IRT Edelbrock's new EZ-Street EFI System

Clayboy

Member
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2022
Messages
122
Reaction score
90
Location
DMV
Has/will any of you be installing Edelbrock's new EZ-Street EFI system? If so, would you mind providing members with your impression?

Been reviewing articles about some products from the recent SEMA show, to include this EFI.



I'm definitely an EFI novice, but what potentially intrigues me about this new system is it seems a very straightforward addition (at least for fueling only). My impression with other systems I only have a passing understanding of is, they seem to need other "stuff" to make the EFI work - replacement tank/fuel pump combo; additional programing for example.

Anyway, hoping to get some real-world member feedback. Thank you!

#Edelbrock #EZ-Street #EFI #EZ
 
In adding any EFI system, it should be remembered that it is only a fuel/air mixing mechanism, just as carburetors are. Except the EFI system can usually get better atomization of the fuel droplets as it does its thing. NO massive amounts of horsepower increases, either.

Even with the Throttle Body Injection types, what WILL be noticed is better drivability (as it is computer controlled), especially when cold. That was my impression from the first OEM GM 2bbl TBI systems in 1987.

Reason? In a carburetor, open the throttle plates, more airflow due to intake manifold vacuum. More air flow through the venturis pulls more fuel out of the float bowl as needed. If everything is working well, no real lag results in getting fuel into the engine that way. Worked for ages.

With electronic EFI, as soon as the throttle position sensor is moved one nano-degree, additional fuel is put into the engine THEN, not later. Result is much better throttle response and perceived power. With the better fuel spray pattern from the TBI injectors, fuel economy CAN increase, too, but this can be variable as to driving style (i.e., how steady the driver keeps the accel pedal, rather than constantly moving it!). Of course, how much enrichment comes from such movements is a part of the OEM and aftermarket programming!

On the then new 5.7L 1/2-ton pickups, when people got into them (after driving a 305 4bbl), they immediately smiled as to the additional power and throttle response ("This thing runs GREAT!"), but at the free 3000 mile oil change, they were complaining about fuel economy. "Driving style".

On the new '87 5.7L pickup I had as a company truck, driven mostly on freeways with a bit of surface streets . . . I was asked to log my mpg for several tanks of gas, which I did. It was 55mph for the national speed limit back then. Driving conservatively and cruising at 55-60mph, I logged several tanks at 19.5-20mph average! 5.7L, THM700 OD automatic, 3.08 gears, P235/75R-15 factory radials. Consistent "fill levels" at refueling stops, from the same gas pump. 87 Pump Octane fuel. a/c working, too.

Now, after getting those results, I was totally amazed. Considering the '78 1/2-ton I had with a 5.7L, THM700, with the only main spec differences being the QuadraJet and 3.42 axle ratio. The best mpg that truck did was 13.25mpg average on its first full tank, when new. Then settling into about 11.5mpg after that. Which was not too much worse than the 7-8mpg 454 3/4 and 1-tons that were selling like hotcakes back then.

A few notable things, though. The '87 head castings had the cleanest intake ports of any GM head casting I had ever seen, to that time. The exh manifolds looked the same, but had larger passages and a larger exit hole, like 2.125" diameter rather than 1.875" or 2.00". The single exhaust system was better as to consistent pipe sizes, into and out of the single muffler, to the end of the tail pipe. ALL little things that helped.

You WILL need an electric fuel pump that can supply 55psi pressures, period. Either the external pump near the rear of the car or the "sump pump" in the engine compartment (which Edelbrock seemed to first use a while back), which can use the existing mechanical pump to supply the sump with, then an internal pump in the sump will elevate the pressures to what the EFI injectors need to work well. IF you have enough under hood real estate to mount the sump pump items!

ONE other thing pointed out in a Chevy TSB about 454 TBI engines. All of the total airflow into the engine will be at abt 90% at approx 75% of WOT. That was on a 2bbl TBI unit. NO "4bbl feel" going to WOT, either, when the secondaries were expected to kick in on a 4bbl.

