AFR-FTI-Edelbrock Combo Questions

[Stang D]

Apologies in advance for this novel.

On the advice of you guys, I bought an AFR165-FTI Cam-Edelbrock Performer combo from Dave aka Rootus, the artist formerly known as the Hairy Canary. His car was very close to mine, with only a few very minor differences. (i.e. longtubes vs shorties). I suspect my shortblock is a little tighter than his. Now I need to select the rest of the combo. He was knocking down 310HP/336TQ. I’d be completely satisfied if I came close to those results So the obvious choice would be to use the same Accufab 75TB and Pro-M 80 MAF and 24# injectors I believe he used last. Grady sent me a spreadsheet with a bunch of FTI combos. I’ve noticed most are running smaller equipment in the TB and MAF. Most are falling short of Dave’s dyno numbers too. I guess I’m looking for a few different options suggestions to meet my criteria, in order of importance.

1. Stay at 300HP
2. Sustain drivability, improve if possible. VERY IMPORTANT to me.
3. Easy to tune as possible. I don’t have Dave’s Tweecer skills yet.
4. I’ll pay what I have to, but Dave’s MAF is pretty spendy. I’d like some choices in case a good used deal pops up.

You still awake? I guess I’m asking what you think the minimum size TB and MAF should be?

I’ve read compelling cases for a Cobra PCM with 24s and a stock 70MM MAF. I like that plan a lot if the small MAF doesn’t limit the power much. It sounds like it might be easier to tune, and perhaps more reliable. I’ve also been warned a big TB can sometimes hurt drivability. Dave got by with a big 75MM TB. Open to other suggestions. Holler if you need more info.

I’ll see if I can get Dave to throw his two cents in. From reading old threads, I know he was struggling with dyno numbers, and he changed numerous items at once. The numbers he was chasing suddenly appeared.

 

[Grn92LX]

75mm tb, port match the edelbrock inlet to match, 80mm mass air and 24's will be fine. Follow what Dave is telling you.

 

[Stangfreak95]

75mm tb, port match the edelbrock inlet to match, 80mm mass air and 24's will be fine. Follow what Dave is telling you.

EXACTLY what I had plus fox body conversion. Check the results.

|
|
|
v

http://photobucket.com/albums/e330/stangfreak95/?action=view&current=714f270b.jpg

 

[Stang D]

"Follow what Dave is telling you."

There's a good chance I will once I know for sure what he did. I'm sure he'll check in when he can. I got the info off a spreadsheet of Grady's. I'm not at all certain what the last combo actually was. I'm pretty sure he was struggling for some time to get the power up where it should be. He said he made 3 or more changes, (some of it tuning) and the power jumped about 25HP. Been nice to dyno after each change, but that ain't cheap. Hoping he remembers exactly what he did to make it come together.

StangFreak- Very nice PIC. And don't run off. My traction questions coming soon. That car hooks!

 

[Rootus]

Well, here goes . Time to write my own novel. For some reason I don't know how to get directly to the point. Good thing I type at 100+ wpm .

Observations...

• Some people say that too big of a throttle body will hurt throttle response. It seems to be more popular lately to say it does not hurt at all. I am of the latter group -- throttle response on my 75mm TB was very good. There is a caveat to that statement, however... and here it is...
• I think it is fair to say that the Fox intake design is better suited to high airflow. But there is a price. The 94/95 throttle body design has a variable radius cam that the throttle cable rides on, so the throttle opening is not linear with pedal travel (opens slower at first, faster as you go). This is nice for comfy daily driving. The fox setup has a fixed radius actuator. IMO this is what makes a Fox body Mustang seem snappier. When I converted my '95, it was so snappy that for the first couple of weeks i would periodically squeal the tires going through intersections without trying. It was pretty annoying, but I did get used to it over time. Just add that to the conversion price list right after the metal pieces .
• The highest quality 94/95 style throttle body is the Ford Racing one. At least it was when I built my combo. It has none of the nags people seem to regularly experience with aftermarket units. The downside -- the FRPP only comes in 65mm. And it is a little more expensive. It does come with a new IAC, though.
• I am not convinced that a throttle body bigger than 65mm is really worth that much on a naturally aspirated 302. Certainly there are examples of people exceeding 300 rwhp with it. I think it may not be a bottleneck in any case, because of the ...
• Edelbrock 94/95 adapter elbow. You will see for yourself that in addition to negotiating a 45* corner, the elbow also rises vertically a good distance, around an inch. I am still not convinced it maintains the full diameter of the bore all the way through. I measured the openings as 70mm, but Summit claims it is 58mm. I could almost believe that .
• Some people have had troubles with the Pro-M 75mm "Bullet" MAF. Mine was fine. I upgraded to the 80mm just for the extra flow potential. Is Pro-M even selling MAF's anymore? I remember they were having business troubles...
• A big characteristic of my problems getting the power from my combo was that the torque curve peaked earlier than others with similar combos, and fell off earlier as well. And that was despite the fact that I had the cam in the "lightweight car" setting, which should move the power band higher slightly. Ed Curtis believed I might be experiencing some sort of exhaust restriction, as that would explain the shifted torque curve. It was after I replaced my MAC cat-back with a brand new Magnaflow one that I saw the dramatic improvement in power. But several other parts were changed at the same time, as you know. The MAC cat-back was the only element of the entire air path that was not installed by me, it was put on at some time before I bought the car -- it was old, rusty, and perhaps something was wrong -- I was never able to determine that.
• I got a noticable improvement in idle quality and driveability just by matching the injector timing to the cam specs. And I hate to say it, but that was one of the things I did at the same time as the exhaust and throttle body conversion. So it may have played a role as well.

