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

Hypothetical speed density questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter hoopty5.0
  • Start date Start date Mar 19, 2018
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#1
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #1
Let's say I have a 351W in a "mustang" that is controlled by a speed density computer. If I swap out the E7s and stock truck intake manifold for a GT-40 intake and heads:
- Do I need 24# injectors?
- Will that mess with the computer?
- Adjustable fuel pressure regulator needed in place of OR in conjunction with the injectors?

Thanks!

*I'd ask these questions in the truck forums, but those guys seem to all wear velcro shoes.
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
5 Year Member
Aug 25, 2016
27,866
10,540
203
polk county florida
Mar 19, 2018
#2
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #2
I'm not sure but I think the sd computer will not act right with the increased displacement, a maf swap would be a good idea.
 

Boostedpimp

20+ Year Stangneter
May 8, 2003
1,451
493
154
NJ
Mar 19, 2018
#3
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #3
24lb injectors are not needed for a gt40 intake and heads so I think you'll be fine with the speed density. Unless your going to swap a cam in as well because Speed density depends on your MAP sensor. A cam swap depending on the cam would alter your vacuum and would be a problem unless you do your research and get a speed density friendly spec cam. Or toss your parts on it and see how it goes if it needs a maf conversion then tackle that then.
 
Reactions: hoopty5.0

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#4
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #4
karthief said:
I'm not sure but I think the sd computer will not act right with the increased displacement, a maf swap would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
Ah - It's a 351 computer on a 351. Only things changing are heads/intake
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#5
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #5
Boostedpimp said:
24lb injectors are not needed for a gt40 intake and heads so I think you'll be fine with the speed density. Unless your going to swap a cam in as well because Speed density depends on your MAP sensor. A cam swap depending on the cam would alter your vacuum and would be a problem unless you do your research and get a speed density friendly spec cam. Or toss your parts on it and see how it goes if it needs a maf conversion then tackle that then.
Click to expand...
No cam for the moment. Just putting the P heads and intake on my truck to get a little extra grunt.
 
5

5.0Thunder

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
124
34
38
Mar 19, 2018
#6
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #6
- The injector size would depend on an airflow calculation (though it definitely wouldn't hurt to upsize a little in this specific scenario).

- The speed density tune IS affected by parts and injector changes since airFLOW is changed throughout the range of MAP and RPM.

- I don't think an adjustable regulator is necessary in this scenario.

These are the reasons all the SD mustang guys (1987-1988) do mass air conversions. As long as the maf isn't pegging, the ECU will see the correct amount of airflow and can accurately compensate with fuel. In an SD tune, the computer doesn't see the added airflow at a given MAPxRPM condition and won't know to add fuel. Closed loop correction would see the AFR out of range and try to compensate but it never works out well, considering the narrowband sensing accuracy window. It'd probably overshoot in both directions and surge your life away.
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#7
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #7
5.0Thunder said:
- The injector size would depend on an airflow calculation (though it definitely wouldn't hurt to upsize a little in this specific scenario).

- The speed density tune IS affected by parts and injector changes since airFLOW is changed throughout the range of MAP and RPM.

- I don't think an adjustable regulator is necessary in this scenario.

These are the reasons all the SD mustang guys (1987-1988) do mass air conversions. As long as the maf isn't pegging, the ECU will see the correct amount of airflow and can accurately compensate with fuel. In an SD tune, the computer doesn't see the added airflow at a given MAPxRPM condition and won't know to add fuel. Closed loop correction would see the AFR out of range and try to compensate but it never works out well, considering the narrowband sensing accuracy window. It'd probably overshoot in both directions and surge your life away.
Click to expand...

So assuming that a MAF swap is off the table (for now, at least) What would you do in this scenario? Leave the injectors alone, or ?
 
5

5.0Thunder

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
124
34
38
Mar 19, 2018
#8
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #8
probably leave the whole engine alone. Lol!

