boeing747arowair

AMEN to that!!!!!!!!!! carbed in a classic is nice. both setups have headaches but carb is simpler just have to perfect ur tuning skills!

JMD

Yea, but I can fix any carb problem in short order without help, a code scanner, and without special tools.

The carb wont diagnose itself I guess, but FI setups don't always do a very good job at doing so either.

I guess when you see me post you have to disagree with me even if it means changing your position? Interesting.[8D]

KBunny

Well what about a Human tuning the computer? couldn't we somehow combine the two because who programs the computers? we do.
Couldn't we some how program the computer to make the engine produce as much power as possible and not worry about the fuel economy and emissions? or would that take a redesigning of the whole system/engine its self?

JamesW

Check out my website below on what all it takes to install a Fox 5.0 in an early model. I would put in on an overall par with rebuilding a long block. While not difficult, it is extensive. Fuel system, cooling system, and electrical system are all changed significantly.

Regarding the argument that carb'd cars are better than efi... well, it ends up being a matter of personal perference, as both can be built to have incredible power, and both can be very reliable once set up.

It really boils down to how much effort you want to put out.

http://www.midnightdsigns.com/Mustang/Engine.htm

mustanglover66

It is availablr check this system out.http://www.mass-floefi.com/mass-flo.html

ih8chevy

the reason is that we as humans developed the computer, the computer itself can never ever be smarter than the person creating it. it may work more efficiently but as far as knowledge the comp cannot be smarter than the person developing it.

gothand

Smarter, dumber, thinking and non-thinking are all smokescreens to the true difference. While both can be tuned to operate efficiently, only the EFI can and doesconstantly monitor the entire system and adjusts on the fly to maintain peak performance in accordance with its program. There are chips to change the program if that is your thing.

In my job, I use a computer to design and produce all my designs and plans. Some old timers can do some of these things on a napkin, utilizing empirical formulas, memorizing constants and factors, etc. While some may consider that ability to be smarter, I see it as working harder ... and slower.

JamesW

If carbs were easier to tune, ran better, were more reliable, were more efficient...etc..etc...

they'd still be used on modern cars. Truth is, the carburator sits on the shelf of technological evolution right next to the Princess telephone.....

Norm Peterson

A computer is far better at making rapid adjustments, and tuning the maps for part throttle behavior is far easier than going deep into a carb to accomplish the same thing mechanically. If you know which direction in which to tune at some given combination of RPM and manifold vacuum, it's much easier to change a few cells on a fuel map then change out or modify air correction jets. Never mind if it takes more than one shot at it. Want to change your advance curve? No need to hunt down custom springs and weights. Just change the map.

One of my cars has a retrofitted port fuel injection system (speed-density), and yes, there are a few things that have no counterpart in the carbureted world. Ensuring that the fuel pickup is always covered is one,as EFI can't stand momentary disruptions in the fuel delivery like a carb (with its float bowls) can. There are a couple ofsimple fixes for this, but it is another thing to do.

Truth be told, computer use for things automotive still represents a fairly small portion of my life. But I'll take it over screwdrivers, small wrenches, pin vises, tiny drill bits, and fuel spills all over theplace any day.

I'm a little behind on my reading, so I happen to have the August 2006 issue of Hot Rod Magazine open. There's a "carb vs EFI" article in it, and on the same engines, EFI made slightly more HP in comparisons involving two different manifolds. That's peak power, in addition to midrange torque. True, there was room for carb improvement, but the article does throw a cloud over the "carb always make more peak HP" statement.

It also mentions briefly some F1 technology - that of placing the injectors further up the runners instead of almost into the heads. Apparently a greater distance of wet flow really isn't a completely bad idea, as long as you can keep separation from being a problem. Does anybody else see the possibility of a tunnel ram manifold with the injector bungs up just under the plenum and a throttle body or two sitting on top?

JMD - not to be taken as flame, but diagnosing and fixing a carb problem does differ from tuning it to optimizeperformance. On the EFI side of things, assuming that it's a problem with the maps rather than something like a bad sensor, fixing a problem and optimizing the tuning are essentially identical procedures.

And, on edit, I guess it firmly puts me in the "new-school build-up" camp as opposed to being a "restoration guy" that I would install EFI on a classic Mustang. For show, I'd probably have to keep the carb, although some of the throttle bodies designed for carb manifolds are starting to look fairly close. But for all-around daily-driven performance and competition where part throttle tuning is important it's an EFI game now.


Norm

jbrittell

wow guys, thanks for all the input! The engine does have a mass air flow on it. I guess you can say I am still torn between the two. I could sell all the EFI parts to buy a mean intake and carb, or I could just install it all into my mustang. If I was to strip the engine and use it as carburated, is there any red flags I should know about? I have a T5 transmission to go with it, will this affect it at all in terms of wiring?

Thanks again for all the input!

Justin