weighs 1.2 pounds. Given


    1. the average weight of a squirrel, and

    2. the top speed of a squirrel,

    I figured out that an average squirrel can generate .0007492446677193555 bhp. That means 1334.677 squirrels can produce one horsepower!

  7. #7
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    In 1969, Ford USA were asked by Ford Australia to supply 2-bbl adaptors on the F code 302's and planned 302C 2V's. They used an offset flow inducer, just like the 1985 Ford CFi 5.0 did. Same idea. See pictures below.


    I think based on the information, its cylinder head cfm increases from stock that influences the idle quality and calibration of the Speed Density EECIV CFi HO 5.0 engine. Intake manifold loss with a CFi intake is the same as the first bolt on EGR intake from 1972, the 137 hp 302 F code intake. It lost about 25% of the peak air flow to the head, compared with a bare flowing head at 400 to 500 thou lift.

    A single plane Edelbrock might loose 5% of the flow of the heads, all single planes with intake runners well formed are ble to make a less than 10% loss on bare head flow. The whole Cylinder head flow combination cannot be the same as a set of GT40 heads, E3 intake, and 1985 roller cam on a CFi 5.0 HO. That combination produces problems with computer fuel delivery.

    The pinking issue is based on inadequate cylinder filling between all eight cylinders, either by having a compression ratio to high for CFi, or some other factor. A better intake won't hurt the cylinder to cylinder flow distribution, the Ford engineers didn't rework the intake, they reworked the Throttle Body combination. The E5 cating variance was just a revision, not a perforamnce rework as far as I can tell.

    Based on what I know about peak airflow and cylinder to cylinder fuel distribution, any thing goes for a CFi intake manifold.


    I don't have a wet flow, flow net computer simulation, but plenty of engine builders have access to that info these days. What I have learned about cylinder to cylinder flow is thefrom the Rover 3.5 liter V8, a Buick version of the BOP 215, which often got a single plane intake adaptor added to the twin SU HIF6 or Zenith Stromberg CDS175. Americas over seas military bases were forced to use the Land Rover 90 and 110's with the awfull SU or Zenith Stromberg carbs that couldnt hack the conditions. They found the Holley 2300 series 350 carbs were just as bad for cylinder to cylinder flow, so they went to the Huffaker 4-bbl and 390 Holley 4-bbl dual plane intake basd on the Offenhauser 215 intake.

    Ford Australia, on its local 302Windsor and 351c 2V based 302 Cleveland, used a US designed bolt on adaptor for the ancient 2-bbl Bendix Technicho WW 2-BBL 245 cfm carb, and all the later 2-bbls 1970 to 1976 had similar problems with over heating in very heavy wide open throttle conditions, but most of that was due to the cast iron exhaust manifold on the Australian drivers side restricting exhaust flow to the true right hand side bank. The intake isn't the issue its exhaust and throttle body configuration.






















    Long story short, all 2-bbls have rotten port to port fuel distribution on V8's unless a lot of time is spent in the engin lab.

    Ford used the same rear cross over heated intake for ten years on the 5.0 2-bbl engines, and only changed the CFi design, nothing really done to the 2-bbl intake.

  8. #8
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The right solution might just be an adjustable 2-bbl baseplate on a 4-bbl open plane intake, and you do bolt on header pyro checks or wide open thottle plug readings.

    You move it forwards or back from the normal center, and then take cylinder Exhaust Gas Temperature readings under idle, part load, and full load, and then decide on the right postion on the 2-bbl CFi unit. This is what all the oval track guys who are limited to Rochester 2CG and Holley 4412's do if the formula allows a free intake and 2-bbl carb adaptor.

    If you have headers, then its just a case of finding the right mounting point and heat sink, and then running some thermocouple tests on the leanest and richest cylinders.




    Or just grab a Gunsons color tune, and do idle and wide open throttle under load checks.



    The color tune method is very accuate.








    The other option is eight 1/8" 27 theads per inch EGT's drilled into the header tubes. A Fluke meter of Cat 4 muti meter is all you need to read voltages or current.




    This allows a switchable check to be done.

    For 1 k, you could make a 100% fool proof system.




    I keep comming back to how well Currie Industries PanAmerica Carrera 65 Stang ran with a 4412 500 cfm 2-bbl.

    Quote Originally Posted by Written by Ro McGonegal on May 1, 2002
    The last time I drove a rumpy hot motor with a two-barrel carb on top of it was never. So Currie’s car provided a unique and unforgettable experience, one that leaves you wondering why you’d need secondaries at all. The power comes on in such a linear fashion that the throttle seems to have no restriction whatsoever. Quite like a modern EFI induction system, there are no flat spots, the intake makes nary a sucking sound, and the engine seems like it wants to crank forever.

    It also provides plenty of aural sensation and mechanical excitement. And by the feel of it, most of that Ed Taylor long-rod torque is available fairly flat across the board, and it’s programmed to expedite via 87 octane. (The Pan Americana race route featured 93 exclusively.) His engine idles as smoothly as the camshaft will let it, and the sound produced by Rod Sexton’s beautiful pipes is pure pre-catalytic converter and impossible to resist.
    Frank Currie, of Currie Enterprises, Passed Away at 87

    There is no reason why a Speed Density 5.0 couldn't do the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    With the right intake manifold, cam, and heads, you can get 350 hp from even a 289 with a box stock 4412 blueprinted 500 cfm Holley 1.375" venturi carb.

