Wasn't initially gonna do this poll but with all i've read (various places) about people changing to Fuel Injection systems in their Mavs or Comets I thought I would. The question is which is better each has their advantages and disadvantages. Carburetors are simple for the most part (though some can be challenging) they have their performance advantages, they don't seem to handle the cold very well though and like to stall (from my experience driving carburetor equipped cars). Fuel Injections supposedly pollute less, and get better fuel econmony (as I said supposedly) but aren't for the novice mechanic especially Multi Port Systems. They are very complex and often expensive to fix when they break (I could be wrong on this though it is simply from my own experience). Personally I gotta go with Carburetors if nothin else for the simplicity of it but IMO they are the best for performance I know some of you will dispute that it is simply a preference really. What do you think? Carburetor or Fuel Injection 71 Grabber (Project Car) 85 Club Wagon 94 Taurus GL Sedan FFV
fuel injection has several advantages. More torque, better driveabliity, better fuel atomiztion, better fuel mileage, easier starting in some cases, on and on. The downside to it is that you just cant take a maverick with a mustang MAF injection to a ford dealer for service. Most often, they will refuse it due to it being a custom installation. You pretty much have to know how to service it yourself in order to properly tune it and work on it. On older hotrods, I think carburetors are the way to go, but fuel injection is the wave of the future. A properly tuned Holley will run just as good as a good EFI, and get just as good of fuel mileage. The problem lies in tuning. Very few people know how to properly tune one for mileage AND power. And yes, it is possible to get 25 mpg from a maverick with a decent cam and a 750 doupble pumper...just takes a bunch of tuning.
My roots, tastes and beliefs are all rooted in an older style of thinking ( old cars, american cars) that is not found with most of today's generation. I find myself one of the last generations to be american hot rodders/muscle car enthusiasts. However, where I sway from this old belief is fuel injection. I believe the ultimate combo in an old car is the old car with modern drivetrain/electronics/fuel injection. Simply put, there is no competion whatsoever with a "stock" 60's/70's v8 vs a v8 from a mustang from 86-95, or even 95 up. A "stock" fuel injected 302 from 86-93 will run and run and run. No constant carburator adjustments, no cold starting problems, no point adjustments, and better gas milage. Never mind the fact that a stock 87-93 302 puts out nearly a hundred horse power more than a 72 302----141 vs 225 hp. I speak from experience, I have not given any tuneup whatsoever, no plugs,cap,rotor,timing, whatsoever in 6 years and 70k miles. It still runs 15 seconds flat in a stock 3300 lb 86 gt stang convertible at 173k miles!!! Even a person with beginning skills can figure out how to work on the 87-93 5.0. They are EXTREMELY simple, and a little bit of reading is all that is needed. Mods are much easier, there are many more that can be done on fuel injection than carburation. This is what I plan to do with my mav. There is one draw back, however, and if you read up in the archives on the board, it is no easy task to install in the mav. Also, like others have said, people might not want to work on it. If time and patience are plentiful and knoweledge as well, go for the fuel injection.
Fuel Injected Mustangs Well, Jeremy is right on! After I get a little older and have more money, I would love to put the fuel injection back on my Maverick's engine (From a 5.0 Mustang). My dad's 1990 Mustang runs and runs. We have never had it tuned up, and at 140,000 miles it runs great! The clutch is the original one, and the brakes were done at 100,000 miles. I am very impressed with this car, and by seeing its performance and reliability, I would love to make my Maverick fuel injected. Just my thoughts. Before I attempt this, I need to learn a little more about the whole electrical aspect. -Corbin
The points, all have mentioned, is what my answers have been all along, to posts about FI conversion. It needs to be a genuine challange to do it and come through it with a sense of accomplishment and pride. It is a must, to learn how the system operates or there is little chance of succcess. My car was done in 95 and was one of only a few in the country at that time, that I knew about and the only one to rettrofit a 73- 302. I can tell you that this system really turns on when you get with the show. The fuel milage comes about for a number reasons. Compaired to the old engine, the (5L) compression is higher, fuel is controlled very close by the oxgen sensors, the ignition timing is run more advanced and during cruise, the fuel injection is cut back. Cam is roller and its timing is quite good for a factory cam. As a moderator on another Ford board, I deal with this engine operation nearly every day, and they can have there problems too.
