I thought I read somewhere that it should be around 14.7 at idle and then 13 something at WOT. So if anyone knows what numbers I should be shooting for @ idle, cruse, and WOT I would greatly appriciate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bloose:
....if anyone knows what numbers I should be shooting for @ idle, cruse, and WOT I would greatly appriciate it.

---

I'm a bit surprised that the O2 sensor manufacturer doesn't provide/supply you with some target levels for varying drive conditions...?

I have this unit.

They have a forum populated by some bright folks, including the owner of the company. You can ask and answer all sorts of quesitons about the unit and tuning there. Check it out, even if you don't have this brand meter.

http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/forums/index.php

Good Luck!

It will log 44 seconds worth of all of the above data. You download it out of the box into your computer and you their Logworks program to view all the information graphed out against time.

It's pretty neat. People will record a 'log', then upload it to the forum for people to look at and study. These logs are VERY handy. It's nice to be able to view AFR vs all this data. It makes it possible to tune not only idle and WOT, but part throttle, cruise, etc.

It also allows you to see if it goes rich or lean at high rpm, etc.

It's a NICE toy.

Good Luck!

14.7:1 is the stoichiometric ratio. It's the "chemically ideal" where there
is no excess fuel or oxygen left after combustion. Leaner means there's
excess oxygen left after combustion. Richer means there's excess fuel
left. Generally, you want to run rich of stoichiometric at wide open throttle
(WOT) and a bit lean at cruise. There's no single ideal ratio that applies
to all engines. Some engines make best power at 13:1, others closer to
12.5:1. Note that the air fuel ratio is by weight. 13:1 means 13 pounds
of air are mixed with 1 pound of fuel. The usual target values for normally
aspirated 4 stroke engines are about 12.5 to 13 for WOT, 14.0-15.5 at
part-throttle cruise and 13.5-14.0 for part throttle acceleration (or
climbing a long hill, pulling a load, etc.). If you want to lean out the
mixture at cruise for best fuel economy, be aware that you'll also need to
adjust timing. Combustion gets much slower under lean conditions and if
you don't adjust spark timing, the combustion occurs much later and exhaust
temperature climbs. That's bad for the exhaust seats and valves. However,
if you adjust for MBT spark at each A/F ratio, exhaust temperature will
actually decrease relative to stoichimetric (rich will still be somewhat
cooler).

For typical engines, the range or ratios is:

A/F Characteristics
Ratio
5 Rich burn limit. Combustion is weak and/or erratic.
6-9 Extremely rich. Black smoke and low power.
10-11 Very rich. Some supercharged engines run in this range at full power as
a means of controlling detonation.
12-13 Rich. Best power A/F for normally aspirated WOT.
14-15 Chemically ideal. At 14.6 the A/F is at the theoretical ideal ratio
with no excess fuel or oxygen after combustion. Good A/F target for part
throttle cruise and light to moderate acceleration.
16-17 Lean. Best fuel economy A/F ratio. Borderline for part throttle
drivability (worse than borderline if EGR is used).
18-19 Very lean. Usual lean limit (Driveability).
20-25 Lean burn limit. Varies with engine.

If your engine has a cam with a lot of overlap, your wideband will likely
read rich at idle, even though it isn't. In cases like that, I usually
set the idle mixture use the RPM drop method. Adjust mixture to yield
maximum RPM, then lean it so the idle drops 20 to 40 RPM. Even with milder
cams on engines with carbs, I usually only get around 13:1 at hot idle
if the idle speed is low enough. Raise the RPM a bit and the air fuel
ratio will quickly go to the cruise value. Also placement of the sensor
(in collector versus near tailpipe) can yield different results. The best
thing to do is to correlate air fuel ratio on a dyno with maximum power
for your set-up. You can accomplish the same thing with an accelerometer
based G-meter or at the drag strip.

