I'd like to see you get a carby car cruising anywhere NEAR CLOSE to stoichiometric while still making the same power/torque as an EFI system...... or don't we wanna talk about that?

Your statement aint quite right dude... forgive me for maybe not understanding this right, but your trying to tell me that a turbo engine uses more fuel than a N/A engine?
interesting... You find me an n/a engine making the same power as the same engine with a turbocharger on it that uses less fuel.....

not ALL EFI systems have to use laptops, some use very nice little handheld handsets, that are very easy to use and understand, alot easier than working on any Carb, IMHO..
Never had a problem as such maybe... but using the A/C in conjunction with a computer just adds more features that wernt otherwise there.. like turning it off under hard acceleration and the like..

See above^

 

Got another quarter? Get another game!

Oh please! Fuel mixtures during cruising are the easiest to set! I have seen carb cars with BSFCs so low, tuned so well, that they run lean during most of their power bands. This may sound like a combination for disaster, but there are some race teams who tune their engines this way successfully. Obviously non-turbo.

An engine's mixture will be whatever you set it to. I never said a carb was as accurate as EFI anyway, so why does your question come up?

An N/A engine will use less fuel because it will not run as rich under acceleration, light or heavy. This applies to both OEM and aftermarket tuning.

My question is, how in the hell is this a feature when any decent AC system made in the last 60 years already does what these computers do already? If AC remained on under load, the pipes would burst or the compressor would die. Each car has a different way of approaching this scenario, I believe it was Audi who actually had a bypass valve that would allow the compressor to continually rotate even with the AC kicking off under load, and only draw about 1 hp. My grandfather had a 1971 Dodge that would kick off the AC under load, and increase the idle when the AC was kicked on. My question again is, if the EFI computers, when programmed, do nothing more than this, where is the advantage? There isn't even one at all. Or maybe haltech stole Doc Brown's DeLorean and brought aftermarket EFI to Chrysler 20 years too soon?

 

Since when did race teams worry alot of fuel consumption at cruising speeds? havn't seen many race teems like that? and what the hell has running lean in "most of their power bands" got to do with the price of eggs in china? absolutly nothing?! we're talking about cruise conditions, and I don't see too many carbs getting great fuel efficiency on cruise conditions, maybe we just need more carb tunners in the world with as much wisdom as you, maybe then carbs will make a come back and EFI won't be needed anymore? hmm interesting...

Huge generalisation there mate.. but yes you can get away with running an N/A engine leaner under load, but this still has NOTHING to do with fuel consumption really. Say my 13bTurbo has 250rwhp, now, we get an N/A 13b with 250rwhp, which one will be more fuel efficient? i'll bet my left nut it'll be the turbo 13b. Maybe if you held them both at their maximun power RPM constantly then the N/A engine would be Marginally more efficient, but that is never going to happen in the real world is it?
Sorry im not too familiar with older style A/C setups, but im assuming they had many different electronic components operating all the supposed systems that were already in place? chuck all that crap out and now you have a computer that already needed to be there, because carbs are so ****, controlling all these things instead of crap strewn all over the car.

And not all cars without computers turned the A/C off under load and other circumstances BTW..
I know my stock standard 1996 suzuki swift didn't, that was a carby car with no computer in it, only ever turned off if it was low on gas, too hot/cold.

 

Since when did I say that they did? But in any case, there are several racing series, mostly foreign, that give you a limited amount of fuel to workwith. But that is another topic.

What you just posted was not only irelevant, it sounded like the ravings of a psycho. Why, if fale's *** are you once again bringing up the topic of fuel economy while cruising, when I have already stated a million times that I never claimed carbs to be equal or superior in this area? Why are we dragging this out again? Are you actually trying to prove a point, or just trying to make a few swings?


Let me restate that comment: In general, an N/A engine will be more fuel efficient than a turbo engine making the same amount of power.


Ummmmm.......no. They didn't have any electronics. They had pressure sensitive valves. Anytime a car is under acceleration, the pressure of the AC system is going to attempt to skyrocket, when this pressure spike happens, *click*, the AC gets cut off totally mechanically on the old cars that had this feature.

You are correct, some manufacturers chose to run low pressure systems that delivered comparably inferior performance rather than design a system to click it off. but then again, we're not really talking about a performance design in that case anyway.

 

I know that there are many racing classes that have rules regarding fuel useage. This really has even less to do with the price of eggs in china than some of my posts, we WERE talking about cruising efficiency until you started mention racing teams.

I am a raving psycho, i'll give you that much.

Let me refresh your memory...
"Oh please! Fuel mixtures during cruising are the easiest to set! I have seen carb cars with BSFCs so low, tuned so well, that they run lean during most of their power bands."

Now, call me crazy, and maybe it is just me, but that sounds like you think carbs have at LEAST equal light load tuning abilities.

