A
Anonymous
Guest
I have an '84 T-Bird with 302 TBI. If I took the injection off it complete with the ecm, harness and all sensors and put it on my 170 would it run? Or would I have to re-program the computer?
8) the ford CFI(not tbi) fuel injection doesnt care how many cylinders you have, as long as you have the sensors all hooked up. the two hardest ones to install on an engine that didnt have efi are the crank position sensor, and hte hall sensor(in the dist). also the CFI system, even the EECIV, isnt the most reliable system. better would be to use the CFI throttle body, adapt it to the 170 head, and then use a megasquirt EFI controller.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Ahhh never thought about that crank sensor!! Looks like too much work. So theres the megasquirt but isn't there also a system called FAST? Would either one of these require alot of tuning? Cause I'm not real keen on the whole EFI tuning thing. Also any idea what a CFI TB flows?
Thanks
Bob
Thanks
Bob
Quite a number of options here.
1) Use the single barrel HSC 2.3 CFI unit.
It can flow well over 110 hp, and fits anywhere a 1946 Holley 1-bbl does.
If you don't like it, then use two.
The key is that they are electronic carbs, but are not better fuel atomizers than a carb.
Throttle body EFI is found on many 1980 to pre 1986 Fords and lots of GM stuff way past that date.
2) Easiest system is franklly the GM TBI system found in 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2 J cars. Chev Caveliar, early Pontiac J 2000, the Sunbird and the Caddy Cimarron. It's fairly reliable, and sized correctly. With an alloy spacer, you could adapt it. The ECM is real basic, and would work okay with the later Duraspark. The pilot hole in the distributor may be a bit big, but you can make most of the later gear fit if the little bits are machined to the 495 thou pilot size, rahter than the stock 530 size.
Once you've got the igniton sorted, the ECM is easy. Make sure you get a stick shift version, not one for the THM 125 auto. Best thin about the GM stuff is you keep another J car off the road to get your Ford mobile. Humanitarian service!
1) Use the single barrel HSC 2.3 CFI unit.
It can flow well over 110 hp, and fits anywhere a 1946 Holley 1-bbl does.
If you don't like it, then use two.
The key is that they are electronic carbs, but are not better fuel atomizers than a carb.
Throttle body EFI is found on many 1980 to pre 1986 Fords and lots of GM stuff way past that date.
2) Easiest system is franklly the GM TBI system found in 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2 J cars. Chev Caveliar, early Pontiac J 2000, the Sunbird and the Caddy Cimarron. It's fairly reliable, and sized correctly. With an alloy spacer, you could adapt it. The ECM is real basic, and would work okay with the later Duraspark. The pilot hole in the distributor may be a bit big, but you can make most of the later gear fit if the little bits are machined to the 495 thou pilot size, rahter than the stock 530 size.
Once you've got the igniton sorted, the ECM is easy. Make sure you get a stick shift version, not one for the THM 125 auto. Best thin about the GM stuff is you keep another J car off the road to get your Ford mobile. Humanitarian service!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Do you think I would see better mileage out of a throttle body set-up over a well tuned carb?
G
Guest
Guest
Going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back to the EZ-Board (not many of us left from there). I had grabbed a TBI from a GM 2.5L (pics long gone) and cut an adapter to mate it to the 1bbl intake. From what I remember of my calculations, the injector could not fire fast enough within its 'safe operating range' to feed the I6 past 4000rpm. I like the idea of the Holley 400CFM 2-bbl on a log head, even through a funnel adapter, fired by a Megasquirt.
On the other side, 2 of the GM TBI's would also work well I believe. They are complete units that have the AIC valves, TP Sensors and fuel pressure regulators in one package, with plug-style connectors. The junkyards are littered with them and can be easily removed. Just bring your torx sockets (t-body to manifold), metric open-end/box wrenches (fuel lines), and vice grips just in case.
On the other side, 2 of the GM TBI's would also work well I believe. They are complete units that have the AIC valves, TP Sensors and fuel pressure regulators in one package, with plug-style connectors. The junkyards are littered with them and can be easily removed. Just bring your torx sockets (t-body to manifold), metric open-end/box wrenches (fuel lines), and vice grips just in case.
Iowabowhunter":1lypjpc1 said:
8) actually yes, you should see better mileage with the cfi rather than a carb. the injectors atomize the fuel much better than a carb does, thus you have better control over air/fuel mixtures. with tighter control of a/f mixtures, you can run leaner mixtures than you would with a carb, thus better mileage.
A
Anonymous
Guest
wallaka":11tqfdi7 said:
rbohm is correct here. You will see much better fuel milege out of injection over a carb. Thats why you don't see any new cars running around with carbs. A computer may not be "easier" to tune, but it is far more reliable than a carb.
Firstly, let me say I am not, nor have I ever been, a TBI hater!
Maybee I need to join the SAE, but with the best Weber carb, the Sauter mean volume diameter of sprayed fuel is 60 to 50 microns. Dellorto carbs are even less. In an EFI engine, 60 microns is common. The shape with an injector is very defined, not a nebulae, but a defined roosters tail. It is possible to drop to 26 microns with a anionic or cationaic additive for carb engines, or to 10 microns with a 150 psi line pressure injector and an 15 amp electrical source.
I don't have any Rayleigh scattering or one, two or three dimensional turbulence laser flurosence picutres, or Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence fuel concentration measurements ...but from all the reports I have seen, it is a certain fact that the injector is quite a poor atomiser.