    Even a 2-bbl (or especially a 2-bbl!) really likes single plane 4-bbl intake a lot better than anything Ford ever made for 1968 to 1985 2 or 4-bbls. If your very carefull, this might fit under the hood.

    See http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/...tang-fastback/



    and this






    There is a very specfic combo listed here that will get you close, but it'll be like a 86 with the wildest 303 cam, and you'd probably out perform it. Due to the cam and carburation, your rev range would require some gearing more like Franks 66 Shelby replica. Its a real car, with real performance, and some real science went into getting it to do 140 mph and sub 15 second 1/4 miles. None of that data is hidden. If you run it through a simulation program, you get the same power peaks with less rpm. It is a real 7000 rpm engne with 292 cubic inches. A 306 would drg the peak power rpm down a little with the cam specs.

    Basically, peak power is its related not to peak carb air flow because (as NASCAR proved), even with Winston Cup steel restrictor plate, and a little 390 cfm 4-bbl, you can make 850 hp if you compress, cam, exhaust and use the right heads the right way to underscavege a 351 Windsor or pre EFI F452 block. In a similar way, the so called production Carrera Pamaerica has been dominated by 2-bbl stock gasoline engines that absolutely can make insane power very, very cheaply. Frank Curries car in the link above is proof what can be doen on below 9.25:1 compression and 87 octane gas.


    The problem with the 2150 is that they were only 1.08 or 1.21 carbs, 287 or 351-356 cfm rated Fords way. With the advent of the 1965 Clean Air Act, Ford decided the last big two barrel was the 1964 to 1966 390 2100 series "C4MF-A"prefixed Autolite 2-bbl with a 1.33 venturi, and 424 cfm.

    The SAE Net Hp in the 2-bbl 400 was about 172 to 180, then down to 159 to 163hp in the restricted exhaust truck era. Rated Gross was 260. I'm picking that with the 5.0 GT 1.21 carb, you'd get to 250 hp net fairly easily. The German DIN factory net hp was about 240 in the 64 to 66 2-bbl 390, or 280 hp Gross.

    The work Currie Industries did on there Mustang




    includes a cam specification, a intkae and exhaust target air flow, an intake manifold, and it would work fine with a 2150 carb fly cut or abrasive reamed to a 1.375" venturi. Normally, any Motorcraft carb has well over 160 thou of wall thickness in the casting. With 80 thou removed around the annular portion of the venturi, you'd get to a 1.375" venturi size fairly easily, enough for over 430 cfm. If it broke through, you can expoxy it back with JB weld, and resand with emery or wet and dry. Its been done before with 5200 Holley Webers, take them out another 160 thu easily for 336 cfm, up from 227 cfm.

    a stock 5200 Holley Weber, which is 23 and 27, can be routed out to 29 and 31 mm venturis and still work, as well as flow 336 cfm at 3" Hg like this one by Mercury Marc (an Aussie told him how to do it!)


  9. #9
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    What's the motivation behind trying to make horsepower with a 2 barrel? We did a lot of work in bomber class dirt track which limited us to 2 barrel..... other than that, a 4 barrel (or two- lol) is often the way to go.

  10. #10

    Default

    If I could make 240 at the wheels with my CFI I think I would keep it since the computer etc is all in great shape. After I get a 0-60 and some driving time on the new intake I plan on doing gears next (still haven't decided between 4.11 and 3.73). Most people do the 4 barrel first and then all of the exhaust/headers/gears and I am curious what happens when you go the other way. As of yesterday I have a four barrel intake on it so whenever I feel the need I will add the 4 barrel CFI (sniper or something) but I really want to see what I can achieve with the CFI and fixing all of the things Ford should have done on day one with the gt.350 Hell, approaching 350 at the flywheel would be pretty cool (but probably not possible).

    Either that or several thousand squirrels in the trunk.

  11. #11

    Default

    And modifying those speed/hp formulas for a 3400 pound car (driver 230pnds) probably puts it up a little higher on the HP so far.

  12. #12
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    What's the motivation behind trying to make horsepower with a 2 barrel? We did a lot of work in bomber class dirt track which limited us to 2 barrel..... other than that, a 4 barrel (or two- lol) is often the way to go.
    More points of fuel distribution always makes more power, as power is the load an engine can carry, with a speed factor. If you excuse the pun "pi$$'n'dribble", the term is accurate in a V8 2-bbl.

    4-bbl, 6-bbl, 8-bbl, 12 bbl, port EFI, combined 8 point Gasoline Direct Injection and 8 external bellmouth injectors...each will make more torque and more power, with less rpm required.

    Having said that, even 6 cylinder Argentine Carrerra Turismo TC 3000 Falcons with 187 cubinc inch engines and one 48 IDA carb make 390 hp at 9500 rpm, so its only the rev range that restricts power with a 2-bbl verses, say, and independent Runner EFI or carbs. A 187 with triple 48 IDA's would pull 390 hp at 8500rpm. The addition of points of distribution drop the peak rpm needed to make the same power and torque.


