FOX Intake Mani Swap! OPs.

[Paul]

Despite what your "calibrated butt" tells you, there is no empirical data to support your claims. Using your example of slapping a single plane manifold on a stock or near-stock 289/302, I guarantee that you lost power AND torque, and made the car slower.

To answer your question about "why people care about low-end torque" - it's because of math. Horsepower, oversimplified, is calculated as torque/time. The faster you can make torque, the more horsepower you make.

Regarding the Cartech, I've seen many dyno tests over the years (since I started following this stuff, probably around the year 1999/2000) that prove empirically, with actual testing and dyno data, that the long-runner manifolds significantly outperform box and short-runner manifolds in stock and mildly modified combinations.

Sorry, but on this topic, you're just wrong.

Paul.

 

[white95]

Oi..

 

[ratio411]

Despite what your "calibrated butt" tells you, there is no empirical data to support your claims. Using your example of slapping a single plane manifold on a stock or near-stock 289/302, I guarantee that you lost power AND torque, and made the car slower.

To answer your question about "why people care about low-end torque" - it's because of math. Horsepower, oversimplified, is calculated as torque/time. The faster you can make torque, the more horsepower you make.

Regarding the Cartech, I've seen many dyno tests over the years (since I started following this stuff, probably around the year 1999/2000) that prove empirically, with actual testing and dyno data, that the long-runner manifolds significantly outperform box and short-runner manifolds in stock and mildly modified combinations.

Sorry, but on this topic, you're just wrong.

Paul.

No need to get all confrontational Paul...
I was just giving my opinion, and you are absolutely right about the "imperical data".

However you are wrong about the single plane carb'd intake deal I was talking about.
Especially about the idea that I said it was 'stock', or even near stock.
No, it was a healthy 302, but it was built "old school", and not using any standards that 5.0 EFI engines are built.

Hell, when I built it, aftermarket heads were new to the market, and very exotic, definitely not seen on the street, especially in my circles.

Funny though, while I was building my old tech 302, there were younger folks around me playing in the 5.0 playground. They couldn't touch my old tech 302 at the time. A young neighbor had a 351w swap with Lightining induction, fancy swap headers, and the first set of aluminum heads that anyone around me had on a Ford, and he couldn't take my car. He hated it... :wink:

Like I said, the Fairmont may have lost torque, but it sure is 10x more fun to drive now. More challenging as well because it revs so darn fast.
I understand the relation of torque vs horsepower. I have been wrenching on engines for 30 years now. No need to explain it, and I still stand by my opinions on it. I am not advocating ruining torque, just saying it is not all needed right off idle.

I don't expect anyone to listen to me, and even hope most don't. You can have your nice running car, and I can have mine, and be different.
As for my sons, in the end, they are free to do what they want to their cars, but I am happy to help them if they want to spend a few hours swapping out an upper just to give it a try. If they don't like it, they can put the 'standard' upper back on. I could care less. I will note though that one son has already given a Cartech upper a try, and without any pressure from me, he reconized that he wanted to keep it.

 

[ratio411]

Despite what your "calibrated butt" tells you, there is no empirical data to support your claims...

By the way, you are going to look at that pic of the Fairmont darn near pulling the wheels on street tires, and tell me that doesn't supply some empirical data that the car does not lack torque?????

 

[Magic]

By the way, you are going to look at that pic of the Fairmont darn near pulling the wheels on street tires, and tell me that doesn't supply some empirical data that the car does not lack torque?????

With 4.10s and drag oriented suspension (or an old slopyy suspension), its doable. Weight transfer.

 

[Magic]

Hey guys, I'm running a Cobra GT40 upper and lower with a 1" spacer on my car now. As for my build, I have a fresh 306 rebuilt with Edelbrock Performers and an E303 cam. All other bolt ons are there exhaust, etc. I have 4.10s in the rear end. I'm doing a performance rebuild on my AODE very shortly with a 2800-3000 lock up stall converter. Right after I plan to do a Foxbody throttle body swap and instead of just going 87-93 Cobra Gt40, I wanted something more aggressive. Being that my car is only street driven and I don't care to go anywhere near 100mph, I really like the idea of MOREE torque. Any suggestions on a good upper/lower intake setup to meet my wantss?

