Carb Vs EFI discussion
02-26-2005, 09:41 PM
#62
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my 2 cents. I'm not going to get into my personal opinion other than I look at what the manufacturers where doing prior to emissions testing and had to deal with fuel economy standards.
In the '50's, GM and Bendix came out with fuel injection units. These units worked on two different principles. The GM/Rochester unit was a mechanical injector and the Bendix was a multiport electronic injection. The Bendix unit was used by Chrysler in 1958 and was supposed to have been used by AMC on it's '57 Nash Rebel.
Cars with injection, in both cases, were rated with higher horsepower numbers than the carbureted models (even with dual 4 bbls.). GM used this unit in their Corvettes until 1965. It was the most powerful Chevy small block they sold during it's use. The Bendix unit suffered from electrical problems and was only used the one year. When working correctly, it also made more power than it's carbureted brothers.
Currently, no one sells cars with carburetors in North America. A lot of this obviously has to do with emissions more than anything else. And while there are more improvements in the last 30-35 years than just induction, new engines make more power with less displacement than big blocks back in the day and computerized controls have a lot to do with this.
In all out racing situations, I look at NASCAR, IMSA, Grand Am, Formula 1, Champ Car, IRL, NHRA, IHRA, SCORE, Super Touring and SCCA. In all cases, these cars run EFI unless the rules dictate otherwise. In cases where both are allowed, cars with EFI are handicapped to make competition equal.
With one exception, every car or truck I've owned since 1986 had had one version of EFI or another. The only carbed car I had was a '69 Valiant with a 225 Slant Six. Not exactly the definition of performance, especially with a 1 bbl carb. But the dependability, reliability, and yes, the ease of maintaining and diagnosis of EFI systems has made me a firm believer.
I'm running a LQ9 in my Studebaker with a MagnaCharger blower on it. With an EFI system vs a carb, I'll be able to close my hood without cutting holes in it. I'll be able to start the car on a cold April or October morning and not worry if the choke has been adjusted correctly. If I take the car to Colorado or Tennessee, I won't have to worry about changing the jetting for high altitude driving. I'll have a streetable 550 rwhp that would be unattainable with carburetors. Even turbo guys like Gail Banks have switched their systems over to EFI to help tuning for maximum power.
Maximum performance is a relative thing. On a top fuel car, I could just poor a bucket of nitro into the blower and get the same result. But in racing in other classes that allow EFI, no one runs a carburetor. And no one is there to lose. If a Formula 1 team with engines spinning at 17,000 RPM's could make more power with a carb, they'd be doing it. If crews in IRL felt they could get more power from a carb, they'd use it. NASCAR doesn't allow EFI because they would not be able to control things like traction control. Not because carbs make more power.
Based on all this, I choose EFI. For maximum performance in the real world, not just the track.
In the '50's, GM and Bendix came out with fuel injection units. These units worked on two different principles. The GM/Rochester unit was a mechanical injector and the Bendix was a multiport electronic injection. The Bendix unit was used by Chrysler in 1958 and was supposed to have been used by AMC on it's '57 Nash Rebel.
Cars with injection, in both cases, were rated with higher horsepower numbers than the carbureted models (even with dual 4 bbls.). GM used this unit in their Corvettes until 1965. It was the most powerful Chevy small block they sold during it's use. The Bendix unit suffered from electrical problems and was only used the one year. When working correctly, it also made more power than it's carbureted brothers.
Currently, no one sells cars with carburetors in North America. A lot of this obviously has to do with emissions more than anything else. And while there are more improvements in the last 30-35 years than just induction, new engines make more power with less displacement than big blocks back in the day and computerized controls have a lot to do with this.
In all out racing situations, I look at NASCAR, IMSA, Grand Am, Formula 1, Champ Car, IRL, NHRA, IHRA, SCORE, Super Touring and SCCA. In all cases, these cars run EFI unless the rules dictate otherwise. In cases where both are allowed, cars with EFI are handicapped to make competition equal.
With one exception, every car or truck I've owned since 1986 had had one version of EFI or another. The only carbed car I had was a '69 Valiant with a 225 Slant Six. Not exactly the definition of performance, especially with a 1 bbl carb. But the dependability, reliability, and yes, the ease of maintaining and diagnosis of EFI systems has made me a firm believer.
I'm running a LQ9 in my Studebaker with a MagnaCharger blower on it. With an EFI system vs a carb, I'll be able to close my hood without cutting holes in it. I'll be able to start the car on a cold April or October morning and not worry if the choke has been adjusted correctly. If I take the car to Colorado or Tennessee, I won't have to worry about changing the jetting for high altitude driving. I'll have a streetable 550 rwhp that would be unattainable with carburetors. Even turbo guys like Gail Banks have switched their systems over to EFI to help tuning for maximum power.
Maximum performance is a relative thing. On a top fuel car, I could just poor a bucket of nitro into the blower and get the same result. But in racing in other classes that allow EFI, no one runs a carburetor. And no one is there to lose. If a Formula 1 team with engines spinning at 17,000 RPM's could make more power with a carb, they'd be doing it. If crews in IRL felt they could get more power from a carb, they'd use it. NASCAR doesn't allow EFI because they would not be able to control things like traction control. Not because carbs make more power.
Based on all this, I choose EFI. For maximum performance in the real world, not just the track.
02-26-2005, 10:52 PM
#63
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vette had an HH code on the highest output sb vette in 1964,1965,1966,and 1967. (I almost bought one last year at the Good Guys Swap.) It was carburated and rated higher that the fuel injected version. MAybe the guy was pulling my chain but he had a few other vettes for sale included an FI model and a base 327 model. I figured him for a bright cat but I may be wrong.
02-26-2005, 11:07 PM
#64
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In both '64 and '65, the highest horsepower small blocks were the 375 HP injected 327 engines. The most powerful carbureted engines were 365 HP. As Yogi would say, you could look it up. 
02-27-2005, 04:41 AM
#65
9 Second Club
Thats a bit more like the answer I should have gave Swiftser...I agree 100%, and is more or less what I was putting across, even if it doesnt directly answer the original question to the letter.
