Going to EFI wanting some information

[GrayDD 10]

Hello I have come seeking information.

I have a 69 Ford Mustang that I have rebuilt the 351cid engine, punched out .20 over.

I currently have the Eldelbrock performer RPM heads part 60259.

I am using the Edelbrock performer RPM camshaft kit 7182.

My question is the Edelbrock Pro-Flo 4 XT EFI Kit the correct kit for my engine?

I would also like to use the Edelbrock 36032 fuel sump for delivery.

Have any of you got the same basic set up using these parts?

Do you have any advice or warnings that I should know or anything else I will need to buy to complete this installation?

Thanks

[rwcstang 201]

Gray,

only thing I would recommend is if you are going EFI, go with an electric fuel pump/regulator. Fuel Injection requires more fuel/pressure to work, I recommend using the Aeromotive Stealth Tank and one of their regulators, for plumbing I would also suggest going with a PTFE Hose or fuel line that can hold the high pressure.

Proflo is good kit, but if you dont know how to dyno/tune via laptop, this could open a can of worms for you.

The other route you can go with and most popular is the Holley Sniper or FiTech, its has a self learning software and has a controller to give accurate readings, however, I recommend using a Single plane intake too as I have red these types of systems dont like dual plane intakes unless you add a 1/2 or 1" spacer. you'll also need to drill and weld an 02 bung on your exhaust.

Many routes but also expensive... but the reliability is there.

if you are on a budget stick with the carb/mech pump.

Many others who went down the EFI route can chime in, Im still on a carb setup and on the fence with these kits.

[GrayDD 10]

Thanks, I was planning on using the Edelbrock sump.

Basically, I believe, the existing mechanical fuel pump fills a resivor in the sump where a high pressure electric fuel pump is located.

Keeps me from having to replace or modify the existing fuel tank.

 

YouTube
https://m.youtube.com · Edelbrock ...
Edelbrock Universal Fuel Sump Kit - YouTube

[Grabber70Mach 107]

You'd be better off in the long run with the electric pump in the tank. I.E. Aeromotive Stealth II tank.  Other companies offer retrofit kits for existing tanks.  I just think this is a cleaner solution.

[det0326 179]

The only thing I have to add is I heard  Edelbrock sold their ProFlo line  to another company and the Tech support is not that good anymore.  I do not know if this is true or not but worth researching I guess.

[GrayDD 10]

Thanks, a larger tank is attractive too. Believe its 22 gallons.

[Mach1 Driver 560]

According to a post on the Edelbrock forum, the Pro-Flo 4 is too tall and no one has recommended any air cleaner combinations that can make it fit under the hood of a 69 351w. He had to cut a hole in the hood under the scoop. He also responded here on this forum and his handle is "ClubSport": 

 

[GrayDD 10]

1 hour ago, Mach1 Driver said:

According to a post on the Edelbrock forum, the Pro-Flo 4 is too tall and no one has recommended any air cleaner combinations that can make it fit under the hood of a 69 351w. He had to cut a hole in the hood under the scoop. He also responded here on this forum and his handle is "ClubSport": 

Yeah, I am not too worried about how tall it is as I am using an aftermarket carbon fiber hood anyways. Not my favorite either but you can fit big stuff under it. Think it will still fit okay with my existing air cleaner. Is anyone actually running this setup? The Pro-Flo 4 that is?

 

[det0326 179]

Have the ProFlo 4 on another project, not a Mustang. So far it runs perfect. It had a bad O2 sensor right out of the box, replaced with a new Bosch O2 sensor , hasn't  giving any trouble since. 

[GrayDD 10]

That sounds great. If you don't mind me asking, what engine do you have it on?

What was the most difficult part of the installation?

Is there anything (02 sensor) I should look out for or expect to upgrade?

By any chance are you using the sump?

Thank you for your reply.

[det0326 179]

We put the ProFlo 4 on a 454. I've done electrical/electronic troubleshooting all my life so the installation was really easy for me. Just pay attention to directions and you will be fine. We used the Tanks Inc. tank with Aeromotive pump. No experience with the sump. I know at one time  FiTech had something similar and had some trouble with theirs.  

