|
Old cars that kick new car and FI a$$
Ok before i begin... i just want to say that you FI guys are such a huge opposition that we carbed guys have to stick together. you guys run awesome cause you have 3 computers/FI/new technology... etc, etc.
Now you guys do haul, but what about us guys who put ALL of our sh!t together? Our car runs only as good as we tune it. I'm not sure how many guys here run old cars with carbs, but i do know that there are a few and i think this will be a contraversial subject. Plain and Simple; you can't beat old tech. It's easy to build, simple to maintain, lasts forever, and is just bada$$! I mean, you new car fanatics just drive your cars. My car is running about mid 13's without chassis/suspension mods or slicks. Not too shabby for a 38 year old car? I just love old cars and they are so cool and they just get the girls faster than anything else around. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif I continually whoop new car a$$ (although there are faster ones out there). I think everyone just believes that their little 5.0 GT 5spd can take my merc... they just guess wrong. My car is a little bit bigger then a '65 stang, but it's lighter then a fox body GT. I love to see those smarta$$'s in their $30K cars get smoked by my restomod. No better feeling in the world! Can anyone relate? I especially loved the look on the SS owner's face that i recently whooped! You want brutally fast power? get a falcon/mustang/fairlane... those cars will put a smile from ear to ear on you! ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
I used to have a 78 4spd T/A, i loved it, it was my first fast car, but the quadrajunk carb it had required tuning or adjusting every time i ran it hard, or else it would bogg or die? now i never got a chance to replace it with a holley, which i know would have stayed adjusted better,
i finally learned a good lesson about efi mustangs, they are fast, reliable, and you can run the sh1t out of em, and it still idles like new http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif, but you resto hot rod guys keep it up, i mean these old cars started it all, the newer cars just evolved (thank god) i cant afford 5 miles to the gallon (exaggeration)....he..he ------------------ 90 lx coupe: Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil,advncd ignition,3-core radiatr, FMS alum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs, 3chbr flows. Best time: 14.20(on 225/60/15 firehawks) Best mph 97.80 Best 60' 2.1 next mods: subframes, 3.73's |
yeah to tell you the truth, i really respect FI cars... but i enjoy the simplicity of carbs. oh... my car gets about 16mpg/city 18mpg/highway = no overdrive http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/frown.gif
|
well I enjoy looking at old cars and respect the way they ran with what they had, you have to look at where we are today FI is defienetly where it is at I mean look how many people on this site have low 13 cars or faster that drive them every day! I mean carb cars are such a bear because you have to tune them every time the weather changes to get the best results, FI cars do it all there selves. I think I have been beaten once on the street by a carbed car though many have tried. Its just FI cars run consistently better than carbed cars.
|
i like old cars..... they look nice while i'm staring at them in my rear view. i run low 13's and don't affect the environment as much as your inefficient pos does. i'll out handle any ol' rust bucket too. mister bias ply 14" mag wheels
how do you like that for contreversey? (where's imouer) ------------------ http://www.designstudioz.com/downloads/spinemup03.gif THE MIGHTY NOTCH http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net2/burnout.gif |
I prefer the carb, but my car only drives for fun. If it was my only transportation, I would want EFI. Injection is also much easier to hook a supercharger to.
Carbs kick *** and I love to beat 5.0's, but some of them (mostly boost or No2)love to roast my a$$. ------------------ 67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint 351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars. My 351W Fastback http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg |
I can tune carbs just as good as the next guy. Yeah I drive a new EFI car, but I grew up tuning carbed cars. My dad has a 63 1/2 Galaxie with a 427. This thing has dual quads and it has a solid lifter cam. I can tune the carbs, I can set the points, and I can set the hot and cold valve lash (which on a solid lifter motor could be weekly depending on how much you drive it).