But for real, anything you do to change airflow in/out of the engine more than a few percent is going to obsolete the factory tune. I'd for sure leave the injectors alone if you're bent on modifying the thing. Maybe do the heads and intake only and see how that goes. Typically the SD mustang guys got away with that much, though the cars ran rich from overcompensations to lean conditions.

I did a b303 and exploder intake on my 87 back in high school and the ECU flipped me the bird. lol might have been better without the cam but that's a mild cam.

So why is MAF off the table? and why would microsquirt/mega be off the table? cost maybe? MS tuning on stockish engines is a breeze.
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#9
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #9
5.0Thunder said:
probably leave the whole engine alone. Lol!

But for real, anything you do to change airflow in/out of the engine more than a few percent is going to obsolete the factory tune. I'd for sure leave the injectors alone if you're bent on modifying the thing. Maybe do the heads and intake only and see how that goes. Typically the SD mustang guys got away with that much, though the cars ran rich from overcompensations to lean conditions.

I did a b303 and exploder intake on my 87 back in high school and the ECU flipped me the bird. lol might have been better without the cam but that's a mild cam.

So why is MAF off the table? and why would microsquirt/mega be off the table? cost maybe? MS tuning on stockish engines is a breeze.
Click to expand...
MAF is off the table because if I was going to go to the trouble, I'd do MS. But then, I'd have to buy a trans controller. And since I'd have a good tuning platform, I'd have to buy better engine parts then. And then the transmission would sht itself... again.

SO -- I'm purposely limiting myself until I can afford a coyote swap. That way, it's in, its done, and I can stop dicking with it and only have a foxbody that is a continual source of issues
 
5

5.0Thunder

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
124
34
38
Mar 19, 2018
#10
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #10
hoopty5.0 said:
MAF is off the table because if I was going to go to the trouble, I'd do MS. But then, I'd have to buy a trans controller. And since I'd have a good tuning platform, I'd have to buy better engine parts then. And then the transmission would sht itself... again.

SO -- I'm purposely limiting myself until I can afford a coyote swap. That way, it's in, its done, and I can stop dicking with it and only have a foxbody that is a continual source of issues
Click to expand...

Does it need heads and intake before the coyote? lol
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#11
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #11
5.0Thunder said:
Does it need heads and intake before the coyote? lol
Click to expand...
a couple intake bolts rotted and broke off in the E7s on the truck. I got a fresh set of P heads for $200 and bought back my GT40 intake for $275, so it seemed too easy not to do it haha
 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,941
21,125
234
Box behind Walmart
Mar 19, 2018
#12
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #12
The displacement change is the only real element that concerns me.

If I were going MegaSquirt, I'd be [more] likely to run SD. TwEECer is out of the picture too then. You want to know if it'll run well in stock form over the top of that motor and, I think you said it's an EEC from a 351?

If you're staying with the stock cam, a 351 SD EEC, and swapping only heads and intake, it should all work just fine. Keep the 19 lb injectors. I doubt you will need more but you can always upgrade them later if you see that fuel is a bit short. I would install an adjustable regulator even if I didn't use it. If you find that you're running just a hair rich or lean, you can adjust that through fuel pressure. Make sure your pump is up to the task. An OEM 88L/hr would not be my first choice.

Did I miss anything?
 
Reactions: General karthief and hoopty5.0

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#13
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #13
Noobz347 said:
The displacement change is the only real element that concerns me.

If I were going MegaSquirt, I'd be [more] likely to run SD. TwEECer is out of the picture too then. You want to know if it'll run well in stock form over the top of that motor and, I think you said it's an EEC from a 351?

If you're staying with the stock cam, a 351 SD EEC, and swapping only heads and intake, it should all work just fine. Keep the 19 lb injectors. I doubt you will need more but you can always upgrade them later if you see that fuel is a bit short. I would install an adjustable regulator even if I didn't use it. If you find that you're running just a hair rich or lean, you can adjust that through fuel pressure. Make sure your pump is up to the task. An OEM 88L/hr would not be my first choice.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...
Uhh no, nothing other than your usual unintelligible rantings that typically follow your moments of clarity. But it's 100% factory right now, it was a 351 vehicle with a 351 SD computer. The only things changing are the P heads and GT40 intake. All else remains the same.
 
