A '90 EEC-IV computer is already setup for MAF?

This stuff is so new to me, I'm not sure what I'm reading half the time. :/

Should I add a MAF setup if I put a 4 inch stroker kit in a '90 351W?

Is the MAF stuff I need available at wrecking yards? :)
What years and models do I need to look/ask for?

I'm not going to put headers and other racing-like equipment on it, just want
a 300-I6 with 2 more cylinders. ;) Haven't talked to "Comp" about a cam yet.

Got any suggestions?

Alvin in AZ
ps- It's really a '91 Bronco but the donar computer is from a '90 F250 with a
manual transmission. "E9D1" E9TF-12A650-AEB

 

The computer from the F250 is not setup for mass air, you need a mustang computer for that. For a complete conversion you also need the injector wiring and mass air meter wiring, and of course the meter as well.

The stock mustang computer will run a stock 5.8, but a stroker motor would be pushing your luck. And there really isn't much point with a stroker kit if you don't upgrade the heads too, they're way too small for a 351 as it is.

 

do some searches on here for stroker builds. go to Ford Fuel Injection for info on mass air and what its capable of.

by the sound of it you have much reading to do before you travel this path. keep the questions coming though.

 

Cool, thanks and yeah I know I don't know nuthin'. :)
The plan is to do it right the first time, so learning is the key.

So are the heads in an FT, everyone sez! :)

...but when the torque graph was shown, the FT's torque curve fit with my
use of my '75 pickup with a T18 perfectly and showed more torque in the
area that's -actually used- than the higher compression-ed 360FE with it's
"too big of heads ;)" and its smog cam.

"Switching gears" to thinking about a torque motor instead of a racing motor
is a tricky one that most never thought about before. I've been seeing that
sort of thinking repeated so many times you'd think that all there is to a
motor is headers and big valves etc because that's where the after market
money is.

I don't want to run down your thinking, I want you to help me out. :)
...but need you on the same page with me on this "torque part" tho. LOL :)

I don't want to go -fast- I want to go -quick-. ;)
...and not sound like I'm going "fast" either. ;)

I've got a wide ratio ZF transission and don't plan to ever rev the engine
past 3500 rpm, just the same as in my '75 360FE with a T18.

I own a 361FT and plan to try shoe horning it into the '75 for the fun of it. :)
The accessories won't fit but that'll be ok for an experiment, to learn about
torque and power bands. :)

I've got a torque cam in my 360FE... Comp "Economy" cam 252/252 so the
comparison should be pretty interesting.

I ordered a book last night by Probst...
"Ford Racing M1832Z1 Electronic Fuel Injection"
...was recommended on a Mustang website forum I Googled up.

Conanski, very interesting information about the MAF and the need for a
computer from a Mustang, that's all I've been reading is Mustang stuff. LOL :)

Alvin in AZ
ps- "a 300-I6 with two more cylinders ;)"

 

again search for stroker builds in this thread. there have been a couple with great info regarding the build and projected numbers.

 

Yeah.. the thing is applying a generalization you learn from one engine family to another usually gets you in trouble because they each have thier own unique idiosynchrosies. The Windsor family of motors all use the same heads.. which were originally developed for the 260 and 289, so they're really undersized for a 351 and severly restrict peak power output. The up side of this is they will produce very good low RPM TQ on this motor, particularly when combined with the EFI intake, high lift RV cam, and longtube headers.. in fact way better low speed grunt then a carb version could ever hope for. The bottom line is it's really all about the combination, the right balance of airflow capacity for the engine displacement, right cam for the aplication, right intake, right heads, etc.
There is more output potential in this motor with higher capacity heads though, there is an exceptional range of heads available from Ford and other from the GT40 series to World, Dart, AFR, TFS, and many others, and there will be increases in low speed TQ with higher flow heads... up to a point. Every motor has a tipping point when bigger starts to hurt things, and for the 351 that's up around the AFR 185 range, which is a long way from the stock heads. Of course heads that size won't run on the stock computer, so that's when it starts to get expensive, there are computer and fuel upgrades necessary to prepare it to handle a motor with the potential for double stock output.
But if all you want is a TQ motor I think you can achieve that without many changes, maybe even without a MAF conversion.. though that would allow you to run some better cams. The stock EFI intake is well suited to this type powerband, I think you would have been impressed with my 5.8, it produced outstanding grunt.. I could drive the truck around all day and never exceed 3500rpm, but that still delivered powerful launches if you wanted it to.

