86-88 vintage 5.0L CFI specs- Help new EFI retrofits ???

looking for specs on a (I think) '86 mustang 5L CFI (dual fuel injector throttle body) and any info that would help me trouble shoot this engine while I figure out what to put into a '65 2+2 long term (donor car engine, no info). I have one in my '88 Bronco winter car as well, but the firing order is different (????) Anyone have any information?

Issue is whether left bank middle two cylinders (3/5 or 4/6 as I can never remember which side is #1) are reversed in some engines in this era. I don't know if this was just a simple screw-up or a bona fide difference. When I put it in prior to retiring it for the winter, it was running rough enough as is that it wasn't obvious.

Any help/comments appreciated as ice will be melting off the rivers up here shortly, and time to switch to the summer car rapidly approaching.

PS even though I only had it out for a couple of months and it ran like a "piece of excrement" compared to my 64 1/4 260 cid coupe, a '65 2+2 is still a very cool car to daily drive.

The early fuel injection is like a set of jerky on/off switches compared to the silky smoothness of a well tuned 4 barrel carburetor (albeit at better emissions which was the point at the time and the reason for me going down this road). Its hard to appreciate how big a difference this was unless you had the two vehicles side by side to drive. I don't think that the changeover occured until the mid 90's when EFI performance started to vastly exceed caruburated performance in all respects.

I am really tempted to convert the nominal '86 302 to an aftermarket EFI of some type.

Any comments or suggestions?

Reply to
Bob
Loading thread data ...

Bob,

I'll try to shed some light, as I remember it from similar topics over the years in RAMFM.

The cfi was used in 1985 5.0L Mustangs, most commonly with the auto trans. The 5spd 5.0's commonly got the Holley carburetor. I say commonly, because I think some people have noted some exceptions.

The cars that got the Holley had the same hydraulic roller short block that was used in 86 and newer model 5.0's. The 86's had the EFI fuel injection (I had an ex cop car 1986) across the board. But the models with the cfi in

1985 used a standard hydraulic (non-roller) lifter 5.0 motor.

This is where I'm unsure and don't have any manuals to refer to... I think the cfi version had a different firing order compared to the version with the Holley carb. This could be the base of your trouble. You need to find out what you've got. I remember back when the EFI carb'd versions were new and people wanted to convert their EFI 5.0's to carbureted, they would get the distributor that was for an '85 with the Holley carb (manual transmission). I don't know if the one for the cfi version swapped over, but it may have too.

Now that I've typed this, I'm afraid that I may have made the issue even more cloudy. Hopefully somebody can come in and fill all the voids that I've left wide open on this one.

Steve BBB on a stand.

Reply to
A Guy Named Steve

The 5.0 HO motors use the 351w firing order which is different from the standard 302 firing order.

351w is 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 302 is 1-5-4-2-6-5-4-8

the claim is that the 302 firining order will make more power, but is harder on the front main because of the 1-5 hit. The 351 firing order is suppose to make more torque.

MadDAWG

Reply to
MadDAWG

As Steve said, the '86 5.0 Mustangs were all SEFI H.O. cars. The '85 cars could be either CFI H.O. or Holley H.O., depending on your transmission option. While Steve quotes some differences in which transmission went to what, I'm pretty sure if there are a few CFI 5-speeds or AOD Holleys, they were either converted or they are very few and far between. From my research, I've never found a Ford AOD-to-Holley kickdown linkage adapter.

MadDawg explained the firing order difference. An '82-up Mustang 302 should have the 351W firing order. A Bronco will almost definately have the standard 302 firing order, unless, obviously, it's equipped with a 351.

Looking at the engine from the front of the car, on your left will be

1,2,3,4 starting front to back. On your right will be 5,6,7,8 front to back. I don't think Ford has ever varied from that scheme for their V8s as far as I can remember. Maybe some of the *real* early stuff. Even the RWD V6s follows the same pattern, minus a pair of holes.

CFI sucks, plain and simple. It's not a performance induction system. It's an emissions induction system, and my CFI car doesn't even do that very well, with 77K original miles on it (all stock with a fresh tune-up).