Carbed cars are great, but I wouldn't trade EFI for the world, in terms of driveability. I turn the key and it starts. You can get a carb to do this, but I don't have the time to tune it to the weather. EFI automatically adjusts to weather changes. Carbs are good for high performance, but in my mind and for me EFI is where it is at. All around, EFI performs better than a carb. ------------------ 88GT stock shortblock, ported GT-40 iron heads, Edlebrock Performer intake, 24# inj, Pro-M 75mm Bullet MAM, 3.73, hurst short throw, F-303, electric fan, alum rad, FMS HD clutch, R134a ac conversion, 70mm TB , and some other stuff I probably forgot, best run so far on ET streets is 13.02@106 with a 1.87 60ft Only been to the track once still alot more tuning to do and need more driving experience.(Full body weight GT, full tank of gas, and sway bars connected, gonna disconnect sway bars and dip [This message has been edited by 88GT5.013.02 (edited 01-11-2001).] [This message has been edited by 88GT5.013.02 (edited 01-11-2001).] |
Thats why I luv you MercDude, You and Unit are like twins. Old sh1t is just that, old sh1t. Every dog has it's day and the 60's are over. Granted anything can be made to go fast, but come back in oh, say 3 or 4 years when a wimpy 4.6 mod motor spanks your butt (hurts to write that but the ol' 5.0 is riding at its peak. and the future belongs to that lump of lard called the mod motor). IMO carb or EFI are two ways to skin the same cat. BTW how much does your car weigh? Mine tipped the scales at 3200 lbs. (factory) but now its on a diet and getting some more muscle. Now for the reason 5.0 EFI folks are legion. It's the car that brought back the good ol' days of going fast cheap. Not everbody has or had the chance to go fast in old iron so for most, fuel-injected 5.0's are the standard
|
Have you run your car at the track yet Merc? Or are you just guessin at mid 13's or what?
You have any tips for me? We have a nice new 5.0 302 setup in my cousin 68 mustang, and it just doesnt perform like it should. Althought it does get good mileage, and quite an increase since we did a full MSD ignition on it. He's running a holley 600cfm carb too, we were thinkin its just way too small. Its a brand new stock 5.0L block, so 9:1 comp. FMS Aluminum Y heads 1.94 valve. E-303 Cam, and Edelbrock performer 289 intake, w/ a box stock holley 600 on top. MSD 6a, msd wires and blaster 3 coil. Stock C4 and 3:1 gears. Sky ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, Edelbrock intake, E-303, 3.73's, 1 5/8 shortys, Offroad-H, 2chamber flows, 36psi FPR, 15degrees timing, 70mm tb, 73mm maf, 24lb inj, Crank pulley, MSD6A, Alum driveshaft. On its way: Paxton Sn-89 with dyno tuning and long tubes. Just added: B&M Ripper, Weldin Subframes, & Turn downs! 13.2@106mph |
I like the driveablty of efi alot better but i've been around my share of carbed cars my dad had a 69z28 4speed with a 302 also a roadrunner (not sure what year) and a 69 chevelle ss 396 so i've been around them and helped him some i know there was no fords listed but what can i say i guess i'm just the thorn in his back.Long live all american iron!
------------------ 86GT-MACcatback-89heads,intake,TB,KENNYBROWNsubs,3.73's,HURST shifter,much more to come |
Okay, I'm gonna get in the Sh*t for this one, but here goes...
Having both the Antique Muscle car and a newer EFI Mustang leads me to these conclusions... On a hot summer night, or at a cruise drive in show, nothing is better than a big block rumbling in that's in pristine condition with the old muscle car look... That being said,, as a daily driver, nothing is better than no pumping the gas in the morning, great heat, and cracking thru the back roads at 50mph because the handling is supurb,,,The seats have more support, The 4 wheel discs stop great, the thing is glued to the road with enormous sway bars and nice rubber, less body roll too,,, besides, would you drive your classic in the snow or the rain??? I wouldn't, that's why I bought my SN94. SO I get to have some power in all weather and driving conditions... Not a bad car for my first time modding and owning a Ford.... Just my .02 |
Skyman,
Put some GEAR in that thing!! It's amazing what a gear change will do to the whole attitude of a car.. The 600 really isn't too small for your combo as long as it's tuned/jetted right. It's better to have too little carb than too much. MercDude, I wish I could get that kinda gas mileage! The old motor averaged 11.5 to the tank, and of course I had to run 93 octane. The new one will probably get less since it's a 4V and the old one was a 2V motor (edel intake/holley 600). ------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp |
Oh, OLD CARS, solid flat tappet cams, and carburators ROCK!! (especially for nitrous!).... What kind of true car guy whines about having to adjust valve lash or tune a carb? Whatever... that's just a good excuse to do what I enjoy doing!
------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp |
Well... my car weighs about 3200lbs also. Now, spinemup, i happen to have MANY MANY improvements to my suspension... one being sway bars, two being shocks, three being springs, four monte carlo bar, and five i have 15's on 50 series tires measuring 225front 245back... that's nearly the size of 275/45/16's. Carbs have NOTHING to do with reliability to start in mornings (well if you tune it first http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/wink.gif). Mostly that has to do with the type of distributor/ignition you own... like i run an unilite mallory dist with full mallory ignition (coil, hyfire, wires)and my car fires up no prob every morning.
