Nice find!! You could have easily turned around and sold that block for a small fortune. An aluminum sbc will be a nice motor, lots of power with no weight gain.

quote Originally posted by MstangsBware: I just gotta ask what trans do you plan on running that is going to support the HP your going to get from that motor? Better be something built or thats going to be a waste of alot of HP and alot of money in trannies.

Going with the stock 5 speed manual.

I know it's a tranny killer, but driven properly it should be fine. Clutch-dumping smoky-burnout launches are what kill trannies. Rolling-start properly-shifted launches will get some miles out of it. Tranny was rebuilt 20k miles ago as well, so it should be pretty tight. I'm going to look in to beefing it up by whatever method may be available when it's all out of the car too.

DLD

quote Originally posted by crzyone: Nice find!! You could have easily turned around and sold that block for a small fortune. An aluminum sbc will be a nice motor, lots of power with no weight gain.

Yah .. but what's the fun in that ?

I have wanted a fiero for a long time, and I actually *need* a car right now that's faster than my buddy next door's 2005 STi.

Hopefully this will take care of the issue..

DLD

STi is 300hp at the crank, maybe 260 at the wheels. I don't think you will have any problem.

quote Originally posted by RacerX10: Yah .. but what's the fun in that ? I have wanted a fiero for a long time, and I actually *need* a car right now that's faster than my buddy next door's 2005 STi. Hopefully this will take care of the issue.. DLD

Shouldn't be any problems doing that. I built a 3800SC for a customer a year ago last spring. His requirements were that it outperformed his 2004 STi on the street.

After Dynoing the Fiero, running them both down the track, and a summer of having both cars, he traded in the STi.

That Sti was a fun as heck car, but to me it didn't deliver that smile on your face like a 270hp / 305tq wheel power Fiero does. Maybe he thought the same.

quote Originally posted by RacerX10: I'm very fortunate to have a fully equipped race shop at my disposal, and enough blowup leftovers to put this thing together for next to nothing. I expect I'll have under $2,500.00 in the whole project when all the swapping is done, and that includes buying the car to start with ! DLD

I hate you.

j/k

------------------
Huh?

quote Originally posted by crzyone: Displacement does not mean power. Displacement with VE (volumetric efficiency) equals power. VE is more easily atained with a dohc design. I believe that is what JohnnyK was getting at. An engine with a high VE and forced induction IS a replacement for displacement.

....but, but if you increase the displacement of this same engine, you also increase power - so the argument is moot.

BTW Levi, about your comment about the Corvette beating a 4.9 before it's out of first, not likely. My 4.9 launches just as hard as Troys 383 in first gear - I just run out of first really fast (5000 rpms come up really fast) Once you actually finish your car, you will see just how 1st gear is, or stop by for a ride.

Check the race track, I have yet too see a dohc engine running with the big boys (ie: top fuel) - not saying it can't be done, just haven't seen it. But on the other side of the coin, I will bet most Formula one cars are running some sort of an overhead cam. POINT being, there are probably good reasons why one motor is better suited than another in an application.

Build the car for what you want, those of you that disagree, screw off (not your money) and build your own the way you like and think it should be. There are good points to every motor. Put your money where your mouth is...

The 3800 s/c is a nice engine and does not take up as much room as a V8 or any dohc motor, all a matter of how you want your engine bay to look...

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-13-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cadero2dmax: I really don't understand why the 4.9 can't install different pulleys, rockers, TB, injectors, and exhaust without being MAJOR mods (emphasis is his, not mine) but the same are just minor mods on the 3.8 motors??

I imagine they would be just as simple to do on a 4.9 as a 3800SC. What size super charger pully are you running on your 4.9? Where do you get high ratio rocker arms, larger throttle bodies and injectors for a 4.9? I guess the injectors (assuming a PFI 4.9) would be easiest, but the rest, AFAIK, would have to be custom made. That makes it a bit more difficult. Maybe no harder to install, but definitely harder to source.

I still want to know where you're getting your 4.9 supercharger pullies, though.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Only if the VE stays the same when you increase the displacement does the argument become moot.

exactly - if you take the VE of the 3.4dohc engine and gave it the virtual displacement of a 4.9 it'd produce over 300 hp

but if you take the VE of the 4.9 and reduce its displacement to 3.4 it'd only be making 140hp -
even the stock 2.8 has better VE than the 4.9
if you take the VE of the stock 2.8 and gave it 4.9 liters it'd produce almost 250hp

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 07-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Only if the VE stays the same when you increase the displacement does the argument become moot.