Still wrong... This will only ever be true if you measure of fuel efficiency is holding your car at redline and measuring the fuel going into while you hold it there, at its maximum power.. ie, its never going to happen in the real world. Now i assume your not comparing apples to oranges here and we ARE talking about the same engine design. getting back to my highly relevant example, my 250rwhp 13bT is going to have far superior fuel efficiency on the street than a hypothetical 250rwhp N/A 13b. Why? because to get this 13b N/A upto 250rwhp you need to either make it rev higher, and/or making its pumping efficiency at those RPM's better aswell, this, 99.9% of the time, will markedly decrease the pumping efficiency at lower RPM's, therefore making its fuel efficiency worse.

Forgive my ignorance on old mechanical A/C systems, I had no idea. But there are obviously very good reason why we are not using this obselete technology in new cars, the electronic way as programed into the EFI computer is obviously a far better way of doing it.

 

Why were we talking cruising efficieny when I already said about a million times that carbs aren't as good? You brought up this lame *** topic once again just because I commented that NZ's car can'tpossibly run stoichiometric. My response to your original inquiry is that we have already talked about how close a carb comes to stoichiometric, and the answer is, probably not as good as an EFI system. WE already went over this a hundred thousand times, so if you want to know the god damn price of eggs in China, call Hong Kong next time because I already told you!




No. What I meant was that while there is going to be a difference, it isn't going to be a huge one. Your inquiry was to how close a carb can come, and the answer is, pretty close, although not as good as EFI. Besides, running stoichiometric is not the goal under crusing. The most economical designs in the world (such as the hybrid Civic) have found the best cruising economy by running mixtures 22:1 an leaner! Compare that to theoretical combustion's 14.7:1 !



If you are talking about those 2 specific examples, yes, but in less extreme situations, the tables will turn remarkable. But in any case, the real point was that, if you're looking for power, you're going to lose gas, and one single gallon is all up to personal opinion, it is not something critical that will seriously affect the performance of the vehicle. It will still run, drive, and perform extremely well. And their AC will click on and off nicely.


More specious reasoning, no facts.

 

Now let's see if anybody comes back with some facts this time, or are we going to dance around once again with the: "If that were like this, this wouldn't be this!"

"Explain to me why you say this when this is like this and that is like that!"

or my personal favorite:

"This is the way that I prefer it, so it must be the better way and the other, no longer valid!"

 

I'll repeat it one more time, coz you seem to have trouble with the concept. If you upgrade from a carb to a better-flowing EFI system, and the system is properly tuned, you will make more power and use less gas. Not more power, more gas. More power, less gas. I can't make that any clearer. We're not talking about adding turbos, we're talking about the same engine. Understand?
Again your conveniently ignore my question so you can repeat the same old line. I'll ask once more: How would you like me to prove it to you? My guess is that any suggestions you make will be impractical or impossible, once again leaving my "claims" unproven.
And why do you think a lot of people feel they're getting their money's worth? Perhaps it's because they are.
Actually, many of the "features" I've mentioned are already controlled by the stock ECU.
Some people prefer to only buy new, others are happy to buy used. The fact is there are always good 2nd hand deals out there if you're lucky enough to find them before someone else. Same with anything else really. You're asking questions with pretty obvious answers here.
Hey, you found me a US-designed EFI system! Not bad! If your pricing is accurate, they're a tad pricey though. You could have a brand new, fully featured system from the likes of Haltech, MicroTech or Wolf for less than half of your top figure. Personally I doubt your prices. US$3000 is MoTec territory, and the TEC3 doesn't appear to be in quite the same league.
WTF? Bad amateur psychology now? I doubt anyone's impressed with your repeated out-of-context use of the word specious. Find a new one...
Why would you need to set it again? It's unnecessary.
I need to explain this? Most people would consider an engine that doesn't stall an advantage. Most people would think that automatically turning the A/C off when you want full power is a good idea (the S5 already does this). Explain to me how your Holley (or whatever) going to stop the engine from stalling when the A/C's on without using any additional hardware?

