Retrofit EFI question

[85lebaront2]

Jonathan - I'm certainly no expert. But, what you are saying about a transplant makes sense given the variables in carb vs EFI engines.

This is somewhat similar to the 460 where if you go with the EFI intake/plenums you'll need the EFI heads as the ports are different. And, if you do that you have to use the EFI exhaust manifolds as those ports are different.

So, your suggestion of transplanting an EFI engine makes sense as then you don't have to worry about the differences.

I would have done that except the donor engine had a bad #5 cylinder, heads were perfect.

[Ford F834]

Jonathan - I'm certainly no expert. But, what you are saying about a transplant makes sense given the variables in carb vs EFI engines.

This is somewhat similar to the 460 where if you go with the EFI intake/plenums you'll need the EFI heads as the ports are different. And, if you do that you have to use the EFI exhaust manifolds as those ports are different.

So, your suggestion of transplanting an EFI engine makes sense as then you don't have to worry about the differences.

Gary I don't know how the value is on the 460's, but the 300's are a relatively low value engine as engines go. If one goes to convert a carb engine to EFI and all that remains of the original engine is the short block, then at least for a 300 that is silly.

I know it seems like I am saying that a head swap is the straw that broke the camel's back, but I guess to me at some point you are replacing more than you are keeping and (at least for a 300) you would be money ahead just to buy and swap the whole darn thing. It's not at all what I had in mind when I envisioned "adding" EFI to my truck. It has a good healthy engine in there now which was the main point of buying it, and it will have to stay carb'd for the foreseeable future.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary I don't know how the value is on the 460's, but the 300's are a relatively low value engine as engines go. If one goes to convert a carb engine to EFI and all that remains of the original engine is the short block, then at least for a 300 that is silly.

I know it seems like I am saying that a head swap is the straw that broke the camel's back, but I guess to me at some point you are replacing more than you are keeping and (at least for a 300) you would be money ahead just to buy and swap the whole darn thing. It's not at all what I had in mind when I envisioned "adding" EFI to my truck. It has a good healthy engine in there now which was the main point of buying it, and it will have to stay carb'd for the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong, I think you've made a wise decision. You've proven that what you have works well and there's not much reason for change.

My case, and every case, is different. I have a 460 which was rebuilt by who-know-who, and poorly done at that. It drops a cylinder at idle, which suggests a valve problem, although I've not run a leak-down test. And it oozes oil from every seam. So, being the behemoth that it is, it needs to come out to facilitate the repairs.

Meanwhile, with the help of several on here, I've scored the necessary electrical and fuel system parts with which to change it to EEC-V. And, as an adjunct to getting an E4OD core, crossmember, and driveshafts for Dad's truck, I have an EFI'd 460 sitting on the stand with the necessary heads, manifolds, and even serpentine brackets - although no clue how it ran. (Not to mention a spare set of intake manifolds, intake plumbing, and even alternator from Jim.) So I'm ready to mix and match.

And I say all of that to point out that swapping to EFI ain't easy. I'm sure that I'll have problems finding something, like the PCV hose that I already know isn't easy to find. So, buying a donor is the way to go.

[NotEnoughTrucks]

Gary I don't know how the value is on the 460's, but the 300's are a relatively low value engine as engines go. If one goes to convert a carb engine to EFI and all that remains of the original engine is the short block, then at least for a 300 that is silly.

I know it seems like I am saying that a head swap is the straw that broke the camel's back, but I guess to me at some point you are replacing more than you are keeping and (at least for a 300) you would be money ahead just to buy and swap the whole darn thing. It's not at all what I had in mind when I envisioned "adding" EFI to my truck. It has a good healthy engine in there now which was the main point of buying it, and it will have to stay carb'd for the foreseeable future.

I'm a real easy sell on the benefits of EFI over carburetors and I will always point out the success Ford had with the 5.0. The bulk of these were the garden variety SD batch injected EECIV versions we find starting with the 85/86 versions in our beloved bullnoses.

I guess my point is that they run really well. I am well aware of the advantages of OBDII diagnostics, SEFI, MAF, flash programming and all the incremental improvements that EECV offers, but these developments came late in the life cycle of the engine families we see and the latest hardware can be difficult to source.

So why not use some of the older technology, especially when considering our 30 year old trucks?

For example, the 300 six. EFI starting in 1987, I believe? SEFI/MAF/OBDII one year only in 1996. I am not a big fan of this engine, but should I seek to convert from carbs to EFI, I don't think I would hold out for the latest hardware. I know of an older truck with a 300 Ford six in my neck of the woods that runs quite successfully on a GM TBI system calibrated for a 5.0 SBC. The owner did this swap with junkyard parts simply so he could use a remote starter for our frosty winters. Darned if it didn't work!

[Ford F834]

Don't get me wrong, I think you've made a wise decision. You've proven that what you have works well and there's not much reason for change.

My case, and every case, is different. I have a 460 which was rebuilt by who-know-who, and poorly done at that. It drops a cylinder at idle, which suggests a valve problem, although I've not run a leak-down test. And it oozes oil from every seam. So, being the behemoth that it is, it needs to come out to facilitate the repairs.