    That 352 hp at 6500 rpm in the 292 happens to be pretty efficient compared to any 352 hp 5.0 EFi engine, but it has to carry 6500rpm instead of about 5200 rpm, and that peake power rpm difference isn't because of capacity, its due to the carbs inablity to supply fuel to the cylinders as fast as a port EFi 5.0.


    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    And modifying those speed/hp formulas for a 3400 pound car (driver 230pnds) probably puts it up a little higher on the HP so far.

    Yep, 1.1333 more in each, 37.8 hp extra at the flywheel. That's quite a lot!

    Going back to the intake manifold, its the restriction point, the heads are the other. You cannot move further on the peak CFM rating than the stock 145 cfm. The 1986 port EFi intake was designed to keep the air flow down too.

    By 1993, the GT40 EFi intake loosened up the restriction, and by then it was MAF controlled to fleash out the idle issues.

    Speed Density needs recalibration to operate under the GT40/GT40P, alloy GT40x /TFS/AR XXX and later Crane 2031 style roller profiles that Ford started using.

    Even with a poor roosters tail, an open plane 4bbl intake would take the stock HO 5.0 CFi, and make it work.

    One of the Megasquirt or the Aussie EMS Stinger 4424 systems can be revised back to operate a lowly CFi much better than any of the other newer aftermarket systems. Hooking the TFI into the Megasquirt and Stinger systems used in sedan racing has been the master coup for these.

    The "bad" for CFi Throttle body Autolite 2100/Motorcraft 2150/ Holley 2300 2-bbl throttle body geometry and the really basic Bosch Type 2 Injectors high pressure droplett splatter drops out when the intake manifold is single plane, and you have the Frank Currie style carb spacer.


    The Restrictor Plate NASCAR cam profile can be copied in with a roller cam, and it would allow a huge performance gain over stock.

    http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ford-...34_image_large

    The custom ground shaft from Comp Cams is a mechanical flat-tappet design with NASCAR Winston Cup restrictor-plate lobe profiles to help compensate for the two- barrel carb - see the sidebar for specs. The design reduces seat time to bleed cylinder pressure at low engine speed but bolsters intake flow as revs climb to offset a restrictive intake tract.
    Side bar specs were

    Because of the two-barrel carburetor, exhaust-port flow was intentionally limited to less than 80 percent of intake flow above 0.400 lift to maintain a scavenging effect. The lightly modified heads flow 237.5 cfm on the intake and 185.6 cfm on the exhaust.

    Type: Comp Cams custom grind ($149)

    Duration at 0.050: 244/248

    Gross Valve Lift: 0.584-inch

    Valve Lash: 0.018/0.020-inch

    Centerline: 109 degrees
    Heck, if someone would pitch in, we could even get the stock 1984 to 1985 CFi HO EECIV binary code and uppack stratergy mapped, and dial up a 350 hp calibration with 96 gph injectors for use with a better intake. It would be astounding!

    CFi 5.0 EECIV Box codes, anyone?

  13. #13

    Default

    I don't have a CFI tear-tag cal code, but here's some EEC-IV strategy files...

    http://www.eecanalyzer.net/strategies
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  14. #14

    Default

    Just got the car back in the garage with the new intake manifold but the trani cooler fitting on the radiator is leaking something awful and I think the timing is borked so I have to wait till after thanksgiving to address those two show stoppers. I assume the guys didn't disconnect the tfi when they timed it. It is idling at 300 rpm now. Gonna be hard letting it sit for the next week. Even with the retarded timing I can tell it is breathing differently.

    Heads are a long way off. I assume years from now when the engine gets tired (85k on it now) i will go for a long block with a roller in it and be forced to upgrade the stock CFI if I haven't done it by then.

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emerygt350 View Post
    Just got the car back in the garage with the new intake manifold but the trani cooler fitting on the radiator is leaking something awful and I think the timing is borked so I have to wait till after thanksgiving to address those two show stoppers. I assume the guys didn't disconnect the tfi when they timed it. It is idling at 300 rpm now. Gonna be hard letting it sit for the next week. Even with the retarded timing I can tell it is breathing differently.

    Heads are a long way off. I assume years from now when the engine gets tired (85k on it now) i will go for a long block with a roller in it and be forced to upgrade the stock CFI if I haven't done it by then.
    It'll cope with all that real nice.

    Based on a formerly pictured website article, I think Fords advantage with Port EFi Speed Density is that its downward compatible with CFi.

    I no longer see it on the net, but an EECIV 2.9 was converted back to CFi using a 3.8 V6 throttle body. Somewhere, the pinouts exist to use a SEFI 2.9 computer on a 3.8 CFi throttle body.

    I've seen two instances of the the V6 CFi throttle body being transplanted to the 2.8 Ranger engine with rewiring of the four year only V6 Speed Density CFi Computer, which is enough for the 114 hp 2.8 Bronco II /Ranger German import Cologne V6.

    http://www.therangerstation.com/tech...Injection.html

    https://kevinhikaruevans.wordpress.c...fi-conversion/



    If the v8 5.0 SEFI DC Speed Density computer was rewired the same way, the CFi throttle body could be run off it.


