Let me correct you as well add the c-6 to the list it will bolt the flywheel as well! Go ahead ask me how I know. It was the trans of choice for bronco's till early 90's and it certainly can be swapped for an aod. I will even throw in some links to well known truck builders, and some from a few other sites I frequent Plus post a pic of mine if you dont believe me.
Also when you buy engines do you leave parts behind or take them with you? I prefer to get all I am paying for so there must be a difference between us because I get them whole.
I have a aod behind the 72 302 still and also still have the 93 motor as well but it is back to its injected life form. Why? for future projects. Maybe it may go ito my 88 t-bird who knows.
This is not my day off the turnip wagon nor my first day working on Fords.
Let me ask you this:
If it was unclear as to what I typed on what was used dont you think more then just would have chimed in. In other words I have over explained things as of now and am growing very tired of this.
If you dont like how it was written p.m me I'll personally let you have my password so you can feel fre to type it any way it appeals to you.
Did you see me over justify myself in correcting you on the 32 302. No I hinted at it but seeing you are now pushing more then needed here goes.
In the mid 60's not in 32 the 302 was born. It began a life in the form of a 289. It became a 302 when the need for 5 liters motors was a give me because Ford needed the stroked 289 (302) for running in the 5 liter or litre (that depends on which side of the world you stand on and seeing I speak english in America it will be spelled liter form now ) class. It then grew to be a 351 in various forms. But now that I have lowered myself to this I will continue just for S & G'S. You figure out what S&G stands for.
In the mid 80's Ford changed the balance weight on the crank. Many still wonder why and few do know why. The main reason was because they could the second reason was based on the new one seal piece also implemented among the fact they thought the motor gained more stability with it's balance on higher rpms the Stangs were running. There are a few other beliefs as well but ........................ DId you know this as well----------------
You can add the 28 ounce crank to a 50 oz block or vice versa as well. Be sure to add the correct flywheel from the crank as well. There is a kit just for doing so that may require some machining as well. Good day.

 

Please p.m me with it if you dont mind. Or you can email me either way I'd appreciate it. When I am ready to build it I am sure my Ranger on the Bronco frame will have been then tore my c-6 to shreds. Plus hate thought of what gas mileage is going to be for it.

 

Ye
Steve read this and see what it say's. I knew I put something in there as to what was used just to add this as a finishing note.
Though even I typoed it should have read :
The flywheels used were for the c-6 were ordered by engines date.
Does that help!

 

[QUOTE]In the mid 80's Ford changed the balance weight on the crankNO PACER.....It was in 1981= early 80's. The part about 32 was a mistype. I intended to say 72, but you can't see the trees for the forest. I've been around a long time, and I'm certain my knowledge equals yours when it comes to Fords. Most likely exceeds yours, since I've had hands on experience since the late 60's. When a SBF is being spoken of, it is assumed that the engine has the factory year crank in it. That is why we call the engines by a certain year. SO WE KNOW WHAT PART FITS WHAT YEAR. That was the whole point. If being corrected by me (in a very friendly manner I might add) bothers you so freaking much, you better go take your meds. Now I've had enough from you, as far as the personal attacks go. Maybe you're just jealous, because I live in ONE OF THE WARMEST states America. Now go and do whatever it is that people like you do......you don't want a piece of me.

 

[QUOTE=stevef100s]Wrong 82 was year and you can still find either 28 or 50 oz being produced then because of parts on hand. 83 was the accepted year because only 50 oz were produced. Though correct it was early 80's not the mid but mid 80's has been to what they refer the change as mid was closer. Only two years forward rather then 3 back (you can never go back.)
Also you are once again wrong bout jealously lets just say I prefer where I am at compared to the places I have been.
Never once till you forgot to READ did I attack you. Though I did correct you. Does that hurt your feelings? I didnt intend to.
Correct on why we call motors by year saves us aggravation of wrong parts. Also if we would have READ the post and I didnt typo for the fact of being in a hurry ( yes big enough several times now to say I goofed are you?) You would have seen that. Which leads me to this I pointed to few posts to proof that it was stated what was used and still you on me hmmmm.........
Meds wrong bud see the attacks comming from the wrong side here get it right on what and who said it o.k?
Your correcting of me has definitely grown old but for some dumb reason I have found some enjoyment out of this as well as some others by now.
But seeing this is not my post or yours for that matter I will start one where this can continue if need be. Just feel free to p.m if you feel the need.
Experience well we wont argue any of that here because all I see is someone experienced in arguing then READING.

Good day.

 

you guys really need to take this elsewhere.

