1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks Discuss the Slick Sixties Ford Truck

Batch to sequential fire fuel injection

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 01-31-2013, 02:19 PM
Old Rusty's Avatar
Old Rusty
Old Rusty is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Batch to sequential fire fuel injection

I have a 88 351 from a van and a 95 5.0 Mustang and am wondering how difficult it would be to use the sequential fire fuel injection from the mustang on the 351 that is batch fire.

Right now I have a 460 in my 66 LWB with a C6 and 2.75 gears with a locker rear and the gas mileage is poor. I am thinking of using the 351 because it should handle the tall gears better
 
  #2  
Old 01-31-2013, 03:15 PM
NumberDummy's Avatar
NumberDummy
NumberDummy is offline
Ford Parts Specialist

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 88,826
Received 648 Likes on 543 Posts
Do you really think that the MPG will improve? If it does, it won't be any more than a paltry 2-3 MPG hwy. City MPG will remain the same.

These trucks have the aerodynamics of a brick, a gallon of regular gas back then was 19-23 cents, no one gave a hoot about MPG.

It amazes me that people buy full sized pickups, then expect them to get decent MPG.

My 1965 F100 352 stick 'n over averaged about 8-10 city, it was much better on the hwy due to the O/D.

My 2011 F150 5.0L Lariat Super Crew never got any better than 15 MPG hwy and I drive like Uncle Fudd.
 
  #3  
Old 01-31-2013, 05:58 PM
rustywheel68's Avatar
rustywheel68
rustywheel68 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Old Rusty
Right now I have a 460 in my 66 LWB with a C6 and 2.75 gears with a locker rear and the gas mileage is poor. I am thinking of using the 351 because it should handle the tall gears better
I may be missing something- but not sure i understand this part.
if you're having trouble handling tall gears, you'd need more torque.
the 460 should have waaaay more torque than the 351.

of course, the gas mileage on a carbed 460 is probably not as good as a fuel-injected 351.

there's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
  #4  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:55 PM
garbz2's Avatar
garbz2
garbz2 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glendale Arizona
Posts: 6,060
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Rusty
I have a 88 351 from a van and a 95 5.0 Mustang and am wondering how difficult it would be to use the sequential fire fuel injection from the mustang on the 351 that is batch fire.

Right now I have a 460 in my 66 LWB with a C6 and 2.75 gears with a locker rear and the gas mileage is poor. I am thinking of using the 351 because it should handle the tall gears better
The intake will not interchange due to the 351 being a tall deck block and wider than the 5.0 at the heads, however you should be able to adapt the mustang 5.0 harness and MAF along with the computer. It is a bit of work but will not gain you much of anything as the intake on the 351 is designed for down low power and torque with the long runners. Sequential will help clean up emissions but not improve the MPG..

Garbz
 
  #5  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:31 PM
Old Rusty's Avatar
Old Rusty
Old Rusty is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I know the manifold would have to remain the same, Just wondering about the electronics. Since I have both motors sitting there. Also wondering why Ford used 2 different systems.

Having owned several Ford pickups and vans I know what to expect as far as mileage goes but there is also the weight of the 460 over the small blocks.
 
  #6  
Old 02-02-2013, 02:00 PM
garbz2's Avatar
garbz2
garbz2 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glendale Arizona
Posts: 6,060
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Ford made the EFI intakes for trucks to produce maximum torque lower in the curve. Needed for towing and load capacity, something not required on a mustang.

Why are truck speed density and mustangs Mass air? one is simple and still works with limited programming the other is more tunable.

Garbz
 
  #7  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:26 PM
Old Rusty's Avatar
Old Rusty
Old Rusty is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks for the reply. I suppose the emission requirements for trucks and cars was different. I did note the 5.4 single overhead cam engine is sequential fire.
 
  #8  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:32 PM
garbz2's Avatar
garbz2
garbz2 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glendale Arizona
Posts: 6,060
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
All 4.6 and 5.4 modular engines are sequential fire.

Garbz
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
halfduck12
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
35
06-30-2011 09:23 PM
methodman0666
1978 - 1996 Big Bronco
12
08-16-2007 06:03 PM
92cargo5.0
1968-Present E-Series Van/Cutaway/Chassis
6
08-27-2006 03:49 PM
Trigger1911
1968-Present E-Series Van/Cutaway/Chassis
4
07-26-2006 06:57 AM
Phil Yerby
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
2
08-30-2003 08:21 PM



Quick Reply: Batch to sequential fire fuel injection



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 AM.