Why wouldn't the VE stay the same? If you changed the bore and stroke while keeping the same intake and exhaust systems, the only thing changed is the hole to be filled.

quote Originally posted by John Boelte: Why wouldn't the VE stay the same? If you changed the bore and stroke while keeping the same intake and exhaust systems, the only thing changed is the hole to be filled.

this is what forced induction does - virtual increase in displacement

so the better the starting point the better the results

however VE has to do with how well that engine flows - if you increase displacement without increasing intake and exhaust it starts to become restrictive and less efficient

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 07-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: however VE has to do with how well that engine flows - if you increase displacement without increasing intake and exhaust it starts to become restrictive and less efficient

Exactly, This is why using a 3.4L block with the Fiero intake falls off at the upper RPM range. The intake becomes restrictive. With the increased displacement you do increase power, But because of the intake restriction you lose power. Forced induction can "mask" the restriction but a restriction is still a restriction. Example a 3.4L with a Fiero intake and a turbo with 7psi will not make as much power as a 3.4L with a properly sized intake and 7psi of boost. With a restrictive intake you need more boost to attain the same power as a npn-restrictive intake.

Pardon me for going off-topic for a second...but what's the reason that a stock pushrod 3.4 intake, say out of a Camaro or Lumina isn't/cant be used in a Fiero?

quote Originally posted by John Boelte: Why wouldn't the VE stay the same? If you changed the bore and stroke while keeping the same intake and exhaust systems, the only thing changed is the hole to be filled.

Because an engine is a complicated machine that is a balance of many different components. Just making it larger and not changing anything else will likely not keep the same VE.

One perfect example of this is camshaft selection. A camshaft that is fairly radical in a small engine will run like a much milder cam in a big block. Why? Becasue the larger engine NEEDS the extra air and it requires more lift and duration to maintain the same VE as the smaller engine.

That is just one aspect. VE depends on the entire engine's design, down to the compression ratio, intake and exhaust sizing, flow velocities, etc. A supercharger can get an engine over 100% VE, which is virtually (but not totally) impossible on a normally aspirated engine. That's why forced induction is the great equalizer for smaller engines.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: BTW Levi, about your comment about the Corvette beating a 4.9 before it's out of first, not likely. My 4.9 launches just as hard as Troys 383 in first gear - I just run out of first really fast (5000 rpms come up really fast) Once you actually finish your car, you will see just how 1st gear is, or stop by for a ride.

I really need to make it into Edmonton one of these days. I do want a ride. I only said that about the corvette because stock its a 4.5 0-60 and does mid 120mph in the 1/4 mile, its a quick car. I'm impressed if you can launch as hard as Troy, his car hooks up well.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Exactly, This is why using a 3.4L block with the Fiero intake falls off at the upper RPM range. The intake becomes restrictive. With the increased displacement you do increase power, But because of the intake restriction you lose power. Forced induction can "mask" the restriction but a restriction is still a restriction. Example a 3.4L with a Fiero intake and a turbo with 7psi will not make as much power as a 3.4L with a properly sized intake and 7psi of boost. With a restrictive intake you need more boost to attain the same power as a npn-restrictive intake.

This is why I'm also amused at ricer theory. So many people automatically think that "The more boost the better" and that two of the same displacement motors, running different amounts of boost, that the one running higher boost will win. Its all about VE. Think about blowing as hard as you can through a straw. You're going to have to push real hard and in doing so are going to be creating a lot of pressure in to force the air through. Now think about blowing as hard as you can through a paper towel roll. You didn't make as much pressure but were able to get the air through a lot quicker. Same concept applies when running boost. Go to FieroX's website and read the research he did on boost on the 3.8, quite in interesting read.

As far as a stock 2.8 being in the 14's?
Stock Fiero Quarter mile times:
(0-60) (1/4 Time)

1984 Pontiac Fiero S/E 10.9 17.8
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT 8.0 16.2
1988 Pontiac Fiero Formula 8.0 16.0
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT 8.7 16.4

For the complete list click HERE.

quote Originally posted by Vonov: Pardon me for going off-topic for a second...but what's the reason that a stock pushrod 3.4 intake, say out of a Camaro or Lumina isn't/cant be used in a Fiero?

The Camaro intake will interfere with the distributor. It needs to be modified to work. I think Cooter lengthened the intake to fit around the distributor. The Camaro is DIS ignition so there is no distributor to get in the way.
The Lumina's used Aluminum heads. You cannot use an intake off of an iron headed engine onto an aluminum headed engine as they will not bolt up.
You can swap over the correct ECM for the Camaro 3.4L or the 3400 in the lumina's. This makes the install slighty more involved with the wiring, But mods/gains are easier to do and adjust for with the newer ECM's.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Because an engine is a complicated machine that is a balance of many different components.

Exactly.. This is why you should dyno, and never assume "I got 15 for my air filter" "20 from my cam" "15 from my intake"..

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: Now lets get CRAZY, and BOOST an engine that has more displacement (read that as more cylinders ie 8) I don't know why people think that turbo's , superchargers and dare i say it NAWWWZZZZZ are only applicable to small displacement ( read as less than 8 cylinders ) . Do you realize that you can boost a V-8 ?

The problem is you can't just throw boost (or N20) on any engine and expect it to live. The SBC V8 block in stock form is actually quite weak and would not hold up to much boost or juice for very long. Engines like the 3800SC came from the factory designed for boost. The 3800 has cross-bolted main bearing caps and a deep skirted block. The cylinder walls are thicker as well. Your run of the mill SBC won't hold up to even half the boost a 3800 Series 2 will. If you want to run serious boost on a SBC you will need to order up a bowtie block or equiv with splayed 4-bolt mains. Sorry, stock straight 4-bolt main blocks need not apply. In fact, I bet most of the people here didn't know the stock SBC V8 4-bolt main blocks are actually WEAKER than the 2-bolt blocks. The reason why is because the outer main bearing cap bolt holes are drilled right into the main webbing area which is already pretty thin on these blocks. Aftermarket blocks are cast thicker in these areas to reduce stress and use splayed main caps which stretches/preloads the bearing caps when they are bolted in place. Still not as good a cross-bolting, but better than standard 4-bolt or 2-bolt main blocks.

Now the LS1 engines have cross-bolted main caps and deep skirts just like the 3800. The LS1 blocks are actually quite strong but the stock pistons are very weak and the rods are not that great either. In other words, if the engine didn't come from the factory with a SC or turbo, you are going to have to spend a LOT of money upgrading internals just to be able to handle boost or N20. The same goes for the 4.9, 2.8, 2.5, etc etc.

quote Originally posted by RacerX10: I don't want all the hassle of going with FI (computers,wires, etc) I've seen the dyno results, and it's always under 10 HP differance all else being the same. DLD

Every time the carbs vs efi debate comes up I keep hearing the carb guys come up with this example. The trouble is this example is over 20 years old now. This statement might have been true back in 1985 when EFI was in its infantcy. Today, everything from Top Fuel dragsters to Indy cars are running fuel injection. I will give you a hint: they are not doing it for fuel economy. Furthermore, for a long time the carb guys liked to use the example that the reason why carbs produced more power was because of the wet-flow-manifold theory. This theory basically stated that the reason why people "thought" carbs produced more power than Port Fuel Injection was because carburated intakes got a cooling effect from the fuel traveling along with the air in the intake. Well if this where true, why wouldn't Throttle Body Injection be just as good as a carb, if not better? I mean after all with any kind of injection the fuel is atomized better and more percisely metered. The truth is the reason why CARBS and TBI are NOT as good as PFI is because they have a fuel distribution problem. There is NO WAY you can get precise and equal fuel distribution to every cylinder using single or even dual carbs / TBI's. Multiple carbs further complicate matters in that they are exteremly difficult to get both/all tuned exactly the same as each other. In short, I really wish people would stop saying carbs produce more power than fuel injection because it simply is not true. Next thing you know we will have people telling us that points and vacuum/mech advance is better than computer controlled ignition including DIS and coil-over-plug!

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 07-13-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Every time the carbs vs efi debate comes up I keep hearing the carb guys come up with this example. The trouble is this example is over 20 years old now. This statement might have been true back in 1985 when EFI was in its infantcy. Today, everything from Top Fuel dragsters to Indy cars are running fuel injection. I will give you a hint: they are not doing it for fuel economy. Furthermore, for a long time the carb guys liked to use the example that the reason why carbs produced more power was because of the wet-flow-manifold theory. This theory basically stated that the reason why people "thought" carbs produced more power than Port Fuel Injection was because carburated intakes got a cooling effect from the fuel traveling along with the air in the intake. Well if this where true, why wouldn't Throttle Body Injection be just as good as a carb, if not better? I mean after all with any kind of injection the fuel is atomized better and more percisely metered. The truth is the reason why CARBS and TBI are NOT as good as PFI is because they have a fuel distribution problem. There is NO WAY you can get precise and equal fuel distribution to every cylinder using single or even dual carbs / TBI's. Multiple carbs further complicate matters in that they are exteremly difficult to get both/all tuned exactly the same as each other. In short, I really wish people would stop saying carbs produce more power than fuel injection because it simply is not true. Next thing you know we will have people telling us that points and vacuum/mech advance is better than computer controlled ignition including DIS and coil-over-plug!

Actually what RacerX10 states is still true today. If an engine is built correctly for the specific fuel delivery system used, the power will be about the same. He didn't say carb's made "more" power, He said that the difference in power between the two fuel delivery systems was less than a 10hp difference. Your example of a Top Fuel Dragster is mis-leading. The reason they use F/I isn't because it creates more power, It is because the alchohol vs. methane fuel mix is easier to control and meter. Once they get the optimum mixture, It is programmed in so the engine runs at max power and is consistant. Drag racing isn't only about going the fastest it is also being consistant. If a top fuel dragster pulls a record breaking run, He has to make a second run very close to the record run to make it official. If the mix is off in the alchohol to methane mix, They could end up with less power or blow an engine.
Back when they ran carbs the fuel was mixed by hand in a measuring tube. Not very accurate.
Many of the professional dragracers using gasoline still use carb's. Go to an NHRA meet and look for yourself. They don't use carb's for "more power" it is just less expensive to maintain (less things to go wrong in between runs) and easier to adjust/install. Especially since they tear the engines down between heats.

Indy cars and and such use F/I because while running 500 miles on a track, They can adjust the fuel and ignition adjustments constantly from a laptop in the pits. This mean that they can adjust the engine to maintain peak performance as air temp/humidity/air pressure change. All normal street cars that are PFI or carb'd are generally tuned so they run good as an average. Hence the ability to adjust either set-up for peak performance from their stock settings.

With respect to everyday production cars today, the only reason they are F/I is because they are programmed for emissions and gas mileage. Emission output has a higher priority than power output.

I built a 3.4L with a carb because there were no good flowing intakes available at the time. I know of at least 2 other 3.4L engines that were built using the same intake and Holley's aftermarket TBI system and they had about the same power (they were about 2hp difference when compared on an engine dyno.) I am still waiting for someone to use the Trueleo intake with the engine mods that are close to what I built to see how much power they get. I am willing to bet power will be +/- 5hp from what I had.

Bottom line is with the proper adjustments, different fuel delivery systems will produce about the same power.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 07-13-2005).]

quote Originally posted by crzyone: I really need to make it into Edmonton one of these days. I do want a ride. I only said that about the corvette because stock its a 4.5 0-60 and does mid 120mph in the 1/4 mile, its a quick car. I'm impressed if you can launch as hard as Troy, his car hooks up well.

I can launch just as hard, it's just that I run out of 1st 1/2 ways across the intersection, and it doesn't hit 60 by then, however in the same distance it would take the Vette (done it) - but that is for only about 20 feet (hence my clutch problem)

Starting in second, is better but not as hard of a launch. Have to remember that the Isuzu is geared to take advantage of the 4 cyl's torque as it's gearing is not really suited for any other motor (actually, probably only the 4 speed would be better, however it has a lower final ratio - so you can't win). You will find this once you have your car together as the Getrag 1st is not much better than the Isuzu's

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Bottom line is with the proper adjustments, different fuel delivery systems will produce about the same power.

Great Post Oreif. Couldn't have said it better myself.

My opinion is that in this particular application, there's simply no advantage to the complication of FI. I want a nice clean engine compartment. I can tune a carb. I don't care about fuel mileage. The power differance is negligable. All this leads to a NA, carburated setup.

DLD

[This message has been edited by RacerX10 (edited 07-13-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Oreif: With respect to everyday production cars today, the only reason they are F/I is because they are programmed for emissions and gas mileage. Emission output has a higher priority than power output.

only... hardly
its 1 reason

the primary reason is reliability and consistency.. now yes i know the more complicated it is the mroe potential things can go wrong - however the point of all those sensors is for the engine to be able to automaticly adjust to the environment its in for best running conditions and not require constant tuning

carbs are much mroe sensative to weather and seasons and require atleast seasonal tuning - very very few consumers these days want to go under the hood of their cars let alone have half a clue what to do if they did.

people have mentioned old tests showing a minimal power difference (at peak numbers)
but with FI the computer can tune the engine to run optimally at ALL rpm - how many jets are on your carbs? they are tuned to run best at that many points along the rpm range - most of the codes in FI code have MANY MANY more points along the range to maximize output as well as fuel economy

and that is just stock tuning - aftermarket can also tune FI for maximum power without regard to fuel economy - its just better at doing it

IMO the only reason to go carb is simplicity

quote "Indy cars and and such use F/I because while running 500 miles on a track, They can adjust the fuel and ignition adjustments constantly from a laptop in the pits."

False, they have until 10 minutes prior to the race to do any adjustments. They can monitor the car and make necessary changes during pitstops, but they are not allowed to wirelessly adjust settings. If yours were the case, there would be a lot more passing involved. I've worked with both F/I and Carbed... a F/I system can more accurately tune a motor. Period. I can take your arguement that perhaps you get close power. But the amount of time you are going to spend tuning that carb and rebuilding it after so much use is almost worthless. Drag racers have to change their carb jets for every 5 degrees of temperature. So say you're right at HP numbers with an FI system at 60 degrees, next day its 85 and theres no way you're going to be making the same power as the FI setup.

For my FSAE team we ran the exact same motor on both carbs and FI. ON THE DYNO ON A MOTOR THAT PUTS OUT STOCK 103 HP We achieved 89 HP from a carb setup (that underwent HOURS of tuning) and 105 HP out of a FI setup.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 07-13-2005).]

Hey Darth you are absolutly correct, but you don't need to run alot of boost in a SBC to make alot of power .
As for stock internals STOCK SUCKS !

I'm pretty confident on these parts abilities to handle some boost

------------------
HARDCORE SBC FAN AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: As for stock internals STOCK SUCKS !

I think its been said the best

THAT STOCK SH1T STANK

A good friend of mine is running a dodge 360 bored/stroked to a 408. Running 18 lbs of boost. now, but he dynod it at 8 lbs and was making 590 ft/lbs of torque and about 480 hp. Heres the link of him doing a quick run (with the smaller pulley) against his brothers modifed LS1 WS6 Firebird. http://members.cox.net/coolva/coolva-99ramair.wmv He has some dyno runs somewhere, lemme find em...

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 07-13-2005).]

I do always get a kick when someone says a "stock SBC" is this or that. There were so many different versions of SBCs that it really depends on the application you're talking about. But it's true the garden variety station wagon motor with a 2 bolt block, cast crank, rods, and pistons isn't a sturdy engine. It's plenty strong for it's stock output level and will be quite reliable, but once you start modding, you need more.

Now, take a 70 LT1 and it's a much stouter piece from the factory, and would be much more suited to boost. In this case your main concern would be compression. You would have to lower compression to run more than a token amount of boost.

Just remember, there is no one thing that refers to a "stock SBC." They've made the Gen I since 1955 in sizes from 265(?) to 400 cubes, with less than 150 HP to close to 400 HP (depending on rating sytems). Some had cast internals, some forged. There were way too many variants to make any blanket statements on what "stock" is without some reference to what you're refering to. Stock for an '83 Camaro, or stock for a fuelie 327 Corvette?

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: False, they have until 10 minutes prior to the race to do any adjustments. They can monitor the car and make necessary changes during pitstops, but they are not allowed to wirelessly adjust settings. Drag racers have to change their carb jets for every 5 degrees of temperature. So say you're right at HP numbers with an FI system at 60 degrees, next day its 85 and theres no way you're going to be making the same power as the FI setup

False?? You just said the same thing I did. That they can make adjustments from a laptop in the pits. I never said they could make adjustments wirelessly while the car is on the track.

The next day they change the jets (as you said) and they are still at the same power as the F/I system.
Point is if the fuel delivery is adjusted correctly the engine will make the same power.

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: only... hardly its 1 reason the primary reason is reliability and consistency.. now yes i know the more complicated it is the mroe potential things can go wrong - however the point of all those sensors is for the engine to be able to automaticly adjust to the environment its in for best running conditions and not require constant tuning

Not "hardly" it is the main reason. Look at any of the programmed parameters for a production cars ECM. They are set up to provide emission control and gas mileage as a priority. They adjust themselves for the best running condition that provides the lowest emissions not peak power. The ECM will sacrafice power for emission control.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 07-13-2005).]

Sorry, I mis read your post, I though you were suggesting they would make changes real time.

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/849/ <--- Good read guys...

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Not "hardly" it is the main reason. Look at any of the programmed parameters for a production cars ECM. They are set up to provide emission control and gas mileage as a priority. They adjust themselves for the best running condition that provides the lowest emissions not peak power. The ECM will sacrafice power for emission control.

and if they were running carbs the carbs would be tuned for emissions also - that doesn't mean anything - its a non-argument in the debate between carb and fuel injection because for production purposes they would all be tuned for emissions stock - but the carbs would only run properly at conditions they were tuned to but the FI will adjust automaticly to run the same in all conditions and not require any attention from the consumer -- and the consumer has the option of tuning the ECM for power and not emissions then it will automaticly adjust to have maximum power under all conditions

[This message has been edited by Kohburn (edited 07-13-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: and if they were running carbs the carbs would be tuned for emissions also - that doesn't mean anything - its a non-argument in the debate between carb and fuel injection because for production purposes they would all be tuned for emissions stock - but the carbs would only run properly at conditions they were tuned to but the FI will adjust automaticly to run the same in all conditions and not require any attention from the consumer

True, But my original post was just stating that on a properly tuned and built engine, Which fuel delivery you use will not affect the power output by anything significant. Many car magazines have done this comparison numerous times and the differences in power were less than 10hp difference. Popular Hot Rodding did it with a newer Camaro. (around Aug-Sept of 2004.) Stock they read like 300hp, with a carb they got 328hp, with tuning on the stock engine and changing the throttle body to a performance version they got 330hp. Same car same engine only changing or modifying the fuel delivery. IIRC they 1/4 mile times varied by less than .2 seconds between both modded set-ups and about .5 seconds faster than stock.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: True, But my original post was just stating that on a properly tuned and built engine, Which fuel delivery you use will not affect the power output by anything significant. Many car magazines have done this comparison numerous times and the differences in power were less than 10hp difference. Popular Hot Rodding did it with a newer Camaro. (around Aug-Sept of 2004.) Stock they read like 300hp, with a carb they got 328hp, with tuning on the stock engine and changing the throttle body to a performance version they got 330hp. Same car same engine only changing or modifying the fuel delivery. IIRC they 1/4 mile times varied by less than .2 seconds between both modded set-ups and about .5 seconds faster than stock.

yes but i guarantee that as soon as the temp or humidity changed the carb wouldn't be tuned right and the EFI would adjust

This thread reminds me of

Less filling....tastes Great

or

Mayonaise vs Miracle whip

or

Apples and oranges.

There are no right and wrong answers when it comes to opinions.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: This thread reminds me of Less filling....tastes Great or Mayonaise vs Miracle whip or Apples and oranges. There are no right and wrong answers when it comes to opinions.

its a matter if "which is better" to "which would you rather have"

people can drive and be happy with anything - but they aren't that happy with it if they can't admit that something else is better - just not better for them.

I don't know where some of you are coming up with this need for tuning stuff. It's a one-time process for any street driven car, unless you are driving from Frisco, CO to Baton Rouge, LA.

I race every weekend in temps that range from 50 degrees up to 95. Wild variations in humidity. Granted it's circle track racing, and it's a 25 grand engine (dyno'd 770 hp) and I don't see a noticable differance in power in that range of conditions with the same set of jets in it.

If you are like the previous poster and are piddling around with 80 or 100 HP, sure, that makes a differance. When are are talking about 500 or 520, who cares ?@#$? (on the street)

In my view there is no compelling reason to go with FI unless you are trying to make emissions, or are *really* concerned about a couple MPG. The simplicity of a carb'd setup trumps by far anything you might gain from FI's complexity.

This all applies only to my particular application. Street driven, no serious racing, and hand built. Any other environments I reserve the right to change my mind.

DLD

quote Originally posted by RacerX10: II race every weekend in temps that range from 50 degrees up to 95. Wild variations in humidity. Granted it's circle track racing, and it's a 25 grand engine (dyno'd 770 hp) and I don't see a noticable differance in power in that range of conditions with the same set of jets in it. DLD

So, you're saying you have a little experience with real horsepower? And real experience with this topic, not just going by what you "know"?

Cool!