I'm not sure if the throttle plate linkage on that new system is staged to have all four plates open at once, or if primaries first, then secondaries, as a normal 4bbl carb does.

In cases where the cam and intake ports are each too big, an electronic EFI TBI can somewhat tame that system where a well-finessed carb usually can't. Computer controls and such working their magic.

You will also need at least one, possibly two ganged together, oxygen sensors a specified distance past the front of the head pipes of the exhaust system. Getting those done is easier now with "no welding", bolt-on bungs to screw then into, by observation. Very possibly included in the basic install kit for the unit? Usually, the TBI is sold separately and the full install kit has the pump and a roll of high-pressure rubber fuel lines in it.

As MUCH as I might like and appreciate these aftermarket, add-on, self-learnign EFI systems, it can take a good while to get the purchase price of the unit (not counting any outside labor charges for installation!) saved in fuel savings alone. Which can make the annular discharge venturis of the Edelbrock AVS2 much more attractive (due to lower purchase costs and less installation complexity).

You can probably find all printed information on the system in the Edelbrock website. INCLUDING the installation instructions.

Edelbrock might not mention it, BUT for best results, you probably need to have a pair of cylinder heads with the modern "heart-shaped" combustion chamber for best combustion dynamics. Better combustion dynamics than stock Chrysler cyl heads, typically. On the other hand, a set of closed-chamber B/RB cyl heads might be a good "iron head" choice, too, due to all of their "squish" action not present in the 906-style open chamber head combustion chambers.

I'm NOT sure what your goals might be in getting the system? Bragging rights? Better mpg and throttle response? More total power? OR the size and performance level of the engine you desire to install the system on?

Hope this might help,
CBODY67
 
In adding any EFI system, it should be remembered that it is only a fuel/air mixing mechanism, just as carburetors are. Except the EFI system can usually get better atomization of the fuel droplets as it does its thing. NO massive amounts of horsepower increases, either.

Even with the Throttle Body Injection types, what WILL be noticed is better drivability (as it is computer controlled), especially when cold. That was my impression from the first OEM GM 2bbl TBI systems in 1987.

Reason? In a carburetor, open the throttle plates, more airflow due to intake manifold vacuum. More air flow through the venturis pulls more fuel out of the float bowl as needed. If everything is working well, no real lag results in getting fuel into the engine that way. Worked for ages.

With electronic EFI, as soon as the throttle position sensor is moved one nano-degree, additional fuel is put into the engine THEN, not later. Result is much better throttle response and perceived power. With the better fuel spray pattern from the TBI injectors, fuel economy CAN increase, too, but this can be variable as to driving style (i.e., how steady the driver keeps the accel pedal, rather than constantly moving it!). Of course, how much enrichment comes from such movements is a part of the OEM and aftermarket programming!

On the then new 5.7L 1/2-ton pickups, when people got into them (after driving a 305 4bbl), they immediately smiled as to the additional power and throttle response ("This thing runs GREAT!"), but at the free 3000 mile oil change, they were complaining about fuel economy. "Driving style".

On the new '87 5.7L pickup I had as a company truck, driven mostly on freeways with a bit of surface streets . . . I was asked to log my mpg for several tanks of gas, which I did. It was 55mph for the national speed limit back then. Driving conservatively and cruising at 55-60mph, I logged several tanks at 19.5-20mph average! 5.7L, THM700 OD automatic, 3.08 gears, P235/75R-15 factory radials. Consistent "fill levels" at refueling stops, from the same gas pump. 87 Pump Octane fuel. a/c working, too.

Now, after getting those results, I was totally amazed. Considering the '78 1/2-ton I had with a 5.7L, THM700, with the only main spec differences being the QuadraJet and 3.42 axle ratio. The best mpg that truck did was 13.25mpg average on its first full tank, when new. Then settling into about 11.5mpg after that. Which was not too much worse than the 7-8mpg 454 3/4 and 1-tons that were selling like hotcakes back then.

