• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

How Do The 'new' Carb Throttle Bodies Work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 89oem
  • Start date Start date May 18, 2014

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
May 18, 2014
#1
  • May 18, 2014
  • #1


i really like these throttle bodies... with the proper lower how do they work vs the big runner upper/lower stuff everyone has?

vacuum?

drivability?

would you swap your, factory, cobra, explorer, edelbrock, tfs intake setup for one?

if you were in an 89+ fox sn95 efi car...

thanks!



please educate me !
 

dnbonds

Active Member
Dec 17, 2013
363
66
39
Hampton, VA
May 18, 2014
#2
  • May 18, 2014
  • #2
They look cool but I don't think they would flow better since they have 4 small openings instead of a single large one.

Edit: I didn't know it was carb instead of MAF
 
Last edited: May 18, 2014

Bullitt347

I have been doing it wrong this whole time
15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2007
3,960
2,919
194
Middle of Maine
May 18, 2014
#3
  • May 18, 2014
  • #3
The whole purpose of the long runner EFI intake manifolds is to optimize throttle response and torque curve. A short runner manifold will typically make more top end power than a long runner manifold. On a production street car, a intake that promotes throttle response and low end torque will make for better driveability. Also with EFI, since the fuel injector is near the cylinder head and pointed at the intake valve, you do not have to worry about fuel distribution issues with such a long runner path. Which is why you do not see CFI or throttle body fuel injection on long runner manifolds. A throttle body fuel injection system is nothing more than a electronic carburetor, maybe the fuel is atomized a bit better, but that is about it.

Edit: In my opinion, throttle body fuel injection is the poor mans excuse to say you have "EFI" save your money and buy a good carb instead, like a QuickFuel carb. It will make more power than any throttle body "EFI" system.
 
Last edited: May 18, 2014

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
May 18, 2014
#4
  • May 18, 2014
  • #4
dnbonds said:
They look cool but I don't think they would flow better since they have 4 small openings instead of a single large one.
Click to expand...
They flow better. By a good bit
 

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
May 18, 2014
#5
  • May 18, 2014
  • #5
Bullitt347 said:
The whole purpose of the long runner EFI intake manifolds is to optimize throttle response and torque curve. A short runner manifold will typically make more top end power than a long runner manifold. On a production street car, a intake that promotes throttle response and low end torque will make for better driveability. Also with EFI, since the fuel injector is near the cylinder head and pointed at the intake valve, you do not have to worry about fuel distribution issues with such a long runner path. Which is why you do not see CFI or throttle body fuel injection on long runner manifolds. A throttle body fuel injection system is nothing more than a electronic carburetor, maybe the fuel is atomized a bit better, but that is about it.

Edit: In my opinion, throttle body fuel injection is the poor mans excuse to say you have "EFI" save your money and buy a good carb instead, like a QuickFuel carb. It will make more power than any throttle body "EFI" system.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misreading you here but it looks more like OP is referring to a 4150 TB with a fuel injector at each cylinder than a throttle body injection system(which I'll agree is crap)
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
May 18, 2014
#6
  • May 18, 2014
  • #6
these were designed to be installed on engines that never came with EFI. for instance, find me an EFI intake for a 390 or 428 ford. no? how about a boss 302 or boss 429 ford. no? perhaps a boss 351 ford. no? throttle body injection is also nice when you want to install EFI but dont want to use all the factory rigamarole. as for the factory intakes being designed for low end power, that is true, BUT they are also dry flow systems. you can accomplish the same thing with a throttle body injection system and a dual plane intake like the performer in a wet flow system.

the difference in efficiency is small, the biggest difference is no sefi system with TBI.
 

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
May 18, 2014
#7
  • May 18, 2014
  • #7

Am I losing my mind or is this not what OP is talking about? It's NOT a TBI setup
 

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
May 18, 2014
#8
  • May 18, 2014
  • #8
@tannerc91gt yes, yours from the lower intake up - not so sure about the gm aspects

anyway i saw a few 1320 builds on boards and then your build,

guess im old but that setup with a circular filter and maybe shaker hood or boost would be my ideal look/setup for my 89 factory 5.0... wouldnt want to give up street drivability or upscale drivability like any normal factory plus efi/maf intake with hci would yield ......sorry if i wasnt clear...
 