I've never said these functions were necessary. You keep saying that in an attempt to strengthen your argument. I've simply stated that this and many other additional capabilities, plus the "clear advantage" EFI has in fuel and ignition control, is why myself (and thousands of people all over the world) prefer EFI over carbs.
No, but many do. And retaining the stock ECU for safe ignition control means leaving most of the ECU's sensors and wiring in place.
You're quoting the wrong person. Again...
That article is not a sales brochure, it was written by a magazine. They could have used any other company's throttle bodies and the result would have been the same.
I have assumed nothing. Everything I have posted in this thread is based on what I've seen, heard and read over many years. If I didn't truly believe it I wouldn't post it. If I were unsure about it's accuracy I wouldn't post it. You're the only one here who seems to think I'm making this up as I go. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I couldn't care less. The last thing I'm going to do is chase around for "facts" to satisfy one doubter.
Ah, no they won't. The S4 and S5 A/C systems are basically identical, except that the S5's ECU switches the A/C off if you use more than 50% throttle. So if the the S4's A/C system can survive at redline without this ability, your pressure theory is out the window. It's done purely to free up more engine power when you want it.
Let me restate the point WhiteFC made: You are completely wrong! A 200hp turbo engine (basically stock) can cruise far more efficiently than a 200hp NA version of the same engine (lots of mods required), mainly because of the port/cam overlap required to make that power. That's plainly obvious to anybody with half a clue about engines. Similarly, a small turbo engine producing the same power as a much bigger NA engine is far more efficient because of the lower internal friction and moving mass. The result is lower average fuel consumption, despite the turbo engine requiring richer full-load mixtures. This is because most engines only spend a small fraction of their running time at full load. These facts have been known for years.
Dude, if you're just going to twist people's words around so they say what you want, you're going to end up looking like a fool. I never said it's better because I prefer it, I said I prefer it because it's better. Big difference.

 

 

Rather than repeat myself a million times again, for the same stupid reasons, I will ask the one question that is totally on topic: What can you show me to prove that the difference between EFI and carb is significant enough to render carb invalid for today's rotary applications?

Let's not skirt around the subject with any more side topics. Answer me now. I shouldn't have to explain to you how to prove a point. Specious reasoning is specious reasoning, opinions are opinions, let's see some facts and then we will see just how much you truly know. Judging from your last post, I would say not much on this issue.

 

Is this guy for real?

 

Where is the proof? I see none. Juts more opinions and specious reasoning. I want to see specific, factual examples of why carbs should be forgone for EFI.

Example: "Don't use orange coolant."

"Why?"

"It corrodes your coolant seals."

"How is this so bad."

"Your engine will no longer run."

Perfect example. Don't just keep telling me that carb is not as good at fuel metering or that you prefer it, or that you can demonstrate that it is worth the money. I have told you a million times that I know and acknowledge that EFI is worth the money. No **** something that costs a good 1/4 the price is not going to be as good in performance.

Now pony up some evidence that carb is so much worse than EFI, that it is no longer valid for use. I'm not going to adress any more side topics. Show it.

 

 

There are many reasons why EFI is superior to carb. It is easily and infinitly adjustable. It can automatically compensate for changing temperature, air density, etc. It can be easily tuned from the drivers seat. It can offer increased performance with less fuel consumption and emissions for daily driving. It is a natural for forced induction where it can easily compensate for increased operating pressures (try running a knock sensor with a carb/dizzy).

Carbs have some advantages over EFI in that you can probably scrounge a carb setup pretty cheaply, and they are more easily understood by the "old schoolers". I personally find EFI to be very simple, but that is just my opinion. You may be more comfortable with carbs. That's fine. But it is proven again and again that all things being equal, EFI makes more power in a similar setup then a carberator. It's just basic fact.

There are also many racing classes which mandate carbs, but this does not make them superior.

I like the way this thread has been going. For the most part, it is mature and informative. But I will be keeping an eye on it should it turn...

 

^ That is the single most reasonable post I have seen from that adresses EFI vs. carb yet.

I believe that you truly believe what you say, but that still makes it your opinion. I've talked to people who truly believe that the rotary engine is worthless. Just because they truly believe it, it doesn't make them right.

You are correct about a lot of things, but you are not correct in your assumption that what you know proves carbs to be invalid for modern rotary applications. So far everything that you have mentioned, proves that carbs are a cheaper, valid alternative to the more expensive and more complicated aftermarket EFI.

I never said that you are making this up as you go along, I said that your conclusions are incorrect. Pile all of the facts on EFI vs. carb, and it still doesn't equal carbs being invalid, no more than a Turbo 2 transmission is invalid because GReddy makes a $6,000 six speed transmission with a $1500 sequntial shift!

So basically, you can't prove ****, and I'm supposed to believe that a system that I have seen work successfully on many track cars, street cars, strips cars, and even rotary boats and airboats is invalid based on your word? No sir. I don't think so.

Roll your eyes all you like, and you've still got just another opinion, unvalidated in any form that could even be mistaken for reliable.

 

I'm not going to argue this with you any more, because you insist on inventing things I've supposedly said. First you acused me of calling carbs "worthless", but I did not. Then you acused me of calling carbs "obsolete", but I did not. Now you're acusing me of calling carbs "invalid". Guess what. I did not! I don't believe carbs are any of those things. You didn't admit you were wrong the first two times, so I don't expect you to this time.

So far you've misquoted me, twisted my words around and made up stuff I've said, all in an attempt to make your argument look stronger. It's a pity those things aren't against forum rules as well.

