Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Topic: Mass Air added, hesitation off the line (Read 7727 times) previous topic - next topic

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #45 – August 20, 2017, 09:48:40 PM

250 miles on mass air changes to the HO .030 over motor & PP lower / upper , 65mm TB with 24lb inj,,,,, results

no miss
fuel economy went up which suprised us both., before he was hard pressed to see 20hwy & 17city

he just reported he got 26hwy

all is well ,, not sure now what to do with the mk8 maf,, i guess i will give it away.

yesterday and today we put backc together my 20th from a deer hit last christmas, i will update that thread later. all seems to be ok with the 20th as well.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #46 – August 20, 2017, 11:57:20 PM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;462316

Yeah, I think there's clearly some lack of understanding that there's HP/torque differences between the Tbird 5.0 and that of the Mustang. It's obvious that Scott, Mason, and Chance have at least HO engines with upgrades in their project cars, so throwing disinformation around is, well, unwarranted.

I thought a lot about that comment and decided to take the high road.

This is my other "302" on the dyno at Medina Mountain Motors. Despite being clueless about 5.0's, I made 360 HP@ 6,000 RPM with a tiny hydraulic roller cam, 9.5:1 compression an early set of AFR 165 heads, a dual plane intake, a stock water pump, an alternator, a Summit 600 CFM carb and a set of very restrictive(small port) dyno headers that had to be used to clear the cradle. I left 10-15 more HP on the table that I could have picked up with timing and carb jetting, but dyno time is expensive. Those headers likely cost me another 10 HP. I happen to have a TFS 190 TW 11R headed 349 8.2 deck stroker going together in my shop. I threw in a pic of the heads sitting on my kitchen counter to show you I'm not blowing smoke.

I've owned and driven more 302's, including a 70 Boss 302 Mustang, than I care to think about in my 61 years standing upright (Ok, I might not have been upright that first year). I know why some ran OK as well as why some didn't. The light weight of the fox mustangs combined with the better cam and E7 heads on the HO made the car feel torquey, especially with a stick, but in fact, the engine was lucky to produce 320 LB/ft. That's not a torque monster. Decent, but not exceptional. My 306 Maverick produces over 380 Lb/Ft at the flywheel and I still don't consider that exceptional in any regard.

Lastly, don't confuse my dissatisfaction with my 86 Elan's 5.0/AOD's poochiness as a blanket condemnation of all SBF's. I understand 150 HP with maybe 110 at the rear wheels is not going to impress. It doesn't mean that I can't have a bit of fun saying so or that I don't understand how to make it far quicker.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #47 – August 21, 2017, 09:40:49 AM

nice heads there, are those 202's ? they look really big.
something like that should have beehive springs instead,, whats the seat presure?

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #48 – August 21, 2017, 01:34:39 PM

No, by today's standard, 400 ft/lb OR HP is pretty tame, especially when you can nearly get that in a honda civic.

By 1987's standard, 300ft/lb was pretty badass though, and Ford put a lot of Mustangs in people's driveways because of it.

But, I'll agree with ya....a 750 horse Mustang makes most all others seem like they're powered by a 15 horse Briggs. (not mine, belongs to a friend.)

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #49 – August 21, 2017, 04:38:51 PM

Quote from: jcassity;462325

250 miles on mass air changes to the HO .030 over motor & PP lower / upper , 65mm TB with 24lb inj,,,,, results

no miss
fuel economy went up which suprised us both., before he was hard pressed to see 20hwy & 17city

he just reported he got 26hwy

all is well ,, not sure now what to do with the mk8 maf,, i guess i will give it away.

yesterday and today we put backc together my 20th from a deer hit last christmas, i will update that thread later. all seems to be ok with the 20th as well.

Excellent to hear. I figured the calibrated MAF would solve your problem.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #50 – August 21, 2017, 04:53:10 PM

Quote from: rotorr22;462296

You make an excellent point regarding a car with overdrive. The SBF 5.0 is no torque monster in stock form. Typical modifications often shift both HP and torque higher up in the RPM range. Insufficient gearing can cause hunting between gears even at the hint of a grade or hill.

Ford did not seem to understand this back in the 80's & 90's or else they were trying to squeeze the last bit of MPG out of the fleet to meet government standards. I owned a 95 F150 5.0 4x4 EFI that was an absolute pig in OD with the stock (3.34 or close) rear end ratio. It would hunt between overdrive and third gear if the wind shifted. The truck needed 3.73's or 4.11's to drive properly. The fuel mileage was bad and on par with my 8.1L/Allison BBC in my 2500HD.

The stock gearing selection in 80's 5.0 powered Fords is most definitely for fuel economy. You could order some 5.0HO/AOD cars (Mark VII) with 3.27s but it wasn't enough, especially since the AOD's first gear is 2.40:1

Once you get an engine that makes ok power (300+ hp) putting a decent stall converter and differential gear in can make the car feel more powerful than it is. Even OEMs are doing that now. My 17 Accord V6 makes 280hp and around 250ft/lbs torque. It has a decently high stall converter and higher gear ratio from the factory. It's enough to make the car feel powerful in most driving situations and still propel a 3600lb 4 door sedan to 60mph in around 6 seconds flat.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #51 – August 21, 2017, 05:03:45 PM

Quote from: rotorr22;462329

I thought a lot about that comment and decided to take the high road.

