 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008NYT columnist calls for return to 55 mph speed limit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp (snip) It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel- efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from what he called our “addiction to oil.” ----------------- If the american people had any brains they'd be demanding the 55. But the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool On May 22, 12:57 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has > brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles, fill them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert opinion. All of these options already exist. On May 22, 4:15 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote: > All of these options already exist.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - _____________________ And are being kept hidden by politics. -CC > On May 22, 4:15 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -CC And a big 'YEP' to that.. > On May 22, 4:15 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -CC Prove it. > On May 22, 12:57 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > All of these options already exist. Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my locale carry ethanol. The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline. It would also require major modifications to the existing oil distribution system to handle ethanol.  SignatureSteven L. Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. > The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as > gasoline. Correct. > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline. > It would also require major modifications to the existing oil > distribution system to handle ethanol. This is all moot if instead the feedstock is used to make butanol which is as near as dammit a direct gasoline replacement. Du Pont and Shell have been working on this and have a trial plant now in the UK. Graham On May 22, 8:43 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as > > gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass. >> This is all moot if instead the feedstock is used to make butanol which is as >> near as dammit a direct gasoline replacement. Du Pont and Shell have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass. From the Dupont site. Q. Will biobutanol work in my car? A. One of the advantages of biobutanol is that it can be used in higher blends of gasoline without requiring any changes in automobile or engine design. Biobutanol will meet industry standards and will not harm cars. http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/FAQ.html > > > The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as > > > gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass. You have just ploughed new depths of stupidity (even for you). Have you heard of this thing called Google ? It might pay to use it before making totally incoherent statements like the above. Graham On May 23, 9:11 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > Have you heard of this thing called Google ? It might pay to use it before making > totally incoherent statements like the above. Sure, if your goal is to exchange ideas of reasonable accuracy. If your goal is merely to generate responses (hook some fish), perhaps as an effort to reduce a void of loneliness approaching a complete vacuum, few things appear to work as well as totally incoherent and/or inaccurate statements and/or unsupported assertions. Whatever it's faults, it seems to be among the most successful trolls ever to set keyboard to Usenet. ----- - gpsman > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline. With the dual fuel engines. With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline. A little smoggier, of course . . . Bret Cahill > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline. > > With the dual fuel engines. > > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline. Or better still. See the Saab 'bio-power' models. They're faster on ethanol than on gasoline. Graham In article <0b38025f-a337-47b6-8109- 58463875649a@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, BretCahill@aol.com says... > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A little smoggier, of course . . . All well and good Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine now ? Signature"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" > BretCahill@aol.com says... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine > now ? Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed. Graham > > BretCahill@aol.com says... > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed. Same energy content as gasoline ? Signature"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" > In article <4836E1CF.2DF54...@hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Same energy content as gasoline ? Doesn't appear to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber, etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch. nate > > Eeyore says... > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber, > etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch. Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem. Graham >>>Eeyore says... >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Some of us still have older cars. I do, my dad does, SWMBO's dad does, there's three "immediate family" right there. After all, it's still more ecologically correct to reuse rather than replace. Plus, they really don't make 'em like they used to... none of us could comfortably afford to replace any of these cars with a new one that would provide the same utility and more importantly performance and driving enjoyment. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>Eeyore says... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > nate those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>Eeyore says... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually runs very well. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually > runs very well. Even the best set-up carburetor wastes fuel on the over-run. A bit of intelligence by the after-market sector would quickly provide what's needed. Single point injection (simple to install) , whilst not the best route to high performance can deliver most of the benefits of EFI. Graham >>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Graham Not really. One of the largest advantages to good multi-point EFI is the elimination of mixture distribution issues due to poor intake manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and > TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so. Maybe the US aftermarket business isn't as well set up as in Europe. In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ? Graham >>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Maybe the US aftermarket business isn't as well set up as in Europe. yes, as usual we just suck. *sigh.