I am not looking for any arguments to start, or debates -- it has all been debated many times already . I'm just giving my opinions here.

If I were picking your setup, based on my experiences thus far, I would choose the FRPP 65mm throttle body, and a Pro-M 80mm MAF. I like the throttle actuation better on the 94/95 design, and I like the hassle free FRPP quality. No whistling, either . The 80mm MAF is overkill, but it comes with a short, fat filter and is just about perfect for using with a home made CAI (just a PVC pipe and the rubber connectors ). The air makes no bends near the MAF, so it seems to have nice, consistent readings, which is good for driveability.

If with that setup you have the same problem I had... I'd consider swapping the Edelbrock elbow for a Trickflow one, which is definitely bigger. And perhaps port matching the intake to 75mm if you're feeling ambitious. I honestly don't believe that the TB/MAF/elbow was what was causing me grief -- it would not explain the torque curve . And other people make perfectly good power with the those same parts. Who knows, it might have just been tolerance stacking -- since I did optimize several parts at once.

EDIT: To clarify what I did for "the fix." ...

1. Replaced MAC cat-back with Magnaflow
2. Replaced FRPP 65mm TB with Accufab 75mm Fox style TB
3. Replaced Pro-M 75mm with Pro-M 80mm MAF
4. Altered injection timing to match cam timing

As I remember, the last dyno before these changes was 276 rwhp and something in the low 300's for torque. The first pull on the dyno after these changes was 297 rwhp, and about 335 rwtq (there was some cheering then, we knew we had hit gold ). Through a series of about 12 pulls, we added timing in each 500-rpm section of the torque curve above about 4500 RPM until it pinged, then backed it off a degree and went to the next one. Mostly this just smoothed the torque curve out up high (it was a bit jaggedy, indicating inconsistent ignition... not enough timing...). I believe we ended up with 36.5 degrees of total timing at 5500, and the final pull shows that it could have used just a tiny bit more, but the table didn't have a cell in the spot we wanted to add some, so we called it a day. The last pull was at 310 rwhp, 336 rwtq.

Dave

 

[final5-0]

WOW Dave

There you have it

Dewayne

I also say the TFS elbow is the best if you stay with the SN setup

About your Q's

1) You don't have to settle for 300rwhp only

2) Drivability can be accomplished several ways so no prob at all

3) PMS, SCT, Tweecer and others are available

IMHO, there is enough info here on this very forum to get you more than started with a Tweecer
and
EEC Analyzer is available which makes using the Tweecer much easier

Just trying to ease your mind a bit but other self tuning interfaces are easier to use if you are worried about that kind of thing.

4) About the maf

I have seen some say a bit before ProM closed the doors, their maf's were not all that accurate. If Dave still has his 80mm, you may be getting an older maf which might not suspect to this issue.

Almost forgot

Just in case you don't know ...............
The Cobra pcm deal came about when several Self Tuner GT peeps discovered the Cobra file was the easy way to solving most drivability issues in one quick easy change.

If you do decide to go the Tweecer route, you can just upload the cobra file in your original GT pcm.

You will NOT be able to use the stock maf.
That combo WILL peg that little maf.

Hope this stuff helps

Grady

 

[Rootus]

The Cobra pcm deal came about when several Self Tuner GT peeps discovered the Cobra file was the easy way to solving most drivability issues in one quick easy change.

Indeed! I like the theory of "change as little as you have to." Ford did a lot of engineering on the calibrations, so if you can take the J4J1 Cobra calibration and alter just enough (i.e. MAF curve, injector scalars, fuel table, and timing) to get the performance you want, you will be more likely to retain good driveability. The deeper you get into the uncharted (or lightly charted ) areas, the harder it gets to keep the whole package together neatly.

If you do decide to go the Tweecer route, you can just upload the cobra file in your original GT pcm.