Skyman, i haven't been there lately... so yes i am guessing BUT i have raced a slightly moded '00 M6 SS and i KILLED him off the line by about 5 cars... and we pulled it out until about 90 then we shut it down... he started to pull on me like a raped ape at about 70 (didn't pull all the way through second http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/frown.gif ) but that's basically how i'm judging my et currently. My advice to you is to get a MSD dist (helps A TON!) and to get a stealth intake (or performer RPM)... also put some nice long tube headers on with 3 chamber flows. The gears are REALLY killing you with an auto and that cam/heads. Also TUNE YOUR CARB!!!!!! Holleys do not come pre tuned! Also... change your secondary springs to a lighter spring. Also your auto NEEDS at least a 2200 rpm converter with a shift kit (HELPS!!) The carb is PLENTY for your app. If need be, try adjusting the jet size. Good luck on your car. I want to just say that nearly any old car CAN handle like a fox body, but unfortunately, this takes about $750 in suspension rebuilding. I drive my car EVERY day... it's not too bad and i love the attention!! Carbs are JUST as reliable as EFI (if not MORE so!) ... what i do have to say is GREAT about EFI is the automatic tuning from the computer... gosh having major electronics sure is nice ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
Yeah, well next on the list for the car is a 5speed swap. Would a MSD distributor really make a difference? How so, I dont understand how it could work better. The car has longtubes with 2-2 1/4 pipes all the way out the back with 2 chambers on it. I cant tell if they are 2" or 2 1/4 but they are definatly much smaller than my stang.
And the gasmileage for a C4 with a 302 is good! It gets better mileage w/ 92 octane too, about 23mpg on the freeway!! Sky ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, Edelbrock intake, E-303, 3.73's, 1 5/8 shortys, Offroad-H, 2chamber flows, 36psi FPR, 15degrees timing, 70mm tb, 73mm maf, 24lb inj, Crank pulley, MSD6A, Alum driveshaft. On its way: Paxton Sn-89 with dyno tuning and long tubes. Just added: B&M Ripper, Weldin Subframes, & Turn downs! 13.2@106mph |
Alrighty, I've seen my name mentioned, and I feel I must clear up some stuff here.
I disagree fully with all the old cars being quicker, or lasting longer than the EFI stuff. I love EFI, whenever somebody tells me they prefer the simplicity of carbs I laugh, because that means they just don't know much about EFI. Old BB and the like can be setup to beat the Fox bodies, in stock to stock form, but not many of them. Sure your 428CJ's, LS6 454 Chevelle's and what not can really crank. Some are capable of blowing the 5.0's doors off when they are modded and the 5.0 isn't. Back here in the real world, which is where I reside, the old BB's are good for about 60-70k before they begin getting tired, and the EFI cars run to 120-140k before you see the same reaction from them. My '87 GT gets 20/27 for fuel economy, should run high 13's, I've taken WS6's and SS's, but never by anything more than a car, blowing one away would be the mark of a 12 second car at least. My '87 weighs under 3100lbs, which is lighter than Mercdude at 3200, so I don't know where his numbers are coming from? Anyway, lot's of people don't give the credit those old cars deserve, but they are by no means nearly as nice as the new ones. Not even close, not in the same ballpark. My GT is so vastly superior to say a '69 Mach 1, which may actually beat me in the quarter when it's new, that the comparison is not even funny. I've beaten the BB's, in fact I've never lost to one, even with 130,000+ miles on my 5.0, and there is no way you're going to get me to admit to their superiority. I see that the new GT has been mentioned, it's the quickest Mustang GT ever produced. It outhandles, outaccelerates, and out top ends any GT Ford has ever put onto the road. The '99 Cobra with fix is arguably the quickest factory Ford Mustang ever produced, and would absolutely annihilate any other Mustang Ford has put on the road when tested across multiple road courses and driving scenerio's, from the 1/4, to the 0-100-0, to any test you can come up with. Even the mighty 93-94 Cobra R would fall to this car. (I don't even consider the new Cobra R to be a Mustang, it's a joke. $50k? What a laugh.) That is where I stand, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I feel the owner of the new GT's perhaps have a bit too much ego, but certainly have the right to be proud of their cars, Ford has never made them better than they do today. And you can quote me on that! http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/cool.gif Unit 5302 |
Miracle Max.