 

I installed the refurbished ECU and the truck runs better then when it was new. ECUDirect replaced a shorted capacitor. The trans shifts better. There were a lot of signs telling me that there were problems but as I have no knowledge of computers, and all the things that it operates, I could not diagnose the symptons back to the ECU. Mechanically, I thought the tranny was on its way to the tranny shop...but it seems the ECU was giving it bad (erroneous) instructions, which have resolved itself with the ECU rebuild. I have learned a great amount of information about trannies in the last couple of days,Thank You, and I think that maybe the E4OD will stay but in the future the EFI WILL be replaced with a 750 Holley with modified boosters.
Bronco Butch

 

going to a carb i think is rediculous and is the wrong approuch. but glad you got it working.

 

Glad to hear it Bronco Butch. Best of luck with her. Also checked the link. Thanks.
Al

 

I'm in my late 50's and must give my opinion about the electronics you scorn. The last carb engined car I owned was a '79 Mustang 5.0 notchback. I really liked that car, installed an Edelbrock F4B manifold, Carter AFB, Comp Cams 268 High Energy cam on it, and a full dual exhaust. It was pretty quick. Today, I'd yank that engine out and put an EFI 5.0 engine and electronics in it so fast, I'd be little more than a blur.

The fuel injection system can be adjusted and troubleshot via a screwdriver, pliers, a wrench or two, and a digital Multimeter. There are few systems easier to work on, and if you have access to a CO tail pipe sniffer (home versions are a few hundred bucks) you can really tune them.

There really isn't a carb engine that will equal the performance of the EFI engine, dollar for dollar when you consider drivability, cold start performance, and fuel efficiency. Unless you get into exotic carbs and cams, the carb engine will make substantially less power too. Then there's the issue of spark control.

Pat

 

Bronco Butch glad its running though I also advice not to change even though it can be done and fairly easy at that. Plus the e4 trans wont work without the comp so You will have to change the trans. Plus injection usually works better then a carb.
IMHO if you do make the switch you will later regret it. Especially when there isnt a change in anything else ( read as more cubic inches). The reason I done many swaps from injection to carb was it was a 4 cyl model, and most of the parts neccessary were in my possession.
Good luck.

 

All true, I'd not do this unless it was for hobby purposes and money were no object.

Here's a web site wherein folks are leaving carbs and such behind, and going to modern EFI and electronic spark control, all as a do-it-yourself project. Meet Megasquirt Electronic Fuel Injection Control.

 

I hear a lot of negative talk about carbs and to many the electronic age is a wonderful time. Just because there are non-electronic minded folks don't mean that the drive by wire is head and shoulders above mechanical means to achieve that forward motion. Computers used as a moniotring tool for feed-back is great...but to control the mechanical functions, well, that just takes the backyard mechanic out of the game. Probably the greatest benefit of EFI is the ability to adjust to changing atmospheric condidtion along with altitude. A properly tuned carb is just as good plus a human can actually work on it. In NASCAR EFI is trying to worm its way under the hood and if you were to listen to the set-up mechanics you'll hear that the difference is not that great.
NASCAR mechanics, today, are still working with carbs. They don't seem to have problems.
Bronco Butch

 

carbs do have there place. nascar is not a good example though.
the time,headache and cost to switch from efi to carb would cost more then trying to understand how efi works and troubleshoot yourself.
I was a carb guy to but once i read up on efi and got started tinkering with it. it became alot easier to maintain. have you been to www.fordfuelinjection.com . there is so much good reading there. most of your offroaders are going efi as well from baja to moab slickrocks. carb is whats needed when efi is to expensive to convert to OR there is no efi available for the application.

 

First, let me state that this is just an exchange of ideas, and is for fun.[img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The modern EFI system is precisely that, head and shoulders above any carb, there are no known carbs that can function remotely at the level of an EFI system. You'd have to figure out a method to thwart the laws of physics to change this fact.


No, that's not been my experience at all, it merely means that we must learn new (to us) information to work on the EFI system, it's really easier to work on once you acquire the information.


Yes, the modern EFI does this very well, nearly all of them acquire ambient air pressure as one of the variables they're measuring.


NO, no standard carb measures ambient air pressure. In fact, carbs are so slow to respond to manifold pressure changes they have to have an accelerator pump as a band-aid to cover the fuel flow hole that occurs when you open the throttle quickly.


NASCAR cars use carbs because the rules require them, there is no other reason. Except for certain racing classes in other racing venues that also require carbs, the carburetor is extinct.

Don't get me wrong, if I built a replica 289 Cobra, I'd likely use a carb on it for fun reasons. There are few things prettier than a Porsche flat six with a couple of Weber three barrel carbs on it, they're impressive just sitting there.

But for regular street and off road use, no, that's none at all, carb systems that approach the EFI for performance, ease of maintenance, and fuel efficiency. You'd spend hundreds of dollars converting, not to mention time to do it, and get less than you have in your stock engine right now.

And dat's the truf.