new intake

[Pirate]

Not to sound rude, but that is one serious turd of an intake....

Best dual plane for a 351W?
Weiand Stealth.
I get nothing but oddly burning plugs when using the Edelbrock performer/RPM....I usually have to run a 2" open carb spacer to get all the plugs to look somewhat similar.

Sounds like a tuning problem. Why would you blame the intake? Turd my ass.

Sigh...
The 351W rpm intake is well known commodity.....to people who USE one, that there is fuel distribution problems with it. Without the carb spacer, you get rich looking plugs on some cylinders, and lean plugs on others...and some of the mixed-up plugs are on the same plane....let's say, betweem number 6 and 7 cylinders......
However, this problem does not rear its' head as much on stockers running this intake, it only seems to get worse as the airflow/fuel demand goes up with modified 351W's....

[Mercracer]

However, this problem does not rear its' head as much on stockers running this intake, it only seems to get worse as the airflow/fuel demand goes up with modified 351W's....

There is no one including yourself on this board who has a stout enough 351 to encounter such a problem.

[Pirate]

Sigh again....
I suspect I have just had another encounter with a CVN member.

MercRacer, I do understand psychology. I walk in here, proclaim something that your primitive mind gropes to understand, but fails. I CURRENTLY do not own a vehicle with a 'modified' 351W. HOWEVER, as of a year ago, I DID. I sold the vehicle, as I wanted to go into another direction....something producing 500+ ft/lbs of torque at around 2000-2500 rpm...and the 351W simply can't do that. This engine, however(built by me), was a modified long-rod 351W, and so far as power is concerned, I broke two sets of leaf springs trying to get the vehicle to hook up with drag radials.... I am simply RELAYING INFORMATION ACTUALLY WITNESSED BY MY OWN EYES, not robbing things from someone else's website. It is the nature of the uninformed idiot to slash and rend psychologically at those things which he cannot possibly comprehend(Don't feel lonely, there is a moderator on this very site who also did the same thing to me once, thinking I was BS'ing him, turns out I am right, and he is using today what he thought I was lying about).....but that is okay, as I see that you have a mental disorder or two, judging by your response... so you have my professional pity, sir.

I await your ever-so-humble reply.
Your reply? I suspect it will be something along the lines of "what, can't I handle someone questioning what I say?"....Learn how to properly debate a topic, and come back to see me.

[Mercracer]

I broke two sets of leaf springs trying to get the vehicle to hook up with drag radials.... .

Once again evidence of someone who can neither tune an engine nor a chassis.

[Mercracer]

You fail to grasp the simple concept that even though an intake may have some shortcoming at a much elevated power level on an engine, it is far from a turd on the levels used by members on this board including your own.
The RPM is also less money than an equivalent Stealth. Dollar for dollar, the RPM is fine

[Lincolnmania]

ok my reply lol and yea i'm a cvn member too
i got the intake at a swap meet in 1987 cause i needed a reasonably priced intake for the 78 cougar.........i paid 75 bucks for it and ran it for many years..........the cougar was deceased in 1998.
i always had plenty of power and excellent gas mileage with the 4bbl holley 600 vac sec (25 highway 16 city)
the car had manifolds with duals, and mildly ported 78 heads and a crane econopower camshaft 262-272 duration is all i remember about the cam
i sold tom the intake when we visited 88grandmarq in atlanta.
it may not be the ideal intake, but it was affordable to tom, and it served me well.
scott
:slug:

[Mercracer]

Besides....... those Ford Racing engineers are idiots too........why else would they sell a crate motor with a RPM intake? :coocoo:

[Grand Marquis GT]

alright enough.

All of you. Im running the intake, and there aint shit you can do about it.