This is my other "302" on the dyno at Medina Mountain Motors. Despite being clueless about 5.0's, I made 360 HP@ 6,000 RPM with a tiny hydraulic roller cam, 9.5:1 compression an early set of AFR 165 heads, a dual plane intake, a stock water pump, an alternator, a Summit 600 CFM carb and a set of very restrictive(small port) dyno headers that had to be used to clear the cradle. I left 10-15 more HP on the table that I could have picked up with timing and carb jetting, but dyno time is expensive. Those headers likely cost me another 10 HP. I happen to have a TFS 190 TW 11R headed 349 8.2 deck stroker going together in my shop. I threw in a pic of the heads sitting on my kitchen counter to show you I'm not blowing smoke.

I've owned and driven more 302's, including a 70 Boss 302 Mustang, than I care to think about in my 61 years standing upright (Ok, I might not have been upright that first year). I know why some ran OK as well as why some didn't. The light weight of the fox mustangs combined with the better cam and E7 heads on the HO made the car feel torquey, especially with a stick, but in fact, the engine was lucky to produce 320 LB/ft. That's not a torque monster. Decent, but not exceptional. My 306 Maverick produces over 380 Lb/Ft at the flywheel and I still don't consider that exceptional in any regard.

Lastly, don't confuse my dissatisfaction with my 86 Elan's 5.0/AOD's poochiness as a blanket condemnation of all SBF's. I understand 150 HP with maybe 110 at the rear wheels is not going to impress. It doesn't mean that I can't have a bit of fun saying so or that I don't understand how to make it far quicker.

My "money" (i.e. when I have a lot of extra of it) build is a N/A Dart 363 with TW 11R 205 heads, a TF R intake, and a cam to tie it all together. 500hp/500ft/lbs NA under a stock hood would be the goal. Need some cubes for torque.

I've driven several Coyote 5.0 Mustangs and never felt them lacking torque down low, as some people have felt. Then again I tend to rev engines more than most, even from a start. You don't feel that missing torque below 3000rpm if you're never below 3000rpm :hick:.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #52 – August 27, 2017, 09:29:52 AM

update,

after running around Charlottsville va for several days now sorta considered in town mix with some major high speed roads.. his trip minder and fuel gauge and actual fuel gallon calcs all match up showing an avg 24mpg.

very nice change from previous conditions. I was constantly telling mason that averaging 18mpg hwy & 16 city is totally wrong and our build here must have something wrong.
makes me wonder about the combo / EEC we had before.

We were running a 86 Linc MK7 HO VL1 SD EEC we got from Tom back in 2008 along with an HO cam & 19lb inj. not sure why fuel consumption was so poor. He even has a trac lock 2.73 rear for better fuel on the hwy.

oh well, things look better for the wallet says mason, 25 or more % increase in mileage & a tiny bit more performance noticed seems to be worth the change to mass air.

if we had no fuel savings, then i would be saying whats the point.

I told mason he is on his own now with respect to tuning the EEC, yet in his words... "dad, i suffered a fuel use gain, and a little more performance gain, i start learning how to tweek the eec i might break something".

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #53 – August 28, 2017, 04:40:43 PM

I'm a bit surprised at the MPG increase. It shouldn't have been that drastic. The only thing I can figure is that, even with a stock HO cam, the GT40 heads changed the vacuum characteristics of the engine so much that the SD system had a hard time compensating.

Some of the MPG increase can be attributed to the intake manifold as well. When I swapped from a GT40 intake to the Performer RPM the car gained 1-2 MPG city and highway, with no other changes. Something related to the engine having to work less to draw in air.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #54 – August 28, 2017, 07:03:38 PM

Well, the GT40 heads are more efficient, and the Cobra/Explorer intakes flow more, with "smoother" and less restrictions than HO/SO intakes, so there ya have it.

It's common knowledge that doing a mass air swap alone on a stock HO will not only rob acceleration, but also cause a bit of power loss. It's usefulness comes with other upgrades (which obviously would require the mass air).

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #55 – August 30, 2017, 11:42:28 AM

we tossed the explorer upper & Lower for the PP style lower and upper.
he's only a .030 over 302 block with whatever casting number HO cam & 24lb injectors.
we ran an A9L eec on this aod setup,, worked fine,,,, seemed like the reman Mass Air EEC i got from vinnie years ago being an A9P equal made the car feel a tad better so we have that installed now.

we feared some sorta o2 sensor conflict when hooking up to an A9L from warnings others post in the stangs. Thinking wiring of stang vs birds & cougs are just a bit different that the 02 sensor issue doesnt exist for our cars. ...just an assumption on my part.

we suspected his converter isnt stock either, car feels like it hit gears more agressively when it was stock than the identical aod in my 20th. Scott Banner the previous owner and prior member here "Privateer" said the same thing. i couldnt make heads or tails of the converter when i had it out. Privateer said he thought he remembered the trans got some work done to it with valve bodies or something.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #56 – August 30, 2017, 05:01:29 PM

A9L *should* have had an issue, due to the Thundercat O2 wiring. If it's an 87 car there may have been a wiring difference that doesn't cause an issue but I can't say for sure.

I know that the 88 cars will burn the trace in an A9L with the stock wiring. 87 I'm not sure.

Either way the A9L/A9P doesn't really care if a stick or auto is behind the engine.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #57 – August 30, 2017, 06:54:38 PM

I've got an A9P with all the matching wiring running an A9L based tune. The EEC doesn't seem to care.

Mass Air added, hesitation off the line

Reply #58 – August 31, 2017, 03:12:24 PM

Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;462453

I've got an A9P with all the matching wiring running an A9L based tune. The EEC doesn't seem to care.

IIRC the only big difference between the tunes was the A9P has a bit more timing down low to get the car going with the AOD.