You can keep saying "you can't prove ****" until you're blue in the face, but I stand by what I've written and will repeat it if asked. What you choose to believe is up to you. I sure ain't gonna lose sleep over it.

 

Oh yeah.... that was me NZConvertible

As Aaron cake said, air temp correction is another huge advantage of EFI over carb, i can't believe I forgot about that...

Huge huge advantage, on the street as well as on the track, i've seen many race cars teams using carbs trying to get the most out of their car on a hot/cold day running around changing jets and what not, and the guys with EFI just sitting back waiting for the next round

It's applications are even more pronounced on the street. Not to mention coolant temp correction aswell, helps out markedly on cold starts.

 

Gee, haven't we heard this one already?

I never accused you of calling carbs worthless. Where did I do that? I recall saying that you imply that carbs are worthless, based on the fact that you continually deny that there are any advantages at all to running a carb setup. You have given nothing to the carb setup at all. You have even claimed that aftermarket EFI is cheaper and easier to set up than a carb in the last 3 pages. Bullshit.

I never accused you of using the word obsolete in the description of a carb, I accused you of contradicting my staements that carbs are not obsolete.

I didn't accuse you of specifically refrring to carbs as worthless, I accused you of acting like they are, once again, from you having denied again and again, that there is any situation in which they provide an advantage, except to limit the power of an engine. It is all right there in the text.

When you are head admin, I'll probably give a damn, but until then, I will continue to request the truth, no matter how much you don't like it. I did not twist your words, you have twisted mine. You have accused me of denying the value of EFI, despite the fact that I run EFI and said on the first friggin'page that I would still get an aftermarket ECU if I felt the project called for it, and you have even accused me of implying that carbs are better than EFI in sarcastic ways.


Stand by your opinion all you like, it is as worthless as anyone's opinion our there. The facts and the cars that run carbs speak for themselves with their successes. Nobody needs to speak for them, you can shout all you like how much worse carbs are, but they present many advantages, and are even superior for some applications. I know a guy who runs an FD bodied tube frame car and kicks the asses of the EFI guys all day long, with nothing but a set of Webers. I bet nobody is talking **** when his car leaves them behind in a trail of dust. Saleen wasn't too happy to be forced into EFi either. After he converted, (after shrinking his jets a million times) they not only stopped adding wieght to his car, but they allowed him to remove weight from it.

So yeah, I guess you can't prove ****.

 

Priceless....



You can't prove **** either, I know in a certain very popular racing class where i live, improved production, that EFI is definatly leading the field over any carby car..

now isnt that interesting..

 

Ronin said - Stand by your opinion all you like, it is as worthless as anyone's opinion our there.

This includes your opinion also.

 

..

 

How does my example imply that carb is superior to EFI when I stated in the same post that it isn't? I have also stated that one single example does not speak for all applications. I guess you are not reading. I only provided that example to show that carbs still have real world uses, and that carb cars can not only run, but run well. Take it any way you like though.

MPM: I don't need to voice an opinion. Fact is, carbs are still in full, successsful use, and that is all that I ever said. They still have a place.

 

Fact is, there is nothing in this thread supporting claims that there is a significant difference between the realworld performance of carb and EFI. And even using that term is up to interpretation anyhow.

 

Your post doesn't just imply that carbs are superior, it SAYS that they are

Anyway, i took it at face value, as many other people reading this would take it.

Carbs certainly DO have many real world uses, one that comes to mind is if you clumped enough of them together and chucked them out in the middle of the sea, over time it'd make quite a nice artificial reef for me to go and fish on.

Another one I can think of is gutting them out and installing injector boses into them to use as cheap(er) EFI throttle bodies.
However the former of the two sounds more apealing to me.

You really want proof that there is a definite performance gain to be had by going to EFI over carb in the real world? ok...

I know in a certain very popular racing class where i live, improved production, that EFI is definatly leading the field over any carby car..

**** that sounded familiar..... I wonder if i've said that before somewhere?

Quite seriously though, the webber fed rotaries are far behind the EFI fed rotors in this class, this is a definite fact.

 

Ok, now I am going to have to repeat myself once again, not only did I not say that carb was superior, I actually said that it wasn't, only in some applications. If you can't read, then I can't help you. try hooked on phonics, and hopefully they take international orders.

I don't care about your single racing class, because it proves nothing except that in some spplications, EFI can seriously excel over over carb, just as my exampleproved only that in some applications, carb can excel over EFI, and nothing more on either side. You're trying to make my statements out to be more than they are, but I have already defined their limits. EFI is a superior fuel metering system, and definitely worth the money, carb can present some advntages, mainly in dependability and price which can make it a better choice over EFI in some cases, but certainly not all. Anything I say or have said is in support of those facts only, as I have already said again and again.