A few notable things, though. The '87 head castings had the cleanest intake ports of any GM head casting I had ever seen, to that time. The exh manifolds looked the same, but had larger passages and a larger exit hole, like 2.125" diameter rather than 1.875" or 2.00". The single exhaust system was better as to consistent pipe sizes, into and out of the single muffler, to the end of the tail pipe. ALL little things that helped.

You WILL need an electric fuel pump that can supply 55psi pressures, period. Either the external pump near the rear of the car or the "sump pump" in the engine compartment (which Edelbrock seemed to first use a while back), which can use the existing mechanical pump to supply the sump with, then an internal pump in the sump will elevate the pressures to what the EFI injectors need to work well. IF you have enough under hood real estate to mount the sump pump items!

ONE other thing pointed out in a Chevy TSB about 454 TBI engines. All of the total airflow into the engine will be at abt 90% at approx 75% of WOT. That was on a 2bbl TBI unit. NO "4bbl feel" going to WOT, either, when the secondaries were expected to kick in on a 4bbl.

I'm not sure if the throttle plate linkage on that new system is staged to have all four plates open at once, or if primaries first, then secondaries, as a normal 4bbl carb does.

In cases where the cam and intake ports are each too big, an electronic EFI TBI can somewhat tame that system where a well-finessed carb usually can't. Computer controls and such working their magic.

You will also need at least one, possibly two ganged together, oxygen sensors a specified distance past the front of the head pipes of the exhaust system. Getting those done is easier now with "no welding", bolt-on bungs to screw then into, by observation. Very possibly included in the basic install kit for the unit? Usually, the TBI is sold separately and the full install kit has the pump and a roll of high-pressure rubber fuel lines in it.

As MUCH as I might like and appreciate these aftermarket, add-on, self-learnign EFI systems, it can take a good while to get the purchase price of the unit (not counting any outside labor charges for installation!) saved in fuel savings alone. Which can make the annular discharge venturis of the Edelbrock AVS2 much more attractive (due to lower purchase costs and less installation complexity).

You can probably find all printed information on the system in the Edelbrock website. INCLUDING the installation instructions.

Edelbrock might not mention it, BUT for best results, you probably need to have a pair of cylinder heads with the modern "heart-shaped" combustion chamber for best combustion dynamics. Better combustion dynamics than stock Chrysler cyl heads, typically. On the other hand, a set of closed-chamber B/RB cyl heads might be a good "iron head" choice, too, due to all of their "squish" action not present in the 906-style open chamber head combustion chambers.

I'm NOT sure what your goals might be in getting the system? Bragging rights? Better mpg and throttle response? More total power? OR the size and performance level of the engine you desire to install the system on?

Hope this might help,
CBODY67
Thanks for the reply. First and foremost, I want to learn from the experiences of others as I am naturally curious. If I were to get an EFI system for any of my carbureted vehicles, it would be for economy and start-ability.
 
In adding any EFI system, it should be remembered that it is only a fuel/air mixing mechanism, just as carburetors are. Except the EFI system can usually get better atomization of the fuel droplets as it does its thing. NO massive amounts of horsepower increases, either.

...

I'm NOT sure what your goals might be in getting the system? Bragging rights? Better mpg and throttle response? More total power? OR the size and performance level of the engine you desire to install the system on?

Hope this might help,
CBODY67

Thank you for a MOST comprehensive response to the OP. I think that barring a complete rebuild, matching pistons, cam, heads, roller cam and such to an EFI system, it simply wouldn't pay to install it on these B/RB engines. WITH a comprehensive rebuild, one can get awe inspiring improvements which would justify the outlay, but otherwise, I'd go for an AVS2 with closed quench heads for the best cost effect. I'm itching to try the 650 CFM AVS2 with my current engine, perhaps after a cam refresh.
 
FWIW, Edelbrock builds a single plane 440 intake with port injection injector bungs cast into it. Looks to be more performance than street use, though. Similar to the one they do for small block non-Vortec Chevy V-8s.

Considering all of the combustion research going on in the middle 1950s, which resulted in the "Single Rocker Shaft" "Poly"-head V-8s, it might be interesting to see how good they would have been with a port fuel injection system on them. With a modern-lobe design cam in place, too? Of course, with better exh manifolds, too.

