Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Performance Terry Q again. The "restriction"

I think you could make an insert between the TB and the IM out of thin Al plate or something like that with a vertical plate incorporated into it that would extend back to the cast divider. This would induce a split from right behind the TB.
If you rotate the TB I think it would cause the air to go to one side of the upper IM more than the other at part throttle as it would "direct" the air into the IM parallel to the butterfly as it opens, only at WOT would it provide even flow to both banks. Not good, as one side would get a lot more air than the other. This would cause some weird/dangerous engine problems, lean on one side rich on the other. Yuck!
The easiest, I think, would be to make a plate that conform the the back wall divider, you would have to notch the bottom to clear the PCV inlet and it would extend forwrds to the IM opening. Then you could wedge it in and/or JB weld it in place.

PS Terry when are you going to employ me? Sounds like THM needs some manpower!

Appreciate the thoughts.

"MAF? (Maybe a Pro-M, but a 70mm MAF is still bigger than the TB)"

Aussie, the stock MAF meter sucks. It is advertised as 70mm but when you subtract the 12mm center post it is about 58mm. The center post is flat and I suspect makes significant turbulence. I have an SVT 60mm t. body optimized by Brad Noon and adding the Pro-M meter + open K&N to this smaller t.body was worth 12 HP at the dyno. I think with a 65mm t.body, a bigger MAF meter will be a must.

You have a point about the ghey design of the center post. I just wish tose Pro-M's weren't so bloody expensive!

Aussie, Muscle Motors sell them for $175 shipped. Also, a used 80mm Ford MAF meter may work well too especially using that Apex-i to fine tune everything.

Don't know if it's still there but ProM or ProFlow or whatever they call themselves now had a great primer on MAF's on their website. Although I printed it off, I don't have it handy but I shall attempt to summarize as best I can remember. As long as the MAF is bigger than or equal to the t-body, there's no point in going bigger except to lighten your wallet. They had a size chart with flow area comparisons after deducting the space taken up by the sampling bar on a stock Ford 70mm MAF, or sampling tubes on their units. This very same MAF was used on the 94/95 5.0 Mustangs. What was their rated HP? 215 IIRC. Surely, it's not necessary to upgrade to a bigger MAF on our cars until you've exceeded this no. I know the newer MAF's are made out of plastic, but mine is AL and was easy to improve upon. NO, I didn't cut out the sampling bar, but I will say it flows better from a quality and quantity standpoint now.

To get back to the original thought, why not machine an AL spacer, c/w integral splitter? Install it between the t-body and the upper IM. You'd need studs for mounting purposes, but I've already sourced those. Before I go off to the Machine Shop, let me ask-Am I getting warmer, Terry?

Bradness, I read all that before. But IIRC isnt the MAF upgrade one of the better mods for a Mustang? I think the stock design sucks, with a 65mm throttle body it WILL have less flow area - guarenteed. The bar shaped stock center pilar is for noise reflection/reduction not optimal smooth flow (the Pro-M is significantly louder, at least til I added the custom airbox). It DEFINATELY (and I do not say this often or lightly) worked for me. Before the 12HP gain varified on the dyno, I had said it was more noticible on the butt dyno (which I personally put less faith in than you I know) than the Bassani, the Y-pipe, or the K&N. Dyno only varified what I suspected. Now, this gain could be explained by having a MAF meter calibrated to the K&N filter (so they work together optimally). The stock meter is not calibrated to work with aftermarket filters, but perhaps with the Apex-i this could be taken care of. Also, it made the great difference in throttle response, much better.

Anyway, I dont sell the thing and feel free to dismiss my analysis, though beyond the chassis & Butt dynos, I do not know what more evidence I could provide. But that primer you sited also mentioned the risks of modding stock MAFs, and not just removing the center pilar.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't discount the no.'s provided by a chassis dyno, my point was that I don't like putting my mill through that particular form of punishment very often (sorta' like the dentist).

When I mod stuff, I always, always start off conservative. If it works OK, then I begin to ponder 1-can I do more safely, 2-if I do go further and screw it up/gone too far, can I get a replacement at a reasonable cost. Quick cost/benefit analysis and go or no-go decision.

Lately, I've been seeing more and more 'Tours showing up in the local wreckers. So parts are easier/cheaper to come by and I'm more willing to try experimental stuff.

"To get back to the original thought, why not machine an AL spacer, c/w
integral splitter? Install it between the t-body and the upper IM. You'd need
studs for mounting purposes, but I've already sourced those. Before I go off
to the Machine Shop, let me ask-Am I getting warmer, Terry?"

On the other hand Bradness, Terry - this sounds intriguing.

Damnit ... we just need to have someone fab up a completely tubular UIM from scratch and do it right. Terry ... care to give it a try? I know that the Cougar group would react with purchasing as would the 3.0 crowd at the Taurus board. Do it for around $350 and it will sell!