PotM GrandMarq.NET - Panther Headquarters Forum Index PotM
GMN Chat Room GMN's STORE!! GMN's Gallery Please!!
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 146

Thread: 1985 Grand Marquis 2-Door

  1. #101
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arquemann View Post
    Is it just a stock replacement ECM? Mine had the ECM replaced in '19 when the mechanic was troubleshooting the issues the car had at that point.
    Yes, stock replacement ECM, like something one would order from the parts store.
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  2. #102
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Here's some GoPro footage of the 9.95 test pass if anyone wanted to watch.



    Sorry about the f-bombs, I was pretty excited.
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  3. #103
    Member of the Orb Alliance packman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Dirty Jersey Yo!
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Nice!!! Man, those return lanes look so narrow. I hope that was the camera making them look that way.

  4. #104
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by packman View Post
    Nice!!! Man, those return lanes look so narrow. I hope that was the camera making them look that way.

    Yea its the camera, I had to put it on the wide angle to get the entire car, dang front end is so huge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tiggie View Post
    With no authority to do so, I pronounce you the fastest CFI Panther in the land.

    Thanks man, I'm really gonna try and break the toilet bowl injection record, whatever that may be!
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  5. #105
    The Brown Blob 87gtVIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Whitestone, NY
    Posts
    20,364

    Default

    Nice.
    ~David~

    My 1987 Crown Victoria Coupe: The Brown Blob
    My 2004 Mercedes Benz E320:The Benz

    Quote Originally Posted by DerekTheGreat View Post
    But, that's just coming from me, this site's biggest pessimist. Best of luck

  6. #106
    all the CFI are belong to me
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Windsor, ON, Canada
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Some thoughts...

    First, it's really cool to see one of these keeping CFI and seeming to perform alright. I certainly wouldn't mind eventually making one of mine quicker, and I don't really believe in replacing an engine until it throws a rod or is otherwise not-live-with-able, so this is neat. Well done, and thank you.

    Unless I'm missing something, the mods in place are only ones that enable flow to occur better, but not "more". e.g. stock cam so the valves are still opening the stock amount, but heads/intake/exhaust that don't present restrictions. That's my guess as to why it's coping with it pretty well.

    In my early days with my Lincoln I had drivability issues that were very hard to chase down and I replaced pretty much the whole car chasing them. I did discover that there are multiple program revisions of the EEC-IV CFI ECMs, and multiple manufacturers of them, and some of them were better behaved than others in my car with all else being equal. e.g. so maybe there was a harness defect like an intermittent break that was a root cause to many issues (and I don't doubt there was), but one particular ECM ran the car properly despite that defect while the others did not. Perhaps your ECM swap accomplished the same.

    There is definitely importance in drawing a line between EEC-IV CFI (1984-1985 on the 5.0 in Panthers) and EEC-III CFI (prior to 1984 on the 5.0 in Panthers). Mechanically, they are the same system. Electronically, they are rather different. I have no experience with III but on paper, it is dramatically different, and way less capable of adjusting to its surroundings, as well as way less capable of working around faults.
    Last edited by kishy; 08-03-2021 at 02:24 PM.

    Current driver: 85 CS
    Currently owned, parked: 83 GM 2dr POTM 10/2019 | 84 TC POTM 1/2017 & 4/2019 | 85 Ranger +trlr | 86 GM | 88 TC | 91 GM POTM 12/2017
    Gone: 97 CV | 83 TC
    Junkyards

  7. #107
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kishy View Post
    Some thoughts...

    First, it's really cool to see one of these keeping CFI and seeming to perform alright. I certainly wouldn't mind eventually making one of mine quicker, and I don't really believe in replacing an engine until it throws a rod or is otherwise not-live-with-able, so this is neat. Well done, and thank you.

    Unless I'm missing something, the mods in place are only ones that enable flow to occur better, but not "more". e.g. stock cam so the valves are still opening the stock amount, but heads/intake/exhaust that don't present restrictions. That's my guess as to why it's coping with it pretty well.

    In my early days with my Lincoln I had drivability issues that were very hard to chase down and I replaced pretty much the whole car chasing them. I did discover that there are multiple program revisions of the EEC-IV CFI ECMs, and multiple manufacturers of them, and some of them were better behaved than others in my car with all else being equal. e.g. so maybe there was a harness defect like an intermittent break that was a root cause to many issues (and I don't doubt there was), but one particular ECM ran the car properly despite that defect while the others did not. Perhaps your ECM swap accomplished the same.

