Decisions, decisions...

azjake · Post by **azjake** » February 27, 2010, 12:18 am

TxSlick66,

I just traded the 5.0 EFI & E4OD tranny in my '66 Shortbed for freshly rebuilt 302 and C6 tranny, so do not need your EFI items. I will tell the guy that is getting mine what you have for sale.

BTW, the last '57 Chevy I had was a 210 2dr Sedan with a 300hp 327, 350hp cam, 3 dueces with progressive linkage, Muncie 4spd and black rolled interior. It ran great! I sold it to buy a '66 Buick Wildcat GS with 30,000 miles...but that is another story! Anyway, you would not believe the guys that thought the 3 dueces drank a lot of fuel. I had to explain to them how it only ran on one 2bbl, until the throttle was depressed farther, then the other 2 carbs kicked in. It really wan't that bad on fuel.

Jake

ezernut9mm · Post by **ezernut9mm** » February 27, 2010, 1:06 am

why does everyone say that s/d can't make hp? there are 400 hp windsors out there still using s/d.

btw, what a great project jake. i'd make an offer, but it's just a little too far for me to come and get. lol

blackagatha · Post by **blackagatha** » February 27, 2010, 1:07 am

ezernut9mm wrote: i'd make an offer, but it's just a little too far for me to come and get. lol

lol, my feelings exactly on slickstock.... ;(

azjake · Post by **azjake** » February 27, 2010, 1:11 am

ezernut9mm wrote:btw, what a great project jake. i'd make an offer, but it's just a little too far for me to come and get. lol

That's OK. I am starting to get excited about working on it. This '66 will be fun to drive when it is done!

Jake

randyr · Post by **randyr** » February 27, 2010, 1:30 am

TxSlick66 wrote:Remember, that 89 5.0 is SPEED DENSITY and not MAF equipped, so if you plan on any performance mods it will need to be converted to MAF. I have the exact same engine I just pulled from an 89. I plan to ditch the EFI and install my 3x2 carb setup and a set of Edelbrock heads and keep it more old school. If you need EFI parts, this one has some new stuff on it I will let go of cheap. I have the entire setup as far as anything on the engine, but no harness or computer. I was too lazy to pull it off the car when I had it here.

Steve, I read an article http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/el ... index.html
in CarCraft magazine that said '86,'87 & '88 non-California Ford 5.0's were speed density but all '89 5.0's went to MAF. You seem to have a strong background in Mustangs & 5.0's . Is this article wrong or is there some other reason that you say this '89 5.0 is still speed density? Not trying to be controversial, just looking for clarification. Thanks.

JR66Ford · Post by **JR66Ford** » February 28, 2010, 11:00 pm

Why is there a reason to fear EFI? Just because it's not a dinosaur carb? To each their own, but I can tune an EFI better than a carb. I'm also only 31 and don't have much experience with carbs. My '66 is getting a late model 4.6L from a crown vic. It's already installed and runs, just have to finish up the rest of the truck.

Jason Russell

blackagatha · Post by **blackagatha** » February 28, 2010, 11:29 pm

JR66Ford wrote:Why is there a reason to fear EFI? Just because it's not a dinosaur carb? To each their own, but I can tune an EFI better than a carb. I'm also only 31 and don't have much experience with carbs.

well, being 23, I can see both sides of the issue. Having grown up oldschool and old truck, I too am afraid of magic black boxes and such.

Having become the owner of a 1996 Geo, I have dealt with magic black boxes. I dont like them too much.

I can go twist the screw to change just about anything on Aggie's carb, but pretty much at a loss on how to make the car behave differently.

The EFI has expensive parts that are liable to crap on ya, that take the job of a nice simple linkage.

Carb crap seems universal and generic, EFI not so much.

A good modern well designed system definitely more efficient, actively adjust itself, etc, but I would fear the day they start pooping.

azjake · Post by **azjake** » March 1, 2010, 1:09 am

JR66Ford wrote:Why is there a reason to fear EFI? Just because it's not a dinosaur carb? To each their own, but I can tune an EFI better than a carb. I'm also only 31 and don't have much experience with carbs. My '66 is getting a late model 4.6L from a crown vic. It's already installed and runs, just have to finish up the rest of the truck.

Jason Russell

Oh, to be 31 again...not.

