Fuel Injection or Carburator

Fleshmachine said:
Feul Injection is more precise and does not need to be tuned like carbs.

That's true in theory, but my 1986 T-10 Blazer is too "smart" for it's own good. With carburation, t least the "real" conditions control the fuel and power, not the way the computer "thinks" conditions are.

I think in modern caars, the question is more computerized or not? Which is more reliable.
 
I don't drive, I ride motorcycles and I'm used to crab's but injection is supposed to be better, and I think it's come on a lot in the last five or ten years so who can say what's next..?
 
Early computerized cars had many faults which have since been eliminated with stronger computing power.
 
Fleshmachine said:
Early computerized cars had many faults which have since been eliminated with stronger computing power.

and better sensor's, or so I've heard.
 
Generally a carburator will provide you with more peak horse power and is simpler to tune. Fuel Injection will trade off horse power and torque for better fuel economy and better drivability because of the computer fuel management systems.

Bottom Line Carbs for horse power but overall fuel injection for better performance.
 
I disagree I used to have a 300 HP turbo VW New Beetle. It was tuned electronically with only minor engine mods.
 
This is just all sooo Tim Allen, "UGHHH UGHHH MORE POWER".
 
Gotta be fuel injection.
Carbs wouldn't work to well on my diesol truck.
 
Fleshmachine said:
I disagree I used to have a 300 HP turbo VW New Beetle. It was tuned electronically with only minor engine mods.

Was that a small block chevy in that volkswagon? I find it amazing that someone could squeeze 300 HP out of a Volkswagon motor without spending a complete fortune on it.
This is courtesty of Motorhead Mike, UC's husband.
 
I thought this world really sucked,

but now even non-biological life forms get to be smarter than me.

THAT SUCKS!
 
Back
Top