Oh the ones who speak bad of the 4.6 but know nothing. I'm not implying that you know nothing of the 4.6L thats just whats common around here. People seem to detest or be scared of things they dont understand. Sure its physically big and bulky, sure it has only 281 cubes, but that 281 cubes can hang with every bit of 346 or 350 cubes that chevy puts out. Oh, by the way, what year is it that is the fastest stock GT. I've seen some MOd motors that will put a pushrodder in his place, especially while your getting ready to grab for third and hes just yanking it down into second. I love my brute 289, but I love the way those 4.6Liters of the 99 and newer scream. To bad you dont live around here, I'd see what ya got. ------------------ 64 1/2 Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, 3:1 rear gear. Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 windsor valves, high side of 10.5:1 comp, 1.7:1 sled rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, autolite 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. And to many others to list 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. 64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Auto. project car. |
I seem to be in the enviable position of agreeing with most people on this thread. No one will disagree that a Holly carb is the easiest induction system to tune and the most versatile. They make a variety of parts to do anything anybody could want. No custom chips needed here. Tune any part of the carb any way you want it for just a few bucks in parts. Not so with EFI.
Don't get me wrong. For everyday driveability, dependability, and gas mileage, EFI can't be beat. That's what I drive daily. For inexpensive power and backyard tunability, you can't beat a carb, especilly a Holly or a Demon. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi. |
skyman, that 68 needs gears for the e-cam to get the full effects imo.
and unit, the 94-95 cobra-r would probaly edge out the 99-00 gt's, sorry to disagree, i do agree with just about everything else though. I know your not just talking 1/4, but my coupe can beat stock gt's depending on driver skill, in the 1/4. and mercury, 70 mph is about when a (stock m6) would pull on me too. ------------------ 90 lx coupe: Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil,advncd ignition,3-core radiatr, FMS alum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs, 3chbr flows. Best time: 14.20(on 225/60/15 firehawks) Best mph 97.80 Best 60' 2.1 next mods: subframes, 3.73's |
90dpscoupe
You're right, a 94 Cobra R could most likely take a new GT, but if you'll look at what I posted again, it says the new Cobra would take it. With a 13.5 quarter mile time, it's arguably the fastest non race production Ford Mustang ever made. 94 Cobra R was rated at 5.2, and 13.8 @ 102(or something near 102) I will certainly argue with a carb being easier to tune than EFI. What kind of position is that? EFI tunes itself! If you want to fine tune it, get an AFPR, that's 9 of 10 times all you need. I will also dissent with the argument that a carb car is cheaper or easier to mod. I've been through this exact discussion in detail with a gung ho carb guy. He didn't have any replies after a detail price analysis of an 85GT vs 87GT for street/strip 12 second N/A car. I beat him. All forced induction mods are far and away more reliable on EFI cars than carbs. That mod alone makes a huge difference. in performance street applications. The carb is inferior, any way you want to look at it. Just because some nimrods in high up racing NHRA, NASCAR, like to hold on to their ancient underperforming technology doesn't mean that it's actually better. It just means they are scared, and rightfully so, that new guys would take over the racing scene, and that the old timers that have refused to look into EFI would never be competitive. |
Forced induction? You sure? I'd take a carbed nitrous motor over an EFI nitrous motor anyday. I know I'm not alone in this one... plate kits are wonderful on carbed engines.
------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp |
90dpscoupe, Ok... about the SS, i didn't pull all the way through second gear, i only went to 4k rpm (in an auto, every gear is VERY important).
Anyways, Unit, my factory weight rating was 2900lbs... i was just adding for gas/driver/etc, etc and what you said about BB not lasting just says how much you know about bb. You obviously have never been involved with old ford bb iron.... my father had a original 390 with 80K on it that would give you a run for your money. Don't write off things you don't know about. ALSO, i do know a fair amount about EFI... i have rebuilt a few EFI performance engines, so i do know some sh!t. EFI runs good if it's stock or is specifically designed for it, but any other sort of tampering will make the computer sh!t it's pants and then the engine requires much more modification to run descent. Even after the computer problems were solved, we had so many F!cking sensors go bad that it was hard to just keep the damn thing running right! SO **** that, i'll stick to my carb any day! A 85 carbed engine is just a not so sophisticated/efficient EFI setup. The carbs still were half runned by computers (or so i've been told) and the emissions on them alone would snuff any benefactor out of a carb over a true EFI setup. That comparision is NOT a true carb vs. efi test. ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
Mercury, I see the potential in the motor. It doesn't have any pushrods to deal with. So that opens up huge possiblities in head design. As far as I can see the only thing that has to remain the same is the intake port flange? Valve angles, spacing, etc are wide open ( upto the limits of the bore) along with the shape and contour of the ports themselves. That means big improvements in cylinderhead flow. What I don't care for is the overall external dimensions of the motor. A Y-block is nice and so is a super long connecting rod, but I think they could have gotten by with a regular block design and shorter rods. This could have trimmed some inches off the motor. Theres no cam in the block so deck height could have been shortened, etc. I think the big reason for the big little engine is NVH stuff for the most part, emmissions on the second. This can be seen in the smallish 3.550 bore and 3.550 stroke. Its designed for hi-speed low octane operation and low emmissions.
