9 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?  (Read 6668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline russosborne

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2340
  • FeedBack: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Poll Voter Mobile User Topic Starter Signature 1000 Posts
Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:28:01 AM »
I was cruising Ebay, and found lots of intakes for like $40 or so. Then I noticed that the area that we would put the carb on is different than what I have seen here. I finally found one auction that mentioned TBI.
Since these all stated they were for late 80's to 1993, that is why I am assuming the EFI started in 94. :-\

On a related note, are ALL 2.3L carb'd manifolds the bad design? No difference between the years?

Thanks,
Russ
In Glendale, Arizona

RIP Casey, Mallory, Abby, and Sadie. We miss you.

79 Pinto ESS fully caged fun car. In progress. 8inch 4.10 gears. 351C and a T5 waiting to go in.
74 Pinto Wagon.  To be or Not to be a Pinchero, that is the question.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2014, 07:49:04 AM »
This dual plane intake is the one to use.

Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline TIGGER

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2373
  • FeedBack: +70/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Apple User Mobile User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary Photographer
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2014, 01:04:06 PM »
I believe it was 87.  Not 100% sure.....
79 4cyl Wagon
73 Turbo HB
78 Cruising Wagon (sold 8/6/11)

Offline russosborne

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2340
  • FeedBack: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Poll Voter Mobile User Topic Starter Signature 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2014, 01:50:29 PM »
Hmmm.
Art, yeah, that was what I was looking for. The ones that were listed were all a different style.
So did the Mustangs come with both TBI and EFI options for those years?
This is so confusing. :-[
thanks,
Russ
In Glendale, Arizona

RIP Casey, Mallory, Abby, and Sadie. We miss you.

79 Pinto ESS fully caged fun car. In progress. 8inch 4.10 gears. 351C and a T5 waiting to go in.
74 Pinto Wagon.  To be or Not to be a Pinchero, that is the question.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2014, 03:20:29 PM »
TBI is a GM term, Ford more like CFI, same thing though.

Best search will be for like '88 or '89 Mustang 2.3 MPFI EFI lower intake like in the pic, it is not a dual plane, rather a single plane. Dual planes activate one half the manifold while other half is resting, then they switch based on firing order. At least if true dual plane and divided in half right up to carb mounting point. When you put the carb adapter on the EFI lower it becomes a single plane since all runners share same plenum.

Ford went across the board all models FI in '86.

Yes, ALL 2.3 carb manifolds in the US are crappy ones, there's D-port and oval, both are crap. There's supposedly a one barrel intake for 2.3 as well but worthless, I've never seen it but run across the carb before.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2014, 08:42:55 AM »
TBI= Throttle Body Injection..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2014, 08:51:45 AM »
TBI= Throttle Body Injection..
TBI is a GM term, Ford more like CFI, same thing though.

Best search will be for like '88 or '89 Mustang 2.3 MPFI EFI lower intake like in the pic, it is not a dual plane, rather a single plane. Dual planes activate one half the manifold while other half is resting, then they switch based on firing order. At least if true dual plane and divided in half right up to carb mounting point.
Take another look, there's no plenum there it's divided right to the flange, if you make a spacer you include a center divider, it is a dual plane manifold....
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline Pinturbo75

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • FeedBack: +26/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2014, 11:47:29 AM »
1983 was the first year for fuel injection on a production 2.3 mustang....it was a turbo model....
75 turbo pinto trunk, megasquirt2, 133lb injectors, bv head, precision 6265 turbo, 3" exhaust,bobs log, 8.8, t5,, subframe connectors, 65 mm tb, frontmount ic, traction bars, 255 lph walbro,
73 turbo pinto panel wagon, ms1, 85 lb inj, fmic, holset hy35, 3" exhaust, msd, bov,

Offline russosborne

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2340
  • FeedBack: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Poll Voter Mobile User Topic Starter Signature 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2014, 02:19:29 PM »
thanks.
I am still confused. Which is kind of normal for me anyway. ::)
None of the ones I came across on Ebay look like the one Art showed.
These are all longer and narrower at the mounting point. Maybe I should post a picture.

Update
Ok, just found some info. According to Autozone there are two types, dependent on the VIN
code for the engine. Pictures below. The first one is the one we don't want and that I keep finding on Ebay.That one is Vin M.
The second one is the one we want. Vin A. At least for the Mustang. I don't know if the vin code is the same across all the models.

Russ
In Glendale, Arizona

RIP Casey, Mallory, Abby, and Sadie. We miss you.

79 Pinto ESS fully caged fun car. In progress. 8inch 4.10 gears. 351C and a T5 waiting to go in.
74 Pinto Wagon.  To be or Not to be a Pinchero, that is the question.

Offline Pinturbo75

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • FeedBack: +26/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2014, 03:21:03 PM »
the first one is for a dual plug head from 89-94... the second is was made from 85.5 to 89... single plug head... there is also another one from 83 to 85.5 that is an inline intake...I actually have all 3 versions in the shop...
75 turbo pinto trunk, megasquirt2, 133lb injectors, bv head, precision 6265 turbo, 3" exhaust,bobs log, 8.8, t5,, subframe connectors, 65 mm tb, frontmount ic, traction bars, 255 lph walbro,
73 turbo pinto panel wagon, ms1, 85 lb inj, fmic, holset hy35, 3" exhaust, msd, bov,

Offline russosborne

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2340
  • FeedBack: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Poll Voter Mobile User Topic Starter Signature 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2014, 03:32:26 PM »
Thanks!

Those years are what I have been missing.

Russ
In Glendale, Arizona

RIP Casey, Mallory, Abby, and Sadie. We miss you.

