Mass air swap expectations?
#1
Mass air swap expectations?
So as some of you know I had a reman mustang 5.0HO motor installed in my 90 f150 5spd last summer and kept it on speed density. It runs strong but fuel economy is absolutely terrible. I am going to have the same shop that did the motor swap install a mass air conversion for me as well as a computer out of a mustang. I was told there is a specific computer that works well with tuning they will use. I'm also paying them to put the truck on the dyno and build a vehicle specific tune. What difference should I expect out of mass air vs SD?
only engine mods are:
-Pace setter LT headers
-K&N intake system
-True dual exhaust O/R H-pipe
-Cats are deleted
-EGR and smog pump have been deleted as well
only engine mods are:
-Pace setter LT headers
-K&N intake system
-True dual exhaust O/R H-pipe
-Cats are deleted
-EGR and smog pump have been deleted as well
#3
Would that be due to the more precise metering of fuel? For example if I'm standing behind the truck at idle I can smell how rich the fuel mixture is. And at WOT there won't be the obnoxious amount of fuel being injected in?
#4
With the issues you list I suspect that reman'ed 5L has a non-stock cam. Speed Density is very sensitive to cams with less than 114 LSA. I bet your idle RPM vacuum is low due to the cam put in that engine. In turn the SD system is dumping in fuel. A swap to MAF and a tune would cure those issues IMHO.
#5
#6
#7
Trending Topics
#8
#9
#11
Just don't go mass air thinking it'll increase mpg, as others mentioned, it shouldn't, if it does, there was something wrong with the SD efi.
When you deleted the egr, did you do anything to trick the computer to keep the cel off, like use a resistor on the evp connection? Cause this can sometimes have a negative effect.
When you deleted the egr, did you do anything to trick the computer to keep the cel off, like use a resistor on the evp connection? Cause this can sometimes have a negative effect.
#12
Just don't go mass air thinking it'll increase mpg, as others mentioned, it shouldn't, if it does, there was something wrong with the SD efi.
When you deleted the egr, did you do anything to trick the computer to keep the cel off, like use a resistor on the evp connection? Cause this can sometimes have a negative effect.
When you deleted the egr, did you do anything to trick the computer to keep the cel off, like use a resistor on the evp connection? Cause this can sometimes have a negative effect.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on SD is as efficient as mass air. SD is batch fire left bank right bank etc... And it relies heavily on the MAP sensor and TPS to determine proper injected fuel. Mass air is sequential (one at a time) and actually meters air going into engine along with using MAP sensor and a second O2 sensor. As well as mass air being necessary for further engine modifications.
#13
I think you misread, what was written, as I never said anything about efficiency.
Stock to stock,OE SD vs OE mass air, your not gonna see a mpg gain. Folks have had this notion for the past two and a half decades, and become disappointed, in regards to their sbf. As a basis, the factory mpg ratings, comparable trucks with injection systems being different, were pretty much the same.
Your saying your mpg sucks, and I think that's what led you to the mass air idea, and kinda using the, with futures mods it'll work better idea to justify it.
What i did imply, was your poor mpg, is due to some fault in the engine or current SD setup, and if you do the swap, and see a few mpg gain, it's because there was something wrong with the SD not because the mass air was better. I easily get 18-20 mpg with a stock roller 5.8, 5 speed m5r2 and stock SD/tune, egr delete with 3.55 gears, 2wd truck, and could care less if I ever do a mass air swap. Your loss in mpg could be attributed to using the wrong cam. First gen lightning guys realized real fast, the HO cam sucked, bottom end gone, 1/4 mile times no better, often worse, unless the cam was advanced, then it became a winner, or if forced induction was added the HO worked very well. Considering that engine was more cubes and better everything else, than a stock truck 302, the inefficiency is a little more clear, when you add an HO cam to it, presumably installed straight up. Your crutch is your five speed, where if it was auto the differences would be more noticeable, truck might feel faster with the HO cam but I'd say if you dropped a tq cam in there, it would be faster.
People do the mass air swap, not due to efficiency of it but because of how it understands engine function, which translates to, running a cam that's too big, better heads, and not have to do any real tuning to keep it safe, easy, reality, it still needs to be tuned. Many people running aftermarket tuning software with SD, or aftermarket SD systems have zero regret that it's not mass air. The benefit of sequential vs batchfire might have some merit but then there's guys running throttle body injection, with a smile. Take all that info, mix it up, and the result is, it's all in the tune, not so much the method of fuel delivery. Unless your into max effort chit which most aren't. SD vs mass air is an old discussion, and there's a reason why one isnt a definitive winner over the other. Sure, vehicles produced for many years now have been mass air but all they care about are emissions regulations, and there's engine design variance involves, but none of that really applies to a 26 year old sbf designed mass air/sd truck, that's engine design was decades old when Ford tried to update the injection and cam, to make it more better, they really got crazy with the explorer 5.0, on the ignition side, decade late if you ask me.
That's how I see it, it's OK that you disagree.
Stock to stock,OE SD vs OE mass air, your not gonna see a mpg gain. Folks have had this notion for the past two and a half decades, and become disappointed, in regards to their sbf. As a basis, the factory mpg ratings, comparable trucks with injection systems being different, were pretty much the same.
Your saying your mpg sucks, and I think that's what led you to the mass air idea, and kinda using the, with futures mods it'll work better idea to justify it.
What i did imply, was your poor mpg, is due to some fault in the engine or current SD setup, and if you do the swap, and see a few mpg gain, it's because there was something wrong with the SD not because the mass air was better. I easily get 18-20 mpg with a stock roller 5.8, 5 speed m5r2 and stock SD/tune, egr delete with 3.55 gears, 2wd truck, and could care less if I ever do a mass air swap. Your loss in mpg could be attributed to using the wrong cam. First gen lightning guys realized real fast, the HO cam sucked, bottom end gone, 1/4 mile times no better, often worse, unless the cam was advanced, then it became a winner, or if forced induction was added the HO worked very well. Considering that engine was more cubes and better everything else, than a stock truck 302, the inefficiency is a little more clear, when you add an HO cam to it, presumably installed straight up. Your crutch is your five speed, where if it was auto the differences would be more noticeable, truck might feel faster with the HO cam but I'd say if you dropped a tq cam in there, it would be faster.
People do the mass air swap, not due to efficiency of it but because of how it understands engine function, which translates to, running a cam that's too big, better heads, and not have to do any real tuning to keep it safe, easy, reality, it still needs to be tuned. Many people running aftermarket tuning software with SD, or aftermarket SD systems have zero regret that it's not mass air. The benefit of sequential vs batchfire might have some merit but then there's guys running throttle body injection, with a smile. Take all that info, mix it up, and the result is, it's all in the tune, not so much the method of fuel delivery. Unless your into max effort chit which most aren't. SD vs mass air is an old discussion, and there's a reason why one isnt a definitive winner over the other. Sure, vehicles produced for many years now have been mass air but all they care about are emissions regulations, and there's engine design variance involves, but none of that really applies to a 26 year old sbf designed mass air/sd truck, that's engine design was decades old when Ford tried to update the injection and cam, to make it more better, they really got crazy with the explorer 5.0, on the ignition side, decade late if you ask me.
That's how I see it, it's OK that you disagree.
#14
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
breno1987
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
3
05-02-2012 10:24 PM
coreyl302
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
7
09-06-2006 12:53 PM
TheRoadVirus
Performance & General Engine Building
11
11-19-2005 05:42 PM
HippieCustoms
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
1
05-15-2005 07:43 AM
ExcellentRed
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
10
10-22-2003 08:19 PM