To stuff this into a '65 2+2 seems like a waste of time. To go through the hassle of dealing with the computer and wiring, electric fuel pump, and every other annoyance of installing EFI into an older Mustang only to end up with what was probably the worst induction of the Fox era (I'd take a 2bbl over a CFI car) doesn't make sense. I'm all for EFI in an older Mustang, but I'd want it to be SEFI as in the '86-93 Fox Mustangs.

This engine can be swapped over to carburetion with....

4bbl intake 4bbl carb correct distributor (vacuum advance with correct gear, not sure which one) front cover with provisions for engine mounted fuel pump fuel pump kickdown adapter for a carb (if you stick with the AOD)

If you're dead set on installing injection, I'd suggest finding a wrecked SEFI car and sourcing all of the induction equipment from there. This way, you get a system that is adaptable and upgradeable, with decent performance to boot.

IMO....

Easiest and cheapest? Carb Better driveability, less emissions, and some added cool factor? SEFI Least practical? CFI

This is a route you could take, but conversion kits to make your '65 a factory Ford SEFI car are probably cheaper. Most of the aftermarket EFI systems are better suited for racers who need to control every variable of their highly modified engine. If this is the route that you feel you'll eventually end up going, spend the green now on the aftermarket system. If you are just going to have a mild 5.0 in your early-model... it's probably not worth the cash.

This is the point where you should decide what you want this car to do and where you'd like to end up with it. You cite emissions as a reason for looking into CFI. There's no reason that a well-tuned 4bbl shouldn't pass. My '83 Capri (5.0 4-bbl 4-speed) had 140,000 on it and breezed right through PA emissions (no NOx testing).

Hope this helped some. I'm by no means an expert, but I've owned and spent time under the hood of all three induction types of Fox 5.0 Mustangs (carb, CFI, SEFI). Just some info off of the top of my head.

JS

Reply to
JS

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. torque! :)

Steve BBB on a stand.

Reply to
A Guy Named Steve

Thanks to all. I'm glad that I'm on the right track. However, can you check the firing order sequences in the note ie why have #7 in a 302 if never fired (I know its a typo but want to nail this one down).

I have not been able to find this info anywhere, and because I've got the shop manuals for the bronco 302 and nothing on the other motor, I more or less read accross. oops.

Reply to
Bob
302 is 1-5-4-2-6-5-7-8

This is the non HO order. This is the same as the 289 fire order for reference.

formatting link

Here's a good site explaining the different versons of the 302 in the 80's it may be of some help fore future reference. StuK

Reply to
Stuart&Janet

BTW there are two different distributor styles in '85 depending on production date. The main difference is that they take different rotors, just to give you the heads up. StuK

Reply to
Stuart&Janet

Really do appreciate the comments. I bought this project in parts as is, so its been an interesting learning curve, and totally unlike my first 2 mustangs (66 L6 coupe and 260 64 1/4 coupe). This one (65 2+2) was intended to lift the front wheels off the ground with a 70 mph top end. I still have the engine that came with it, but its way too much cam and unknown what else. The '86 (?) was a freebie, and used it to get on the road.

BTW, the in-tank fuel pump etc. was not difficult, but it is noisy because I didn't think about it for vibration/noise isolation.. The ECM tucks under the radio. You'd be amazed at how many people have looked at that engine and thought it was stock.

What can I say. It's on the road, its got a junk donor engine for 1-2 years, but thats going to change. Over the next couple of months I have to decide what to change it to.... and thats where i appreciate the comments.

Again thanks for the input.

performance

Reply to
Bob

I remeber going through that pain in the ass when I was tuning up a 1984

2.3L.

There was a "non-computer" rotor and a "computer" rotor. My car took neither - it wanted the 1985 rotor.

The cap, however, was from a "non-computer" car but my 1bbl carb had wires all over it.

Go figure. This definately wasn't the era of consistency at Ford.

JS

Reply to
JS

again thanks. you just can't find this info with an interpretation with it anywhere else.

Reply to
Bob

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.