3.550 bore = reduced crevice volume (emmisions), reduced surface area minimizes thermal transfer and, the amount of ign timing, as well as controling the flame front better. This is why SB's can get away with more compression. It also reduces frictional loses. On the downside the smallish bore does need a OHC cylinder head because valve area is limited by it's confines which means a much more efficent port is needed to get the same amount of air through to the cylinder (better discharge coefficent from the valve) Cobra guys have it easier, but the 2 valve motors with the FRRP heads and no porting are stuck around 450 hp (naturally aspirated) which is 1.6 hp per cubic inch. BTW a 5.0 making 1.6 hp is 483 hp. To do that N/A on a 5.0 takes a little work. So its the same with a 4.6 at 450 hp. And for the BB guys a 460 is making 736 hp. All things being equal all three motors are producing the same amount of work relative to thier bore sizes. To get 500 hp N/A they are gonna have to do some fancy work to get about 243 cfm out of the ports on a 4.6. Good luck anybody who wants to try |
Im sorry, but there is no factory 390 out there that will give a 5.0 a run for its money. The 390 was a dog unless highly moded. Its just not a good performance motor. Look what the 390 stangs ran... high 14's if driven well. Don't say it was old tires either, look at the trap speeds.
Skyler ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, Edelbrock intake, E-303, 3.73's, 1 5/8 shortys, Offroad-H, 2chamber flows, 36psi FPR, 15degrees timing, 70mm tb, 73mm maf, 24lb inj, Crank pulley, MSD6A, Alum driveshaft. On its way: Paxton Sn-89 with dyno tuning and long tubes. Just added: B&M Ripper, Weldin Subframes, & Turn downs! 13.2@106mph |
Have you ever heard of the 401 horse 390 (tri-power) that was in the '61 Starliner (Galaxie)? If that 390 was in a Mustang it would run pretty damn good. But I know what you mean, those engines are made for torque.
|
Quote:
Carbs + NOS is a nice combo. Those short fat runners with a central intake lends itself extremely well to both wet and dry kits. I would, however, somewhat hold judgement till we see the performance of the IMRC NOS system. That sucker has some promise. As far as the 4.6, there are a couple of guys running in the 7s with a stock block, stock crank (rebalanced) and stock heads(ported + cams) Cobra motor. There aren't many production engines with that sort of power potential. |
Okay, so you guys are going to base your argument on the sad notion that carbs are better because you can get bigger engines in the past with them? Well la de frickin dah!
When's the last time you took a look at a dyno sheet between an EFI motor and a carbed motor? See the difference? I do, the carb is jerky and rough, EFI is smooth and consistant. I'm not arguing the old BB's superior performance when modded up at the dragstrip, just the fact that they are well out of their league everywhere else. Hehe, you must have awful luck with EFI cars, they usually go a good 100k before sensors start going out. Which is 1 1/2 times the quality lifespan of a performance BB. They are easy to diagnose with simple tests and a multitester, and require very very little maintainence. Course, then again, I've only owned 7 of them, so maybe I'm wrong? It's usually a fix of well under $100, and an afternoon of work to fix the electrical components, especially the EFI system stuff. Obviously anybody who would come out and post the performance BB's as being long life motors has no clue whatsoever. To my credit, I'll put up information taken directly from my dad, owner of 427, 390, 428, 429, 460, and several others along the way, and my uncle owner of 428, 406, 390, 302 Boss, and several others. Together they've raced and rebuilt those engines again and again over a combined 70 years. If you get 70k on a performance BB, it NEEDS a rebuild. Saying anything more optimistic than that is just plain blind and misled. So you hear the '85 was mostly run by a computer? Well sorry, but the holly 4bbl on the 85GT was the form of induction. Last time I checked a holly 4bbl was a carb, yes? Regardless of whether or not that car had emissions equipment on it, the carb was more expensive to get the same performance as the 87. If you actually believe carbs are safer than EFI when handling N20, why is N20 so big now? It was a recipe for disaster back in the carbed days, but now we have guys running years on the giggle gas with no ill effects. If it wern't for EFI, N20 would still be relegated to the crazy nutballs who were more than willing to blow their motors. I know some people on this board like the older stuff, but let's be real, if it was superior to the new stuff, they'd be building the old stuff again. To actually argue the old cars can even try to hang with the new ones is ludicrious. A fricken Jaguar XJR luxury 6 seating type of car will show a 428 Mach 1 it's taillights. The new Cobra will do the same, so will the LS1's which would more than likely show the LS6 Chevelle what fast really is. About the only N/A BB cars that can maintain a closeness factor to the top performers today are the 427 Cobra, and a couple other mostly race cars. |
Yes Unit, EFI cars "tune themselves", but for driveability and emissions as the goal. Not for max power. One has to get a chip burned for that. Can you do this in the back yard with your multimeter?
Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi. |
He..hee..unit you said it dude, but one thing i have to say is the chevelle ls6 is capable of 13 flat or even dipping into 12's especially with the m-22 4spd, or whatever that tranny was, but the ls1 is far more reliable, economical, and can also run in the 12's with light mods.
And the 390 can be a badas$ motor, but heavily modded with a cam and 850DP carb, i'd be choking on the exhaust fumes, and a nos plate on the carb would probaly cause an engine fire. But im not dogging on it, a 390 fairlane is pretty nice though. |
wow Merc! a monte carlo sway bar? im sorry i bet your car is capable of some high g-forces. your argument is comparible to when cars where first built. "my horse and buggy is so much faster than your model t"..."all i have to do is feed my horse an im good to go" when you finally get to the track then you can post times. that camaro ss was probably talking on his cell phone and didn't even see you in your grandma car go flying by. nor did he care. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif
|
I think we have established that anything with a V-8 can be bada$$ it is just a matter of personal preference.
------------------ 67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint 351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars. My 351W Fastback http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg |
I was fortunate enough to have grown up during the muscle car era, owned a few (69 GTX 440/4 speed, 67 Chevelle 396/350) and trust me these cars could run hard. The way to make them run is no different than the ways we use to make our stangs run hard now - add the right parts, give it some traction and take the time to tune and refine your combo so that you can use all of the power that you are making. Owning both an 87 5.0 and an original 1965 289/271 K code, I get to live on both sides of the fence. In any race between these cars the 5.0 would beat the snot out of the old HiPo any day of the week, it handles and stops much better, gets better gas mileage, and is a lot more comfortable as a day in, day out driver. It was also very easy to get this car into the 13's with just simple bolt on's. The HiPo car however provides a driving experience that 5.0 could never, ever match. The unique sound, smell and feel of the old solid lifter engine at idle and under acceleration, the feel of the quick ratio manual steering, the 60's style driving position etc. - this car provides an awesome interactive driving experience and demands a high level of your concentration every time you drive it - hard to describe unless you have had the chance to put down some miles in one. I love both cars and both have their strong points, but when it comes down to pure performance, technology rules. The late model EFI cars possess incredible potential and as can be seen by the sheer number of 11 and 12 second cars on the streets, can easily be modified to do things that the old cars can only dream about.
------------------ 1965 K code coupe - numbers matching - restoration ongoing. 1987 LX notch, stock heads and intake, typical bolt on's 13.89@100.25 |
I completely agree with Jaydee. Old cars can be really cool, and a blast to drive. I'm not disputing that, or the fact that with the right parts the carbed BB's are the quickest cars on the dragstrip.
This post however started with the notion that old carbed cars were superior to the EFI cars in the performance department, I'm assuming in stock or near stock form. My name was dragged into the topic and I felt significantly misinterpreted. I like the old cars the Mach 1's, my uncles awesome Boss 302, which he is going to sell, but I would never trade EFI for a carb. Rev, yes EFI equipped can be tuned for more performance, right in your garage with tricks such as adjusting the TPS. Also, the computer "learns" your driving habits, so if you reset it and run the crap out of it, it will tune to be a little more agressive. Open loop cycles are not tuned for emissions and driveability, they are tuned for performance and little rich to avoid burning the car down, but if you want to tempt fate, you could always add and AFPR and fine tune your car for performance. |
Has anyone thought about the numbers everyone throws around? Think for a sec...