    Quote Originally Posted by FB71 View Post
    I don't have a CFI tear-tag cal code, but here's some EEC-IV strategy files...

    http://www.eecanalyzer.net/strategies
    Thanx JDA!

    the specific biggest problems with it is/are

    1. Rarity. The EEC-IV EPROM is difficult to re-write, though it is possible, it is not something that would be useful as a commercial product for any target market. The Crane Interceptor






    and RPP Extreme Performance Engine Control "Exreme Edge"



    systems were an early kind of managment tool to avoid logging Binary Codes, but were deamed as cheater equipment by the EPA. So the Cost benefit was that 5.0 Port EFI Speed Density was only mapped recently by Sailor Bob for one Catchcode DC, the 86-88 Speed Density Port EFi, not the 84-85 twin point CFi 3.8/5.0 Std Performance /5.0HO. That is rarer than rare, no-one in the world would be silly enough to map out a 120, 150, or 165/180 hop up upgrade to those 231, and 302 CFi engines. Yes, you could make it cope with a different cam, and more injector, but there are four other issues

    2. cam swapping to one with more overlap is problematic as the computer has insufficent time based resolution to respond to idle to just off idle MAP pressure changes, so it would need tip in data to cope with this

    3. The algorthim is limited. It doesn't know how much air it's moving (it goes lean as a result, and unless you create a new set of values, it won't be able to respond)

    4. The stock 2 bar MAP sensor improvements, like a 3 or 4 Bar sensor calibration with extended Hz values cannot be transfered because the stock system isn't calibrated for values out side the working range they devised with the old EECIII. It can't detect MAP sensor boost, even if a higher resolution or boost capable sensor is added.

    5. If we refuse to alter the stock tune on a CFi SD system, the Hp gain possible is small, so all the Moats guys say "why bother?"


    In terms of artillary to answer those questions, Ford at one time considered a Motorsprt Extreme Edge or Crane Interceptor to control the TFi to tip in or take out spark advance. But only one version of the CFi has that option, the 5.0 HO. For the HO, Ford removed the 3.8 V6 and Standard Performance 5.0 IAC, and added the ignition tip in.

    Megasquirt does this, its a fully worked SD system with huge adjustablity.


    The Ford EECIV CFi can be hacked, but it needs three some mercanary work-arounds. IAC inclusion, TFi tip in, and some resolution data table work to spike its reaction to idle and part throttle MAP in puts.

  16. #16

    Default

    ah, the old twEECker stuff... Haven't those interceptor systems in ages.

    I'd bet a Moates Quarterhorse would work with the CFI pcms... Inhale the stock tune via Binary Editor software and the Quarterhorse interface...
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  17. #17

    Default

    Oh, and MS can be used with MAF, if desired. I spent a little time with Bruce Bowling (half of the Bowling/Grippo team that created MS), and helped him with some MAF research, when he was teaching at the US Naval Academy here in MD. We're also in the same SAE chapter...
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  18. #18
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    J.D.A
    Cornucopia of UseFULL Knowledge.

    If we could just hold you in a stasis tube, or maybee a recording studio, Jim, and treat you like a rock star, feed you a diet of whatever makes you happy, and we'd extract every ounce of so called useless information, and edjumackate the masses...Muh hah ha ha ....



    The work Bruce did was very smart. Right now, I have it on excellent knowledge from one 28 year old guy that MS3 has a burgoening MAF interface which has been worked through, its basically an open slather for other options for 86 to 95's that didn't really exist before. Another much old guy who has helped is Alex C. Peper, who is more on the OBDII access, but the EECIV did have PID live data for the last four years.

    I like EECIV's "bitchy-ness" because it shows a high degree of integrity and smarts that Ford Engineers had. In amodern vernacular, it overcompensates by being extra detach-y. Its not open source like MS, and I like that because people abandoned performance pursuit after a few small hurdles, so that proves they are clearly more interested in a performance bang than enjoying the company of a well mapped engine. The CFi 5.0 HO automatic has a glorious amount of low end shove, a sweet engine note, and it would have gotten better if Port EFi hadn't come on stream due to CFi calibration costs. It floggs you, then washes the dishes...On a 1972 2-bbl intake, 1973 camshaft, 1968 block and its 1984 TFi and EECIV, and CFi made it all work. With 43 hp more than 1972's 302. I love this engine. Its the not the most missunderstood engine, that was the 1980/1981 G code 351 HO Variable Venturi with its wacko carb, or the 1989-1993 R code 3.8 Liter V6. The last 5.0 HO CFi was HO 351 2-BBL performance, with its low end torque and its top end power. The CFi is a banned engine combo for NHRA for one reason...its very, very quick for an engine with cooking parts and a very stout AOD with a 2350 rpm stall converter. With stump puller gears it would it not be the most unassiable 5.0 combination?

    That CFi air fuel distribution issue was a 2-bbl carb issue that Ford USA had solved with the Holley 2305 series 350 and 500 carbs, they were mechanical secondary, but the basic idea was what the 1988 EA26 Falcon came up with, but with a Nippon Denso/Nissan/Chrysler K car injector in twin point form. It was Speed Density EECIV, with a Pathfinder throttle body.