Just kidding!

I know that I will suffer with lower fuel mileage with the carb in my '66 F100, but I can work on it. It is not that I am afraid of the EFI, I just do not like the expensive parts, fighting vacuum leaks and needing to learn more about it. Plus, to get it working in my truck, I will need to re-wire the engine compartment for the EFI & electronic ignition, install a high pressure fuel pump, low pressure fuel pump, re-plumb the fuel tank, etc. A lot more work and money involved than using an engine with a carb.

Being an old guy (fart? dinosaur?), I like things simple. Since I am a simple man, my truck will be simple. Maybe I am a simpleton?

Jake

BarnieTrk · Post by **BarnieTrk** » March 1, 2010, 8:02 am

azjake wrote:
JR66Ford wrote: I know that I will suffer with lower fuel mileage with the carb in my '66 F100, but I can work on it. It is not that I am afraid of the EFI, I just do not like the expensive parts, fighting vacuum leaks and needing to learn more about it. Plus, to get it working in my truck, I will need to re-wire the engine compartment for the EFI & electronic ignition, install a high pressure fuel pump, low pressure fuel pump, re-plumb the fuel tank, etc. A lot more work and money involved than using an engine with a carb.

I like things simple. Since I am a simple man, my truck will be simple. Maybe I am a simpleton? Jake

Jake,
I'd say you are just thinking / doing things smarter rather than working harder at thinking you need to "keep up with the latest bells & whistles" for some unwritten reason.

Sure, there will always be many folks who want to use their laptop to tune their car/truck, and I'll admire them for their talent.
However, that isn't my desire, which is a main reason why I like these ol' Slicks.
Solid, straightforward, Detroit-born engineering is the basis of these ol' workhorses.
There have been a lot of folks smarter than me say to always try to use the KISS system.
Keep
It
Simple
Silvester!

Less moving parts, less electrical parts, less flexible joints, etc. makes for less wear, less failure over time.

I'll bet there are a bunch of Toyota owners wishing their cars/trucks were not constructed in such a complicated matter right now.....

BarnieTrk

blackagatha · Post by **blackagatha** » March 1, 2010, 5:53 pm

BarnieTrk wrote: There have been a lot of folks smarter than me say to always try to use the KISS system.
Keep
It
Simple
Silvester!

I'll bet there are a bunch of Toyota owners wishing their cars/trucks were not constructed in such a complicated matter right now.....

BarnieTrk

LMFAO at the toyota thing.... So true.

and, Sylvester????? where did that come around?

Keep it simple STUPID!!! lol

64 f100 · Post by **64 f100** » March 1, 2010, 7:16 pm

To be honest, if I weren't old, I would be into the fuel injection big time. It's just easier to do what I know. As to fuel injection, I think it can be taken to the max, if you can right and design your own program. To be absolutly on the money with fuel air mixture, this would be the way to go. That being said, I can do better than fair with a carb, and don't have to stress my brain in any way, but fuel injection intrigues me. I can see things there that would would be awesome in the aftermarket. I don't think it has even started to be developed. Yes they take stock and make it better. I don't think they've gone far enough. You need more sensors at least one on each cyllinder to make the most out of it. A throttle body feeding a plenum is not going to get you maximum efficiency either. To make the most of what you have, so that each cylinder is producing every thing it can, requires more control and this means more sensors. Something the auto industry is not going to do. They won't spend the money for anything they can't justify price wise. Don't get me wrong , the amount of power being gotten from these smaller engines is amazing. I just don't think it's all that it could be. They do mass production, not very fine tuning.

Rich

Brian Taylor · Post by **Brian Taylor** » March 1, 2010, 7:41 pm

This is like asking "Ginger or Mary Ann". I have a carb on my 66 since that is how I bought it and will be happy with it. But if I find a good EFI motor with all the "black boxes" I would love to have the benefits that come with it.
I like to Keep It Simple but there is simplicity in both set ups.

azjake · Post by **azjake** » March 1, 2010, 8:27 pm

Mary Ann...definately!

Jake

Ford blue blood · Post by **Ford blue blood** » March 2, 2010, 9:54 am

EFI systems are actually more reliable then the old carbs. Federal law mandates trouble free emission meeting performance for 100K miles. All those sensors are under warrenty. The best part is the tune that comes from the factory will out perform any bolt on system with a carb given all other factors are close to equal.

