Ford Mustang Forums banner

21 - 40 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
i plan on ordering a new Trickflow upper to go to 90mm. is there a big differenrce between the Box R and the regular R 90mm as for flow? the regular R upper looks smoother and cleaner and cost abit less. but im sure the box R will outflow it pretty good. also worried the box R will hit hit the firewall but i cant really compare it to tell
What does Ed recommend for an intake? For my 427, he recommended a Box R (ported adapter) or a SV. I ordered the Box R but confirmed a firewall issue and didn't feel like cutting/welding the firewall in order to get it to fit (using autofab motor mounts). I finally went to a SV...I should have started with a SV + 90mm elbow.

You're gonna want a good exhaust system...I'd say 1-3/4" primaries will work, but 1-7/8" would be better. 3" Y-pipe into a 4" (maybe bigger?) exhaust, mandrel bent. Ed should give you a recommendation here. I lack a xfer case, so I went dual 1-7/8x3" (wide bolt pattern). Who knows if a 3" Y will even fit.

You're going to have to consider your tuning option as well and probably a 90mm+ MAF...unless you're SD or carbed.

I'm using 205s on a big bore and turn nearly 7000rpm...and you've seen how fast my truck moves. I wouldn't worry too much about RPM. I'd suggest seriously considering Ed's recommendations so you don't wind up with a project of mismatched parts.

Lastly, adding a (new/used) blower and some exhaust to your existing setup may save you some coin (if it will work...engine compression? cam?), but there are trade-offs. It's worth considering and weighing your options....and you'll have to do the math/research. Your engine management solution will also have some input on this decision if this is feasible or not.

That said, I also recommend talking to the lightning guys for your headers...I think some of those guys have used mustang headers and simply notched the frame a bit (but be aware, they lack 4WD also). I've found the Bronco forums to be useless....in nearly every way.

After building my truck, I've learned that building one-off vehicles using combinations with unknown outcomes can get very expensive (very quickly). I've got 3x the amount of cash into my truck than what the engine costs...and It's not even finished. I've spent A LOT of money on stuff I purchased but had to offload at deep discounts because something didn't fit or turned out to be a crappy solution. What's nice about the Mustangs is that there are plenty of cookie cutter solutions that just work and (generally) fit....meanwhile the amount of fabrication and custom crap I had to do to my truck was ridiculous, expensive, and time consuming. I was in a fortunate position as I could afford it (both in money and time), but if I could go back in time, I wouldn't have started the project.

Did you ever take this thing to a dyno to get tuned? How bout running it at a track to see how it performs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Stock, the Box flowed 13 cfm more than the 90mm R on our bench. Either should work well at the rpm you will be using.
now ive got conflicted info. i know you are known for porting intakes and such so im sure your info is accurate when you actually do the work itself. then everyone says 'ask Ed' for a reason. Ed said

Here's the deal... the long runner "R" upper is barely enough for a decent 302/306 build so a 425 will starve. You need shorter runners and more plenum to make this work
i mean if i can fit the Box-R i will. but i know the R will and not sure if the Box-R will. as bsfguy said, his did not fit and i do not think mine will fit the Box-R.

its not bore im worried about with rpm, its stroke. longer stroke dont like rpm as much. originally when i built it i was more worried about rpm because my rotating assembly isnt very high buck quality. now im at a point that i dont mind as much tho i still dont need it very high.

i considered going boosted with a centrifugal charger. i just don't see it happening tho on this truck. even with 72cc heads, my compression ratio is still over 9:1, wouldn't be able to run very much to bother. rather jsut stay 58cc and 10.5 ratio. the heat would probably be an issue anyways.

unfortunatly the 4x4 limits my chosiec for exhaust. im lucky enough to have true dual 2.5" exhaust. dont want to play guessing games with full header. out of 4 sets i tried on my f250 with a 302, none fit correctly, tho i did manage to make 1 set work with enough cutting and welding and weird routing. tried mustang headers and they interfered with the starter. im quite happy sticking with my shorty 1-5/8 shorty headers.

i have a 75mm ProM MAF for my 42lb injectors. i will replace it with a 90MM when i get the upper intake. i have a Quarterhorse for tuning, but right now its not able to datalog because the guys at CoreTuning messed up the strategy so bad. really jsut need to email them to fix it when i get time. but i dont think its a tuning issue anymore, i think its more of a small intake an cam issue now.

unfortunaly most of the bronco forums dont deal much with performance engine info which is why im here. we specialize more on offroading and such. i myself specialize more in electrical, drivetrain and suspension for offroading. i understand alot of the theory of performance builds but dont have experience or actual data to really know which parts and combos work best. theres a few who have decent builds on the bronco forums but even alot of them do stuff the wrong way.