    Instead, FoMoCo gave use an even better SEFi 5.0 port injection engine.....what a lovely engine, solid gold mid range punch with a lot of extra top end cream.

    Ford did some very smart stuff when you pull appart the Machine code. Especially some box code options that had what we might consider "junk DNA", like the A9L economy supra stoich ratio alogorithm that Ford probably had to take out when the FMV Stds had 14.7 or oxygenated 15.1:1 air fuel mandated just before OBDII. Then there were the idle control tip ins with TFi as mentioned, B&G coppied that in the fuel and ignition mapping programs, and that is a lot of fun, as its got all little more resolution than EECIV Speed Density.

    For me, I like both SD and MAF. MAF is another layer of proprietry work, and since the sizes of the MAF and throttle body vary greatly, its less simple than just a 1/1000ths of the line code of volitlie memory that Speed Density takes up. Ford found, like Chrysler, that TBi with Speed Density took up a lot more dyno and emissions lab developoment time than Port EFi with MAF; Port EFi with Speed Density was a lot of extra work. MAF was sure a big help for Ford.

    The cost of fielding out the Catchcode for 5.0 HO CFi is just 800 bucks US. Then you have to decide on which five upgrades you want. H/C/I , Exhaust and Ignition. Injectors aren't an issue, they exist right up to 96 lb-hr.

    The issue is that you then have to decide

    1. what head (old example was World Products Windsor Jr., PN WOR-053030, lightly modified heads flow 0.600 thou 237.5 cfm on the intake and 185.6 cfm on the exhaust, less than 80 percent of intake flow above 0.400 lift to maintain a scavenging effect.),

    2. what cam (Old example was Competion Cams Bleedoff # 7406 or #7408 flat tappet profile duplicated in roller form, key points were Duration at 0.050: 244/248, Gross Valve Lift: 0.584-inch, Valve Lash: 0.018/0.020-inch, Centerline: 109 degrees),

    3. what intake (Edelbrock Victor Jr., PN 2921 single plane would be a non CARB EO...but you could EGR it with ease if you were keen) and

    4. what exhaust (long tube 1-5/8" or 1-3/4" http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-t...-tube-headers/).

    5. Ignition, well, EDIS and other options exist in the EECIV, but its hard to cheeply tick all those boxes. I'm certain you could use the later A9L or auto version, and then pick and mix the IAC and wire the injectors and rephase the pulse widths to suit continous needs to a twin point CFi. It just coding. Moates-ing it would be easy.


    Then the chip would get remapped, and every M code, 4-bbl or CFi, could take an aftermarket 2-bbl CFi. I believe in center tipping CPi, but that makes other issues, like running a 2.3 OR 2.8 2-bbl DGAS or Solex 34 or 38 "Cologne"1978-1984 German V6 kickdown and throttle system, and that gets in the way of the EGR.

    Problem is other systems do a better job of making power, but not a better job of being reliable or fun engine out of a very basic 2 point CFi system.

    I know 375 hp at 6250 rpm with an over rev capabilty of 6600 rpm could be made to work with the right adjustments to head cfm and port balance. I've seen that work in roller cam Group A Mustang race cars, which are still tractorable, and FISA Group 1 had some restrictions, but the special roller cam profile existed for the Pine Pac and DJR Mustangs up to 350 to perhaps 390 hp net with a 650 double pumper and stock two plane intake radically hacked up.

    On another 304 V8, one Aussie guy, Larry Perkins, said 350 hp was the 5 liter V8 cross over point where you had to go manual transmission, and you couldn't fool the misses that you haven't been messing with the family 5 liter. That was with a 3 speed THM 180C, 350, or 400. On Fords, a shift kitted AOD with 2350 rpm plus stall would work with 375 hp.

    Anyway, I'm off track badly. The intake isn't the pinch point for Speed Density CFi EECIV, its the peak combination air flow,

    1. the head is limited to about 145 cfm on intake at the 490 ish valve lift level, so yes to roller rockers,

    2. yes to slighty better than E5 or E7 heads,

    3. yes to slightly wilder cams,

    4. yes the bigger and "badder" headers,

    5. yes to some form of EDIS or igntion upgrades as long as it has a means tested TFi style advance pull out or tip in

    If you add injector lb/hr, then you'll have to address the idle and off idle hole and distrubtion problems the bouncing balls of atomised gasoline will make, a real shot gun splatter if ever one existed. I'd say a single plane 4-bbl intake would do it nicely.

    Ford were working on these issues during the Conelec and Brico EFi days in 1968 to 1971, and then abandoned it for the Proco 400 cubic inch Windsor V8....soggy throttle, fuel pump costs, high NOx, and a lack of cutting edge electronics had 'em reworking cheaper options with Honda for another 4 years after 1976. The deal was a co-op 4 cylinder cut down Falcon six with Stratified charge of the PROCO 400 head, a Compound Vortex Combustion Chamber design on a front drive compact Lee Iacocca had fleashed out. When Lee was fired, that became the Chrysler K car. Ford's first Honda headed car was the 1980 Alloy Head Falcon six, with what was planned for the Erika and then Ford Tempo/Topaz/Tracer 2.3. So Ford decided to roll out the EEC I, II, III, IV and V projects instead.








    which is direct fuel injection EFi , and where Ecoboost is now.

