Mass Air/ TB Swap Q's

[JamesBaumann]

I ran a couple searches and could't find any definitive answers.

With the following mods:

3" CAI
Roller Cam & Followers
Ported & Polished Head
Milled Head
Polished Upper & Lower Intake
2.25" exhaust with Ranger Header and Flowmaster 40 series

What kind of gains would I see by converting to a MAF (Mass Air) instead of a speed density setup in which I have now (1988)? And how difficult a procedure is it to do?

Also, I was wondering what type of gains I may see from swapping in a less restrictive throttle body.

I know that in order for these two mods that I just mentioned to have much effect that I need some fairly extensive flow modifications already. I was just looking to see if Mass Air and a larger throttle body would make noticeable gains on this setup.

 

[Pro-Hawk]

I ran a couple searches and could't find any definitive answers.

With the following mods:

3" CAI
Roller Cam & Followers
Ported & Polished Head
Milled Head
Polished Upper & Lower Intake
2.25" exhaust with Ranger Header and Flowmaster 40 series

What kind of gains would I see by converting to a MAF (Mass Air) instead of a speed density setup in which I have now (1988)? And how difficult a procedure is it to do?

Also, I was wondering what type of gains I may see from swapping in a less restrictive throttle body.

I'm guessing this is for a N/A 1988 2.3L? Sorry its been some time for me

3" CAI= Well I found it much easier to just build a 2" - 2.5" CAI system than messing with a 3". The gains on this alone aren't much at all...maybe about .5 to 3 hp gain. I did noticed my higher PRMs was more fun than normal and it had a nicer sound when I got on it.

Roller cam= Well the 88' 2.3Ls came stock with like 88hp while the 91-93' Came with 112-115hp. They tell me the main difference is the roller cam shaft in the 91-93'2.3Ls. Now the MAF may help a tad bit more on this also but not sure.

Ported head= The main problem with these motor is there restriktive head air flow. I can't say how much this will gain you but I would think with everything on you list you should get 150 fly wheel HP.

Mill Head= talk to Buff about this. He can tell you how much to cut off when milling a 2.3L head. I think his is around 9:1 compression. I think he's gotton 138rwhp from all this.

Polished intakes= This probly want net you more than .5 hp but combined with everything it should help out some. I would port match the intakes to a gasket also. When polishing anything in the fuels path you shouldn't use higher than 80 g paper I believe.

Header/2.25" exhaust= I've heard people say you tell really tell once you put a ranger tube header on. I guess if adds probly 5-10hp since you can feel the difference. Now a 2.3L stang comes with a 2.25" exhaust system already and will do ok but if you do all of the above you could get away with a 2.5" system which I believe what Buff is using. ** Heres where I probly will get flamed if I haven't already I'm not sure if you intend to run duals mufflers or not but I would run duals on a 2.3L my self. I don't think theres and dyno proof that one way or the other will hurt you. But its more my opinion that duals would hurt power some or atleast add extra unneeded weight

MAF Convert= Crap thats a good question on a 2.3L I'm a be believer in MAF but not sure if its worth the trouble on a small motor like a 2.3L. If I had the time, parts and know how to do it, I probly would do the swap

TB= I don't think a highflow or bigger TB with help a stock 2.3L out but it may help a heavely moded 2.3L. There is a guy out here who has installed a 94-95' GT TB on his 2.3L N/A but I can't remember if he said it helped or not.

I hope that helped you out a hair and Good Luck

 

[JamesBaumann]

Thanks for the input Pro-Hawk, there were just a few things in your post that I question.

Roller cam= Well the 88' 2.3Ls came stock with like 88hp while the 91-93' Came with 112-115hp. They tell me the main difference is the roller cam shaft in the 91-93'2.3Ls. Now the MAF may help a tad bit more on this also but not sure.

I believe that the 91-93 came with 105hp stock, not 112-115hp. The reason was mainly because of the cam & followers, but also because of the MAF and if memory serves correct, the 91-93 Mustangs came with a slightly higher compression ratio.

Header/2.25" exhaust= I've heard people say you tell really tell once you put a ranger tube header on. I guess if adds probly 5-10hp since you can feel the difference. Now a 2.3L stang comes with a 2.25" exhaust system already and will do ok but if you do all of the above you could get away with a 2.5" system which I believe what Buff is using. ** Heres where I probly will get flamed if I haven't already I'm not sure if you intend to run duals mufflers or not but I would run duals on a 2.3L my self. I don't think theres and dyno proof that one way or the other will hurt you. But its more my opinion that duals would hurt power some or atleast add extra unneeded weight

I also think that 2.3's came stock with a 2" exhaust, not 2.25". That's why I wanted I wanted to make that .25" upgrade, just to help it breathe a little easier.