* Keep in mind that the market for these conversions is very limited, as most people that have carburetors are quite happy with them, and don't have any real incentive to switch. > In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll > be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ? That's what I'm trying to figure out. You seem to think that there is one and that we should all retrofit our cars to use some fuel that I've never heard of before this thread, and I'm not sure a) how I could do that and b) why I should bother. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > yes, as usual we just suck. *sigh.* You have different aspirations and priorities in the USA. > Keep in mind that the market for these conversions is very limited, as > most people that have carburetors are quite happy with them, and don't > have any real incentive to switch. I don't know anyone with a carburetted car any more. Emissions regs have essentially mandated their extinction. Sure, a few classic cars will still have them but these are a MINISCULE percentage of cars on the road. In any case our own UK regs give concessions to such vehicles such that even a small supply of leaded fuel is still available for them. > > In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll > > be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > never heard of before this thread, and I'm not sure a) how I could do > that and b) why I should bother. No, butanol will take some time to make significant market penetration, by which time the auto makers will be fully tooled up to make best use of it. Why are you so afraid of scientific advances ? Graham >>>>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Graham Because I fully expect it to be a partially functional boondoggle, like ethanol-"enhanced" gasoline. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > No, butanol will take some time to make significant market penetration, by which time the > > auto makers will be fully tooled up to make best use of it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because I fully expect it to be a partially functional boondoggle, like > ethanol-"enhanced" gasoline. I can sort of understand your scepticism but you need to do some serious research of your own. Butanol is entirely different to ethanol. Read it up ! There's a reason why Du Pont and Shell are going the butanol route. Commercial companies don't waste their own money (and they're not getting any subsidies) chasing alleged boondoggles. They're in it for the MONEY. Graham >>>No, butanol will take some time to make significant market penetration, by which time the >>>auto makers will be fully tooled up to make best use of it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Graham Chasing a boondoggle and being in it for the money are not mutually exclusive. e.g. corn based ethanol. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>No, butanol will take some time to make significant market penetration, by which time the > >>>auto makers will be fully tooled up to make best use of it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Chasing a boondoggle and being in it for the money are not mutually > exclusive. e.g. corn based ethanol. Corn based ethanol is a uniquely US only boondoggle to subsidise ADM. This stuff isn't happening elsewhere. Elect a new government FFS ! And make sure you have some independent auditors to stop the politicians and their friends sticking their hands in the till. Graham >>>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > most people that have carburetors are quite happy with them, and don't > have any real incentive to switch. If gasoline becomes really expensive or unavailable,the incentive to modify to use a newer available fuel rapidly appears. >> In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and >> I'm sure that'll be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > nate He suggested the use of a fuel that could be synthesized locally with resources we already have,no imports. You then cited carbs as why it couldn't be used,he said that carbs are uncommon these days(true),then you went into why carbs can't/won't be replaced with EFI.(they can.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>>Eeyore says... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and > figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. Hardly. many of today's manifolds for Chevy and Ford small block V-8s fit earlier blocks.There's also aftermarket parts. > And, for an > occasional-use vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. losing the use of your antiques may make it worthwhile. The alternative would be the recycling yard and your buying a newer,EFI vehicle,if your antique cound not use the newer fuel.(the older fuel not being available) > A well set up > carburetor actually runs very well. > > nate Passable,but never as clean as an EFI setup,and are even harder to adjust - if at all possible- for newer fuels that could be coming. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>>>Eeyore says... >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Hardly. many of today's manifolds for Chevy and Ford small block V-8s fit > earlier blocks.There's also aftermarket parts. That's fine, if you drive a Chevy or Ford. Are these conversions readily available for, say, a Pontiac or Oldsmobile engine? Just to name two engines that used to be very common, were known for durability, and didn't make it very far into the EFI era. >>And, for an >>occasional-use vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicle,if your antique cound not use the newer fuel.