Wide band sensors are a great tuning tool. I just used one to track down
a problem on my TR8. It would run rich at WOT in lower gears but once in
4th and 5th, it would go dangerously lean. Turns out I was draining the
float bowls in the lower gears due to a restrictive fuel filter. By the
time I got to the 4th/5th shift, the bowls were nearly empty and the mixture
would go way lean. BTW, does anyone know of a good high flow glass filter
(the type you can see through). I've got a good clear plastic one on
there now but I'd like something less likely to melt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Jones:
BTW, does anyone know of a good high flow glass filter (the type you can see through). I've got a good clear plastic one on there now but I'd like something less likely to melt.

---

Dan,
Not attempting to highjack this thread or change the subject, but regarding your above inquiry, rather than go with a glass filter, maybe you could use one of these....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Vintage-Ford-Holley-One-Brl-Carburetor-Carb-glass-bowl_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ34198QQihZ010QQitemZ200028079352QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Ryan

Dan,

Thanks a ton man, this is exactly the info I was looking for. My car is running fine and fuel milage in not too much of a concern as I rarely drive it. But I am knocking at the 11's door with a 12.01 second 1/4 so I am looking to drop .002 or so. Like I said I would find it hard to believe that the carb was perfectly tuned out of the box. I figured the only way to really get it tuned right was either dyno time or the Innovative setup. Now I have some numbers to shoot for, thanks again.

As for your fuel filter this is essentially what I am running,

http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10002&catalogIdentifier=Jegs_Direct&categoryId=14207&parentCategoryId=10293

The difference is mine has -6 AN fittings. It looks as though they no longer make the one I have. But this one should work for you and it is glass and metal no plastic.

Thanks again,
B-loose

You are the guy with the Pantera, correct? You also have a TR8? What other sweet toys do you have? I used to have an MGB that I sold when I bought my first house. It was a great car because it didn't have enough HP to get me in trouble. Those TR8's are slick. I saw a MGC GT for sale the other day, to bad I don't have the $$$ right now.

That has a sintered bronze element. The one I've got on there now is a
paper element. I think I'll leave it on for a while longer to make sure
I'm not picking up trash from the tank. It's been rust-proofed but there
may be some residue in it. One I know the tank is clean, I can switch to
the Pyrex glass filter.

> You are the guy with the Pantera, correct?

That's me. It looks like this at the moment:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album03?page=2
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album03?page=3

Really got to get back on that soon. Hope to have it back on the road
this spring. I know three other local Pantera onwers and all are currently
building Cleveland strokers (two 408's and a 393). Gotta keep up with
the Joneses I guess :-)

> You also have a TR8?

Yes, a 1980 convertible:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album25
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/dan-tr8/tr8_6

Winter plans are to replace the 215 aluminum V8 with a bored and stroked
version closer to 296 cubes. It's fun with 185 HP and should be a real
hoot with 325+ HP. I've got an 8.8" disc brake rear from a Thunderbird
Turbo Coupe that I plan to narrow for it too.

> What other sweet toys do you have?

My daily driver is a 1987 Mustang GT:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album03/Pantera_Roller_Driver_s_Side

It's the blue car in the background :-). Should turn 200K miles soon.

I've also got a 56 F100 project truck:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album05

Plans were to swap the Pantera's 351C over to the truck (it came with
a rebuilt 289 and X-code T5) as it would bolt right in but I've got a
428SCJ with 406 tri-power induction that would look cooler under the
tilt hood. I'd like to do some sort of automatic overdrive transmission
as well (all my other cars are 5 speed manuals). The truck, along with
a 1966 Mustang 2+2 (with 351C and Tremec TKO) and 1977 Triumph TR7 coupe
(also slated to also get a bored and stroked aluminum V8) are in storage
until I can find some land to build a big garage.

> I used to have an MGB that I sold when I bought my first house. It was
> a great car because it didn't have enough HP to get me in trouble. Those
> TR8's are slick.