79 Pinto ESS fully caged fun car. In progress. 8inch 4.10 gears. 351C and a T5 waiting to go in.
74 Pinto Wagon.  To be or Not to be a Pinchero, that is the question.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2014, 04:32:10 AM »
Lower pic is the one you want.

'if you make a spacer you include a center divider, it is a dual plane manifold....'

Not in my world, open hole only there......... ......and if divider goes wrong way you mess manifold up but good. Would need to be front to rear of car to separate 1-4 from 2-3. Side to side and you screwed up.

Fours naturally have high rpm pulsation problems and the resultant high speed lean out as it is, I'd be doing open plenum on that thing to stop some of that. Making a true divided plenum will just intensify those pulsations. Will also flow better with open plenum if ported correctly in the upper part of the lower. And fuel distribution would be better as well. Open plenum damps pulsations out, why it's done. It also allows for more performance with a smaller carb so best of both worlds, the bigger plenum makes carb act like it's bigger since more mixture sharing goes on. And up to 25% throttle I'd be thinking about how the idle feed feeds one cylinder far more than the other since the partially open butterfly masks part of that. An open plenum allows more leak around space around butterflies and two idle feeds to possibly let the non-fed side a better evenness of fuel mixture. At low main booster flows you're feeding almost straight air to two cylinders. The other two get most of the off-idle fuel. A thinner one inch adapter only makes that worse, carb butterflies then truly become a problem blocking things there.

Most carbed fours use single plane manifolds OEM, V-8 use dual plane because the bigger motors are lazy as compared to smaller as far as air action goes. Put single plane on bigger motor though and they invariably make more power too.

Of course do as you will, it's your stuff......... .............. ....

Let all 4 of them mix I say. And I've played with lots of single plenum intakes as well as true dual planes, we used to open up or completely remove the dual plane dividers to share there too, worth a solid 10-20 hp. depending on what motor you do it. On AMC 390 315 hp., the standard manifold was 4 bores into a true full divided dual plane, the Rebel Machine 390 got same casting but machined with the 4 bores gone and divider cut down to the upper level high side to share and rated at 340 hp. Favorite trick on SBC little blocks too, solid ten+ hp. doing it on almost anything.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2014, 08:23:24 AM »
Lower pic is the one you want.

'if you make a spacer you include a center divider, it is a dual plane manifold....'

Not in my world, open hole only there......... ......and if divider goes wrong way you mess manifold up but good. Would need to be front to rear of car to separate 1-4 from 2-3. Side to side and you screwed up.
The intake as it is is a dual plane and to keep it that way with a spacer you have to include the the divider, I never said that was the way to run it or that "I" would do it that way, of course you would use an open spacer!!.....l
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2014, 05:25:30 PM »
At any rate, the "square" EFI lower intake will bolt onto an older oval port head, although the head will be missing an extra bolt hole that the intake has over the #1 port.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1212849
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2014, 11:22:50 AM »
You know what? You are right with your logic but not how I was trained, the 'flats' or double levels of PLENUM were the oldschool definition of dual plane to me, not the runner packages themselves. But could be looked at as such either way. My training says once runner has branched off by itself it is simply an individual runner regardless of what it does. There of course is way more than one type of 'dual plane'.............. .........the intake/head flats for instance in an eight or six.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2014, 12:17:09 PM »
'...the "square" EFI lower intake will bolt onto an older oval port head...'

I actually think that would work quite well.......... .....

Offline waldo786

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2014, 09:16:15 PM »
You could get an offenhauser dual plane intake.  I bought one and will put it on when I upgrade my engine.  Basically I'm upgrading from the head to the top.  Others on here use them, they seem alright.    I'm hoping it does well with my combo.  Swirl polished SS valves, new valvetrain, ranger cam, ranger header, holley 390, 14 inch open air cleaner.  Others on here may chime in about them.  You can find them on ebay a lot of times.  it's part # 6114DP.  You can even get them from Summit.  http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ofy-6114dp/overview/make/ford

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2014, 12:03:51 AM »
If you got late model D-port head that's not gonna work very well.......... ..

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2014, 10:18:41 AM »
Before I found a turbo (D-Port) engine, I was seriously thinking about using a Ranger 2.5 instead. The lower intake is practically begging for a set of individual throttle bodies.



A forward-facing plenum would likewise be easier to design for it than the other Lima intakes.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Pinturbo75

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • FeedBack: +26/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2014, 03:34:28 PM »
but it wont bolt up to a single plug head.....
75 turbo pinto trunk, megasquirt2, 133lb injectors, bv head, precision 6265 turbo, 3" exhaust,bobs log, 8.8, t5,, subframe connectors, 65 mm tb, frontmount ic, traction bars, 255 lph walbro,
73 turbo pinto panel wagon, ms1, 85 lb inj, fmic, holset hy35, 3" exhaust, msd, bov,

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2014, 06:52:39 PM »
Which is why I was contemplating using a whole 2.5 engine, or at least the head and intake.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline flash041

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 885
  • FeedBack: +88/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Linux User Mobile User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2014, 08:51:52 PM »
1993 was the last year for the 2.3 in a Mustang ( I have one). 1994 base engine was the 3.8 V6. There will be a new 2.3 in the 2015 Mustang.
1978 Pinto Cruising wagon (I am the original owner ! ) Built Aug 15th 1977 in NJ
1993 Mustang LX 2.3 convertible

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Was 1994 the first year the 2.3L Mustangs got EFI?
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2014, 09:09:34 PM »
Not a big fan of ITBs, they work far better on smaller engines like hot rod bikes, where I absolutely love them. Big motors run into too many reversion issues using them.