I was shocked when Nick (Nick's Garage) did some dyno pulls with a 1958 B or RB (I don't recall which one it was) 2x4bbl cast iron intake and the motor made "500" torque numbers! The ports were not as smoothly-contoured as they could have been, nor as genererous as later aftermarket intakes, BUT it just worked. If it was a B motor, it would have been factory equipment on the 1958 Plymouth Fury 350 2x4 motor (which had the 252/252/.390" cam specs of the 383 2bbl in 1966!). Otherwise, it would have been a Chrysler 300 Letter Car 413 2x4bbl.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
FWIW, Edelbrock builds a single plane 440 intake with port injection injector bungs cast into it. Looks to be more performance than street use, though. Similar to the one they do for small block non-Vortec Chevy V-8s.

Considering all of the combustion research going on in the middle 1950s, which resulted in the "Single Rocker Shaft" "Poly"-head V-8s, it might be interesting to see how good they would have been with a port fuel injection system on them. With a modern-lobe design cam in place, too? Of course, with better exh manifolds, too.

I was shocked when Nick (Nick's Garage) did some dyno pulls with a 1958 B or RB (I don't recall which one it was) 2x4bbl cast iron intake and the motor made "500" torque numbers! The ports were not as smoothly-contoured as they could have been, nor as genererous as later aftermarket intakes, BUT it just worked. If it was a B motor, it would have been factory equipment on the 1958 Plymouth Fury 350 2x4 motor (which had the 252/252/.390" cam specs of the 383 2bbl in 1966!). Otherwise, it would have been a Chrysler 300 Letter Car 413 2x4bbl.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

It's a PITY they dropped the Poly! I understand Wirtmann's rationale for so doing, BUT, FORD picked the canted angle valve head for the "Boss" and Cleveland small block engines, and had they not had shitty oil galleys in the 335 block, that Cleveland would still be revered. Di Thomaso liked it.

I ran into a retired mech engineer from the University who machined up a mid 1950s Hemi, around 330 in^3 into a custom 1 off monster for his own sleeper cruising. Used some Chevy pistons and stroked it up to ~360 in^3, machined some custom heads for the block and fitted a true to the combustion chamber injection system into that. A fierce, EXPENSIVE gizmo for his 1962 Dart.... He had a Poly Project going when I met him, but that was 2018, and he may well be Translated by now. The ******* junkyard up the street from me had a bunch of Poly wrecks, which he was willing to sell cheap as recently as 2 yrs ago, but now, IDK. If I had a Mopar Farm, I'd see about scoring some. W a 360 crank for a bit more stroke displacement, modern pistons and some V8 injection rails worked for those heads, I suspect one could make a formidable plant of a Poly.
 
I've always thought that if I were Jay Leno levels of rich, I'd get a 383/440, convert it to port fuel injection, then design a variable length intake manifold for it to basically make a "what if Chrysler made the RB in the 90s" sort of engine. Because why the hell not :popcorn:

But until then...still curious on how this turns out, and it'd be interesting to see this paired with the Carb Cheater - it looks like Edelbrock's system is the other side of the same coin - metering the incoming fuel, while carb cheater meters incoming air. Really expensive though at 3 grand, and it also states that a fuel system isn't included either. But given that it's new, the price isn't surprising; with time it'll come down.

Personally though, the CC still comes out on top because if its CPU ever stops working...it just becomes a regular carb. If this CPU ever stops working, well hope you've got AAA. Technically that could be said for any EFI system, but OEM ones tend to be extremely robust because it looks really, really bad when your cars leave their buyers stranded. Interesting that the Edelbrock system has a lifetime warranty though.

machined some custom heads for the block and fitted a true to the combustion chamber injection system into that
He converted it to direct injection? Damn, no mean feat.
 
Direct injection is simply what diesels always have been. I once toyed with taking an Olds 5.7L diesel and, using the existing Roosemaster injection pump, changing it to gasoline, but issues with the cyl heads thwarted those thoughts. I was surprised when the pump people said thei diesel pumps could pump gasoline, too.