I was kind of looking for a Sunbeam Tiger but I just don't fit in those
very well. The TR8 is about as small a car as I can get comfortable
in. If you look closely at some of those Pantera pictures, you'll see
I cut the floor plans out and welded in ones that give me 3" more
headroom.

> I saw a MGC GT for sale the other day, to bad I don't have the $$$
> right now.

There's a local guy here that swapped a Buick 215 V8 (same thing as
the Rover V8 in the TR8) into an MGA. He did a very nice job.

Very nice Pantera. I have always wanted a project Pantera. Can't really afford it nor do I have a place for it but I at least get to do the fantasy builds in my head.

That MG I had was really strange in the fact that it looked tiny (as I'm sure you know) but had huge amounts of leg room. I worked with a guy that was about 6'4" and said he loved the car but it was way too small for him. I got him to sit in it once and he didn't even have the seat all of the way back.

The Pantera is one of my all time favorite cars, along with the '66 2+2 stang. The only car I may like more is the GT40. The new GT is awesome but I still like the GT40 better, though I'd bet the GT is way better to actually live with. Of those cars the 2+2 is likely the only one that will ever be within my reach. The '69/69 Torino/Fairlanes are also in my top favorite cars and lucky for my I have one.

Like you it seems that my car interests range far and wide. For some reason though there are not really too many Chevy body styles I like. A few years of the Vette, the '67 Chevelle, and maybe one or two others but not much else. Unlike you though, I currently do not have the time or money any more than I already have. Some day in the future that may change. Lucky for me right now I am in the midst of putting together a garage to house my hobby, maybe one day I'll be able to fill it up with awesome cars.

For a while the prices of the Pantera's were somewhat reasonable correct? Wish I'd of had some money back then.

Anyway, awesome collection! You currently own some of my favorite cars. Thanks for sharing them and your knowledge with me!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Jones:

I was kind of looking for a Sunbeam Tiger....

---

A few years back, I recall reading an article about a Tiger that was setup with a BOSS 302 with (I think) an Autolite inline carb setup & 4speed. It was black cherry in color and, OOOOHHH SO SWEET!!!! I thought for quite a while that it would be the ultimate play car. However, I learned that they are actually fairly rare, if unrestored typically are in need of MAJOR floorpan/frame work and if you are bigger than 5'8" and/or 190#, you have a tuff time fitting into it/driving it,,,, so I gave up the hunt for one.

They had double A-arm independent suspension with coil-overs from the
factory. With modern rubber (mine runs 335/35/17 tires on Campy replica
rims and they fit within the stock fenderwells), a larger rear sway bar,
offset front bushings ( for additional caster) and a proper alignment they
handle quite well. There are several upgrades available including Corvette
suspension bits, modified stock tubular steel or aluminum A-arms, various
shock and spring options, adjustable sway bars, etc.

> The only car I may like more is the GT40. The new GT is awesome but I still
> like the GT40 better, though I'd bet the GT is way better to actually live
> with.

Yes, particularly if you are tall (or wide). I can get comfortable in
the GT but don't come close to fitting in an original. The new GT is
much larger than the original.

> The '69/69 Torino/Fairlanes are also in my top favorite cars and lucky
> for my I have one.

Dad's got a '69 Fairlane Cobra with a 427 side oiler stroker and Hone-o-Drive
2 speed overdrive rear end.

> For a while the prices of the Pantera's were somewhat reasonable correct?
> Wish I'd of had some money back then.

Yes. They still aren't too bad. In fact you can get a good Pantera for
less than an equivalent Boss 302, 289 HiPo, 428CJ Mustang, etc. There's
one for sale here that has 15000 miles on it and will probably go for $32K
or so.

> A few years back, I recall reading an article about a Tiger that was setup
> with a BOSS 302 with (I think) an Autolite inline carb setup & 4speed.

Sounds familar. Might have been a Super Ford article.

Who wouldn't want a Pantera? awesome looking car. There are only about 3 in Reno. And one of them is for sale. 38,000 org miles for $35,000. I think thats a reasonable price compaired what they are getting for other cars these days.