 

I just stumbled across this thread searching for something else. :)
I believe your post is where I got the idea to use stock heads on my 408w. :)

Took your information and searched for "AFR 185 heads" and ran across this
series MM&FF's articles...

AFR 185's on a 331w...
Unltimate Guide to 5.0 Cylnder Heads, Part 4

AFR 165's on a 306w...
Unltimate Guide to 5.0 Cylnder Heads, Pt 2

GT-40's on the same 306w...
Unltimate Guide to 5.0 Cylnder Heads, Pt 2

Notice at what RPM's the graphs start. ;)

Some of the heads actually had -less- torque down in the area where -I-
use my engines! :(

Like this one...
Unltimate Guide to 5.0 Cylnder Heads, Pt 2

But.
Those are graphs for short stroke engines.
How would an AFR185 graph look with a 393w or 408w under them? :)

Another point is how all the 383w and 408w stroker "kits" include longer
than stock rods for high end-horsepower. If I build a 383w or 408w, I'll
use stock length rods for low end torque.

Since it'll be hooked to a manual, I'll control the shift points. :)
http://www.panix.com/~alvinj/file12/hoist7m.jpg

Alvin in AZ

 

Yes... but in the examples above the motors are built to produce maximum HP for car applications, that doesn't mean these head can't produce good low rpm TQ.



It could look very different depending upon the engine combo, here's a 351 dyno sim for comparison...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/...1446de0a_o.jpg

Ha.. no you can't do that. That statement about long rods for HP is pure marketing BS, the rod length is determined by the crank throw and piston pin location and it has very little impact on where an engine makes it's HP or TQ.

 

Yeah. :)
I forgot about the cam they were testing with. :)
I wouldn't be using the same type of cam. :)
"high lift + short duration" "low RPM power range"

There it is! :)
A cam more like what I'd pick for a my uses... a "320" :)
...what ever the heck a "320" is. ;)

Smokey Yunick said to stuff the longest rods you can get into your engine. :)
Since his needs were kinda opposite of mine, doesn't mean I need to do
everything backwards, I suppose. LOL :)

But, I believe the "short rod theory" has some(?) merit, same as Smokey's
"long rod theory" makes sense, but for opposite reasons.

When I first started reading about the "short rod theory" it didn't make any
sense until the -tiny- difference was explained. It has to do with piston
acceleration by the short rod, -before- the crank throw gets to 90*
sideways to the cylinder (piston going down).

If a real world test on a dyno doesn't show it ...then the difference truly is
tiny? :) But I don't see dyno graphs showing anything at 700rpm either. ;)

One advantage to the longer rods is they are easier on the pistons, not as
much "sideways action", so that might be the most important consideration
for my needs. :) FT's don't use shorter rods and prob'ly for that reason?

And from what I've read, forged pistons are not the way to go for my needs
either. Cast would be better and best would be tight fitting hyper-eutectic.
What do you think? :)

Short rods especially make good use of hyper-eutectic piston's tight fit. :)

But I'm beginning to believe the longer rods are the best way for me to go.
For longevity if nothing else and since longevity is actually more important
to me than performance, I'll figure on going with the "longer than stock"
rods for now. I'll let the increased displacement take care of performance. ;)

Can you see I've been reading and thinking? :)
But have I been reading and thinking the wrong stuff tho? LOL :)

Even tho I sound silly, I do mean to understand the pros and cons of each
area of a V8 engine rebuild and modification. It's my nature, I'm a tinkerer.

Alvin in AZ

 

When it comes to natuarally aspirated piston engines the 3 biggest factors in determinig how much power it can make are displacement, cylinder head airflow capacity and camshaft profile. After that comes compression ratio at maybe 10% impact and then everything else like cam lifter type and the diameter of the main journals and piston speed and rod ratio are way down into the single percentage and fractions of a percentage impact they have on the total output. If you're racing and want every last ounce of power from a given displacement then all this becomes important, but otherwise all you really need to worry about are the big 3 and possibly compression ratio and then simply use whatever other parts are available for the engine you are building. Sourcing special pistons to fit special long rods into a relatively low output street motor really doesn't make much sense because it's not something you'll be able to feel from the drivers seat. It is cool to learn about how all these things affect an engine so I'm not trying to discourage you from researching them, just trying to put it all into perspective.

 

Perfect! :)

That's exactly what I needed to hear and/or be reminded of, thanks. :)

Alvin in AZ