Where do you get the numbers for new production car stats? MotorTrend? Car and Driver? Or any other 'off the shelf' magazine? These magazines are in the buisiness to MAKE MONEY. They have perfect setups for every test they might possibly want to run. Professional drivers that have honed their quick-shifts to an artform. In addition, do you actually think that the factory (whichever it may be) graciously "donates" these cars for tests, knowing that they will be run against other cars of diffrent makes -and that the results will profoundly affect sales- without a little tweaking? Perhaps a superchip for a quicker 0-60 time or upgraded shocks for faster slalom times? The automakers view this as a invaluable part of their products' advertisement and image... because everyone treats the numbers as scientific law. My point? It has been proven, time and again, that this happens... and that the stats are one thing, real life another. Before you next praise the new generation of motorsport technology keep in mind that although stats sported by the latest motor mag might be faster than a btchin' 65 falcon or someone else's hot rod 68 chevelle... these stats are not necessarily the truth. The truth is what your eyes and experience tell you. ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
MercDude- Actually its the other way round. Back in the day car makers would give car mags a particular car to test. And low and behold they started giving them ringers. Now the car rags usually acquire their test cars in a more random fashion.
However new or old I don't go by magizine performance numbers. I don't consider myself a great driver, but stock I managed to beat the published numbers for my car in C&D, R&T, ect by a several tenths, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile without powershifting. |
MercDude - I take it that you don't really believe what you read when your looking at the times posted in various mags for the new stangs, camaros etc. Well your probably right. Its an old trick by the auto manufacturers to "enhance" the performance of the cars they release to the magazines for testing. In the old days, "stock" cars were given to magazines with increased cubic inches, bumped compression and blue printed motors were common occurances in the game. Pontiac slipping in warmed over 421's into otherwise stock GTO's back in 1964 for the infamous Car and Driver Pontiac GTO Vs Ferrari GTO comparison test is probabbly the most famous case of this. It is not beyond the imagination that some of this slight of hand would still occur today. The ultimate truth in performance however can be found at your local drag strip. I frequent both E-Town in N.J and Lebanon Valley in N.Y. and routinely see stock LS1 camaro's run consistiant low to mid 13's and high 12's with minor bolt on's as well as 5.0's and mod motor cars running anywhere from 10's to 14's depending on their level of mods. I became a believer when my 87 5.0 ran 14.4's bone stock with 2.73 gears while spinning the tires badly and 13.8's with simple bolt on's, 3.55's and a slipping clutch. Believe me, I love the old iron, I grew up with it, owned it (still do), modified it and beat the **** out of it and I plan to have my old HiPo until they stick me in the ground. But I firmly believe that there has never been an easier breed of car to modify to run hard than a late model stang or LS1. It is not hard to create a throughly streetable car capable of running in the 11 or 12 second zone that will still get you home at 20+ mpg with the a/c on.
|
Going fast reliably in a "modern muscle car" is definately easier, but honestly, what would yall rather be in cruise night? A 69 boss 429 or a 99 mustang cobra? I'm willing to bet 3 out of 4 would say the boss. And, we all know that classic cars get the chicks! My first car was a 90 lx 5.0 vert, and I loved it, but it just didn't compare to the thrill and enjoyment I get from driving and working on my 69. As cool as fox body cars are, to me they're still cookie cutter cars. When was the last time you drove more than 20 miles anywhere and didn't see at least one 87-93 mustang? I like em, they're just nothing special, but a 69... it's another story. This is all just my humble opinion, of course. Give me old iron over new muscle anyday!
------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp |
I can Rev, it's called an Extender. So all of a sudden the 14.7 A/F ratio just went out the window for a comfy for power 13:1 . The only clear cut advantage a carb has over efi is the gain from latent cooling when the fuel evaporates into a gas. If you built Identical motors except for the fuel delivery device, The average torque number would be higher with the efi car due to better fuel distribution as it revved. Ergo, the car would accelerate better and in drag racing a fat torque curve is better than peak power. Now if we where racing at a superspeedway then yeah the carbed motor would catch-up and pass the efi motor. I suppose it depends on how you go about grabing the bull by the horns? For me I like small blocks and EFI. Although I would dearly love to have a 70' Mach 1 replete with 428 CJ, drag pack and shaker hood. Be nice to own and cruise every once and while. For regular street duty I'll take my beloved LX pony.
As far as the cookie cutter thing. Ponder this! In 30 years all those fox cars out there will be thrashed, bashed, cut and crunched up. Just like alot of old muscle cars. Which by then will be about as common as a dusenberg, 57 Bel Air, whatt have you (guess I'll be rattgling my cane at some young whippersanpper and his Formazaustivolvbmw or whatever things settle down to and talking about the good ol days when a 5.0 Fox car was the poopoo). My LX 5.0 will be a classic (and don't think it won't they already have resto parts!) worth a few pennies for the same reason all the old muscle is. "Yeah when I was growing up 5.0's where the stink. Man wished I'd had tha chance to own one". Then it's yeah I got one, and for the right price... Scratch that. They'll be burying me in my LX, I can't part with it. This thing has even out lived my first true luv http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif |
The carb makes more HP and the EFI makes more torque... it's just the differences in induction system... but for backyard mechanics, carbs are easier to get running fast!