------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

HOOD HACKERS DELIGHT!
My Pics

For me the old GT40's would likely fit me fine. I'm only 5'8 180lbs. But in reality they were not made for comfort or street driving. Again the GT is very sweet but the original just looks more... Authentic I guess. I would likely never be able to have an original but I've always had the idea of doing a kit car later in life. A GT40 kit might be cool. The one car I'm not all that thrilled with is the AC Cobra's. It's a sharp car and all but I thin it's been done to death. Way to many of them around, and way to many of them are shotty.

Do you have pics of your pop's car posted somewhere? I used to not be a huge fan of FE's but that's starting to change now, not sure why. Even not being a fan, I would love to get my hands on a 427FE. A SOHC of course would be oh too sweet but that is just day dreaming.

No I don't. I only recently broke down and bought a digital camera
and dad's car is in storage.

> I used to not be a huge fan of FE's but that's starting to change now,
> not sure why. Even not being a fan, I would love to get my hands on a 427FE.
> A SOHC of course would be oh too sweet but that is just day dreaming.

There's a local guy giving serious consideration to a Superformance MKII
GT40 replica with 427 SOHC.

More fun to look at than to drive.I am just a little guy and found it horrible to sit in.I have driven more Cobras than I can remember so the offset pedals dont bother me but at least you can sit up straight in a Cobra..

Trying to work on the distibuter is a exercise in it self as is just setting the valves.

Impossible to see out of when driving.

Easier to change the plugs on than my car tho..

They are a cool car and the 351C is a great engine.The prices are rising on them and they are a good investment.
Like Boss 429s and Hemi cars there is no shortage of them in Vancouver..

As to who wouldn't want a "Pantera"...I think i have already answered that.

Cory

I find it a blast to drive but I've made some simple modifications
to better fit it to my proportions. A Mustang feels like a truck
in comparison.

> I am just a little guy and found it horrible to sit in.
> I have driven more Cobras than I can remember so the offset pedals dont
> bother me

The Pantera has only slight pedal offset, no where near the offset
of the pedals in a Cobra. I could never get used to the pedals in
a friend's Cobra. The brake was where the clutch should be.

> but at least you can sit up straight in a Cobra..

What seats were in the Pantera you sat in? The early seats have
adjustable backs. The later can be set to different (fixed) angles.
Most aftermarket seats use up a bunch of headroom, though.

> Trying to work on the distibuter is a exercise in it self

Were you trying to do it from behind or from the front? There's
a bulkhead cover between the seats that allows access to the
distributor. I've driven it with the cover off, adjusting the
base timing while I was driving the car. The cover also provides
easy access to the water pump. No need to pull the radiator to
remove the waterpump.

> as is just setting the valves.

I'm 6'5" with a long reach so it's no big deal for me. Trying to
do it from outside the car is not easy if you are short. Shorter
guys usually climb on the transaxle. Some guys will place a baby
mattress over the ZF for comfort while working on the engine.

> Impossible to see out of when driving.

The rear 3/4 view is probably the worst part of the car. Those
little round mirrors added to the side mirrors makes a big
difference, though. The front view is excellent.

> Easier to change the plugs on than my car tho..

Easiest V8 car I've ever worked on to R&R the headers, starter
or waterpump. Pulling the transaxle and/or engine is also pretty
easy. Overall, I find it easier than most cars to work on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Jones:
>

There's a local guy giving serious consideration to a Superformance MKII
GT40 replica with 427 SOHC.

Dan Jones

---

A GT40 with a SOHC? Way too awesome!

If I were to do a GT40 I'd do a 289 I think. I love my 289 in my '68, it's a bad little motor. When people say what size motor do you have, and I say, 289, their jaw just drops. 12.01s from a 289 in a street drivable '68 'lane FB just doesn't compute to them. If I were running a BB they would expect it. I've had people say, no way does that sound like a 289? I look at them puzzled and say, "what does a 289 sound like then".