    So typical of Ford, it deep sixed technology that Didn't Play in Peoria...And the CFi was just a small steeping stone which Fitech Annular impinge injector, and Holley's Sniper EFi copies it today. Its Fords EECIV CFi speed density in drag.


    Potentially, the 2-BBL CFi can do it better...

  19. #19
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    http://www.compcams.com/catalog/COMP...12_439-452.pdf

    Cam specs page 446




    Engine specs

    From the Hot Rod article on Currie's Mexican race engine... $10,989
    Mexican Road Race 289 Recipe

    Displacement: 293ci

    Horsepower: 352 at 6,700 rpm

    Torque: 316 at 5,000 rpm

    Compression Ratio: 9.25:1

    Bore/Stroke: 4.030x2.870

    Rod/Stroke Ratio: 1.79:1

    Bottom End

    Block: Ford Racing PN M-6010-B50 ($845) $845

    Crank: Stock cast 289 prepped by Castillo ($300) $300

    Damper: ATI 6.325-inch, PN 918890 ($345.95) $345.95

    Damper Bolt: ARP PN 150-2501 ($25.00) $25.00

    Rods: Crower Sportsman I-beam, PN SP91225B ($519) $519

    Rod Bolts: Crower 3/8-inch, 12-point nuts (included with the rods)

    Rod Bearings: Federal-Mogul, PN R-8-7160CH ($49.95) $49.95

    Pistons: JE/SRP forged with floating pins, PN 138734 ($440) $440

    Rings: Speed-Pro file-to-fit, PN R9771-35 ($89.39) $89.39

    Main Cap Fasteners: ARP stud kit, PN 154-5401 ($60.8 $60.88

    Main Bearings: Federal-Mogul, PN 129M ($45.95) $45.95

    Cam Bearings: Federal-Mogul, PN 2102M ($19.95) $19.95

    Flywheel: Centerforce 30-pound steel billet, CTF-700220 ($310.69) $310.69

    Flywheel Bolt Kit: ARP, PN 200-2802 ($12.97) $12.97

    Clutch Disc/Pressure Plate Kit: Centerforce 10-inch Dual Friction, CTF-DF-490030 ($289.95) $289.95

    Pressure Plate: Centerforce diaphragm-type

    Pressure Plate Bolt Kit: ARP, PN 250-2201 ($6.57) $6.57

    Timing Cover: National Parts Depot, PN 6019-2A ($99.95) $99.95

    Oiling System

    Oil Pan: Aviaid 6-quart, PN 55320 ($415.40) $415.40

    Oil Pan Skid Plate: Aviaid custom ($52.50) $52.50

    Oil Pump: Speed-Pro high-volume, PN M68HV ($29.95) $29.95

    Oil Pump Drive: ARP, PN 154-7904 ($20.82) $20.82

    Oil Filter Adapter: Macco Motorsports, PN OFA1 ($250) $250


    Heads

    Type: World Products Windsor Jr., PN WOR-053030 ($799 pair) $799

    Porting: Bowl blend, port-and-chamber polish by Todd McKenzie ($450) $450

    Valvesprings: Comp Cams double with damper, PN 950-16 ($125.95) $125.95

    Valves: Manely stainless 1.94/1.60 (included with the heads)

    Retainers: Comp 10-degree titanium, PN 731-16 ($132.95) $132.95

    Locks: Comp Cams, PN 618-16 ($26.39) $26.39

    Rocker Arms: Comp Cams 1.6:1 stainless, PN 1132-16 ($394.39) $394.39

    Rocker Arm Studs: ARP 7/16-inch, PN 234-7205 ($121.77) $121.77

    Pushrods: Comp Cams 5/16-inch- diameter, PN 7608-16 ($93.30) $93.30

    Pushrod Guideplates: Comp Cams, PN 4816-8 ($25.99) $25.99

    Valve Covers: Ford Racing, PN 6582-F301 ($103.95) $103.95

    Valve Cover Breathers: Edelbrock, PN 4203 ($35.90) $35.90

    Head Bolt Kit: ARP five-point, PN 154-3601 ($37.95) $37.95

    Camshaft

    Type: Comp Cams custom grind ($149) $149

    Duration at 0.050: 244/248

    Gross Valve Lift: 0.584-inch

    Valve Lash: 0.018/0.020-inch

    Centerline: 109 degrees

    Thrust Plate and Bearing: Danny Bee Racing Products, PN 1510 ($49.25) $49.25

    Lifters: Comp Cams solid flat-tappet, PN 813-16 ($61.95) $61.95

    Timing Chain: Comp Cams double-roller, PN 3120 ($53.39) $53.39

    Induction

    Intake Manifold : Edelbrock Victor Jr., PN 2921 ($239.95) $239.95

    Carburetor: Keith Dorton Signature Series 500-cfm two-barrel, PN 0-80583-1 ($380.39) $380.39