Also, I was looking at JEGS Cartech Box intake because my brother has this on his 5.0 (83 Fairmont T5 4.10s) and it really brought out some noticable power from when he had the GT40 Explorer on there. He didn't seem to lose any torque either. I know lots of people say that type of intake is only for boosted engines, but with the 4.10s, stall converter, and already having the gt40 lower and spacer, I think it would bring more power out of mine too.

Looking at the original post again...

You have 4.10s, will be doing some upgrades to your AODE with a stall convertor. = not bad!

A 306 (30 thou overbore from stock) Edelbrock Performer Heads and an E303 cam.
Your current intake manifold is a 94-95 Cobra upper/lower with a 1 inch spacer. Not a bad combination of parts at all.

Looking at the ENTIRE combination, I will suggest again, porting the lower intake. Or go with something like a Performer or the original RPM 1.
You could go with that Jegs box intake, but porting the GT40/Cobra lower intake will also help with that upper.

You will get better throttle response using a FOX TB upper and getting rid of the elbow.

Whats the reason for the 1 inch spacer? Valve cover clearance?

 

[ratio411]

Looking at the original post again...

You have 4.10s, will be doing some upgrades to your AODE with a stall convertor. = not bad!

A 306 (30 thou overbore from stock) Edelbrock Performer Heads and an E303 cam.
Your current intake manifold is a 94-95 Cobra upper/lower with a 1 inch spacer. Not a bad combination of parts at all.

Looking at the ENTIRE combination, I will suggest again, porting the lower intake. Or go with something like a Performer or the original RPM 1.
You could go with that Jegs box intake, but porting the GT40/Cobra lower intake will also help with that upper.

You will get better throttle response using a FOX TB upper and getting rid of the elbow.

Whats the reason for the 1 inch spacer? Valve cover clearance?

I will answer for my son since he isn't around... that, and I am his engine builder/mechanic. (He's learning fast though)

The spacer was for clearance, we used 1.7 roller rockers and Fox aluminum valve covers.

The SN Cobra intake was my purchase. He is just 'borrowing' it, I paid 300 bux for it a few years ago before I knew much about EFI 5.0s.
The thought was to get the car a plug-n-play GT40 upgrade (it was stock at the time), and not worry about adapters or anything like that.
I wish I had known then what I know now though! I would have picked up a Fox style intake/TB and done the conversion right then.
You live and you learn. Now that I have my feet wet with Fox EFI, I have found that our Fox vehicles (heck, even my 5.0 F150) all have better throttle response and street manners than the SN setup. That and the simplicity/clean engine bay is what we are going for now with the Fox induction conversion.

If we put a box on the SN and it doesn't like it, we'll just pull it off and put an Exploder upper on the car, I have one on the shelf.

He just ordered his 3000 stall today. He was going to have me convert the car to T5, but changed his mind.
We installed an aluminum driveshaft the other day, and we'll be building the AODE with custom valve body, finishing it up with Alto Kevlar clutches.
We kept the lock-up function for road manners.

I also built his rear with the 4.10s knowing full well how the 5.0 loves to rev, so it's ready to move the torque curve up the band.

 

[ratio411]

With 4.10s and drag oriented suspension (or an old slopyy suspension), its doable. Weight transfer.

Without going into a long list of details:

The entire front suspension is from a 93 GT. Monster 22lb sway bar and all. New poly bushings, new stock replacement coil springs.
The original steering rack took all day to turn lock to lock... the 93 GT rack makes it turn like a go-kart.
Out back are replacement coils, Monroe shocks, and BMR tubular uppers and lowers. Again, every bushing was replaced with poly.
I built the 91 GT 8.8" with 4.10s on this car too, and 'loaned' my son my Moser girdle.
The only thing missing from the rear is the sway bar.
The huge front sway bar eventually tore the driver's side mount off the front frame rail. Probably due to launches like the one in the pic.
After some study, we found that the mount is attached to the frame rail MUCH better on Mustangs than the Fairmont..... considering the original sway bar on the car wasn't much thicker in diameter than a pencil. LMAO!

The car was dyno'd when it was still an AOD with 2.73 gears, and the engine only had Mac shorties, OR-x, and Exploder intake/TB. Nothing else. It pulled 230 at the wheels, ran pig rich, and I don't recall the exact torque, but I think it was around 270.