I also agree with you on not running dual mufflers on a 2.3. I plan to run a FlowMaster 40 series and then split a y-pipe after that and run to dual 5.0L Boom Tips. To me, all running dual mufflers off of a 2.3 is going to do is increase your spending costs and decrease your flow because now your exhaust gases have twice as much muffler to run through. It may harmonosize the tone and make it sound a little better, but you're not going to get great sound from a 2.3 anyway.

Well, thanks for your opinion on the matter Pro-Hawk, I'm open to more input and suggestions.

 

[Red_LX]

The only good reason to go to mass air on any vehicle is if you want to make more radical mods than your typical bolt ons, like a cam or aftermarket heads. Now, I can't honestly say how the car would run on speed density with a ported stock head. In addition, I don't know how to convert an SD 2.3L over to speed density, but it probably takes a lot of work.

 

[bhuff30]

To me, it seems silly to go through all the trouble of a mass air swap and still be stuck with a 6000rpm rev limiter. Superchips or someone might be able to burn a custom chip for you ($$$). It just seems like WAY to much work to do a mass air conversion, because when you are done, you will basically have a 91-93 engine with CAI, a port and polish, intake and exhaust.
Also, with a setup like that, it would be insane to run a ranger roller. The biggest advantages of the RR are a glass smooth idle, and great reliability. The specs are nearly identical to your stock slider cam, with the only real difference being that the valve opens slightly quicker with the roller, and fractionally less friction loss from the cam.
The only modification you can't do on a speed density engine is a wild cam that can't draw much vacume at idle. The 5.0 guys have proven this time and time again.
If you want to make big power with an NA, you should probably start looking at carbs. The circle track racers have proven combinations that make power on a carb, and if you don't go to wild, it will be fine on the street to.
I am guessing that you are just looking for a more fun daily driver though? I would do what you want with the speed density computer and keep the cam mild (I could help with that, or the RR would be fine). But that just sucks because you know the engine could have a lot more if you got a bigger cam... but unfortnatly that means mass air with a chip or carb setup.
I guess if I were to summerize my feelings... you arn't going to make descent power unless you rev it up to 6500-7500rpm, which is going to require a lot more cam than the RR, and no stock computer will get you there.
Modding an NA really is like being trapped inside a box! Unlike the turbo, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
As for my recommendations for a street NA 2.3:
*mill the head for 9.8-10.2:1 compression. 87 octane should still work. rule of thumb is 1cc out of the combustion chamber for every .007" milled off
*long tube header with descent exhaust
*mild cam good for speed density (I could help you out there if you want)
*port it if you want. Should still give you descent gains with a mild cam... but could be better
*CAI of sorts to get rid of the stock airbox
All of that listed should push the stock injectors pretty hard. Wouldn't suprise me at all if you needed an AFPR and 19's.
The throttle body won't be a restriction, and I doubt the intakes would be much of a restriction... certainly not worth the effort to me.

 

[JamesBaumann]

Ok, thanks for the input fellas. To answer your question bhuff30, yes, I am just looking to make my daily driver a little more fun. I really like the incredible fuel economy I am getting and this car just suits me well. Titanio (another new member of this forum) and I are interested in starting a 5.0 Mustang to take to the drags next summer, so I am leaving it up to that project to satisfy my serious horsepower needs.

I have already began porting the stock cylinder head, and I am actually almost done that project, (so far about 10-12 hours with a grinder). I haven't decided on the cam yet, but I am leaning towards a Ranger Roller because of the smooth idle, and the fact that I can come across them used for pretty cheap, it should keep my fuel economy right around where it is and it should boost my output by somewhere between 10-12 horsepower just by swapping it directly in. Bhuff30, you said that you could help me pick a cam for this project, if you have some ideas on what would work well with my setup and give me what I'm looking for then I am definitely open to suggestions. I looked at that cam list you sent me and I couldn't make a proper decision because I am not 100% clear on reading cam specs. But if you have something in mind that you will give me a larger power boost than a Ranger Roller, keep fuel economy up and give me a smooth ride through town, then I'm open to hearing it.

I'll do some more research on the people that have done a throttle body swap from a 94-95 GT or wherever they came from and see what kind of gains they experienced. I know that it won't be worth the time to somebody with a bone stock 2.3 in naturally aspirated form, but I was just wondering if with the performance modifications that I am making if it would be worth my time.


As far as Mass Air Flow goes, I may just stay with the speed density set-up. I was just wondering if a MAF would be able to make better use of the extra air that my motor is taking in than my current MAP sensor would. As I understand it, MAF monitors exactly how much air you are taking in where as a MAP just kinda guesses. I thought that maybe I'd be able to make a little more power by doing the swap.

Thanks for the help and input thus far, keep the ideas flowing.