    There is definitely importance in drawing a line between EEC-IV CFI (1984-1985 on the 5.0 in Panthers) and EEC-III CFI (prior to 1984 on the 5.0 in Panthers). Mechanically, they are the same system. Electronically, they are rather different. I have no experience with III but on paper, it is dramatically different, and way less capable of adjusting to its surroundings, as well as way less capable of working around faults.

    Kishy, thanks for your response. I learned from you that the CFI computer I have runs on the EEC-IV, and because of that, I was motivated to do these small enhancements. So I actually should be thanking you really for the motivation to even do all of this! And yes, we're still on the stock lopo cam right now but that might change soon, as I have everything necessary to do a hydraulic roller conversion.

    The camshaft I have ready to go in is a stock Cobra camshaft. My theory is that the CFI computer will accept the cam swap without a problem. The Cobra cam is on a 118LSA and it has real low lift numbers, something like .478 using 1.6 rockers. Also, it just recently occurred to me that the CFI system is basically like a speed density system right? Maybe that's also why the ECM is playing nicely.

    Either way, I do plan on making it a touch faster, and at some point it will be getting some type of power adder but for now I am enjoying this car every day as a daily.
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  8. #108
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    40,741

    Default

    its speed-density yes. Manifold vacuum is key on these. Too low and it runs fat and stupid at low engine speeds.

    The big problem with S-D is that if you add more airflow, the ECM doesn't have much of a way to compensate. The O2 sensor has a limited trim range and it doesn't operate at full throttle anyway. Change things too much and the engine is just going to run lean because its moving more air than stock but it doesn't know to add more fuel. With tuning thats not a problem, but stock it only knows that with a given engine speed, throttle position, temperature, and vacuum level it gives an amount of fuel and ignition timing. You can cheat the fuel somewhat by bumping the pressure though. The injector is open for however long its open for, but with more pressure you get more fuel in that period of time. Too high and you run into the opposite problem though, it will run fat at low engine speeds because it can't control it down low. If you have stock heads though, I doubt the engine can move enough additional air to hit the limits. E5 heads and E7 heads are damn near identical so that shouldn't be a problem if they are just as-cast.

    The SEFI cars have the same limitation, its just a "feature" of speed-density EFI. mass air isn't inherently superior, its just more flexible because it directly measures airflow rather than having engine airflow data programmed into the ECM.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  9. #109
    all the CFI are belong to me
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Windsor, ON, Canada
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sluggish91 View Post
    Kishy, thanks for your response. I learned from you that the CFI computer I have runs on the EEC-IV, and because of that, I was motivated to do these small enhancements. So I actually should be thanking you really for the motivation to even do all of this! And yes, we're still on the stock lopo cam right now but that might change soon, as I have everything necessary to do a hydraulic roller conversion.

    The camshaft I have ready to go in is a stock Cobra camshaft. My theory is that the CFI computer will accept the cam swap without a problem. The Cobra cam is on a 118LSA and it has real low lift numbers, something like .478 using 1.6 rockers. Also, it just recently occurred to me that the CFI system is basically like a speed density system right? Maybe that's also why the ECM is playing nicely.

    Either way, I do plan on making it a touch faster, and at some point it will be getting some type of power adder but for now I am enjoying this car every day as a daily.
    I am certainly glad my experiences and explorations have been useful. I usually write my posts with an eye on what a future person who finds them might need or want to read. It leads to things being long and wordy, but my hope is it's usually clear and useful in the future.

    Very excited to see where you take this over time. My vote, for what it's worth, is to keep the CFI as long as is practical (e.g. when it starts costing you more to keep it than to get rid of it).

    Current driver: 85 CS
    Currently owned, parked: 83 GM 2dr POTM 10/2019 | 84 TC POTM 1/2017 & 4/2019 | 85 Ranger +trlr | 86 GM | 88 TC | 91 GM POTM 12/2017
    Gone: 97 CV | 83 TC
    Junkyards

  10. #110
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Hello all. I was reading back through this thread just looking at all the progress I've made since 2019. I'm really glad I have kept my CFI unit on this build. It's almost become the highlight of the entire build. I am proud to show off my toilet bowl injection and happy that my 2 injectors are putting in work!