i dont need this truck to win races. i want it to be perfectly driveable long distances, reliable, durable, and have a good amount of power. unfortunately its not really much of any of those right now and i know it cost money to achieve those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,774 Posts
now ive got conflicted info. i know you are known for porting intakes and such so im sure your info is accurate when you actually do the work itself. then everyone says 'ask Ed' for a reason. Ed said

i mean if i can fit the Box-R i will. but i know the R will and not sure if the Box-R will. as bsfguy said, his did not fit and i do not think mine will fit the Box-R.
There is no conflict. You asked what the intakes flow but flow is not the only way to evaluate an intake and Ed pointed out the other reasons for choosing the Box. Flow is measured in static flow conditions (that's why you never choose an intake based strictly on a flow number or a stated rpm band) - that is not how an engine uses the intake, so runner length, cross section and plenum volume must be considered as well. Ed is telling you which one will work best, doesn't mean the R won't work but the cam will have to be adjusted, possibly significantly, for the difference. The R long runner upper has a cross section pinch mid way through the upper that limits it's ability to flow on a bigger displacement engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Man you have a great set up there for low end torque...the 220s will be worse! If anything the port velocity of 165s would be better, but nothing wrong with 185s at your displacement. Cam looks good too, though who knows your compression Ration? Id rethink the R series intake a bit if were buying new- but maybe add a TB spacer- something to increase runner length. A 90mm wont do you any good- hell the bore in manifold is 75mm. Spend the money on the gears FIRST before messing with the mill any further...you may want to get a wide band to look at A/F ratios- maybe youre running lean (stock injectors?) and causing your disappointment? Either way give that Windsor some gear & get it tuned right- should have all the torque you need!
my 351w in my truck is stroked and bored to a 425ci. due to the longer stroke i focused on making it low end torque build to keep RPM down. i dont like how it turned out so i plan on redoing my entire build. still dont want too high of rpm range, 5k rpm max will be the engine will probably see. i currently have AFR185 heads with a Comp 35-514-8 cam. i have 33" tires and 4.10 gears and an OD automatic trans. i am currnetly planning on going up to AFR220 with a FTI custom grind cam, either 35-37" tires and 5.13 or 5.38 gears. converter has a stall of 2300-2500. sicne its an OD trans, it will cruise around 2k most of the time. also idle quality is kidna important. do you think AFR220 are too big? im using a Trickflow R-series intake with 75mm tb which i will probably go up to a 90mm when i can
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
bsfguy..
Your combo sounds close to mine ! And the $$$ spent problem 3X also. Mine is a 96 Bronco with E4OD and stock PCM with core software
I to run autofab motor mounts. I run the Eddy super vic EFI intake with a elbow and 90mm Accufab TB. I run a 600 lift cam for sand drags and a 590 lift for trail. and dez
I run the accufab mid-length headers for a Mustang 1.78 3" bolt pattern. Yes it took some work ! But they fit and work. 3" h pipe to 3.5" out (VERY LOUD)

King
I like the AFR205 heads with a custom cam. Wish I had the 205 on my 425W
I ran a TFS StBurner. Was a good low rpm intake. But low on HP / TQ above 3000 rpm. The Box don't fit with out cutting. I retuned it.

Your in Good hands with Ed

Good Luck with the BW1356
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,388 Posts
Man you have a great set up there for low end torque...the 220s will be worse! If anything the port velocity of 165s would be better, but nothing wrong with 185s at your displacement. Cam looks good too, though who knows your compression Ration? Id rethink the R series intake a bit if were buying new- but maybe add a TB spacer- something to increase runner length. A 90mm wont do you any good- hell the bore in manifold is 75mm. Spend the money on the gears FIRST before messing with the mill any further...you may want to get a wide band to look at A/F ratios- maybe youre running lean (stock injectors?) and causing your disappointment? Either way give that Windsor some gear & get it tuned right- should have all the torque you need!
Wow... You think a 165 would be better? Seriously? On a 425 cid engine? That head struggles on a mild 302.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I had a similar issue with my selection issues on a 347. Ed helped me fix my setup. He knows what he is doing.

I strongly suggest being very honest with both yourself and him about exactly what you want out of your engine combo, then follow his suggestions to the letter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
So i can tell you guys this i have a 427 stroker in my foxbody and not to long ago i put the longrunner R series top back on to try and gain hood clearence for another hood and i feel zero difference with the way the car pulls.its still obnoxious in 1st and 2nd gear and pulls strong in 3rd.my cam is a off the shelf cam .565/576 lift 236/240 @050 on 110 lsa so i dont feel its choking my combo with that particular cam. I feel like i have seen hundreds of dyno test even on several 408 inch motors windsor based and ls engines and every time the longer runner intake makes more power to 6500 rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
That head struggles on a mild 302.
Engine Masters AFR 165, 195, 220 410W test. I believe this is somewhat valid whereas the O/P wants torque and drivability, thus a smaller cam is more likely than not (the cam they used is similar to his cam.)