Meanwhile, with the help of several on here, I've scored the necessary electrical and fuel system parts with which to change it to EEC-V. And, as an adjunct to getting an E4OD core, crossmember, and driveshafts for Dad's truck, I have an EFI'd 460 sitting on the stand with the necessary heads, manifolds, and even serpentine brackets - although no clue how it ran. (Not to mention a spare set of intake manifolds, intake plumbing, and even alternator from Jim.) So I'm ready to mix and match.

And I say all of that to point out that swapping to EFI ain't easy. I'm sure that I'll have problems finding something, like the PCV hose that I already know isn't easy to find. So, buying a donor is the way to go.

Gary in your instance absolutely yes. The engine needs to come out and apart so putting it back together with EFI parts is the obvious answer since you have them 🙂. Hopefully the bottom end is sound and the new heads will take care of the idle issue. I am not getting to the junkyards as often as I was, but I will keep my eyes peeled for that Saginaw pump and bracket (you need both, correct?) and is that PCV hose something I should be watching for also? Details?

I did run across some aftermarket TBI kits for the 300, but with prices over a grand for everything you need it's probably more expensive than the donor route after the return on scrapping the body.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary in your instance absolutely yes. The engine needs to come out and apart so putting it back together with EFI parts is the obvious answer since you have them 🙂. Hopefully the bottom end is sound and the new heads will take care of the idle issue. I am not getting to the junkyards as often as I was, but I will keep my eyes peeled for that Saginaw pump and bracket (you need both, correct?) and is that PCV hose something I should be watching for also? Details?

I did run across some aftermarket TBI kits for the 300, but with prices over a grand for everything you need it's probably more expensive than the donor route after the return on scrapping the body.

I'm not a big fan of TBI. It is better than a carb in that it has the smarts to be able to adjust to altitude, temp, etc. And, it can tune the AFR somewhat, but it can't adjust cylinder-to-cylinder. And, on a log manifold like the 300 has the cylinder-to-cylinder balance can't be all that good. So I'm a fan of port injection since it can provide better balance between cylinders.

However, within port injection there is batch-fire and there is sequential port injection. I read quite a bit about those approaches in a book at Barnes & Noble today. (I didn't buy the book as there wasn't much more than this one bit that interested me.) According to that author, batch-fire works well in steady-state situations. But it has to have the equivalent of an accelerator pump built in as the normal injection sequence isn't quick enough to ensure the engine doesn't stumble. And, when you chop the throttle there is frequently excess fuel in the port that can cause popping in the exhaust.

So according to him some of the reason for sequential was for emissions. And some of it was for smoothness of operation.

[85lebaront2]

I'm not a big fan of TBI. It is better than a carb in that it has the smarts to be able to adjust to altitude, temp, etc. And, it can tune the AFR somewhat, but it can't adjust cylinder-to-cylinder. And, on a log manifold like the 300 has the cylinder-to-cylinder balance can't be all that good. So I'm a fan of port injection since it can provide better balance between cylinders.

However, within port injection there is batch-fire and there is sequential port injection. I read quite a bit about those approaches in a book at Barnes & Noble today. (I didn't buy the book as there wasn't much more than this one bit that interested me.) According to that author, batch-fire works well in steady-state situations. But it has to have the equivalent of an accelerator pump built in as the normal injection sequence isn't quick enough to ensure the engine doesn't stumble. And, when you chop the throttle there is frequently excess fuel in the port that can cause popping in the exhaust.

So according to him some of the reason for sequential was for emissions. And some of it was for smoothness of operation.

Knowing Detroit you better damn well believe it wasn't for smoothness that it was done, look at how long Chevrolet and Chrysler stuck with batch fire and TBI. Chevy's Vortech systems are fancy continuous flow systems, one big injector valve and 6 or 8 nozzles on plastic hoses. Damn pressure regulator is inside the manifold so it has no need for a vacuum line, when it fails, it can wash out several cylinders.

[Ford F834]

I'm not a big fan of TBI. It is better than a carb in that it has the smarts to be able to adjust to altitude, temp, etc. And, it can tune the AFR somewhat, but it can't adjust cylinder-to-cylinder. And, on a log manifold like the 300 has the cylinder-to-cylinder balance can't be all that good. So I'm a fan of port injection since it can provide better balance between cylinders.

However, within port injection there is batch-fire and there is sequential port injection. I read quite a bit about those approaches in a book at Barnes & Noble today. (I didn't buy the book as there wasn't much more than this one bit that interested me.) According to that author, batch-fire works well in steady-state situations. But it has to have the equivalent of an accelerator pump built in as the normal injection sequence isn't quick enough to ensure the engine doesn't stumble. And, when you chop the throttle there is frequently excess fuel in the port that can cause popping in the exhaust.

So according to him some of the reason for sequential was for emissions. And some of it was for smoothness of operation.

I am not a big fan of the TBI idea either (especially for a straight six) for just the reasons you mentioned. It does eliminate the carburetor but it's not much of an improvement as it sits in the center of a log style intake.