84Ttop

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?
5 Year Member
Jul 2, 2009
5,222
3,254
204
South Jersey
May 18, 2014
#9
  • May 18, 2014
  • #9
tannerc91gt said:

Am I losing my mind or is this not what OP is talking about? It's NOT a TBI setup
Click to expand...
I'm picking up what your putting down
 

old_blue

15 Year Member
Nov 3, 2003
1,783
282
124
May 18, 2014
#10
  • May 18, 2014
  • #10
Tanner is right.
Bullitt347 said:
The whole purpose of the long runner EFI intake manifolds is to optimize throttle response and torque curve. A short runner manifold will typically make more top end power than a long runner manifold. On a production street car, a intake that promotes throttle response and low end torque will make for better driveability. Also with EFI, since the fuel injector is near the cylinder head and pointed at the intake valve, you do not have to worry about fuel distribution issues with such a long runner path. Which is why you do not see CFI or throttle body fuel injection on long runner manifolds. A throttle body fuel injection system is nothing more than a electronic carburetor, maybe the fuel is atomized a bit better, but that is about it.

Edit: In my opinion, throttle body fuel injection is the poor mans excuse to say you have "EFI" save your money and buy a good carb instead, like a QuickFuel carb. It will make more power than any throttle body "EFI" system.
Click to expand...

Nope the system the OP posted is a direct port system with just the air going through the TB.
rbohm said:
these were designed to be installed on engines that never came with EFI. for instance, find me an EFI intake for a 390 or 428 ford. no? how about a boss 302 or boss 429 ford. no? perhaps a boss 351 ford. no? throttle body injection is also nice when you want to install EFI but dont want to use all the factory rigamarole. as for the factory intakes being designed for low end power, that is true, BUT they are also dry flow systems. you can accomplish the same thing with a throttle body injection system and a dual plane intake like the performer in a wet flow system.

the difference in efficiency is small, the biggest difference is no sefi system with TBI.
Click to expand...
Again, this isnt a TBI system. These are much more efficient than those old systems that chevy used the heck out of in the 80-90s
 

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
May 18, 2014
#11
  • May 18, 2014
  • #11
Exactly! this is not some 'carb' setup its a directly attaching TB sitting on the lower, fuel rails injectors ...

or heck you could have an 8 pack of TB's !! All sitting on an efi controlled engine... but w/o maf etc

this is where i wonder about daily reliability / performance....of the design and the need for things like vacuum..

not the ecu cause thats a different debate.... i see tannerc91gt is running a megasquirt but theres a9l chips, holley, pro-m, etc... ...
 

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
May 18, 2014
#12
  • May 18, 2014
  • #12
Im running a holley EFI system. and while it is GM (ford fuel injectors if that counts ) its identical in most aspects.
the only issue i could see is that its way overkill for a stock 302. you can run the same setup on a performer or a vic JR and maybe pick up some drivability there but the thing is built to suck a lot of air just by design. I could see it being a real dog down low
 

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
May 18, 2014
#13
  • May 18, 2014
  • #13
cool, ya i was thinking with a typical hci mod, guess its not what i was wishing...

sorry on the holley ecu .... i misread your thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
new :poo: box, may need to hit you guys up for 79-82 info when i fix thIs turd.
  • rednotch
  • Sep 27, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 4, 2026
Noobz347
S
Fuel ‘88 GT Runs Rich Cold — Fixes Itself When I Unplug Sensors (ECT, MAF, O2, etc.)
  • Sufarry
  • Nov 6, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
12
Views
810
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Nov 9, 2025
Mustang5L5
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
831
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
ACT sensor in plastic charge pipe
  • 92Rustang
  • Jul 23, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
9
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 31, 2024
92Rustang
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?