What you should do is find someone with a very similar combo (-cough- Grady -cough-) who has a calibration they are happy with ... and steal it . I got well over halfway to my final setup by starting with Darren Woodall's (a user over on the TwEECer forums) and working from there.

Dave

 

[Stang D]

Dave- Thanks, I couldn't possibly ask for a more thorough explanation than you just provided. Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough. Grady has already offered to give be an assist. I have every intention of ripping off his base tune, or just using the Cobra file if that's what he recommends.

Grady- I'll shut up about the non-existent driveability issues now. I can't get used to the fact of flowing this much air on a streetable combo. I'm a dinosaur from the carb ages. If you built a carbed 300+HP 302CI back then, it would get 8MPG, have horrible throttle response under 2K, and not provide enough vacuum for the power brakes to work properly. I'm beginning to think this injection stuff just might be here to stay.

I have caught some of the throttlebody size wars. It is certainly not my intent to re-ignite that debate. You can't argue with success, and there have been many successesin both camp. At some point (after I feel competent with the Tweecer), I believe I will try both a large and a small and decide what works best on my car.

 

[final5-0]

Dave- Thanks, I couldn't possibly ask for a more thorough explanation than you just provided. Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough. Grady has already offered to give be an assist. I have every intention of ripping off his base tune, or just using the Cobra file if that's what he recommends.

When you get the combo together, a starting or baseline tune, can be built just about like Dave said

Grady- I'll shut up about the non-existent driveability issues now. I can't get used to the fact of flowing this much air on a streetable combo. I'm a dinosaur from the carb ages. If you built a carbed 300+HP 302CI back then, it would get 8MPG, have horrible throttle response under 2K, and not provide enough vacuum for the power brakes to work properly.

I understand where your comming form Dewayne

I built my share of Falcons, Fairlanes, & Stangs from the sixtys myself. For many years you could find me, my wife, & all my gearhead buds at the local 1/4 strip almost every Wed evening and Weekends.

I do remember the 6 to 8 mpg thing
AND
anything at or around 1800 rpm, the car bucked violently

When I got back into this hobby I had to learn a lot of new tricks as I could not relate to having no carb and a little silver box controlling everything

I spent about a year in research to see what had changed
AND
what was really possible to obtain using the newer technology

The only thing I know that might help you relate is tell you what I have been able to accomplish by fooling around with my car

My car drives around town like a little stocker Stang
however
It does lope a bit at idle
and
It does have a bit more pep
but
None of the old school stuff like ......

Smelly fumes at idle from over rich mixture
Bucking during a low rpm cruise condition
Unstable idle
None of those ... old school ... bad street manners
OR
as the young guys these days call it ... bad drivability

I can cruise at 1200 rpm on a level road in 5th gear without any bucking or surging and mat the skinny pedal for a smooth pick up in speed.

With no throttle, I can let the clutch out in first gear and the car will pull itself with no bucking, surging, or no anything.

The wife and I took a short trip a while back and we got 19 mpg. We cruised at 80 mph for a good bit
AND
We even took an opportunity to give some Camaro that pulled up beside us a quick view of our horizontal tail lights

See what I mean Dewayne ... having no carb rules

I'm beginning to think this injection stuff just might be here to stay.

I'd have to agree

I have caught some of the throttlebody size wars. It is certainly not my intent to re-ignite that debate. You can't argue with success, and there have been many successesin both camp. At some point (after I feel competent with the Tweecer), I believe I will try both a large and a small and decide what works best on my car.

Sounds like a good idea

Your gonna have a lot of fun with the no carb tech
and
You will be like & from time to time

Grady

 

[Rootus]

Good grief, how old ARE you guys??

Dave

 

[Stang D]

Good grief, how old ARE you guys??

Dave

Old enough that my first car came with an engine larger than a 427, and it wasn't old. Cars and trucks had steel dashboards, and we didn't need no seatbelts, cause we weren't sissies.

Didn't anybody ever teach you to be nice to old people Dave?

 

[BlackVert]

Old enough that my first car came with an engine larger than a 427, and it wasn't old. Cars and trucks had steel dashboards, and we didn't need no seatbelts, cause we weren't sissies.

Didn't anybody ever teach to be nice to old people Dave?

wow, another old guy. welcome aboard. the more guys we can get in the 45+ group, the better ...



http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=612861

 

[Rootus]

Old enough that my first car came with an engine larger than a 427, and it wasn't old. Cars and trucks had steel dashboards, and we didn't need no seatbelts, cause we weren't sissies.

Dang, that's even older than I thought!

Didn't anybody ever teach you to be nice to old people Dave?

Reference "sissies" comment above... I don't think old people are in need of any protection .

At least by the standars of the 94/95 forum, I guess I AM old. I went and punched my age (31) into the poll, and it turns out that something like 75-80% of the members on this forum are between 15 & 25.

Dave