    Injector Ramblings:
    I pulled the part number on my injectors: EOSE-A1A . I have discovered that these are 46lb injectors.
    I have also discovered that the 1985 Automatic Mustang 5.0 also had a CFI unit bolted up to its 5.0L, and worked with 52lb injectors.
    I am inclined to purchase some TJ102 Injectors from Rock Auto that are a direct replacement for the 85 Mustang, and that will effectively deliver a greater dose of fuel through the CFI unit. I know it will probably be somewhat richer at idle, but I would rather do something like this than to get an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and bump fuel pressure on my 46lb injectors. I could see the 52's being well matched to the current heads/intake/exhaust. Can someone confirm or deny these interpretations?

    Cylinder Head Ramblings:
    Also just for demonstration purposes I have attached some pictures comparing the E5 exhaust ports and the E7 exhaust ports. The thermactor bump looks considerably larger on the E5 heads. It even casts a shadow on the valve. Both exhaust ports seem to have about the same surface area, but the valve on the E7 looks more streamline at the base of the valve head/stem. Just something cool to look at. Could this have added 1hp per cylinder? I could see it doing so.
    E5 exhaust port
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0095.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	67.8 KB 
ID:	56954
    E7 exhaust port
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0096.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	53.3 KB 
ID:	56953

    I Want To Go Faster:
    Some things I'd like to do before going back to the track to try and reach 70mph and a consistent 9 second 1/8th mile time:
    - tru-coil rear springs to replace the original springs. hoping this will help with the 60ft.
    - replace the 8.8 diff bushings. hoping this will help with the 60ft.
    - do the 52lb injector swap. hoping this will help trap a higher MPH
    - 155lph fuel pump. hoping this will help fuel delivery and help trap a higher MPH
    - remove the K&N air filter. This is my makeshift hat/K&N open element filter
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5454.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	149.0 KB 
ID:	56950
    Feels faster without it so I know it will help if I remove it at the track. The times I ran were with this doohickey attached.

    I am still gathering the necessary parts/courage/motivation to do the hydraulic roller conversion. This will be done at some point but it is not on my top priority list.

    Anyways, I can't thank this community enough for all the knowledge y'all have shared and for all the kind words. It's really a blast driving this car around and I know it will get a bit faster from here on out.

    Thanks for looking and thanks for everyone's interest in this thread.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_0092.jpg   IMG_0094.jpg  
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  11. #111
    P31 Pursuit Car Brown_Muscle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Considering 52 vs 46 is less than 1lb/ cylinder I dont think it would make it that much richer, worth a try. Eventually if you really wanted to up the performance and keep the stock CFI unit, I wonder if you could adapt some aftermarket ECU to it and do custom tuning. I'm not sure whats out there that's compatible with a throttle body injection unit thats not mass produced like the Holley Sniper or FiTech
    -Phil



    +1982 Ford LTD-S Police Car. Built 351w, Trickflow 11R 190 Heads, Edelbrock 1906 Carb+ RPM Intake, WR-AOD, Full exhaust headers to tails. 3.27 Trac-Lok Rear. Aluminum Police Driveshaft. Speedway Springs+Bilstein Shocks, Intermediate Brakes, HPP Steering Box.

    +2003 Acura CL Type S 6-speed

  12. #112
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brown_Muscle View Post
    Considering 52 vs 46 is less than 1lb/ cylinder I dont think it would make it that much richer, worth a try. Eventually if you really wanted to up the performance and keep the stock CFI unit, I wonder if you could adapt some aftermarket ECU to it and do custom tuning. I'm not sure whats out there that's compatible with a throttle body injection unit thats not mass produced like the Holley Sniper or FiTech
    Since the 85 ECM is EEC-IV I could potentially plug in a Moates Quarterhorse into the J3 port and have Decipha generate a tune for it. It's probably never been done though. Then again, nobody on here is trying what I'm trying (at least documenting it anyways). I could also possibly add a second rail to the CFI unit and another two injectors, and run it off of a batch fire PIMPXS. But that will definitely be way down the line if I do. I'm doing all this just for the sake of experimentation, and testing the limitations of the CFI unit. For me, it is fun to do as much as possible with the lowest tier fuel injection.
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  13. #113
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    40,741

    Default

    May as well skip straight to three CFI units, six-pack CFI for the win.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  14. #114
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	289-302-tri-power-intake-manifold-3x2-2.gif 
Views:	12 
Size:	28.9 KB 
ID:	56958

    I'll do it gadget.

    I'm out of my mind already.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails tri power intake.jpg  
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  15. #115
    Lost and driftin' Arquemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gadget73 View Post
    six-pack CFI for the win.
    Oh hell yes!