[GrayDD 10]

1 hour ago, det0326 said:

We put the ProFlo 4 on a 454. I've done electrical/electronic troubleshooting all my life so the installation was really easy for me. Just pay attention to directions and you will be fine. We used the Tanks Inc. tank with Aeromotive pump. No experience with the sump. I know at one time  FiTech had something similar and had some trouble with theirs.  

Cool, thanks for the information. Appreciate your help.

[aslanefe 333]

Holley Part # 12-305 in tank pump/fuel level sender is an other option.

[SM69Mach 68]

I have Fitech on my set up.  I had an external pump initially and it kept getting too hot and would vapor lock, so I switched to an intank pump Stealth setup from Aeromotive.  I did the drip in style and used a stock tank.  Have had no issues since.  There can be issues with either holley or Fitech, just make sure its installed as directed. The main issue I had with mine was RPM noise.  But that is resolved now and it runs really good.  Forums and Facebook groups have been very helpful and a lot of good info (if you can get past all the bitching).

 

There are a lot of good options out there so good luck.  Just sharing my experience.  

[Vicfreg 771]

I have FiTech on my 351W based 393 stroker.  Only issue I had was to make sure I always had 12v to the EFI electronics. I have a trunk mounted battery and even with large cables had some voltage drop while cranking issues.  I added a buck-boost controller and that solved the problem.  I am running a Edelbrock Performer RPM intake with a Shaker hood.

 

[GrayDD 10]

11 hours ago, Vicfreg said:

I have FiTech on my 351W based 393 stroker.  Only issue I had was to make sure I always had 12v to the EFI electronics. I have a trunk mounted battery and even with large cables had some voltage drop while cranking issues.  I added a buck-boost controller and that solved the problem.  I am running a Edelbrock Performer RPM intake with a Shaker hood.

 

IMG_7174.MOV

That is good information that I had not thought of. My battery is trunk mounted as well. Will be looking into the buck-boost. Thank you. 

[Mach1 Driver 560]

Excellent information. I zeroed in on the intake. That would be an Edelbrock 7181 which has a carb pad height of 4.8", stock being 3.0"  As you went EFI and the manifold can be either single or dual plane, can we assume that you chose the dual plane intake?

[Vicfreg 771]

Yep, it is a 7181 dual plane.  My catalog cut says it is 5.3" high.   I am not at home right now, so I can't really measure that for you.  But, I recall the stock cast iron intake had a car spacer, so should not be a problem.  Especially if you are not using a shaker hood.     

I used the 60229 heads, which have a smaller intake valve diameter. I did that as I have a 393 stroker kit installed and did not want to take a chance on the valve to piston clearance.

I also have a vintage Ford/Shelby "C9X" intake that is higher than stock, they were used on stock Shelby's.

For the EFI, the single plane may be a better option. You should check with the EFI manufacturer.   On the dual plane the fuel can puddle on the plenum when the car is cold, requiring some fussing with your cold start/cold crank/fuel settings.

I noticed you have a mechanical fuel pump installed.   You should do an in tank EFI if possible now, while you have the chance.  I kept my mechanical pump and used the FiTech fuel command center.  I had to modify that to run a fuel return line back to the gas tank to keep the pump/housing cool.

[Mach1 Driver 560]

32 minutes ago, Vicfreg said:

Yep, it is a 7181 dual plane.  My catalog cut says it is 5.3" high.   

Jeez, there is always conflicting information. This is from the Edelbrock website for the 7181, and (4.3 + 5.3 = 9.6)/2 = 4.8"  I hope their information is right. And it is a dual plane.

[Vicfreg 771]

No, you are correct. I picked the 5.3" as it was the largest number.  My catalog cut is identical to the information that you have above

This picture gives you an idea of the difference in height from rear to front.  This is on my engine stand, so not perfectly level.

 

[Mach1 Driver 560]

Thats purdy!