    Carb Adapter Plate: Holley/Weiand, PN 7467 ($69.69) $69.69

    Air Cleaner: Holley, PN 120-141 ($81.95) $81.95

    Fuel Pump: Carter 8-psi mechanical high-volume, PN M60454 ($59.95) Fuel Line and Fittings: $59.95

    Earl’s ($100) $100

    Exhaust

    Headers: Custom equal-length by Rod Sexton ($1,800) $1,800

    Header Bolts: ARP, PN 400-1102 ($36.13) $36.13

    Ignition

    Distributor: MSD HEI-cap Pro Billet, PN 8382 ($236.95) $236.95

    Amplifier: MSD 6A-L, PN 6420 ($172.95), two used $172.95

    Coil: MSD High Vibration, PN 8222 ($39.99), two used $39.99

    Coil Bracket: MSD dual-coil adapter, PN 8210 ($47.95) $47.95

    Wires: MSD Heli-Core 8mm, PN 3121 ($49.95) $49.95

    Wire Separators: Made For You, PN 5095612 ($30.00) $30.00

    Spark Plugs: Autolite 25, gapped at 0.030 ($8.00) $8.00

    Timing Specs: 17 degrees initial, 36 degrees total (all in by 2,700 rpm)

    Vacuum Advance: None

    Miscellaneous

    External Fasteners: ARP Accessory Fastener Kit, PN 554-9801 ($195.21) $195.21

    Pulleys: March, PN 01550 ($189.95) $189.95

    Brackets: National Parts Depot, PN 10156-1B ($16.95) $16.95

    Water Pump: Edelbrock, PN 8841 ($149.95) $149.95

    Alternator: For Racing 90-amp, PN M-10300-A351 ($140.00) $140.00

    Gasket Set: Fel-Pro, PN 2804 ($51.95) $51.95

  20. #20

    Default

    X, what amazes most about you, aside from the sheer volume of knowledge you have to share, is the amount of time you have to post it all!!
    Jim DeAngelis
    Cornucopia of Useless Knowledge
    Connoisseur of Dearborn Ferrous Oxide
    '83 GT hatch, currently under the knife
    '79 Capri 2.3L n/a, Medium Copper metallic, survivor
    (bought from MRausch82)

  21. #21
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Engineering technician, in between yet another big paying job. You know what its like, someone asks, and because your attached to the SAE, or in my case, EU, ISO, IANZ or ASTM or CBIP, you essentially get paid to read 700 page test manuals and dig deep. Doesn't stop sh!+ spelling and nightshift induced dyslexia though.

    I'm off to remove asbestos shortly, and ther night of fun. Then I'm off the the Stive Nicks and Chrissie Hynde concert to set up chairs, lol.

    This is the only sanity I get.


    So this is how I prime the skill.

    At the moment, I'm getting back into laboratory work again after a 17 year spell away. Until the ink dries on another contract, you are stuck with this kind of weirdness...

  22. #22

    Default

    Thanks X for all the detailed info, still trying to digest it all. As to why, well, I know the stock air cleaner flows around 540 cfm or so, good enough for up to roughly 300 hp, plenty for a stock appearing restomod (in my opinion, a moded CFI might get to 260 hp crank).

    I checked the original intake on the car just before taking it in to winter storage, this is a mid 1985 model year 5.0 HO CFI LTD LX. E5AE - BB also. Don't recall ever swapping it out, and the engine has never been out of the car.

    Jim D., I have an ECC-tuner kicking around, does the Moates system offer greater capability? Think the former should at least allow dumping the binary to a computer where it can be studied.

    Couple of other useful/less tidbits - there are some that have worked with the Bosch 56 lb/hr "HO CFI" injectors in turbocharged 4 cylinder applications and believe they were highly under-rated in terms of fuel flow capability.

    At least the I/O on the 85 HO CFI EEC was quite similar to the 86 HO multiport system. For some time, at ADS Superchip's recommendation, I ran their add on circuit board between the EEC and the harness. It altered the mixture by adding resistance to the coolant temp and air temp circuits, and advanced the timing curve again through adding resistance to the ignition circuitry. It worked OK except the engine ran too rich, I later got rid of the extra resistance on the engine coolant and left the air temp resistance, gave tip in a bit more bite. But the rich running was always a concern w/r/t ring wash and I stopped using it after only a few thousand miles. Anyhow, this suggests that binary addressing might be similar between the 85 and 86 HO EEC's.
    Last edited by zak; 11-25-2017 at 09:56 PM.
    1985 LTD LX original owner

  23. #23
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default



    2305 throttle position turns into to a center focal point, pushing air fuel mix into center.



    CFi follows Fords Autolite 2100/Motorcraft 2150/Holley 2300 series (eg Holley 2-bbl 4412 500 cfm) practice




    Motorcraft CFi 2bbl


    I did the same thing on my D jetronic single barrel 1812 cc 1984 CFi Toyota Corona...changed the engine temperature sensor by resistor, and then physically spiked the static ignition just enough to avoid tripping fault codes or option out of open loop. On the Ford CFi, it might over richen due to the car triping into closed loop.

    The O2 sensor is narrow range, so its response to rich to lean is via EGR, engine temp, its not load based, but RPM and MAP based. Its important to postively cross check rich and lean with a narrow band voltage off the O2 sensor, or another wide band AFR. Without it, you are just guessing.