5

5.0Thunder

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
124
34
38
Mar 19, 2018
#14
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #14
Just don't tell Greg Banish what you're doing. He'll pimp smack you with the advanced tuning book!
 
Reactions: hoopty5.0

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,941
21,125
234
Box behind Walmart
Mar 19, 2018
#15
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #15
hoopty5.0 said:
Uhh no, nothing other than your usual unintelligible rantings that typically follow your moments of clarity. But it's 100% factory right now, it was a 351 vehicle with a 351 SD computer. The only things changing are the P heads and GT40 intake. All else remains the same.
Click to expand...

This will run fine. I did heads(TFS), intake, TB and exhaust, on my 86 initially. Even went 306 a bit later, all on SD.

That's one of the big reasons I"m such a fan of the 86 cam profile. Ok, the heads were horrible but....
 
Reactions: hoopty5.0

bird_dog0347

still married haven't seen testicles in years
15 Year Member
Jun 7, 2012
2,298
2,026
174
Little Elm, TX
Mar 19, 2018
#16
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #16
Ummmm, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone... Let's say for arguments sake I know this guy, we will call him "Collin" in this story. In this hypothetical he has a "Mustang" and he put a "351" in it. Now here's the thing... he's had that "351" in it for a while running "speed density" using a "Megasquirt" computer.

Now here's where it gets weird for me. You seem awfully similar to the story in my head except you're asking about a stock 351 computer... One of us is drunk. I don't think it's me.
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,771
6,932
214
SW Houston
Mar 19, 2018
#17
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #17
bird_dog0347 said:
Ummmm, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone... Let's say for arguments sake I know this guy, we will call him "Collin" in this story. In this hypothetical he has a "Mustang" and he put a "351" in it. Now here's the thing... he's had that "351" in it for a while running "speed density" using a "Megasquirt" computer.

Now here's where it gets weird for me. You seem awfully similar to the story in my head except you're asking about a stock 351 computer... One of us is drunk. I don't think it's me.
Click to expand...
Collin might have another vehicle with a 351 in it, that may or may not have a factory speed density system
 
Reactions: bird_dog0347

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Mar 19, 2018
#18
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #18
you'll be fine
 

bird_dog0347

still married haven't seen testicles in years
15 Year Member
Jun 7, 2012
2,298
2,026
174
Little Elm, TX
Mar 19, 2018
#19
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #19
hoopty5.0 said:
Collin might have another vehicle with a 351 in it, that may or may not have a factory speed density system
Click to expand...


OHHHHH, my mistake, I was thinking of my friend Collin who is straight and wouldn't own a pink truck... my bad, carry on folks, nothing to see here.
 
Reactions: a91what and hoopty5.0

RangerJoe

I leave the horn on while driving
15 Year Member
Apr 26, 2010
2,560
1,146
184
Georgia
Mar 19, 2018
#20
  • Mar 19, 2018
  • #20
We had a racing buddy with a speed density mustang. He put Brodix heads on it and a systemax intake, but left the stock cam. He ran that car to the bottom 12's and never had an issue.

Joe
 
Reactions: 87slow.0 and hoopty5.0
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Requesting Guidance for 306 motor swap - Fuel? - SD? MAF?
  • So_Flo
  • Jul 26, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 4, 2026
Mcmahst
A
95 Gt intermittent backfire
  • A_A_Ron
  • May 26, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
402
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 26, 2025
A_A_Ron
A
What's your tow rig?
  • LILCBRA
  • May 31, 2026
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
3
Views
78
Other Auto Tech May 31, 2026
LILCBRA
I
Engine Explorer GT40 Intake & Heads
  • Iceman1998
  • Mar 14, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 16, 2024
86HO5.0
8
J
68 Mustang with Foxbody Engine Stalling Issues - MSPNP2
  • JayV68Stang
  • Mar 13, 2025
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
3
Views
408
Digital Self-tuning Forum Mar 13, 2025
JayV68Stang
J
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?