Direct Injection has many issues on its own! One significant one is that gasoline/air mix mno longer keep the backs of the intake valves clean. Which can result in drivability issues as crankcase fumes coat the intake runners and such, over time. That issue is why the newer DI systems also have injectors in the intake ports to cycle enough to minimize those deposits!

The first GM 3.6L V-6 DI engines I drove had a faint "diesel cackle" on harder acceleration. I kind of grinned when I heard that. Later ones have no such sounds.

DI can be more precise in its fuel injection timing, BUT considering how much time the fuel has to atomize and then combust in an engine's cycle, everything has to be RIGHT for it all to happen as well as it does. THEN consider that electronic diesel injection systems have several injection pulses varying their length and intensity per combustion cycle! Which is why the OEM diesels have become so quiet in currently-evolved generations.

LOTS of things to dream about!

Happy Holidays!
CBODY67
 
He converted it to direct injection? Damn, no mean feat.

Having a University level machine shop staffed by plenty septuagenarian "machinists" helps. I suspect grad students did a fair bit of the actual labor, if they knew what was good for them.

Direct injection was first developed to make piston driven aeroplane engines run at high altitudes where carburetors would freeze, with inconvenient results to pilots. Armored vehicles in the cool plains of western Russia performed more reliably with fuel injected engines too. Graduates of this school went on to devise Bosch Injection, which all our EFI today arose from. If I were EVER to get another fuel injected vehicle, after having driven a 1987 Olds Ciera, and an '87 Jaguar XJ6, I would want direct injection. The rest is just Lean Burn in my book. I've been tempted by a /6 direct head I've been seeing, but I need to purchase a larger habitat for the Morris Brood first....
 
The carb cheater isn't in the same hemisphere as the sniper or this new Edelbrock system.
You can read my rants in other posts, carb cheater is a vacuum leak that for some reason people think is useful instead of doing the actual work of tuning fuel delivery.
 
The carb cheater isn't in the same hemisphere as the sniper or this new Edelbrock system.
You can read my rants in other posts, carb cheater is a vacuum leak that for some reason people think is useful instead of doing the actual work of tuning fuel delivery.
It's two sides of the same coin - one adjusts fuel trim, the other adjusts air trim. The creator of CC (and myself after having read up on what it does) can't stress enough that it is not a substitute for tuning a carb well, nor is it a magical bandaid for poorly tuned carbs. And unfortunately because of misunderstandings from people that thought it was a magical cure-all, there's been a lot of unfounded criticism of it.
It does however have the tools needed to make it much, MUCH easier to tune it, since it has a vacuum gauge, AFR gauge, RPM gauge and data logger all rolled into one. You tune your carb really well with those to get 90% of the way there, then the auto-tune function does the final 10% that is the constantly changing atmospheric conditions in daily driving; there's a video where he shows that even just cruising down a flat stretch of highway, the AFRs are bouncing all over the place. You can set the target AFRs during cruise, WOT, idle etc. A data logger alone can cost at least twice as much as what this is priced at so it's already worth it for that by itself.
The ideal way to use CC is to set a base tune that's great for the conditions you expect it to see, then save that setting somewhere, scribe it on the screws or whatever. Then you slightly enrich the mixture and let the auto-tune meter incoming air so it can set the best AFRs as you're driving. Then if the CC computer fails for whatever reason, just fall back to your base tune.
 
I tried a Holley EFI once then took it off 2 months later. Grizzled, grumpy and old fashioned I am!

All my old car friends and really good mechanics tried one or two of these systems and all the guys eventually took them off. A fresh engine build is recommended they said. A tired engine isnt a good candidate for EFI.
The one guy that kept EFI had an aerospace engineer friend build him an expensive custom ECU. Then it worked! But he keeps a dedicated laptop in the car.

If you enjoy endless laptop tuning then it might be for you, especially if you build engines yourself and are very good at it.
According to my mechanic friends–––– all these kits dont have enough sensors (or a really good ECU) to be truly 100% reliable. Youll need sensors that are not part of the kit.