I put a 302/5-speed into my 66 Ranchero. The wiring breaks down to a basic four wire hook up, the fuel pump does not have to be in-tank (I put mine in-tank) it can be frame mounted. A return line is really all the extra "stuff" you need, the rest of the mods are all there whether it is a carb or EFI. Nice part, the Ranchero is getting 32 - 33 MPG at 70 MPH, starts the first lick no matter how long it sets and has never missed a lick in the 50K + miles it has on it since the install.

Break down? How many of us carry the parts to repair a break down on the road? The EFI will fall to "limp home" it there is a serious failure.

Bottom line, EFI is as simple as carbs, more reliable, more drivable and extends the life of your engine to the point the rest of the car falls apart around the engine (Called precise fuel management). Yup, I'm 63.

azjake · Post by **azjake** » March 2, 2010, 10:09 am

I carry a set of points, capacitor, matchbook and screwdriver in my '65 F100. If it needs more than that, I call my daughter to bring my '99 F350 diesel and the trailer to me.

There is no dispute that the EFI and elctronic ignition is more fuel efficient. It is just not for me.

Jake

blackagatha · Post by **blackagatha** » March 2, 2010, 2:20 pm

eew points! I had more excruciating problems with points! I like my pertronix. That and the MSD are the only magic black boxes..... And it it all hits the fan, I can swap the points back in and drive away in like 10 mins...

The Big M · Post by **The Big M** » March 2, 2010, 2:51 pm

64 f100 wrote:As to fuel injection, I think it can be taken to the max, if you can right and design your own program. To be absolutly on the money with fuel air mixture, this would be the way to go.

It can be done, even with speed density systems. It requires programming knowledge and access to a dyno, but it can be done.

64 f100 wrote:I can see things there that would would be awesome in the aftermarket. I don't think it has even started to be developed. Yes they take stock and make it better. I don't think they've gone far enough. You need more sensors at least one on each cyllinder to make the most out of it. A throttle body feeding a plenum is not going to get you maximum efficiency either. To make the most of what you have, so that each cylinder is producing every thing it can, requires more control and this means more sensors. Something the auto industry is not going to do. They won't spend the money for anything they can't justify price wise. Don't get me wrong , the amount of power being gotten from these smaller engines is amazing. I just don't think it's all that it could be. They do mass production, not very fine tuning.

Rich

Rich, what you're describing sounds a lot like direct injection, which several of the major manufacturers have introduced on their vehicles in the past several years.

A throttle body feeding a plenum can be very efficient, but maximizing efficiency requires paying special attention to manifold design, port design, and combustion chamber geometry, among other things (valve geometry, cam profile, bore and stroke, etc.). Maximum fuel efficiency requires running on the ragged edge of lean, and direct control over the mixture is probably the best way to achieve that. However, Ford was able to achieve an 11:1 compression ratio on pump gas in the new 5.0 L V8 using a plenum and throttle body.

kstones63 · Post by **kstones63** » March 2, 2010, 3:19 pm

I think the EFI can be fine if a person has the time and the desire to figure it out, understand it and hook it up. If it is to be hired out then the owner won't understand what all the sensors and controls do and will not want to fool with it. I would also reccommend an aftermarket harness with good directions instead of trying to make the factory harness work.
If someone doesn't want to go to this much trouble, a carb is the best way to go. They are simple and reliable and easy to work on.
Just my

worth

Kevin

blackagatha · Post by **blackagatha** » March 2, 2010, 3:22 pm

The Big M wrote:However, Ford was able to achieve an 11:1 compression ratio on pump gas in the new 5.0 L V8 using a plenum and throttle body.

wow. but at a certain level, I'm surprised that's all they're squeezing it, I thought with active mixture and spark control they could probably bump around 13....

anybody hear about the funky VVEL variable valve crap that nissan and infiniti is making? eliminates throttle. looks expensive.

simply terrifying convulsions!

azjake · Post by **azjake** » March 2, 2010, 3:30 pm

It seems that I remember there being engines with a carb, way back in the '60s, that had 12:1 compression and running on pump gas? But, then again, my old age may just be kicking in...

Jake