------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
I love to take out EFI stangs and f-body's, but my favorite kill is also my easiest. I love to emabarass those ricer punk dorks cruising w/ their cheezy girlfriend, acting like they have a Formula One car on the street.
Roasting those guys feel almost like a public service by putting them in their place. I race against stangs to see who is faster, I race against ricers to show them how stupid they are. ------------------ 67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint 351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars. My 351W Fastback http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg |
No SH!T!! Wow... and i thought i was the only one!! LOL... those hondas are SO pathetic!
------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's |
I'll also disagree with the EFI makes more torque, carb makes more peak HP deal too.
That's primarily the affect of runner length. If EFI was on a motor and it was setup for maximum hp, it would beat a carb hands down. It just mixes fuel/air much better than a carb. The EFI motor would of course lose a little driveablility due to torque loss, but it'd still have the smooth dyno chart, which means it'd make more HP on average than the carb. |
Naw, even if runner length was comparable the EFI motor will still out torque a carb motor. Just has to do with the better fuel distribution and atomization. The only clear cut advantage a carb has like I said earlier is the cooling effect the fuel has as it turns from a liquid to a vapor. All things being equal. I suppose myabe if on a racing setup somebody with a little technical savy might be able to overcome this situation by introducing a small bit of fuel upstream allowing it to vaporize then utilizing a standard injection setup for fuel metering. I doubt such a setup would work on anything less than a race car with a short runner system. As for tuning, I think EFI is just as simple, expecially with an SD car. Pull the plugs, examine them the adjust then pressure. On a MAF car with stock electronics, if the fuel system is worked out right. What kind of adjustments need to be made? The MAF measures the volume of air going into the engine and the computer meters it based on a few more inputs. No air bleeds, no jets, no power valves, no vaccum diaphrams, none of that stuff. Unless your in the habit of just bolting on a supercharger when you need some extra power that night and then taking it off, Who needs to adjust what. EFI's not sensitive to alt, temp, or humidity like a carb. Any combination of those three affects the amount of air the engine is able to injest so the fuel management system just adjust accordingly. No need to change the jets because yesterday you ran in death valley and now your doing a hill climb up Everest, but like I said it comes down to your prefernce. This topic could be as hotly debated as the big vs. small issue, old vs. new etc. Brand X vs. the best http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...rd/biggrin.gif. I'm willing to bet somebody has twice the reasons ready to claim why carbs are superior http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif
|
I think that both have basically the same HP potential, efi is definately a more user friendly system, but when a carb is set up right, it is as good is EFI. The difference is in what it takes to get it set up right. They are just two different ways to do the same thing.
------------------ 67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint 351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars. My 351W Fastback http://www.mustangworks.com/mustangs...1245-slot2.jpg |
EFI is better for daily driver or street/strip cars I think, but I still like carbs better. Besides, getting an EFI setup on a 351C is just so damned expensive (like over $1500).
------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp |
Eh, maybe but if all the basic systems are in place you've got a good start. Carb and carb manifold's have been around so long they are cheap to make. Figure a new carb and carb intake is about the cost of an EFI manifold. I think you could make the money back in the long run considering the more efficient operation (if your into that sort of thing http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...board/wink.gif ) Or if you like the ease of tunability. That to me is worth the extra cost. Once a carb is set-up doing the math for jet changes is easy to do, but instead of just cranking on a fpr, you gotta pull the bowls, take out the jets, blah. blah, blah.
Now that I think about it getting a Holley HP, a fuel pump, and intake are almost as much as an efi set-up probably only about 400 bucks shy. |
I have both efi and carb. A 65 and 90. Even though mostly everyone belives that a carb is so much faster than a efi car, that isn't true. There are dyno tests out there that show the same motor that ran with a carb then was switched to efi, and the efi made more power. Older people think that if it dosen't have a carb it isn't fast, thats not true at all. It seems to many people out there bash efi, maybe it is they just don't understand that efi is a better set up.
|
Hey MiracleMax, isn't that "extender" just a piggyback, add-on chip that some outfit burned for you? Does it also dial in your timing? Is that 13/1 across the board RPMwise? What if I wanted 13.5/1? I can do all this in a heartbeat on my car. No emissions questions either.
Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM. |