[Pirate]

Besides....... those Ford Racing engineers are idiots too........why else would they sell a crate motor with a RPM intake? :coocoo:

Because...they have a sales agreement with edelbrock.....Moron. Edelbrock casts a lot of their "Motorsport" logo intakes. Also, notice I said that it was the 351W that was having fuel mixture issues, not the 302, nor any of their other intakes...but it can be fixed with a 1" or 2" open spacer. But with the CV, hood clearance is a problem... Edelbrock makes some damn good intakes, but there is just something odd with the 351W dual planes.
Additionally, overpriced Ford Crate motors are not my idea of a properly assembled engine....a bunch of stock parts cobbled together of an assembly line, with some half ass heads? Woo, hoo. The only crate motor I might be interested in would be their upper line 460/514's....they actually have aftermarket parts in short block.

Try again.

[Pirate]

alright enough.

All of you. Im running the intake, and there aint shit you can do about it.

I don't have a problem with you running the intake. I just have some pros and cons about using that one, and I can find screaming deals on better units occasionally.
Cons:
Poor design, 1960's technology, open plane bad for low end torque, too small of intake runners
Pros:
You already have it, and hey, it IS a bit better than running a stock 2v intake...I used to have one of these, and I gave it away.

[Pirate]

I broke two sets of leaf springs trying to get the vehicle to hook up with drag radials.... .

Once again evidence of someone who can neither tune an engine nor a chassis.

Rrright. Tuning leaf springs? I have no problem with 'tuning' leaf springs....are you even aware what it takes to get a leaf-spring car to hook up, with drag radials, or slicks?

As I stroll through your previous posts....as I want to see your technical "prowess"....I spot a FEW errors.....

Let's see, here is one:


"The 3.8 and 2.3 do NOT use a V-8 sized bell.
221-351C/W V-8's share the bell with the 250 and 300 I-6 however.

351M/400 and 429/460 share the same bell."

First of all, the 3.8 v6 DOES share a bellhousing with a later 289, 302, 351W/C.....
Second, I think you might be referring to the old 240 truck engine, instead of the 250....the 250 is of the 144/170/200/250 engine family, and does NOT share a bellhousing with the 5.0
Third, the 221-260-early 289 Did NOT share a bellhousing with the later 289's, 302, 351W/C. they actually had a 5-bolt bellhousing, and require a special bellhousing or adapter for use to early/late tranny engine combos.

Next?
"When the 1993 4.6 CV with dual exhaust made more horsepower than the same year 5.0 HO Mustang with its awesome Smile E7 heads, the writing was on the walls."

Wow, 10 more horsepower spells doom and gloom, and the end of the world for the 5.0? Did you know FORD also changed the way they rated HP for their 5.0 engines.....in 1993? So, techincally, if they changed the way they rated the power for the 4.6 engines, too....that would mean, that before the rating change, the 4.6 dual exhaust option would then have to be making 235 hp....rrright.

Again?

"Alright..........I have searched the CV archives for a link to the pinouts for the Mark VII vs Box CV's, and can't find it.
The Mark ECU's are supposed to be plug and play? The 1991 Wiring diagram looks like for 91 Marks, they are different. Everyone has been using the 89 and earlier ones???"

I am surprised...I thought that a master mechanical engineer with your caliber of intelligence, you would have thought Eric a thing or two about ECM compatibility.....this is common knowledge.


The rest of your comments?
Drivel, just as I have come to expect from CVN regulars. They talk a lot of crap, but once you get to the bottom of what they actually know...I have seen IMPORT DRIVERS that can solidly boast of more accomplishments.

If you are going to be tossing rocks, make sure you aren't standing in a glass outhouse, sir. You are giving out technically inaccurate information, confusing those who might have mistaken you for someone of talent.... and then are trying to make me look like an idiot, because of whatever psychological malady you are suffering from...loneliness, obsessive/compulsive disorder, whatever....

Pwned.

[Mercracer]

If your diminished capacity allows you to retain information, you will recall in the other post that I have in fact gotten a 4000lb. leaf spring car to hook without breaking any springs. I have used both BFG Drag Radials and MT Drag ET tires. If you had tried even simple traction bars properly, you would have had less problems.