(the older fuel not > being available) In that case retuning the carb for the newer fuel would be the way to go, but not until it's universally available. >>A well set up >>carburetor actually runs very well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Passable,but never as clean as an EFI setup,and are even harder to adjust - > if at all possible- for newer fuels that could be coming. Well, a carb commonly used for racing (AFB/AVS or Holley) can be purchased already jetted for alcohol, or a "strip kit" and a larger accelerator pump could take care of it. The real problem is cars that use carbs that have fallen out of favor like Strombergs etc. this would make the modifications outside the scope of the average DIYer, although if a standard-flange 4bbl manifold is available for the engine in question it would certainly be less expensive to swap to a rejettable carb for which new jets and rods are still available rather than try to put together an EFI system from scratch. Believe me, I've actually thought about trying to convert a Studebaker V-8 to EFI, and I just can't justify it. It would be waaaaay too expensive and labor intensive, requiring mods everywhere in the car from the gas tank and fuel lines all the way to welding on an expensive aluminum manifold. And then there's the learning curve of setting up the Megasquirt... or I can just buy a new AFB/AVS from Edelbrock (for about the same price as just the throttle body for an EFI setup) and then rejet it if we ever go to alcohol. I'm lucky in that Studebaker used Carter AFBs from the factory so the only mods required to use a brand new carb are some minor mods to the throttle linkage, fuel lines, and having to purchase a new air cleaner base. Heck, I'd be really tempted to swap to alcohol if I could be assured of being able to find it at the pump. My engine is running at over 10:1 so I could certainly play with the timing to unlock a few more ponies if I had some higher octane fuel readily available. I'm just saying that all of these "readily available" EFI swaps are a) really expensive b) not necessary and c) unavailable to you unless you're really into hard core DIY work and/or drive a vehicle that was made with one of a short list of powerplants. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Hardly. many of today's manifolds for Chevy and Ford small block V-8s fit > earlier blocks.There's also aftermarket parts. That's it. If you don't have SB chevy or ford V8, forget about a kit. > those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. > With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. EFI kits are rather expensive and limited in plug-and-play applications. If you don't have a largely popular engine in your car get ready to do your own engineering work. Now it may have changed since I last looked into it, but for something as simple as 1982 oldsmobile 307 V8, it meant doing one's own engineering to get it going. That's just for a quadrajet carb'd common GM V8 that's just a little off the small block chevy beaten path. I came to the conclusion the route of least resistance to EFI in that car was to replace the engine entirely with a newer small block chevy with fuel injection. Kind of ruins the whole thing, but when you don't have a machine shop of your own and trial and error with someone else's is too expensive, well it's just easier to get the appropiate engine mounts from a salvage yard. > People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. People have been putting non-original motors in 1930s autos since well like the 1940s. If you want to build a decent street-rod or such today you're going to use a modern EFI motor in most cases. Even if you have an older build or start with a carb and change your mind, odds are the engine is a small block chevy or ford V8 and those are plug-and-play kit applications. I would think that the people putting EFI on old ford flat V8s and other 1930s motors would be few and far between, plus they are doing a fair amount of their own engineering work. > > those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. > > With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. > > EFI kits are rather expensive Boo-Hoo ! > and limited in plug-and-play applications. That must be bad design. > If you don't have a largely popular engine in your car get ready to do > your own engineering work. Sorry but this is no reason to hold back the relentless advance of modern advanced technology that offers vastly improved mpg AND performance. Yes BOTH ! The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) Trust me - it's a SCREAM ! Buy a damn Turbo Saab and see for yourself. They're quite crazily fun to drive. I love them to bits. Good mpg too ! Graham >>>those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. >>>With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Graham Ah, I see where this thread is going. "Graham is right and if you don't understand Graham's way thats because you haven't been enlightened yet." We've been down this road before and I think now is about the time that I'll stop reading. Your particular brand of arrogance gets old real fast. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the > > bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that I'll stop reading. Your particular brand of arrogance gets old > real fast. Have you EVER driven a Saab Turbo ? By the sound of it NO. For heaven's sake try out an Aero. You won't stop grinning for several DAYS. And it's only on I4 2.3 L with wonderful mpg ! Graham >>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the >>>bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Graham OK, great. Have you ever had a car that was fun to drive and didn't require financing? then stop looking down your nose at those of us who choose to drive pre-OBD2 or even pre-EFI cars. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the > >>>bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > require financing? then stop looking down your nose at those of us who > choose to drive pre-OBD2 or even pre-EFI cars. The depreciation on Saabs (like many 'alternative' executive cars) is high enough that you can afford to buy one in decent condition as a 'toy' near enough. Trust me, you WILL NOT be disappointed as long as you chose a good model. The Aero is blistering and is notable for being able to out-accelerate some Ferraris in certain speed regimes. It's the ultimate 'Q-car' Where Q = quiet ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-car " A more affordable and even less visually remarkable "Q-car" car is the classic Saab 9000 2.3 turbo. " What's the problem ? Are you 'chicken' ? Graham >>>>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the >>>>>bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Graham I've already got a perfectly functional Porsche 944 and a '55 Studebaker coupe. I've also got a "project" 914 stashed away in my parents' barn, if I ever find myself with more disposable income than I know what to do with. Above and beyond that, my employer provides me a company car so I don't even need a car of my own to get back and forth to work. I need another car like I need a hole in my head. Plus, I know the mechanical condition of all of my vehicles and what will and won't be required in the future, so I am not real inclined to start over from ground zero with a new ride, unless I get a screaming deal on something more appealing than a vehicle I already own. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines >>>>>>too, the bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > nate well,YOUR situation is NOT the one everybody else is in. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines >>>>>>>too, the bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > well,YOUR situation is NOT the one everybody else is in. But there are plenty of people still driving cars with carburetors, and it seems like Graham thinks they are all stupid for not running out and spending a couple kilobucks to upgrade to EFI. I'm not sure what they'll get for their money other than bragging rights. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > well,YOUR situation is NOT the one everybody else is in. > > But there are plenty of people still driving cars with carburetors I very much doubt your suggestion of 'plenty'. A few perhaps. How many people are today driving as their main drive, a car that's much older than 20 years or so ? > and it seems like Graham thinks they are all stupid for not running out and > > spending a couple kilobucks to upgrade to EFI. Transplanting EFI from one more modern popular engine to another older one of the same design using scrapyard parts (which would make sense for cars of that age) is unlikely to cost more than a few hundred bucks. Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear overnight. In short, you're fretting over nothing. Graham >>>well,YOUR situation is NOT the one everybody else is in. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How many people are today driving as their main drive, a car that's much > older than 20 years or so ? My own primary vehicle has been hovering around the 20 year mark for the last decade or so. Before that it was even older. Go to any rural area or inner city, you'll see lots of older vehicles still in use. >>and it seems like Graham thinks they are all stupid for not running out and >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the same design using scrapyard parts (which would make sense for cars of > that age) is unlikely to cost more than a few hundred bucks. What if you don't have a "popular engine?" And even so, let's say you convert a small-block chevy (the "belly button" of American engines.) The easiest way to do that is to get an early Tuned Port setup out of a junkyard. How are you going to retune that to work on a new alcohol fuel? You're certainly not going to end up with an OBD2 compliant engine when you're done, even after you've gotten it all back together and running. Flashable ECMs postdate the introduction of EFI by quite a bit. Plus you have to have the code to put into it, are you going to write it yourself? > Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear > overnight. Then why did you seem to imply that we all should do it? > In short, you're fretting over nothing. Then don't call people stupid for not running out and converting to EFI. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>well,YOUR situation is NOT the one everybody else is in. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My own primary vehicle has been hovering around the 20 year mark for the > last decade or so. And you are representative of just what percentage of the population ? 0.01% maybe ? Graham > > Transplanting EFI from one more modern popular engine to another older one of > > the same design using scrapyard parts (which would make sense for cars of > > that age) is unlikely to cost more than a few hundred bucks. > > What if you don't have a "popular engine?" Well then, don't change anything. Gasoline isn't going to vanish for 20 - 30 years yet ! Graham > > Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear > > overnight. > > Then why did you seem to imply that we all should do it? I DIDN'T ! Have you considered actually reading what I wrote instead of jumping to incorrect conclusions ? Graham >>>Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear >>>overnight. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Graham I did read what you wrote. I'm paraphrasing here, but this is a pretty accurate summary. Graham: butanol is a drop-in replacement for gasoline. Other Poster: does it have the same energy content and stoichiometric ratio as gasoline? Yet Another Poster: No. G: that doesn't matter, your engine controls will compensate for it. Yet Another Poster: What about all the cars on the road with carburetors or older FI setups that can't compensate? Are you certain that even the newest systems can compensate? G: well that's stupid old-tech. And the big corporations certainly won't f.ck you over by making a product that won't work in your car and then lobbying for the government to mandate it. Trust them. And you're a retard for not buying a shiny new car with EFI that can be reprogrammed for any new hydrocarbon fuel that comes out. Yet Another Poster: what about octane? My cursory research shows that butanol has a low MON. Won't that cause part-throttle detonation? G: that doesn't matter, it's bloody perfect. Why are you standing in the way of PROGRESS!!!ELEVENTY! That's about all the farther that this thread really needed to go. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear > >>>overnight. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham: butanol is a drop-in replacement for gasoline. Yes it is, as near as dammit. > Other Poster: does it have the same energy content and stoichiometric > ratio as gasoline? > Yet Another Poster: No. The calorific value is very slightly less by a factor of about 7%. That is NOT however a full indicator of how well it performs as a motor fuel. > G: that doesn't matter, your engine controls will compensate for it. Any modern EFI will indeed do so. > Yet Another Poster: What about all the cars on the road with carburetors > or older FI setups that can't compensate? Are you certain that even the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a retard for not buying a shiny new car with EFI that can be > reprogrammed for any new hydrocarbon fuel that comes out. It seems you lost the plot around here. BIG TIME. > Yet Another Poster: what about octane? My cursory research shows that > butanol has a low MON. Won't that cause part-throttle detonation? > G: that doesn't matter, it's bloody perfect. Why are you standing in > the way of PROGRESS!!!ELEVENTY! You've omitted to point out that butanol's RON is BETTER than most unleaded gasoline. All competent EFIs will adjust ignition timing to deal with detonation and that's been so for well over 20 years. I feel sorry for you if US auto technology isn't perhaps up to the standard of us Europeans, but we've had no such troubles in decades. FFS, my Saab has a 32 BIT CPU in its ECU. That system, Trionic, was introduced over 15 years ago. Are you guys still using crappy 8 bitters ? Graham >> >>>Not that it's necessary of course, gasoline ISN'T going to disappear >> >>>overnight. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Yes it is, as near as dammit. "As near as dammit" ain't near enough. >> Other Poster: does it have the same energy content and stoichiometric >> ratio as gasoline? >> Yet Another Poster: No. [...] >> G: that doesn't matter, your engine controls will compensate for it. > >Any modern EFI will indeed do so. No, it won't. Modern closed-loop EFI systems are designed to keep a gasoline/air mixture at stochiometric. The changes in fuel-air ratio required for that are fairly small. They will not automatically handle a different fuel with 11:1 stochiometric fuel-air ratio rather than 14:1. And in open-loop mode (which all EFI systems run in sometimes, for instance when you first start the car), they won't compensate at all. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > How many people are today driving as their main drive, a car that's much > older than 20 years or so ? The newest carb'd vehicles sold in the US (they were imports btw) are about 20 years old. So if it's so trivial, wtf is your complaint? > Transplanting EFI from one more modern popular engine to another older one of > the same design using scrapyard parts (which would make sense for cars of > that age) is unlikely to cost more than a few hundred bucks. It doesn't work that way Graham. You just can't take EFI from a junkyard '98 caddy V8 and drop it on your '67's V8. It just doesn't work that way. If you had half a clue you'd know that. The only time that even has a *SMALL* chance of working is with an engine that the manufacturer upgraded in later years. Trouble is the 80s were a time when it was just time to retire engine families so instead of converting automakers just went to new designs. Those that were converted often have a number of casting changes to the blocks, heads, intakes, etc that leave you with a sensor in your hand but no place to put it. The boss just isn't there in the casting on your old car. Then you might find that for the sensors, important parts like the crank shaft were changed. That is why the kits exist for the popular engines. Someone went through the work, the trial and error, etc of coming up with brackets and mountings and ways to retrofit all the items to the older engines. That's why they cost so much, because someone else did all the engineering work and provides you with all the extra parts that need to be fabricated. (not to mention properly dialing in the programming) And that's another thing, when you are all done installing your junkyard system you find the engine running like crap because the newer engine you took it from had slightly different valve sizes, valve timings, compression, etc and so forth. So now you've got to get to a dyno and reprogram the engine management computer.... > > How many people are today driving as their main drive, a car that's much > > older than 20 years or so ? > > The newest carb'd vehicles sold in the US (they were imports btw) are > about 20 years old. Sounds similar to here. It was low spec models that were the last to convert to EFI. > So if it's so trivial, wtf is your complaint? What complaint ? I'm not complaining about anything. Graham >>>>>>>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines >>>>>>>>too, the bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > nate if the new fuel is all that's available,they'll have a car that's useable. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > But there are plenty of people still driving cars with carburetors, I really doubt your assertion of 'plenty'. > > and it seems like Graham thinks they are all stupid for not running out > and > > spending a couple kilobucks to upgrade to EFI. I never said any such thing. Whilst gasoline continues to be available as it doubtless will for many decades yet, they can happily continue to use it. OTOH, some might *want* to convert to EFI and that most certainly need not cost kilobucks if you get the kit from a salvage yard. > > I'm not sure what they'll get for their money other than bragging rights. > > if the new fuel is all that's available,they'll have a car that's useable. Exactly, although I'd like to challenge Nate to get a gallon or two of butanol, drain his fuel tank, fill it up with the butanol and actually see if any of his cars don't run just fine on it without any need to change anything at all. Graham >Exactly, although I'd like to challenge Nate to get a gallon or two of >butanol, drain his fuel tank, fill it up with the butanol and actually see if >any of his cars don't run just fine on it without any need to change anything >at all. Are you going to replace his engine if it's destroyed by the resulting lean condition? His fuel lines and seals if they are damaged by the butanol? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 27, 1:23 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <48388CD2.14A44...@hotmail.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > resulting lean condition? His fuel lines and seals if they are > damaged by the butanol? Actually I'd settle for a basic rebuild kit, some low compression heads, and a Paxton :) nate >The depreciation on Saabs (like many 'alternative' executive cars) is high >enough that you can afford to buy one in decent condition as a 'toy' near >enough. And you know the US market well enough to say this? It'd be interesting if true, though; I'm sort-of in the market for a sedan and despite the fact that you like them, Saabs ARE nice cars. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> > those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. >> > With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. >> >> EFI kits are rather expensive > > Boo-Hoo ! What's your problem? >> and limited in plug-and-play applications. > That must be bad design. There is no such thing as one-size fits all EFI. If you had half a clue you'd know why. If there were something that could plug and play into a lot of dis-similiar engines I would know it was junk because they are lying. >> If you don't have a largely popular engine in your car get ready to do >> your own engineering work. > Sorry but this is no reason to hold back the relentless advance of modern > advanced technology that offers vastly improved mpg AND performance. Yes > BOTH ! So, how many engines have you adapted from carb to EFI? Do you have even half a clue what it takes? Especially if its done properly as in a fully computer controlled engine. You're going to be doing a good amount of engineering work with limited resources and equipment. > The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the > bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~) This isn't about the auto manufactures... it's about some guy in his garage trying to convert his old