Since then the car has the new upper, 24# injectors, SN95 MAF, CAI, long tubes, true duals (no balance pipe), electric fan, and of course the T5 and 8.8"/4.10s. The rich condition is gone now, the car runs great, but surely would run better with a tune.

 

[ratio411]

LOL!
I just noticed my son's original post was him asking you guys for more torque!
LMAO, you guys are giving him exactly what he asked for!
and here I am arguing the other direction... No wonder my comments are not being greeted well.

 

[Magic]

LOL!
I just noticed my son's original post was him asking you guys for more torque!
LMAO, you guys are giving him exactly what he asked for!
and here I am arguing the other direction... No wonder my comments are not being greeted well.

Thats a grounds for...grounding your son! Hahaha

 

[ratio411]

Here's a video, see if the link works.
The picture is horrible, but the sound is exactly what the car sounds like.
(My phone is an antique...)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2657504455023&set=vb.1778245963&type=3&theater

 

[white95]

That's classic.. Damn kids!

 

[ratio411]

Seriously though... I've been blessed with great kids.
I have so much fun working with them on their cars, I barely notice nothing gets done on mine. (And they 'borrow' my parts before they get put on my car.)

 

[white95]

Cool! I wish my old man was still around, I always worked on his vehicles for him.

 

[ratio411]

Cool! I wish my old man was still around, I always worked on his vehicles for him.

Funny how that works...
My ol man taught me when I was a kid, then I ended up working on his later when he couldn't get around.
He's gone now.

 

[Paul]

No need to get all confrontational Paul...
I was just giving my opinion, and you are absolutely right about the "imperical data".

I'm not being confrontational, you're providing bad tech. Wrong tech. For example, you said:

However you are wrong about the single plane carb'd intake deal I was talking about. Especially about the idea that I said it was 'stock', or even near stock. No, it was a healthy 302, but it was built "old school", and not using any standards that 5.0 EFI engines are built.

You said your motor was "healthy" but later stated it made only 230 rwhp / 270 rwtq on the dyno.

It pulled 230 at the wheels, ran pig rich, and I don't recall the exact torque, but I think it was around 270.

That is not "healthy" as modified 302s go. It's rather anemic. Posting a picture of a car with sloppy suspension squatting on the rear tires is not indicative of its performance. It was probably a mid-14 second car at best, especially with 2.73s and an auto.

Making the additional changes you noted, (new upper, 24# injectors, SN95 MAF, CAI, long tubes, true duals (no balance pipe), electric fan, and of course the T5 and 8.8"/4.10s.) is STILL not going to make the car "healthy." It is a poster child for a mildly modified 5.0, and one which would NOT gain any performance benefit from a box or short runner intake.



You can have all the opinions you want, but correct engine combinations are a topic of fact, not opinion. It's an air pump. Reducing the air intake velocity on a mild 302, either with a single plane intake on a carbureted car, or a box/short runner setup on an EFI car, will make you lose power. As I mentioned before, this has been proven in dyno test after dyno test over and over and over again.


So please stop. Your tech is just wrong.

Paul.

 

[white95]

Kumbaya

 

[MustangChris]

LOL!
I just noticed my son's original post was him asking you guys for more torque!
LMAO, you guys are giving him exactly what he asked for!
and here I am arguing the other direction... No wonder my comments are not being greeted well.

well, I see you've met Paul

He's our resident 5.0 guru.... he's a wealth of knowledge -- It's just sometimes his delivery methods for his knowledge are a little more cut and dry than most are used to... I hope he doesn't run ya off!

But, considering you've been around the block a few times, I'm sure that you've run into all sorts of different types of personalities and opinions.

Needless to say, welcome to the forum! We've got the folk here who can really help your kids out with their 5.0 questions.


I'm going to un-lock this thread, as I feel there's some solid tech discussion going on in here...

Just consider this "fair warning" that if you can't handle the heat -- stay out of the kitchen.

It's clear we have differing opinions and we're all going to have to have thick enough skin to discuss them.

the mods and I will keep a close eye on it to keep it from getting to a "bashing" point....

 

[white95]

ok..

 

[MustangChris]

ok..

wish me luck. I'm going in.