Topic Sponsor
1987 - 1996 F150 Still running strong! Talk about your 8th and 9th generation Ford F150 trucks.

5.8L modifications

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 9, 2010 | 01:16 PM
  #11  
ymeski56's Avatar
Senior Member
Supporting Member

 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 58,557
Likes: 1,165
From: Long Beach Calimexifornia
Default

More air w/o the fuel to accommodate, especially under load is asking for trouble. And a little ping is too much ping on habitual occurrences. Air/fuel/spark, all at the right time & proportion, or efficiency, performance & eventually hardware will be lost. People think they can just bolt something new in or onto today's engines & they're good to go. Not so. Unless it's within the ECU's ability to accommodate, the ECU will need a new set of rules to go by, or the engine (& you) will pay the price eventually.
Ignition upgrade to allow increased plug gap & also increase your base timing advance. No arguments about these mods! The ECU will accommodate! http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/show...ht=timing+bump

Last edited by ymeski56; May 9, 2010 at 01:49 PM.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 05:05 PM
  #12  
Patriot58's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dr_bowtie
eh...

it is YOUR responsibility to either chip or recurve your fuel and timing maps for upgrades...those that are IGNORANT to the issues are the ones that dont....even Ford says in the FINE print you MAY need additional requirement...

I am not blowing smoke here...I have only installed headers on 100s of vehicles and tune them all the time...so it isnt like its my 1st set or I am implying something I read with no experience...as some do...

I base my post on my 20+ years of performance building and tuning and racing....

pinging is a form of detonation....doing it continually will hurt something...

I am also not a noob. I cut my teeth on Ford EFI. I couldnt tell you how to change jets in a carb, but I can tell you what voltage your TPS should be set at.

There is more than enough fuel in the OEM maps to accommodate many bolt-ons. Without a tune it wont be optimal, but it wont be dangerous either. Newer OBD II have tighter tolerences due to tighter emissisions standerds. They should be handled a bit more cautiously. For example a 2005 F150 with headers, CAI, exhaust, larger TB, and pulleys will need to be tuned. A 95 like mine or the 94 like the op's will be just fine.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 05:15 PM
  #13  
Just call me Sean's Avatar
We'd do it
Supporting Member

iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 35,602
Likes: 459
From: Orlando,Fl.
Default

"I'm smarter than you."
"No, I'm smarter than you."
"No, I believe you're mistaken. I'm smarter than you."
"No, really, I'm smarter than you."

Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 05:17 PM
  #14  
ymeski56's Avatar
Senior Member
Supporting Member

 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 58,557
Likes: 1,165
From: Long Beach Calimexifornia
Default

Originally Posted by Patriot58
I am also not a noob. I cut my teeth on Ford EFI. I couldnt tell you how to change jets in a carb, but I can tell you what voltage your TPS should be set at.

There is more than enough fuel in the OEM maps to accommodate many bolt-ons. Without a tune it wont be optimal, but it wont be dangerous either. Newer OBD II have tighter tolerences due to tighter emissisions standerds. They should be handled a bit more cautiously. For example a 2005 F150 with headers, CAI, exhaust, larger TB, and pulleys will need to be tuned. A 95 like mine or the 94 like the op's will be just fine.
All 3 vehicles mentioned are CAI's stock. If your advising a hi-flow CAI Mod for a non-MAF engine, I'd have to disagree. It has no way of determining air flow, so no way to adapt to it.

Last edited by ymeski56; May 9, 2010 at 05:19 PM.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 05:23 PM
  #15  
ymeski56's Avatar
Senior Member
Supporting Member

 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 58,557
Likes: 1,165
From: Long Beach Calimexifornia
Default

Originally Posted by Just call me Sean
"I'm smarter than you."
"No, I'm smarter than you."
"No, I believe you're mistaken. I'm smarter than you."
"No, really, I'm smarter than you."

Fortunately or unfortunately, intelligence isn't what's missing here!
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 06:33 PM
  #16  
dr_bowtie's Avatar
Hi-Rev Motorsports
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,898
Likes: 65
From: Northern Indiana
Default

Originally Posted by Patriot58
Newer OBD II have tighter tolerances due to tighter emissions standards. They should be handled a bit more cautiously. For example a 2005 F150 with headers, CAI, exhaust, larger TB, and pulleys will need to be tuned. A 95 like mine or the 94 like the op's will be just fine.
Although I do agree here..but the MAF does offer a degree of adjustment that a Speed Density doesnt....

you can also get a MAF inline calibrator or have the current one re-calibrated for mods...much cheaper than re-flashing a Speed Density system...

Last edited by dr_bowtie; May 9, 2010 at 06:39 PM.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 08:43 PM
  #17  
Patriot58's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ymeski56
All 3 vehicles mentioned are CAI's stock. If your advising a hi-flow CAI Mod for a non-MAF engine, I'd have to disagree. It has no way of determining air flow, so no way to adapt to it.

I assumed when I said "CAI" we would be on the same page as to what that is.

Many thousands of cars and trucks have been opened up on both ends running Speed Density. In the foxbody Mustang world the modded SD cars were feared by similarly modded MA cars.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 08:44 PM
  #18  
Patriot58's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dr_bowtie
Although I do agree here..but the MAF does offer a degree of adjustment that a Speed Density doesnt....

you can also get a MAF inline calibrator or have the current one re-calibrated for mods...much cheaper than re-flashing a Speed Density system...

I completely agree.
Reply
Old May 9, 2010 | 10:18 PM
  #19  
dr_bowtie's Avatar
Hi-Rev Motorsports
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,898
Likes: 65
From: Northern Indiana
Default

I will say for the record one can only do so much with a MAF system...

at least on GM I know that when certain power levels are needing to be achieved they go back to speed density systems...

not sure about Fords as they have a digital MAP sensor that works the voltage backwards of GM and Chrysler's analog MAP set up....

as far as I know most of the Mustangs were MAF...I didnt get into teh early ones...the 87 I worked on was factory MAF...
Reply
Old May 10, 2010 | 08:11 AM
  #20  
Patriot58's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dr_bowtie
I will say for the record one can only do so much with a MAF system...

at least on GM I know that when certain power levels are needing to be achieved they go back to speed density systems...

not sure about Fords as they have a digital MAP sensor that works the voltage backwards of GM and Chrysler's analog MAP set up....

as far as I know most of the Mustangs were MAF...I didnt get into teh early ones...the 87 I worked on was factory MAF...
Ive seen well over 1k horsepower on factory mass air (albeit with a custom tuned chip).

All EFI Mustangs were Speed density up to 1988 except for the California emissions cars which were Mass Air in 1988.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 AM.