(!) GM, Ford and Chrysler spent untold hundreds of trillions getting their various EFI and other FI systems reliable over many decades. What can the consumer expect for two grand and a lot of of work?

Lots of marketing hype and buzz sells "New & improved" affordable aftermarket products. Be so advised. That said I like Eddy products. But Ill stick to their simple, reliable carbs.

Compared to building an EFI engine with special heads, intake and all the EFI stuff, you will be way over the cost of using a crate 6.4 Hemi.
But to each his/her own. Have fun!
 
Last edited:
I do know for a fact that all these kits dont have enough sensors to be truly 100% reliable. Youll need sensors that are not part of the kit. Ex: exhaust temp.
Do you though? General consensus is that EFI in the 90s was when the OEMs really had everything down pat before emissions regs kept becoming increasingly restrictive with increasing frequency and the demands became unreasonable. As such those systems tended to be very stout. Why I mention this is because in your case, the EGT sensor was only a fairly recent addition. Looking at the FSM for my 89 toyota cressida, the EFI system was pretty simple, at least compared to today's port injection systems. It read intake air volume and temp, coolant temp, engine rpm, acceleration or deceleration via the throttle position sensor, the exhaust o2 sensor, controlled idle speed via the IACV and that was pretty much it if you weren't in california.
 
Personally, I never did see the existence of EGT sensors on GASOLINE OEM EFI systems. Diesels, yes, they had them and warning systems in place should the EGT get too high.

USA OEMs usually went with TBI EFIs as they were simple, lower cost, easy to repair, VERY reliable and all it took to use them was a new carb mounting pad on an existing intake manifold. Add some sensors (MAF, IAT, O2, engine temp) and things worked well. In general, the vast majority of the aftermarket systems which followed followed those basic systems. Self-learning is a recent innovation. As is ignition control (which required detonation limiters, too). From those systems, sequential port injection (rather than "batch fire") is danged accurate as to fuel dispensing activities. Key thing on the PFI EFI systems is getting the injectors aimed correctly!

As I mentioned previously, direct injection (at the OEM level) has caused some failure issues of pistons in some of the smaller turbo 4cyls. Enough so that motor oil additive packages were re-formulated to counter-act the situation. Which got us to the API SP designation of motor oil! From the images of piston/ring failure I have seen in GM TSBs of the results of "low speed pre-ignition", the ring lands were twisted vertically and other pieces broken in the process. LOTS of bad stuff! Not even considering the need to remove intake manifolds and cyl heads to clean them after the accumulation of crankcase fumes' deposits therein. In many respects, normal port injection can be the best way to do things and the most "easy to deal with", seems to me. Yes, DI can be more precise, but by how much difference? Just my thoughts on that subject. No more, no less.

There have been SEVERAL versions of "Sniper EFI". The later versions tended to work better than the earlier ones. It would be best to note which version was used and then removed, of got flaky results. Stock engines or modified? Many variables and expectations. Not to mention that "calibration" is the key to the best performance and mpg.

Y'all have fun!
CBODY67
 
Do you though? General consensus is that EFI in the 90s was when the OEMs really had everything down pat before emissions regs kept becoming increasingly restrictive with increasing frequency and the demands became unreasonable. As such those systems tended to be very stout. Why I mention this is because in your case, the EGT sensor was only a fairly recent addition. Looking at the FSM for my 89 toyota cressida, the EFI system was pretty simple, at least compared to today's port injection systems. It read intake air volume and temp, coolant temp, engine rpm, acceleration or deceleration via the throttle position sensor, the exhaust o2 sensor, controlled idle speed via the IACV and that was pretty much it if you weren't in california.
Thats what my mechanic friends said. Im only a shade tree one so I take their sage advice.
 
That's great to hear, and I'm not being sarcastic either. At this point in time though, if you want to stay with a carb the CC is pretty damn great. Even if you don't want the auto-tune function, they sell a lite version that's just the data logger and gauges. For 340 bucks it's extremely cheap.
 
I admit this looks like a well-engineered system. Edelbrock makes good stuff. Always have.

Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 8.28.18 AM.png
 
Back
Top