You got me dead to rights on the 5 bolt bell issue. Temporary insanity, as I do have both 5 bolt and 6 bolt 289 motors.

You are a poser if you think that the 250 I-6 does not share the bell with a 302. The Granadas/Monarchs used a 250, and the bell most definitely is the same. What year 3.8 are you claiming shares the common bell pattern?

You speak of common knowledge regarding the ECU's, but this would only be in CV/GM circles. Most guys in Mustang circles could give a shit about heavy cars.
You really are grasping at straws if you had to go back and search every post I have made. I haven't tried, and don't have to make you look like an idiot. You have been doing a fairly decent job of making yourself look like an ass. Try discussing trivial facts instead of becoming defensive if someone presents something different from your own statement.

[Grand Marquis GT]

Alright. Everyone :stfu1:

Ive heard enough. You both have good info. So drop it.

[Pirate]

If your diminished capacity allows you to retain information, you will recall in the other post that I have in fact gotten a 4000lb. leaf spring car to hook without breaking any springs. I have used both BFG Drag Radials and MT Drag ET tires. If you had tried even simple traction bars properly, you would have had less problems.

You got me dead to rights on the 5 bolt bell issue. Temporary insanity, as I do have both 5 bolt and 6 bolt 289 motors.

You are a poser if you think that the 250 I-6 does not share the bell with a 302. The Granadas/Monarchs used a 250, and the bell most definitely is the same. What year 3.8 are you claiming shares the common bell pattern?

You speak of common knowledge regarding the ECU's, but this would only be in CV/GM circles. Most guys in Mustang circles could give a shit about heavy cars.
You really are grasping at straws if you had to go back and search every post I have made. I haven't tried, and don't have to make you look like an idiot. You have been doing a fairly decent job of making yourself look like an ass. Try discussing trivial facts instead of becoming defensive if someone presents something different from your own statement.

Well, let's see:
How about EVERY RWD 3.8 ever made, that shares a bellhousing with the 302?

The 250? The blocks I have worked with did not match up...I had 3 250 grenadas with 4-speeds come into my father's shop about 15 years ago, to swap in 302's and 351W's...we had to get different bells for each one....

Breaking leaf springs? Me not using ladder bars or CalTracs? Rrrright. The first set broke using a set of lakewoods....the second set broke with Caltracs...they both pulled the eyelets ouf of the rear...I did not feel like getting new and reinforced ones made from Eaton Detroit spring(they can make custom leafs), and someone popped up at the right time with $$$ in hand. The long and short of it was that this car ran mid 11's with this engine, car weighing 3600 lbs with driver...I had Koni adjustables on that car...the springs were too weak for the motor.

Common knowledge of CV cars? What does this have to do with mustang owners? Are you a mustang owner? I knew whether or not you had the info, you acted as if you knew everything else though...and suggested that since you already know everything else, you should also know about the CV computers, too.

Dragging up your past history? Are we a Kerry supporter? Are we a bit uncomfortable with someone taking a look at our past? You need to be real careful with what you say, AND HOW YOU SAY IT, on a public forum, I am simply showing a pattern of your sloppiness...and it is not like I had to search for 8 months to find all of your posts. Do you think it is okay to get really fucking sloppy with your advice, because you were tired, or weren't thinking? I defiinitely hit a sore note there...I wonder what else you might be hiding....there goes another dozen nails into your coffin...

[Mercracer]

I don't know what to tell you dude......I have pulled a 302 out of a Granada and put a 250 I-6 in its place out of another Granada using the same bell.
If I recall correctly, the 250 even uses the same 28oz flywheel as the 302.

Looks like you have me on the 3.8 issue. I forgot about the 3.8 Supercoupe AOD working behind a 302.



Dude, for someone without all of the answers, like Explorer 302's for example, you are sure critical of someone who has admitted when he is wrong. I don't mind you going back and checking all of my past posts, but it shows what your mindset is by spending the time to do so just to be a dick.

Lighten up man.