car to EFI. The last new carb'd car sold in the US was some import in ~1989. > Trust me - it's a SCREAM ! Buy a damn Turbo Saab and see for yourself. > They're quite crazily fun to drive. I love them to bits. Good mpg too ! Brings back visions of the 1989 MX6-GT torque steer. > >> > those older cars CAN be converted to EFI. > >> > With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's your problem? None. I was taking the mickey. > >> and limited in plug-and-play applications. > > > That must be bad design. > > There is no such thing as one-size fits all EFI. Yes there is. In the dim and distant past it was called Bosch Jetronic, then later Bosch Motronic. Almost every decent European EFI car for many years used these and all they had to do was customise the EPROM with the required map for their engine. Plenty of aftermarket companies also supplied 'tuned-up' EPROMs too. Graham >> There is no such thing as one-size fits all EFI. > Yes there is. In the dim and distant past it was called Bosch Jetronic, then > later Bosch Motronic. No there isn't. It's physically impossible. > Almost every decent European EFI car for many years used these and all they had > to do was customise the EPROM with the required map for their engine. Plenty of > aftermarket companies also supplied 'tuned-up' EPROMs too. They are not universal EFI systems. Sorry. They aren't. Maybe from the view of ignorant EE they are because you don't have to deal with the mechanical realities. > >> There is no such thing as one-size fits all EFI. > > > Yes there is. In the dim and distant past it was called Bosch Jetronic, then > > later Bosch Motronic. > > No there isn't. It's physically impossible. Absolute RUBBISH ! > > Almost every decent European EFI car for many years used these and all they had > > to do was customise the EPROM with the required map for their engine. Plenty of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > view of ignorant EE they are because you don't have to deal with the > mechanical realities. Utter BOLLOCKS. Sure, they would need a unique fuel manifold for each engine style (that's easy) but other than that the actual EFI hardware is IDENTICAL. Graham >> >> There is no such thing as one-size fits all EFI. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Absolute RUBBISH ! An engine isn't a circuit diagram. Tell me, how does your universal fuel injection system have say a crank position sensor that bolts right up to the following carb'd engines: Ford 302cid V8 Ford 250cid I6 Chevy 350cid V8 Ford 300cid I6 Ford 2.3L I4 Olds 307cid V8 Olds 455cid V8 Olds 350cid V8 Caddy 500cid V8 Now repeat that for the injectors, fuel line connections, fuel pumps, return lines, electrical connections, throttle bodies, air intake sensors, etc and so on. Now let's vary the applications... where things are different because of what car the engine is in... You didn't think it through _MECHANICALLY_ . I am remembering why I find most EE's annoying. A total lack of understanding of the physical requirements of things. >> > Almost every decent European EFI car for many years used these and all they had >> > to do was customise the EPROM with the required map for their engine. Plenty of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> view of ignorant EE they are because you don't have to deal with the >> mechanical realities. > Utter BOLLOCKS. Sure, they would need a unique fuel manifold for each engine style > (that's easy) but other than that the actual EFI hardware is IDENTICAL. LOL! You sound like the EE's at a company I once worked for who thought that the same components could just be packaged smaller or would just change from one size component to a bigger one without telling anyone... it was just a mechanical problem... Arrogant know nothing pricks. You want to come over to my house? I've got that oldsmobile with the 307 in it sitting in my garage. How about you yank it, rebuild it and convert to EFI for me... And get this... this car should be easier than most since it already has an O2 sensor for the computer controlled mixture on the carb. > > Sorry but this is no reason to hold back the relentless advance of modern > > advanced technology that offers vastly improved mpg AND performance. Yes > > BOTH ! > > So, how many engines have you adapted from carb to EFI? No need. Vauxhall did it for me by introducing EFI models where before they had previously only had carburettors. It didn't look that different under the hood other than for the high pressure fuel manifold and associated injectors plus a bigger throttle body. Totally retrofittable of course. > Do you have even half a clue what it takes? A total clue. It IS within the capability of a competent enthusiast. It's not even very difficult ! > Especially if its done properly as in a fully computer controlled engine. > You're going to be doing a good amount of engineering work with limited > resources and equipment. Not to just get EFI. To get total computer management would be somewhat harder for sure. Graham >> So, how many engines have you adapted from carb to EFI? > No need. Vauxhall did it for me by introducing EFI models where before they had > previously only had carburettors. It didn't look that different under the hood > other than for the high pressure fuel manifold and associated injectors plus a > bigger throttle body. Totally retrofittable of course. You don't have a clue. 'looks' and reality are two very different things. Looks... I should be able to bolt in all the double over head cam fuel injected wonder of the 2008 aussie falcon inline 6 to the 250 on my maverick.... after all, that engine came from the 250... guess what, it doesn't work. Manufacturers make new tooling they make revisions. the new parts aren't quite the same and those tiny differences you don't pick up in glance are what makes the whole thing work. >> Do you have even half a clue what it takes? > A total clue. It IS within the capability of a competent enthusiast. It's not > even very difficult ! You haven't done it. You haven't looked into it. You haven't got a clue. As a competent enthusiast who has looked into it for a couple engines that are lacking aftermarket backing I can tell you for a fact that I would be a significant amount of engineering work to get something to work. With one engine to go the salvage yard route I would have to travel back and forth to Austrailia to go to salvage yards and pick up different bits and then have to fight US customs on the way back and still do a shitload of engineering work almost to the point where I might as well have designed a new engine from a blank sheet of paper. (or just brought back an entire wrecked car with a good drive line from down under) >> Especially if its done properly as in a fully computer controlled engine. >> You're going to be doing a good amount of engineering work with limited >> resources and equipment. > Not to just get EFI. To get total computer management would be somewhat harder > for sure. If you want full modern adjustability you have to address the ignition system. You can't get what you are calling for with just changing the fuel system. > >> So, how many engines have you adapted from carb to EFI? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You don't have a clue. Yes I do. You're the one talking nonsense. Do you really think auto manufacturers made totally different engines for the EFI models ? Graham >> >> So, how many engines have you adapted from carb to EFI? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes I do. No you don't. > You're the one talking nonsense. Do you really think auto manufacturers made totally > different engines for the EFI models ? Didn't I just explain this to you? Are you mentally retarded? As I explained previously, in many cases manufacturers simply dropped engines and replaced them with new designs. In the 80s many of the engines had been initially designed in the 50s and 60s. Here's a short list off the top of my head of engines that were just dropped: Olds 307 V8 Olds 350 V8 Ford 200 I6 Ford 250 I6 Ford 351M Ford 351W Ford 460 Pontiac's entire engine line That's just off the top of my head of engines that didn't cross the carb barrier in the 80s. There are far more. A good number more that got throttle body but that was the end of the road for them. > As a competent enthusiast who has looked into it for a couple > engines that are lacking aftermarket backing I can tell you for a fact > that I would be a significant amount of engineering work to get > something to work. You'll usually find that work already done for you and waiting to be salvaged in a scrapyard (presuming an EFI model of the same engine as yours existed of course - possibly of different displacement but that wouldn't matter as long as the manifold fitted). Beyond that, yes you'd have to do a bit of small scale engineering but it's not beyond the competent enthusiast at all. Graham >> As a competent enthusiast who has looked into it for a couple >> engines that are lacking aftermarket backing I can tell you for a fact [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fitted). Beyond that, yes you'd have to do a bit of small scale engineering but it's > not beyond the competent enthusiast at all. Didn't I already explain this to you several times over? You have zero experience with the subject and you are playing expert. I've looked into doing this sort of project, the engineering requirements to get going are actually greater than just fitting a newer engine entirely to the car in most cases. The expections are the most popular engines, the small block ford and chevy V8s because there are kits made to deal with all the differences in the engine block. What do you do when your junkyard find doesn't fit because your old block doesn't have boss in the right place? What happens when the toothed wheel for the crank position sensor can't be fitted to your older engine's crank because there was a desing revision to engine block, crank, timing cover, and cylinder head to make it possible in the newer engine? What then? You haven't thought this through. It's not an easy undertaking which is why so very few people do it. If it was easy and cheap it would be a lot more popular. >>>As a competent enthusiast who has looked into it for a couple >>>engines that are lacking aftermarket backing I can tell you for a fact [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > why so very few people do it. If it was easy and cheap it would be a lot > more popular. Actually that stuff is (somewhat) easy; it would be somewhat difficult but not impossible to fab a trigger wheel and pickup to fit on the front crank hub of just about anything, or even the flywheel if one were looking for a more elegant solution. (but after you inserted the magnets you'd have to have it balanced again.) The real scary part is welding bungs on the custom-made aluminum manifold that you just paid $400 for (that's the main thing that's stopping me from trying it on the Stude) and then simply buying all the sensors, injectors, pumps, throttle bodies, etc. etc. etc. (well, there's that too) and then finally the learning curve of tuning it to actually run well (well, yeah, and that.) Plus having to modify the distributor for a Hall sender (I've already done that) and then locking out the mechanical and vacuum advances (haven't done that.) Or simply switching to a waste-spark system with four coil packs (more $$$$) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Actually that stuff is (somewhat) easy; it would be somewhat difficult > but not impossible to fab a trigger wheel and pickup to fit on the front [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > vacuum advances (haven't done that.) Or simply switching to a > waste-spark system with four coil packs (more $$$$) I was just coming up with one cascading example of design revisions that make junkyard solutions frustrating and not the dumb monkey plug and play Graham thinks they are. The thing is that every last piece of it can be like that. Where one thing cascades into another. It just gets easier to swap in the entire engine. On May 24, 7:43 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Actually that stuff is (somewhat) easy; it would be somewhat difficult > > but not impossible to fab a trigger wheel and pickup to fit on the front [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can be like that. Where one thing cascades into another. It just gets > easier to swap in the entire engine. I'm sure that that is what some people would prefer to have happen. However, IMHO the world would be a less interesting place if every old car had a fuel injected Chevy 350 (with a THM350 or THM700R4 behind it) and we never saw another Caddy 331, Hudson Twin-H-Power, Chrysler 392, Studebaker R2, etc... I'm of the mindset that while a car may be of actual historical importance, it ain't worth squat if you can't get in it, turn the key, and drive to work/ the store/ whatever. Once people start treating old cars like museum pieces it's time to hang it up and find another hobby. That said, there's something that gets lost when you swap in a "modern" engine/transmission that detracts from the character of the vehicle - then it becomes more of an imitation or recreation of an old vehicle rather than something authentic. e.g. old Studebakers have that raspy exhaust sound from the siamesed center exhaust ports and shift quadrants that read "PNDLR" and that's just the way it's supposed to be. nate >> I was just