    I found this a while back, someone has gone mad aswell. But in a similarly good way:
    https://www.msextra.com/forums/viewt...?f=101&t=70311
    1985 Mercury Grand Marquis LS, "Maisa"
    2008 BMW 530d Touring, "Femma"

  16. #116
    Member sluggish91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arquemann View Post
    Oh hell yes!

    I found this a while back, someone has gone mad aswell. But in a similarly good way:
    https://www.msextra.com/forums/viewt...?f=101&t=70311
    I've seen this before! Yea this dude is a straight up madman. I totally understand why people hate on it and why no one would want to do it though. There are so many easier ways to achieve the desired results with less time, effort and money. Apparently that guy had it running on a 351 though. He was using four 52lb injectors. I might go ahead with the 52lb injector idea after all...
    1985 2-Door
    CFI, K&N Filter, Edelbrock Performer 289 Intake, E7 Heads, BBK Shorty Headers, Summit H-pipe, Hooker Max Flow Mufflers, E-Fan, 3G Alternator, Race Crank Pulley, Bilstein Rear Shocks, KYB Front Shocks, Front Lowering Springs, FTI 2400 Stall Converter, PA Performance Valve Body, Motive 4.30 Gear, Eaton LSD Differential - I own quite possibly the fastest CFI powered box to the 1/8th mile: 9.95@68.89mph

  17. #117
    GMN Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    793

    Default

    I donít understand the hate and misinformation. Like one guy in that thread said something about inconsistent fueling across cylinders. Well a carb is setup the same way and are still being used. As long as you have good atomization I donít think it should matter. As long as you have enough fuel to run stoich itís a non issue.

    Now if I still had my 85 ltd and unlimited money Iíd probably go with a better cam, top end kit, bigger injectors and aftermarket ecu. Iíd do it to prove a point. Look at gm, they used tbi for years and it worked. Cfi can work well too given enough time and energy is put into modifying it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #118
    Lost and driftin' Arquemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 87GrandMarq View Post
    I don’t understand the hate and misinformation. Like one guy in that thread said something about inconsistent fueling across cylinders. Well a carb is setup the same way and are still being used. As long as you have good atomization I don’t think it should matter. As long as you have enough fuel to run stoich it’s a non issue.

    Now if I still had my 85 ltd and unlimited money I’d probably go with a better cam, top end kit, bigger injectors and aftermarket ecu. I’d do it to prove a point. Look at gm, they used tbi for years and it worked. Cfi can work well too given enough time and energy is put into modifying it.
    I find the experimentation interesting, but as is evident, a wasted effort in a sense. Everything can work, but is it worth it? No.
    CFI/TBI is just the next step from electronically controlled carburetion towards EFI. I'd say CFI is as good as a-well tuned carb plus all the complexity and un-adjustability of a factory EFI system.
    CFI/TBI is in no way better than the later MPFI, maybe excluding form factor. And the Ford sefi intakes are just dummy huge compared to chevys TPI.
    1985 Mercury Grand Marquis LS, "Maisa"
    2008 BMW 530d Touring, "Femma"

  19. #119
    GMN Regular DerekTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    6,573

    Default

    I liked CFI in stock form, although GM's TBI is a superior system. So if I was worth a shit mechanically and electronically, I'd just figure a way to adapt mine over. The fact CFI doesn't compensate for cold enrichment or that it doesn't have an IAC is deplorable. Or maybe just adapt CFI from a 3.8 to a 5.0 as those did have an IAC. Why one but not the other?
    1985 LTD Crown Victoria - SOLD
    1988 Town Car Signature - Current Party Barge

  20. #120
    GMN Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arquemann View Post
    I find the experimentation interesting, but as is evident, a wasted effort in a sense. Everything can work, but is it worth it? No.
    CFI/TBI is just the next step from electronically controlled carburetion towards EFI. I'd say CFI is as good as a-well tuned carb plus all the complexity and un-adjustability of a factory EFI system.
    CFI/TBI is in no way better than the later MPFI, maybe excluding form factor. And the Ford sefi intakes are just dummy huge compared to chevys TPI.
    For someone who already has a cfi car and put in a built motor, a modified cfi unit would be worth it. Itís far more effort to convert over to mpfi. Yes it is superior but, for the most part, itís plug and play. Now adapting an iac and removing the high idle cam like the guy in that thread was excessive. Iím strictly talking about a slightly modified cfi unit to allow more flow for a higher hp motor.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
GMN Approved Links!


www.rockauto.com www.adtr.net