Phil,
I know that Edelbrock makes a lower and upper intake for a 5.0
mustang. If the EFI lower is anything like the EFI lower for the 5.0
then the stock upper intake will not fit. (Edelbrock has rectangular
ports and the stock is oval, and for that matter the GT40 is round) I
dont think that you will be able to mix any two brands of upper and
lower intakes.
Yes, Hypertech makes a chip that will work for anything. The one
that i have available will work on a mass air 5 spd.
Yes, I think that a shift kit will help you very much. Actually i
believe that it will help trans life because the gear changes are faster
and thus less slipping.
I think that the "truckish" elements of the motor lie mostly in the
heads. (and cam). BTW - isnt the motor (351) that came in the bricks
out of a truck anyway. I seem to remember many of the parts for the
motor crossing to a 75 van motor.???
Jamie
Thanks a lot for the info.
I was under the impression that the earlier systems weren't appropriate
for
performance applications, and they don't come any earlier than '86 ;) I
knew that there was a switch involving spped-density and mass air, I
just
didn't remember when, which way it went, or which was more desirable ;)
I had in mind that Edelbrock sold a lower intake that could be used with
the stock upper - anyone know anything about this? Maybe it just works
with the GT-40 upper...
You mention that the Hypertech chip will only work with the five speed,
I
assume that you mean that the specific one you have will only work with
a
five speed - I shouldn't have any difficulty getting an AOD-specific
chip
according to the Hypertech web page.
I guess that my real questions are:
1) Will a Hypertech "Power Module" overcome all of the truck-ish
elements
of the EFI system from my dad's van?
2) Will a Trans-Go (or similar) shift kit plus a higher stall
torque
convertor overcome all of the truck-ish elements of the AOD from my
dad's
van?
Thanks for any help,
--
Phil Martin pmartin@isgtec.com
"If we finally made our peace and went our separate ways,
You'd go west and I'd go east and we'd meet here in this place."
-----Original Message-----
From: Olenick, Jamison [SMTP:Olenick@ssims.nci.nih.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 2:50 PM
To: 'Phil Martin'
Subject: RE: 86 5.0 Econoline as donor vehicle?
Phil,
As a fellow Bricklin owner and 5.0 Mustang owner I can tell you what
I know.
I have considered the same swap into my bricklin and still have not
decided against it.
Here is what I know:
First - is the 5.0 EFI speed density or mass air. (the easiest way to
tell is there will be a mass air meter between the air filter and the
throttle body if the car is mass air). If the EFI setup is speed density
(86-88 Mustangs) (i dont know about the trucks) you will have to get a
mass air conversion for the car. The speed density setup works well
with a stock setup but will cause computer failure if too much is
changed to the original engine setup (cam, heads, supercharger, turbo,
nitrous....) Cost ~ $400
As for the intake - Ford Motorsport sells a EFI lower intake for a
351 (stock equipment on a Lightning) but it is a GT40 intake, which
requires a GT40 upper intake. Cost for both ~$600
I think that you will also have to change distributors not to mention
removing almost everything from the 5.0 donor - all sensors - fuel pump,
(which will cause you to have to get new high pressure fuel lines)
I am not sure about the Ford wiring harness that makes it easier to
swap a 5.0 EFI setup into an older car. Sounds like a good idea if
there is one.
I still have considered the swap myself but have not found the time
or energy to do it. If you decide to attempt it I would love to hear
how it goes.
Let me know if you have any more questions. I have good knowledge of
the Mustang 5.0 EFI setup.
Jamie
ps - I have a Hypertech chip for a Mass air 5.0 with 5spd. (will not
work with the auto)
* Jamie Olenick olenick@ssims.nci.nih.gov
* "Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my
first instinct is to laugh.
* But then I think, what if I was an ant, and she fell on me.
Then it wouldn't seem quite
* so funny" J.H.
*
*
|