coming up with one cascading example of design revisions that >> make junkyard solutions frustrating and not the dumb monkey plug and >> play Graham thinks they are. The thing is that every last piece of it >> can be like that. Where one thing cascades into another. It just gets >> easier to swap in the entire engine. > I'm sure that that is what some people would prefer to have happen. > However, IMHO the world would be a less interesting place if every > old car had a fuel injected Chevy 350 (with a THM350 or THM700R4 > behind it) and we never saw another Caddy 331, Hudson Twin-H-Power, > Chrysler 392, Studebaker R2, etc... > I'm of the mindset that while a car may be of actual historical > importance, it ain't worth squat if you can't get in it, turn the key, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shift quadrants that read "PNDLR" and that's just the way it's > supposed to be. I agree on all counts. The trailer queen car culture in the US is really annoying to me as well. rat-rods and other worn old (as in 20s-40s) cars are appealing to me more and more as a direct reaction to that. On May 27, 10:02 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I was just coming up with one cascading example of design revisions that > >> make junkyard solutions frustrating and not the dumb monkey plug and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > well. rat-rods and other worn old (as in 20s-40s) cars are appealing to > me more and more as a direct reaction to that. I agree with the caveat that anyone that pays big money to a pro builder to "create" a "rat rod" from a nice car is an idiot and deserves to be mocked. My car probably would qualify as a borderline rat-rod - the paint is "presentable" but not "show." There's a few small rust bubbles in the front fenders. there's no carpet or door panels. that said, I'm not going to deliberately make it look *worse* to conform to the popular idea of what a "rat rod" should be. OK, off soapbox now... nate > On May 27, 10:02 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > OK, off soapbox now... I was un-aware there were idiots paying to have rat-rods etc purposely made... that is just nuts. I pick up some the magazines on the 'lower end' of the roding culture and most of the cars shown have been things people bought cheap, yanked out of a junk yard, etc.... there was one nice car... part of it was in primer... someone hit it years ago, the owner straighted up the bent metal primed it and then decided to just leave it like that. That's about as close to intentionally creating one that I've seen. To me it seemed like... 'if I paint it nice something bad will happen, if I leave it primer nothing will happen' sort of logic. On May 27, 12:26 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 27, 10:02 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I was un-aware there were idiots paying to have rat-rods etc purposely > made... that is just nuts. yes, yes it is. I can't find a link to one at the moment (probably because I spent a whole 15 seconds googling for it) but they are out there. > I pick up some the magazines on the 'lower end' of the roding culture > and most of the cars shown have been things people bought cheap, yanked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seemed like... 'if I paint it nice something bad will happen, if I leave > it primer nothing will happen' sort of logic.- Hide quoted text - and I can certainly respect that. Likewise with a car that was rodded "back in the day" and put up in a barn with mechanical problems and someone did the bare minimum to make it safe and driveable to preserve it the way it was. Or someone just building a rod on a budget using raw materials that wouldn't be acceptable for a "show" car but is perfectly fine if you just want something different and fun to drive. I'd rather see ten rough drivers than one trailer queen any day. nate > On May 27, 12:26 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Here's an example of the kind of thing that makes me shake my head... http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hdrp_0704_1937_ford_patina_three_window/p hoto_03.html nate > Here's an example of the kind of thing that makes me shake my head... > > http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hdrp_0704_1937_ford_patina_three_window/p hoto_03.html Fake rust... fake faded/worn paint... that just looks like a.s... what a stupid idea. > Nate Nagel wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos. EFI pisses on carburettors. Graham >>>>Eeyore says... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Some of us still have older cars ... Not many, though. That's the point. >>>>>Eeyore says... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Not many, though. That's the point. There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. Perhaps not so much in overly style-conscious urban areas, but they're out there. Carbs were the norm through the 80's, and some of those era cars are still in use as primary transportation. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. Not in the UK and Europe generally for sure. > Perhaps not so much in overly style-conscious urban areas, but they're out > there. > Carbs were the norm through the 80's, and some of those era cars are > still in use as primary transportation. And your point is ? Graham >There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. Define "lots". Do so, say, as a percentage. Furthermore, that number is dwindling and will continue to decrease. I like old cars as much as any gear-head, but the fact is that fuel injection is more efficient than carburetion for routine use, and carburetion is on the way out. http://news.carjunky.com/fuel-injection-versus-carburetors-abc496.shtml *, US, * wrote: > >There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > carburetion for routine use, and carburetion is > on the way out. Whilst I concur with most of what you say, carburation as a fuel delivery method is not so much 'on the way out' as totally DEAD now. Anyone who can't see the manifest advantages of EFI must be utterly barking mad. Graham >*, US, * wrote: >> >There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Whilst I concur with most of what you say, carburation as a fuel delivery method >is not so much 'on the way out' as totally DEAD now. It's still used some in motorsports, but it's on the way out there, too. >Anyone who can't see the manifest advantages of EFI must be utterly barking mad. Or, to be somewhat less hyperbolic, merely uninformed ... *, US, * wrote: > >> Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem. > > > >Some of us still have older cars ... > &g |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message