EFI is efficent yes i'll give it that I guess i'm just the plain and simple type though my Carburetor is fairly simple now that i've taken the time to learn it but I would imagine anything even EFI is easy to learn if you put your mind to it. Like it or not I have to eventually learn it, the Taurus has it but I pray nothing goes wrong with it I can't make heads or tails of that Flex Fuel nightmare (has more sensors then Cheney has excuses). The one thing I do like about EFI is it always seems to start on cold mornings without a problem and doesn't stall either. My family once had a 1986 Dodge Aries (had it up til 1998) it had a single port FI nothing too complex about it (still have one of the old Tank Mounted Fuel Pumps for it), it did have it's share of problems though but what do you want from Chrysler.. I suppose if I wanted (and knew how) to go EFI I certainly have the room for it in my engine compartment with that Inline 6 in there and no A/C to get in the way, but i'm wondering if it could even be done on an L6 without totally redoing the cylinder head as the Intake Manifold is integral to it and cannot be removed (at least according to the book). 71 Grabber (Project Car) 85 Club Wagon 94 Taurus GL Sedan FFV
MavJoe, A friend of mine in Australia sent me some pics of an Aussie Maverick with a 250 EFI. From the looks of it, it was a stock manifold drilled for the injectors, with what looked like a single throttle body and mass air sensor. Looked pretty simple to me, but who knows.
For a daily driver FI is the only way to go. For my Maverick that I only drive in decent weather a carb is just fine. Maybe the gas mileage isn't as great as w/FI but for the $1000 or so difference in price I can buy a lot of gas.
If it is going onto a 6 cylinder mav, imo- it is not worth it. Why go to all that trouble for a 6 cyl? Convert to a late model 5.0. Comes with all the fuel injection stuff already, no custom engine drilling.
Having worked on and built both, i'd say that the fuel injection is actually easier. I put a '94 5.0 motor in a '96 6-banger mustang with all the aftermarket goodies....runs like a bat out of hell. It's very easy to get it running right. For my money and my car, though, i'll stick with a carburetor! Why? Because *I* can tune it...at home...in my garage. I don't need to take it to a dyno and have it run for two hours while they tweak the computer to the tune of $400 or more + dyno time. Fuel injection vehicles get better gas mileage because they're pretty close to perfectly calibrated (off the showroom floor, at least), and because they're designed that way--the computer uses wussy timing curves, pulls back fuel (and sometimes timing) at every opportunity, and generally is set for low emissions and good economy. If you don't believe me, go to any mustang board--a good computer tuning will run you $400 and net you ~30hp, the same kind of tuning that i can do in my garage in a few hours with a screwdriver, some jets, and some advance springs! And if you change anything after the computer tuning--back to the dyno! Of course the fox mustang makes more power than a '72 or so 302--it has a 2-bbl carb, lower compression, a dud of an intake manifold, a smaller cam without roller tappets, exhaust manifolds rather than headers, a single exhaust, the list goes on. Anyway, i chose a medium...had an o2 sensor welded into my exhaust and i monitor it with a a/f guage...so now i can tune my car the way I want it, not the way the computer wants it. It may not always be as good or as "dummy proof" as fuel injection, but it's a LOT cheaper and only requires a little knowledge about what's going on. Plus, with as good as carburetors (i like my demon!) and intake manifolds have gotten in the past couple years with CAD and all...i just can't justify the expense and work to put on EFI.
I see you doing several things wrong here. First off, ditch the points. Second, the reason you're continually adjusting the carb is due to the points. TUNE A HOLLEY CARB AND THEN LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE. It will run fine for years once you ditch the points. Third, if you're going that far between tune ups, you're both leaving HP and fuel mileage on the table. Tighten up to 2 years/ 24K miles and you'll pick up lost power.
Seeing as it is that you live in Sacramento Ca. you'll be happier with EFI, if you make regular trips up in the mountains. Elevation changes is one area where a carb cannot compete with EFI. If it were not for that fact, I'd tell you to go carbed.