 

[bhuff30]

Luckily, most modifications will increase fuel economy. This is especially true for more compression, becuase the engine won't have to work as hard to make the same power. You just have to be careful how much you lean on the gas pedal.
The ranger roller would be acceptable, and if it costs you less than $40, I would keep it, but there are some other good options available. Duration is how long the valve stay open (in degrees or rotation), and the duration @.050 is how long the valve lift is over .050 inches. I would consider a duration of 220* @ .050 to be the maximum for a you. Almost every manfacture can offer you something right at 220*, such as the racer walsh stock+, camcraft, or even FMS. However, instead of treading the fine line of decreased drivability, you might consider something like the Camcraft "B" cam (very bottom of the list I gave you). It has 205* @.050 which is a big improvment over the stock 188-190*. In that same duration range, you will also see the Schnider 1365.
Here is the cam spec list for everyone else: cam spec list courtisy of turboflush
The mass air swap would be nice to have, no doubt about it... but I think that your speed density setup will continue to work for you.

 

[Pro-Hawk]

I believe that the 91-93 came with 105hp stock, not 112-115hp. The reason was mainly because of the cam & followers, but also because of the MAF and if memory serves correct, the 91-93 Mustangs came with a slightly higher compression ratio.

I knew it was some where around there. I also dyno my 93' LX for the heck of it the other day but spent the whole afternoon shooting the crap with the dyno guy. I'm guessing 75rwhp As for the MAF part that is why I mentioned on the roller cam part of my post that I didn't know if it had anything to do with the power difference.

I also think that 2.3's came stock with a 2" exhaust, not 2.25". That's why I wanted I wanted to make that .25" upgrade, just to help it breathe a little easier.

This is a perfect reason not to mess with stuff like this late at night when your tired They came stock with a 2" system and you can get away with a 2.25" system. I believe buff is running a 2.5" system which his car is moded pretty good for a 2.3L. Plus he's got a bottle as a mod also.

I will try to stay away from the keyboard when I'm tired from now on

 

[JamesBaumann]

The ranger roller would be acceptable, and if it costs you less than $40, I would keep it, but there are some other good options available. Duration is how long the valve stay open (in degrees or rotation), and the duration @.050 is how long the valve lift is over .050 inches. I would consider a duration of 220* @ .050 to be the maximum for a you. Almost every manfacture can offer you something right at 220*, such as the racer walsh stock+, camcraft, or even FMS. However, instead of treading the fine line of decreased drivability, you might consider something like the Camcraft "B" cam (very bottom of the list I gave you). It has 205* @.050 which is a big improvment over the stock 188-190*. In that same duration range, you will also see the Schnider 1365.

When you say that the [email protected]" is 188-190* on the stock cam, are you reffering to the stock slider cam or the stock roller cam? Or are the [email protected]" the same on the two? I will definitely take a more in depth look at both the CamCraft "B" cam and the Scheider 1365. They dont list any notes on that page about those cams and their idle quality, driving range rpm smoothness, and where the best power range is for them, (low, mid, high rpm range). So I will have to take a closer look at them before I make my decision.

 

[bhuff30]

The stock slider cam actually has 188 on on the intake, and 189 on the exhaust (I couldn't remember exactly, so I put the range of 188-190). The ranger roller is within a degree of the slider above.
http://www.flatlanderracing.com/schfordpinto.html <-- looks kinda expensive to me.
http://www.camcraftcams.com/ <-- wasn't working for me a second ago, dunno why???
Comp cams makes several good choices in the High energy line http://www.compcams.com/Technical/CurrentCatalog/HTML/58-61.asp
The ranger roller will work fine and save you money, but any of the cams we have talked about will give you just as much low end power with more pull above 3500rpm than the RR.

 

[JamesBaumann]

I took a closer look at the Scheider 1365 cam and it looks like it could definitely be an option.

www.camcraftcams.com still seems to be down however.

I found a comp cam under the high energy series. Part # 70-119-5, Grind #252H, the middle one the list of three at the top of the page. It seems to have a [email protected]" of 206* which is right around where I'm looking for. I called the machine shop and it would be about $165 US for that cam and so once you convert currency and get it shipped it would be around $300 Canadian. However, my question now is, what if I decided to go with a mild cam such as the comp cam or the Scheider, what should I be using for followers? Can I still swap in the roller followers and get some more boost, or do I need to buy aftermarket followers to match the cam? Or will the stock followers do? Even though I think I'd prefer to swap in new followers for extra power. Thanks again for the help.

 

[Red_LX]

You could also give www.lazercams.com a try. They can give you a cam recommendation and make you a custom ground cam for around $168 (that's what I was quoted for a cam for my turbo engine)

 

[bhuff30]

is that 168 for a custom roller cam? I know there was a place offering a VERY competitve price on a custom roller, but I didn't have the time.
With any of the slider cams, you need to buy new slider followers (unless they come with them, like the camcraft cams). Mark another point in the RR catagory.

 

[JamesBaumann]

Judging by this link, it is only about another $70US for the lifters as well. I'm assuming lifters are the same things as followers. Pardon me for the dumb remark.

http://www.powerandperformancenews.com/store/merchant.mvc?

Too bad the stock slider followers are out of the picture.

Oh, by the way, I thought the comp cam that I was looking at was a hydraulic cam, is that the same as a slider?