There are five specific matters to consider.
i) One, a carb or TBI flows a fully wet intake manifold, up to 30 % of the engine capacity is swilling around in the log intake or whatever manifold. So a non independent runner TBI or carb is always worse fuel economy wise than a port EFI system because so much fuel is wetting the surface of a metal intake manifold.
ii) a TBI is very simalr to a carb in its delivey of fuel to the back of a throttle blade, and then onwards through a wet manifild into the port. As stated, there is a high line pressure, and a wide spread of dropplets of fuel. It should logically follow that any injector must atomise better than an old fangled jet!. However, evidence from the early 80's affirms that atomisation is worse with TBI.
The following facts
iii) Look at the 82/84 CrossFire 350, they had to have bath plug flow inducers in each port to re-atomise the mixture.
iv) The delivery of TBI fuel is not even as violent as a conventional carburetor. Carbs can flow at 250 feet per second, with turbulent air rushing into a 90 degree angle jet, issuing fuel at a huge pressure of way above 45 psi after colliding with an airstream air having been a 15 to 40% restriction (the venturi signal). The mixing event is indeed turbulent, and the atomised fuel is often smaller in droplet size than a TBI unit. TBI systems have to use in excess of 22 psi but less than 53 psi pintle injector. Engineers have spent a long time making simple voltage changes simulate a simple jet. The up an down motion of the injector is unable to work as well as a carb, but there is a reason why an injector is supperior. I stress again, no flow interupting venturi exists to create a mixing vortice.
v) TBI set-ups primarily use single plane manifolds due to the fact that bends and turns cause the mixture to pool very quickly, and Ford and Chevy CFI/TBI's need to have small volume, single plane intakes to work well before things settle out and condense. The entry of the air into the manifold is more laminar than turbulent on a TBI engine, while carb flow is much more turbulent.
On a very concilatory note, the real advantage of TBI is the vastly better ability to meter fuel right through the heat range. From cool to sweltering engine and environmental temperatures. All because it's anologue or digitally mapped, and as time went on, the digital mapping was able to operate by altering (fuging) the fuel delivery to react to the oxygen sensor. Injectors are seldom blueprinted to even 10% of the flow of a jet, but you can alter them minutely at any delivery. Althoug a jet is much more accurate , with a 4.5 to even 1.5% accuracy in its metering, it is only metered by its response to air flow by a variatey of systems. TBI is very, very accurate, while carbs are a hit an miss device which require a compromise as operating conditions vary.
Maybee I need to join the SAE, but with the best Weber carb, the Sauter mean volume diameter of sprayed fuel is 60 to 50 microns. Dellorto carbs are even less. In an EFI engine, 60 microns is common. The shape with an injector is very defined, not a nebulae, but a defined roosters tail. It is possible to drop to 26 microns with a anionic or cationaic additive for carb engines, or to 10 microns with a 150 psi line pressure injector and an 15 amp electrical source.
I don't have any Rayleigh scattering or one, two or three dimensional turbulence laser flurosence picutres, or Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence fuel concentration measurements ...but from all the reports I have seen, it is a certain fact that the injector is quite a poor atomiser.
There are five specific matters to consider.
i) One, a carb or TBI flows a fully wet intake manifold, up to 30 % of the engine capacity is swilling around in the log intake or whatever manifold. So a non independent runner TBI or carb is always worse fuel economy wise than a port EFI system because so much fuel is wetting the surface of a metal intake manifold.
ii) a TBI is very simalr to a carb in its delivey of fuel to the back of a throttle blade, and then onwards through a wet manifild into the port. As stated, there is a high line pressure, and a wide spread of dropplets of fuel. It should logically follow that any injector must atomise better than an old fangled jet!. However, evidence from the early 80's affirms that atomisation is worse with TBI.
The following facts
iii) Look at the 82/84 CrossFire 350, they had to have bath plug flow inducers in each port to re-atomise the mixture.
iv) The delivery of TBI fuel is not even as violent as a conventional carburetor. Carbs can flow at 250 feet per second, with turbulent air rushing into a 90 degree angle jet, issuing fuel at a huge pressure of way above 45 psi after colliding with an airstream air having been a 15 to 40% restriction (the venturi signal). The mixing event is indeed turbulent, and the atomised fuel is often smaller in droplet size than a TBI unit. TBI systems have to use in excess of 22 psi but less than 53 psi pintle injector. Engineers have spent a long time making simple voltage changes simulate a simple jet. The up an down motion of the injector is unable to work as well as a carb, but there is a reason why an injector is supperior. I stress again, no flow interupting venturi exists to create a mixing vortice.
v) TBI set-ups primarily use single plane manifolds due to the fact that bends and turns cause the mixture to pool very quickly, and Ford and Chevy CFI/TBI's need to have small volume, single plane intakes to work well before things settle out and condense. The entry of the air into the manifold is more laminar than turbulent on a TBI engine, while carb flow is much more turbulent.
On a very concilatory note, the real advantage of TBI is the vastly better ability to meter fuel right through the heat range. From cool to sweltering engine and environmental temperatures. All because it's anologue or digitally mapped, and as time went on, the digital mapping was able to operate by altering (fuging) the fuel delivery to react to the oxygen sensor. Injectors are seldom blueprinted to even 10% of the flow of a jet, but you can alter them minutely at any delivery. Althoug a jet is much more accurate , with a 4.5 to even 1.5% accuracy in its metering, it is only metered by its response to air flow by a variatey of systems. TBI is very, very accurate, while carbs are a hit an miss device which require a compromise as operating conditions vary.
Similar threads