410W
.500" lift cam 218*/224* 110* lobe separation
Holley XP 850 Carb
1 3/4" Longtubes
Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap

Tested 3 AFR Heads, 165cc, 195cc, & 220cc

165cc - Torque 515.3 @ 3900 rpm, HP 471.4 @ 5400 rpm
195cc - Torque 520.8 @ 3900 rpm, HP 484.4 @ 5500 rpm
220cc - Torque 512.5 @ 3900 rpm, HP 474.3 @ 5400 rpm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
I cant find the video but not to long ago engine masters on you tube dyno tested 165,185,and 205 cylinder heads on a 408" stroker and the difference was very little.i pretty sure they said the 185cc head was best for that application.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
yes ive seen it and even brought it up in a thread back when it came out. its on MTOD. but you have to have a paid subscription to watch it.

either way im not happy with the current build. ideally i believe it SHOULD have done what i wanted, a low rpm torque monster, but it didnt. when i did a desktop dyno it shows the engine should be making [email protected] and [email protected] but it also showed the an NA engine having 112% volumetric efficiency so obviously those ratings are bad. im guessing something with the intake being a restriction made the program confused


ahh thats what i forgot to order for cyber monday. a dual wideband o2 sensor. either way just ordered the Innovate DLG-1. already have have o2 sensor bungs on each bank welded for it and a spot to place the gauge. been on a list to buy for while now

either way i been watching my o2 snesor voltages and fuel trims with my datalogger and my obd-II display. dont think its a AFR issue. got the MAF tunes pretty good for it. could be timing as a fought pinging for awhile, but it no longer pings. this weekeend ill have soem time to see what it would take to get a Box-R in the truck. i dont have the Autofab motor mounts but i have the BroncoGraveyard 'severe duty' mounts that raise the engine about an inch. will have to see. how much of the vent cowl would need to be reworked
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
5,742 Posts
Man you have a great set up there for low end torque...the 220s will be worse! If anything the port velocity of 165s would be better, but nothing wrong with 185s at your displacement. Cam looks good too, though who knows your compression Ration? Id rethink the R series intake a bit if were buying new- but maybe add a TB spacer- something to increase runner length. A 90mm wont do you any good- hell the bore in manifold is 75mm. Spend the money on the gears FIRST before messing with the mill any further...you may want to get a wide band to look at A/F ratios- maybe youre running lean (stock injectors?) and causing your disappointment? Either way give that Windsor some gear & get it tuned right- should have all the torque you need!

Please stop... please...
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
5,742 Posts
Oh I thought maybe you had something to contribute?
I did... they are called proven facts... James has my information via Email when he placed an order.

You provided nothing but .. well... you did post bovine feces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
The new Renegade 165s flow every bit as well as the old 185s & actually a lil more than a stock C8VE 460 head. The better port velocity low lift flow, a small efficient chamber is what Id run in a truck application if rpm were below 5500 with a properly sized cam- yes even on a 425. The entire cfm requirement for a 425 @ 5500, even with 125% VE comes out to 541...so yeah why wouldnt 280+ from each intake port be adequate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I did... they are called proven facts... James has my information via Email when he placed an order.

You provided nothing but .. well... you did post bovine feces.
What an ass, well you have all the info on what the guy wants, get him fixed up!
My bad for not reading the whole thread, but sounded to me, from what I read- he wanted a dependable daily driver with good throttle response, low end torque on a stock-ish bottom end and didn't want to turn more than 5k rpm. My point is just cuz its over 400 inches doesnt mean he needs race parts or he'll be disappointed with the drivability. Ive seen guys mix match parts- usually too big & expect it to behave like a stock engine on the street & trail & not be happy. But hey I guess youre the guru, so have fun taking care of your customer man..
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
5,742 Posts
what an ass
Truth hurt your feelings?

Need a safe space?

As long as people like you post garbage that misleads forum members, I'll be sure to hurt your feelings.

Now please, go away with your flawed theories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Truth hurt your feelings?

Need a safe space?

As long as people like you post garbage that misleads forum members, I'll be sure to hurt your feelings.

Now please, go away with your flawed theories.
No actually not...sounds like you own the forum here & yours are the only thoughts that can be posted? I'll scroll on past ya in the future sure- how about ya just dont feel the need to kick everyone in the nuts every time you dont agree huh?
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
5,742 Posts
No actually not...sounds like you own the forum here & yours are the only thoughts that can be posted? I'll scroll on past ya in the future sure- how about ya just dont feel the need to kick everyone in the nuts every time you dont agree huh?
Did I insult you? Nope. Kick anyone in the nuts? Nope.

You called "me" an ass ... then edited the post later but whatever floats your boat.

My "thoughts" (as you call them) are based on facts. Yours are not.

You can surely make comments on an open forum but when they are misleading or as this particular series of posts have been, completely incorrect, expect rebuttal.

Scroll away...
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top