    Heads up for peak advance is the same. Early EECIV's had little KAM, 1985, it was a lot more advanced. Ford uses conditional Analogue data input tests to change the advance/retart, and Open and closed loop in response to temperature, RPM and MAP.

    Constant in all EFi changes is the statement "the car is over fueling". Its just not operating in the zone its accustomed. If its free of DTC's, then just log Lamda readings, MAP, and advance and Engine Temperature via cooling and manifold temperature. EGR and AIR alters things.

    Its only when you alter cam, head and exhaust upwards in size and fuel pressure and injector lb-hr rate that CFi gets out of shape.

    Load tracing is via binary code harvesting, and allowing the engine to run in closed and open loop the same way it did before alterations.

    Leave the PCV, EGR, Secondary AIR in place, and use what 408foureye from correl net calls the
    EGR DC vs Engine load (VE or GM/sec) vs RPM 3D table along with a similar spark logic. There are also some scalers and qualifiers



    Back four months ago, I found the three Moates Youtube training videos best for explaining the issues with calibrating the J3 port; it'll try find them again, but they may have been removed. TwEECer is also a good method.

    Early box code CFi EEC IV is best described as courting a wild Moabite woman who isn't your creed and plays hard to get. It ends up being a shoresh yishay, mother of an important generation. On its own, its not worth much, but it was the first part of the kiss a$$ A9's. The CFi is one of the most secure platforms around, but it isn't anywhere near as fun as a good 5.0 Port EFi.Or with the backup you'll get for the MS2 or MS3.


    As stated, all the early Speed Density EEC IV's were a lot , um, "bitch-y-er" than the later MAF driven EEC IV's.

    Personally, I'd go to Moates, and redifine the later SD port EFI to run an 3.8/5.0 ISC/IAC equiped throttle body so the H0 5.0 throttle body can be used.

    The dollars will pay off because the CFi can make the power targets, and not look any different to any other M code 5.0, 4-bbl or CFi. Others will buy the defintion file, and your able to support the same kind of horsepower a good 4bbl or Port EFi can.

    The newer 4bbl TBi systems place a lot of faith in your ablities to plumb fuel lines and fuel pumps that every CFi has stock. As long as the stock wiring and fuel lines are upgraded to as new condition, I think you'd be flat out amazed at how good that 1984 era stuff actually is.

    The older H.O 5.0 Motorcraft CFi had some serious work pumped into it to get it to work properly. And it does work. I've not seen one legitiamte issue with CFi except its inablity to put up with wild cams and high flow heads. That is caused by the removal of the ISC/IAC stepper motor program, and that was probably an experiement by Ford to see if they could do away with another control system. I don't think you can with Speed Density and the lack of data processing the stock computer had back then.

    I'd give Ford a 12 out of 10 for smarts on the 1984-1985 auto 5.0 HO engines, and -2 out of 10 for it being unsupported. But thats just because the 86 - 95 5.0's were so darned good.


    Bottom line? You have to have a sicko mentality to persue the High Output CFi system, but once any common box code later EECIV Speed Density its mapped, it would work on any 2 or 4 bbl Ford, and it wouldn't have half the issues Holleys Sniper and Fitechs Throttle Body "Green Field Conversion"systems have.


    I go back to people doing the Rat routine and putting Delco P4's on 351M's.



    Or worse, the DUI Distribtor and 2-bbl GM TBi injecting my mate put on his 1965 3.3 liter Mustang.











    Unless someone backs up the Ford 1980-1985 CFi 5.0, the stuff will die for the sake of just an ECM mapping code. People will end up putting Electronic Spark control and a 2-bbl GM TBi on our cars instead.

    TFi and CFi, it was world class, and can work really good. Ford did it with the 3.2/3.9 Aussie in line 121 and 161 hp sixes, which were caned as Taxi cabs for almost 4 years.....they were basically a GM/ Nissan/Chrysler style TBi, but the 5.0 1980 to 1985 systems and 1983-1986 3.8 CFi systems are the most under-rated, miss understood Throttle Body EFi systems ever made.

  24. #24

    Default

    Damn. After reading all that I wish mine were out of the shop. Tomorrow they should have the leaking trani line fitting fixed, hopefully early so I can spend some quality time with it. I have only been able to nurse it back and forth to the transmission shop since I had the new intake installed.

    How robust is the computer in these CFI machines? I have never read anywhere of them 'dying' but is it something people need to be concerned about?

  25. #25

    Default

    @ x, leaving secondary air in place, does that include the portion routed through the heads to each exhaust port? Or just to the center of the main converter(s)?

    @ x, yes one thing that always impressed me with this engine is the amount of torque on tap in the 1800-2400 rpm range. Even 1/8 to 1/4 throttle accelerates more briskly than any modern V8 car I've driven.

    The disassembled Ford CFI you show, not sure of 3.8 or 5.0 but looks like plenty of meat there to bore out.

    @ emery, I have been concerned about the op-amps for the EGO circuits going bad, think they do in the later EEC-IV's as well.
    Last edited by zak; 11-28-2017 at 12:43 PM.
    1985 LTD LX original owner

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •