No, a carb and EFI will not make the same amount of power if both are properly tuned. EFI is like having a carb that is being perfectly tuned CONSTANTLY.. A carb is mechanical, fuel injection is electronic, making up for the mechanical downfalls. There is no advantage to carbs at all, except perhaps familiarity.
IP: Logged
06:18 PM
RandomTask Member
Posts: 4547 From: Alexandria, VA Registered: Apr 2005
AND THAT is exactly why Racerx10 is going carbed. Carb or FI, it's gonna be one killer ride!!
"To each his own"
Well thats fine, had he said that in the first place, but don't start making up facts to back up your own personal preference saying there are advantages..
IP: Logged
08:30 PM
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
The issue definitely boils down to personal preference. Unless you have driven/owned both types of cars, how can anyone honestly say one's better than the other as a replacement engine for the Fiero? They both are very good engines in their own right and a hell of a lot better than a stock one.
The cool thing is just when you think you've seen everything out there, someone comes along and ups the ante (not me, I'm just showing the pics.) . As they say: Power = money. How fast can your wallet go? Me? See sig...
The issue definitely boils down to personal preference. Unless you have driven/owned both types of cars, how can anyone honestly say one's better than the other as a replacement engine for the Fiero? They both are very good engines in their own right and a hell of a lot better than a stock one.
Keep up man, now were talking about EFI vs. carb.. Sheesh..
IP: Logged
08:54 PM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
No, a carb and EFI will not make the same amount of power if both are properly tuned.
HMM.... Butch Bass at Holley states: "A properly sized manifold and carb can make as much absolute power as EFI. Ultimate horsepower is simply a case of flow and distribution."
Warren Johnson Pro-Stock NHRA champ says: "Properly tuned, carburetors make more peak power than EFI in a Pro Stock engine. A carb’s pressure differential atomizes the gas a lot better than spraying fuel through an orifice. But EFI has a broader powerband and superior cylinder-to-cylinder fuel distribution. On average, if optimized, both systems perform about the same as far as how fast you get down the track."
Steve Johnson, BG Products: "EFI makes more power on a street machine, but you only gain about 10 hp at the peak, so for a lot of guys it isn’t worth the money. Our EFI system costs $2,400, compared to $400-450 for our Speed Demon carburetor. Off-roaders will probably go to EFI before street machiners because it helps them overcome steep grades and vibrations that cause trouble with carbs."
Seems those with experience in both disagree with you.
Note: The above quotes are taken from Carcrafts article: "Are Carburator's Dead?"
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 07-13-2005).]
IP: Logged
08:54 PM
RacerX10 Member
Posts: 235 From: Russellville, AR Registered: May 2005
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.
Kohburn,
Do you really mean this statement in quotes? If you do it suggest that there is a best engine swap period. So which is it? 3.4 dohc, 3.5 S*,3800SC, N*, 4.9 or SBC? Also if it is one of these that would mean everybody with a different swap cannot truly enjoy it until they admit that your choice is the best.
IP: Logged
02:45 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
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
If the compression ratio is correct for the fuel you are running, I am sure those parts would hold up fine to boost. However, as with all things; that is only half the story. How much money is sitting there in the pic you posted? Remember, multiply that by 8. But hey, there is nothing wrong with a properly built SBC and yes they can be built to run very well and even handle boost -- if the right parts are used.
And just to be clear on another point about production GM engines, even the ones from the 60's and 70's with forged internals. They still weren't that great. If memory serves, the only material GM used for their forged cranks was 1053, which isn't that much better than cast and was prone to cracking...as I learned in college. Furthermore, the strongest STOCK RODS GM ever put in a production SBC engine was the powdered metal rods that were used in late model LT1 and some Vortec truck engines. Still, they are only rated for a maximum of 450hp. As for the blocks, I don't care when it was built, they are still all fairly weak castings -- weak in the areas of cylinder wall thickness and main web areas...PERIOD. Again, if you want to build a SBC that can handle boost AND be reliable, you are going to have to start with an AFTERMARKET BLOCK. This isn't my opinion, these are facts. Again, I am not saying a SBC cannot be built to produce some brutal HP, WHAT I AM SAYING is you are not going to do it with production parts.
Now, concerning the 3800SC, it has been proven that the PRODUCTION 3800 Series 2 block, crank, and rods will support about 700HP under boost, as tested by INTENSE-RACING. The only problem with the 3800 is the stock pistons, which are of hypereutectic material and have a very tight ring package located close to the top of the piston for emissions compliance. Furthermore, the piston ring gaps are very small to also enhance emissions compliance. This type of configuration is very sensitive to combustion temps. This weak point in the 3800 is no secret as many GTP and even some Fiero owners have discovered when trying to run too much boost, too little fuel, or too much timing with the stock slugs resulting in piston damage or failure.
IP: Logged
03:40 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5922 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
HMM.... Butch Bass at Holley states: "A properly sized manifold and carb can make as much absolute power as EFI. Ultimate horsepower is simply a case of flow and distribution."
Not disagreeing with this statement at all, however this statement does NOT tell the whole story. What they are not telling you is the fact that IF you run a carb, you are LIMITED in the intake manifold design. Because it is a wet-flow manifold, you cannot use an exotic design with low spots or very long runners because fuel will fall out of suspension and pool in certain spots. Anyone remember all of the problems chrysler had with the dual carb cross ram intake that came on the hemi? Sure, it produced a lot of power, but it didn't run worth a crap for use as a daily driver. Conversely, PFI systems can use limitless intake manifold configurations because the fuel is sprayed right onto the back of the intake valve. In addition, PFI systems allow for the use of split plenum or variable volume/runner design intakes which can further enhance the power curve of any engine.
quote
Warren Johnson Pro-Stock NHRA champ says: "Properly tuned, carburetors make more peak power than EFI in a Pro Stock engine. A carb’s pressure differential atomizes the gas a lot better than spraying fuel through an orifice. But EFI has a broader powerband and superior cylinder-to-cylinder fuel distribution. On average, if optimized, both systems perform about the same as far as how fast you get down the track."
With all due respect, Warren Johnson is a driver... What exactly are his qualifications concerning engines and fuel systems? Furthermore, his statement contridicts itself, many times over. He said the carb's pressure differential atomizes the gas a lot better than spraying fuel thru an oriface. First off, what happens in a carb? Does fuel not get pushed thru an oriface due to the pressure drop under the venturi? Secondly, how much more of a fuel differential can you get from pressurized fuel getting sprayed into a manifold by an injector? Again, his statement makes no sense and it is obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about. Even if his statement held water, why wouldn't TBI be just as good as a carb? You can taylor injector spray patterns to virtually any configuration your imagination will allow. But manufacturers have discovered you get the best fuel atomization when the fuel spray hits a hot surface, in most cases, a PFI injector spraying directly onto the back of an intake valve.
quote
Steve Johnson, BG Products: "EFI makes more power on a street machine, but you only gain about 10 hp at the peak, so for a lot of guys it isn’t worth the money. Our EFI system costs $2,400, compared to $400-450 for our Speed Demon carburetor. Off-roaders will probably go to EFI before street machiners because it helps them overcome steep grades and vibrations that cause trouble with carbs."
I can't disagree with Steve's statement other than it left a lot out. In addition, he even went as far to make a claim that EFI makes more power than carbs. However, what he didn't mention was something that Warren even said -- EFI produces a better power curve than carbs.
quote
Seems those with experience in both disagree with you.
Note: The above quotes are taken from Carcrafts article: "Are Carburator's Dead?"
Again, experience doesn't make people experts. Warren is a DRIVER and isn't directly involved in engine building and HP research and development. Steve is trying to peddle a product, of course he is going to be bias about which he "thinks" is better.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone here but we are no longer living in the dark ages. Technology is a wonderful thing when utilized correctly. Furthermore, I don't personally have a problem if you run a carb on your engine. Be my guest and good luck with that. But the fact of the matter is carbs aren't superior to EFI other than maybe in simplicity and initial cost (if purchased new).
Do you really mean this statement in quotes? If you do it suggest that there is a best engine swap period. So which is it? 3.4 dohc, 3.5 S*,3800SC, N*, 4.9 or SBC? Also if it is one of these that would mean everybody with a different swap cannot truly enjoy it until they admit that your choice is the best.
my choice? if you had been reading what I have said then no - because I chose the engine that I wanted - its not the best engine possible - but its the one that I wanted
people that are always trying to prove their engine choice is worthy are just insecure and need to grow some testicals -- yes they are all improvements over stock - yes they will all outperform stock.. yes each can be modified to be better than it is.. but due to actual engine design some are superior to others with their potential, durability, cost and ease of maintananace (since the more you mod something the more frequent it has to be maintananced)
whats so difficult about admitting that you may not have the absolute best engine but you have one that makes you happy without always trying to justify your engine choice to others or make claims about how good it is
my statement that you quoted stated the difference between the factual by the numbers truth of what is better vs the subjective nature of what engine people choose to swap.
IP: Logged
08:09 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Again, if you want to build a SBC that can handle boost AND be reliable, you are going to have to start with an AFTERMARKET BLOCK. This isn't my opinion, these are facts. Again, I am not saying a SBC cannot be built to produce some brutal HP, WHAT I AM SAYING is you are not going to do it with production parts.
Those are the same type of facts that say a Getrag cannot be used with a 350 because it will explode. Those facts don't take into account the number of people successfully doing it every day.
Ideal? No. But the SBC is the most hot rodded engine in automotive history and to suggest that anyone who wants to hop up their engine needs to get an aftermarket block just doesn't take into account the millions of successful stock block buildups over the decades.
I'm not trying to argue, and don't dispute that an aftermarket block may be better, but it's not necessarily required. There are many turbo and supercharger kits out there specifically designed for stock block applications with stock compression ratios. Sure, you run less boost than a purpose built blown engine, but that's just common sense - like running premium fuel with high compression.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: With all due respect, Warren Johnson is a driver... What exactly are his qualifications concerning engines and fuel systems?
Probably more than any of us posting on a Fiero forum. He probably talks with his engine builders on a regular basis. How many Pro Stock engines have you designed, built, or successfully raced at the national level?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-14-2005).]
And just to be clear on another point about production GM engines, even the ones from the 60's and 70's with forged internals. They still weren't that great. If memory serves, the only material GM used for their forged cranks was 1053, which isn't that much better than cast and was prone to cracking...as I learned in college. Furthermore, the strongest STOCK RODS GM ever put in a production SBC engine was the powdered metal rods that were used in late model LT1 and some Vortec truck engines. Still, they are only rated for a maximum of 450hp. As for the blocks, I don't care when it was built, they are still all fairly weak castings -- weak in the areas of cylinder wall thickness and main web areas...PERIOD. Again, if you want to build a SBC that can handle boost AND be reliable, you are going to have to start with an AFTERMARKET BLOCK. This isn't my opinion, these are facts. Again, I am not saying a SBC cannot be built to produce some brutal HP, WHAT I AM SAYING is you are not going to do it with production parts.
I am shocked and cannot believe what I just read. You are talking about the days of true horsepower when it was raw and nasty. When you could get a SBC 4 bolt with high tin content in the block out of a dump truck and GM X rods bolt a blower bigger than the engine itself on top of it and drop it in your grandmothers car and go drag racing Back then you did not have to worry if the transmission was going to break either. And everything bolted up. This is why people think this is better or that is better they read something someone wrote and believe it. I guess I need to sell my Fieros because they all catch fire. I'm sorry but you hit a nerve I usally try to not get into this hear say stuff but saying a SBC cannot produce brutal HP with GM parts who do you think started it all Honda?
IP: Logged
08:59 AM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
But manufacturers have discovered you get the best fuel atomization when the fuel spray hits a hot surface,
Again, experience doesn't make people experts. Warren is a DRIVER and isn't directly involved in engine building and HP research and development.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone here but we are no longer living in the dark ages. Technology is a wonderful thing when utilized correctly. Furthermore, I don't personally have a problem if you run a carb on your engine. Be my guest and good luck with that. But the fact of the matter is carbs aren't superior to EFI other than maybe in simplicity and initial cost (if purchased new).
Nice post, Only a few things are a little off. Fuel sprayed onto a "hot" surface does NOT increase atomization. The idea of the injector is to spray a very fine mist of fuel either into the cylinder (direct injection) or just behind the intake valve (port injection) to create the atomized fuel with minimal evaporation. A carb does NOT get fuel "pushed thru an orifice" The fuel is DRAWN thru the ports by the actual air being drawn over the pressure drop.
Warran Johnson IS an engine builder. (actually an "Automotive Engineer" as his Degree states.) Yes he drives his own car, But he has been building his own engines. Taken fron the NHRA driver history website: "Mechanical wizardry and technical innovation are the hallmarks of Johnson's career. He introduced the Funny Car-style roll cage to Pro Stock and perfected the five-speed planetary transmission, but internal combustion has always been W.J.'s specialty. He still prepares the cylinder heads and intake manifolds for his record-setting engines."
W.J. has been building engines and racing cars professionally since 1963. To state the man is "Just a driver" is an insult to him and his long distinguished career.
As you state "technology is a wonderful thing" Why does everyone assume the carbs and intake designs used today are the same as in the 60's and 70's??? Everytime the carb vs. EFI comes up the first thing someone reference's is how the carb'd engines ran in the 60's or 70's. To think that once EFI became popular with production cars that carb technology just stopped is ignorant. Carb's have changed alot since the 70's and it must still be profitable since many manufacturer's are still selling them and still spending money on research/design. Problem is many don't understand carbs or "had a carb'd car back in the 70's" and do not understand how carb design has improved over the years.
Finally, I am not saying either one is better, I'm saying that a properly matched fuel delivery system makes very little difference in the power attained. Each style of fuel delivery has it's own advantages and dis-advantages. It is up to the person building the engine to decide what is right for them. Basically it comes under personal preference, Just like deciding which engine to swap into a Fiero. (Have we come full circle now??)
[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 07-14-2005).]
my choice? if you had been reading what I have said then no - because I chose the engine that I wanted - its not the best engine possible - but its the one that I wanted
people that are always trying to prove their engine choice is worthy are just insecure and need to grow some testicals -- yes they are all improvements over stock - yes they will all outperform stock.. yes each can be modified to be better than it is.. but due to actual engine design some are superior to others with their potential, durability, cost and ease of maintananace (since the more you mod something the more frequent it has to be maintananced)
whats so difficult about admitting that you may not have the absolute best engine but you have one that makes you happy without always trying to justify your engine choice to others or make claims about how good it is
my statement that you quoted stated the difference between the factual by the numbers truth of what is better vs the subjective nature of what engine people choose to swap.
You missed my point, with engines as in racing there will always be a better engine and someone faster. So no matter how you slice and dice it best witll always remain subjective because the end user makes that determination. They probably base it on satisfaction of performance after the install and only they can say if they are truly satisfied and happy with their swap.
Originally posted by Unrivaled: You missed my point, with engines as in racing there will always be a better engine and someone faster. So no matter how you slice and dice it best witll always remain subjective because the end user makes that determination. They probably base it on satisfaction of performance after the install and only they can say if they are truly satisfied and happy with their swap.
no - if someone preffers and engine it may make that engine the best choice for them but it does not make the engine itself better
Originally posted by Oreif: A carb does NOT get fuel "pushed thru an orifice" The fuel is DRAWN thru the ports by the actual air being drawn over the pressure drop.
well if you want to be technical - a vacuum is just the lack of pressure - so nothing ever gets sucked - but always pushed
___________________ disclaimer: these comments are meant to be taken light heartedly
IP: Logged
09:51 AM
PFF
System Bot
carolinajoe Member
Posts: 822 From: Spring Hill,Fl. Registered: Feb 2005
Over 2k HP injectors can't deliver enough fuel, from what I've read. Cars running over this amount of HP on fuel injection systems are running a mechanical fuel injection.
Carb's work on a vaccum to atomize the air, the pressure in the injector right before the fuel gets delivered is around 1200 psi. I think it does boil down to preference (but not in 4 wheeling, where extreme vehicle angles are present) I've just built a SBC with a holley double pumper carb. It took FOREVER to finally get that thing dialed in, switching the jets at least three times. I've also built a motor with fuel injection powered by an aftermarket ECU. This too took a while (of expensive dyno time too) to dial in the enrichments. On my carb, I would also have to change the jets by the season. If I had a '34 deuce, I would run the biggest rat motor with the biggest demon carbs it could take with a blower sticking 12' into the air. If I was building an LS1, it would be EFI. Its all a matter of preference. NOW EVERYONE HUG!!!!
IP: Logged
11:04 AM
Master Tuner Akimoto Member
Posts: 2267 From: South Florida,USA Registered: Jul 2003
Nice post, Only a few things are a little off. Fuel sprayed onto a "hot" surface does NOT increase atomization. The idea of the injector is to spray a very fine mist of fuel either into the cylinder (direct injection) or just behind the intake valve (port injection) to create the atomized fuel with minimal evaporation. A carb does NOT get fuel "pushed thru an orifice" The fuel is DRAWN thru the ports by the actual air being drawn over the pressure drop.
Warran Johnson IS an engine builder. (actually an "Automotive Engineer" as his Degree states.) Yes he drives his own car, But he has been building his own engines. Taken fron the NHRA driver history website: "Mechanical wizardry and technical innovation are the hallmarks of Johnson's career. He introduced the Funny Car-style roll cage to Pro Stock and perfected the five-speed planetary transmission, but internal combustion has always been W.J.'s specialty. He still prepares the cylinder heads and intake manifolds for his record-setting engines."
W.J. has been building engines and racing cars professionally since 1963. To state the man is "Just a driver" is an insult to him and his long distinguished career.
As you state "technology is a wonderful thing" Why does everyone assume the carbs and intake designs used today are the same as in the 60's and 70's??? Everytime the carb vs. EFI comes up the first thing someone reference's is how the carb'd engines ran in the 60's or 70's. To think that once EFI became popular with production cars that carb technology just stopped is ignorant. Carb's have changed alot since the 70's and it must still be profitable since many manufacturer's are still selling them and still spending money on research/design. Problem is many don't understand carbs or "had a carb'd car back in the 70's" and do not understand how carb design has improved over the years.
Finally, I am not saying either one is better, I'm saying that a properly matched fuel delivery system makes very little difference in the power attained. Each style of fuel delivery has it's own advantages and dis-advantages. It is up to the person building the engine to decide what is right for them. Basically it comes under personal preference, Just like deciding which engine to swap into a Fiero. (Have we come full circle now??)
HMM.... Butch Bass at Holley states: "A properly sized manifold and carb can make as much absolute power as EFI. Ultimate horsepower is simply a case of flow and distribution."
Warren Johnson Pro-Stock NHRA champ says: "Properly tuned, carburetors make more peak power than EFI in a Pro Stock engine. A carb’s pressure differential atomizes the gas a lot better than spraying fuel through an orifice. But EFI has a broader powerband and superior cylinder-to-cylinder fuel distribution. On average, if optimized, both systems perform about the same as far as how fast you get down the track."
Steve Johnson, BG Products: "EFI makes more power on a street machine, but you only gain about 10 hp at the peak, so for a lot of guys it isn’t worth the money. Our EFI system costs $2,400, compared to $400-450 for our Speed Demon carburetor. Off-roaders will probably go to EFI before street machiners because it helps them overcome steep grades and vibrations that cause trouble with carbs."
Seems those with experience in both disagree with you.
Note: The above quotes are taken from Carcrafts article: "Are Carburator's Dead?"
For one thing, 2 of them are in the business of selling carburators!! Secondly, sorry, but however much you love them, and I don't understand why you are defending them to the death, mechanical will never be as precise as electronic. What happens when you're going on your cross country drive and the elevation increases a bit? IT's just not physically possible, both being perfectly tuned, that the carb has an advantage.
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
Oreif Member
Posts: 16460 From: Schaumburg, IL Registered: Jan 2000
For one thing, 2 of them are in the business of selling carburators!! Secondly, sorry, but however much you love them, and I don't understand why you are defending them to the death, mechanical will never be as precise as electronic. What happens when you're going on your cross country drive and the elevation increases a bit? IT's just not physically possible, both being perfectly tuned, that the carb has an advantage.
No, Two of them sell BOTH carb's AND injection systems. I'm not "defending them to death" I was saying that in terms of power there is not much difference in which fuel delivery system you choose. I never said the carb had the advantage. You are mis-reading what I am saying. BTW ~ Many new carb's can compensate for temp and altitude changes mechanically. Mechanical fuel injection does it as well. Electronics makes it easier. But to dismiss it because you think mechanical systems cannot adjust to changing conditions is foolish. Again, you sound more like someone discribing a carb from the 60's or 70's, Not the newer modern carbs.
The ONLY time I said going carb had an advantage was when I built my 3.4L. This was because at that time there were no aftermarket intake manifolds to increase the intake flow to a 60* pushrod engine except for the Edelbrock. Which I proved with dyno results. This was only in terms of the 60* V-6 as there is a limited aftermarket, Where a 3800 or SBC has a large aftermarket support.
IP: Logged
01:10 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
A carb does NOT get fuel "pushed thru an orifice" The fuel is DRAWN thru the ports by the actual air being drawn over the pressure drop.
Actually the fuel is pushed. And so is the air. And the air is not drawn over a pressure drop, it is pushed through a venturi creating an area of localized low pressure. The fuel is then pushed in to mix with the air. The combustion chamber is at lower than atmospheric pressure, so air is pushed into the carburator by the 7 mile tall collumn of air sitting on top of it. Same as if you were on an airplane at 35,000 feet. If a window breaks you are pushed out...not sucked out.
It's no use. Johnny has decided that FI is superior for all vehicles in any type of usage. Period. Nothing will ever change his mind.
Well why don't you chime in here buddy, you always seem to pop up everywhere and know the answer to everything, or so you think.. Advantages to carbs, besides familiarity and possible parts sourcing and price..
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Why, buddy? Nothing I could say will sway your opinion. I'm just pointing out that arguing with you about it is a waste of time.
Personally, I believe FI's biggest advantage is ease of use for those who are familiear with the setup. But what will give the best performance is hard to say without dyno tests of the same setup with back to back testing done with each system optimized for the application.
What you refuse to accept is that carb technology isn't still in the '60's and that a modern carbureator can be a good alternative to FI. It's certainly MUCH less complicated, much less wiring, and much less expense. For a street car the only real benefits I see to FI are primarily emissions and in some cases, driveability.
You get offended if people don't agree with you. Not everyone thinks FI is the end all be all of induction systems. You do, and that's ok, too, but just as no one is going to convince you otherwise, you're not going to convince anyone else, either.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-14-2005).]
Why, buddy? Nothing I could say will sway your opinion. I'm just pointing out that arguing with you about it is a waste of time.
Well, buddy, if you don't say anything, no, your not going to sway my opinion.. I wanted actual suggestions/arguments.. Popping your head in with one of your usual "I don't actually want to say anything about this argument, I just want to argue that your position sucks" doesnt' exactly add any pros or cons, now does it. Yes, it is simpler, and it can look cleaner, I'll give it that much.
no - if someone preffers and engine it may make that engine the best choice for them but it does not make the engine itself better
THAT was my point that you missed.
Your answer imply that one engine is best regardless of personal perference. I'm trying to get you to tell us which one it is. So which is it absent personal perference?
[This message has been edited by Unrivaled (edited 07-14-2005).]
Your answer imply that one engine is best regardless of personal perference. I'm trying to get you to tell us which one it is. So which is it absent personal perference?
I'm going to have to agree.. There is no such thing as 'personal preference'.. Well, I mean, obviously there is, but there is always a 'better' answer. You can pick whatever one you want, but there is always an answer that comes down to numbers (not just regarding engines).
I'm going to have to agree.. There is no such thing as 'personal preference'.. Well, I mean, obviously there is, but there is always a 'better' answer. You can pick whatever one you want, but there is always an answer that comes down to numbers (not just regarding engines).
Johnny, I'm not sure who you are in agreement with, please clarify.
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Well, buddy, if you don't say anything, no, your not going to sway my opinion.. I wanted actual suggestions/arguments.. Popping your head in with one of your usual "I don't actually want to say anything about this argument, I just want to argue that your position sucks" doesnt' exactly add any pros or cons, now does it. Yes, it is simpler, and it can look cleaner, I'll give it that much.
I'm not going to argue that your position sucks. You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with you that FI is the end all be all of induction. It does have it's advantages, but carbs have many advantages over FI in some cases, too.
I'm not going to debate opinions, becasue as I said earlier, you've made up your mind. Plenty of information for carbs has already been posted and you dismissed it all because you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. You just seem to want to keep arguing to make everyone agree with you. News Flash: It isn't going to happen.
I'm not going to argue that your position sucks. You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with you that FI is the end all be all of induction. It does have it's advantages, but carbs have many advantages over FI in some cases, too.
Thats what I thought.. Instead of actually having a discussion, you just try to dismiss it as "You'll never change your mind anyways".. "Many advantages".. I asked you to state some, a little more compelling than "Less wiring" "easier"... Newsflash! Yeah, they have advantages, but not to the actual operation of the engine..
Johnny, I'm not sure who you are in agreement with, please clarify.
I mean that while everyone has a personal preference, there is always a choice that is more logical, that we may or may not have picked, in regards to everything (engines included). Logically, I should have kept saving some cash and bought a Mustang 3 years later than I did, and I would have been driving one by now, but, I felt that I might have some fun restoring it (Bzzzzz.. WRONG CHOICE!)
IP: Logged
09:55 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Thats what I thought.. Instead of actually having a discussion, you just try to dismiss it as "You'll never change your mind anyways".. "Many advantages".. I asked you to state some, a little more compelling than "Less wiring" "easier"... Newsflash! Yeah, they have advantages, but not to the actual operation of the engine..
Some advantages have already been stated. As I previously mentioned, less wiring and easier are advantages. Important to some, not so important to others. There's also the cost factor which is a major advantage. Considering a good carb will run around $500, but a good aftermarket FI setup is around $1500-3000, that matters. Some people would rather not spend as much on an induction system as most of the rest of their engine.
But like I said, all of this was previously mentioned and you blew it off. Now you complain because I didn't say it all again. So, there.... it's all been said again.
I agree that YOU think FI is better. But that's your opinion, it's not a fact. "Better" is quantified by what you're judging. If I don't want to use a laptop to setup my engine, a carb is "better." If I don't want to have a myriad of sensors on my engine, a carb is "better." And other than emissions and driveability, there's nothing to suggest FI is "better" at overall power output. Sure, some dynos say FI had more peak power than a carb, so it's "better." Other dynos said carbs have more area under the curve, so carbs are "better."
You keep trying to prove FI is the only choice like everything is black and white. And that's just not the case. It may be that way for you, and so for YOU, FI is "better." That may not be the case for someone else.
I don't understand why you refuse to allow that someone else may not have the exact same opinion as you.
Anyway, this is devolving into a "is too" "is not" argument and is beyond useful anymore. You think FI is better in all cases for all types of engines in all types of driving. I think you're wrong. Now move on.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-14-2005).]
