Always had carb bikes...

But I would like to tinker with EFI! Software driven, alter the fuel curve with software, pressurized fuel delivery...Sounds like a madman's dream!!!

 

First Harley was carb, second EFI. Now looking for another carb. Whoever posted about the ride and power with the carb, I say the same thing, better!

 

Used to get 22 mpg from the 302 in my old '98 Explorer. That's with even worse aerodynamics than your Mustang, MUCH more weight, and the added friction of the full-time AWD setup. Still running perfectly at 240,000 miles when I sold it too. The engine in your '69 Mustang made 220 hp gross, the '98 EFI Explorer managed 215 net, so apples to apples the engine in my Explorer had more power. It was also many, many, many orders of magnitude cleaner in terms of emissions than the smog-belcher in your '69 Mustang. And the modern, EFI, 5.0 in the newest Mustangs makes over 400 hp and gets comparable mileage to your '69, despite having twice the power and being much faster and all this while being much cleaner to boot.

Sorry, but it's just not possible for a carb to work as well as EFI. I've had plenty of good carbs and none of them can touch a good EFI setup for everyday, real-world use. There's a reason that F1 cars use EFI.

Flat wrong. In order to make a different set of compromises than the factory made you have to un-do all the factory tuning. Tuning an engine does not involve merely looking for peak HP and being done with it. Believe it or not, there are an almost infinite number of variables that need to be balanced against each other when tuning an engine. The benefits of EFI extend to many areas other than simple power, emissions, for example. Like it or not, emissions are a legitimate concern and the only way to manage that concern with a carb is to go the feedback carb route. Remember those? Yeah. There's not a person alive who thinks feedback carbs were better than EFI.

A carburetor just flat doesn't have anywhere near the same ability to adjust for conditions that EFI does. Yes, a CV carb can adjust for altitude. But not easily for temperature. Nor humidity. Nor can it vary the amount of fuel injected by the accelerator pump based on engine temps. EFI gives you far more accurate control of mixture and no amount of, "well I've had carbs work" from you will escape that fact.

I completely grant that a carb is cheaper. That's really the only advantage.

 

Both work just fine. However, as a year 'round rider, I find the EFI nice in the cold. I would have to side with EFI, but I could change my mind if I had problems with an EFI bike and had to take it to dealer vs fixing the carb.

 

feedback carbs... what a pile of crap.. but the manufactures had to do something to get the emmission requirements out of the engines that the feds were requiring..

i started pulling wrenches in 81.. just about at the onset of computer controlled engines/carbs/ignition etc.. overhauling carbs is a piece of cake, but its something that needs to be done from time to time on even the best maintained vehicle. gaskets and accelerator pumps wear, floats get heavy or holes, seats get stuck.. i've never had to o/h a fuel injector, tps, maf, map or 02 sensor yet.. have i had to replace them ? sure.. but not at the frequency that a lot of people think they go bad.. most of todays engine electronics are relatively cheap(unless its a foreign car, 400 for a O2 or 600 for a TPS says so) and last a long time.. for the most part the life of the vehicle. i have yet to replace any of the aforementioned parts in any of my numerous vehicles over the years except for one O2 sensor that took a crap and set a CEL but never hurt the operation of the vehicle.


would i put fuel injection on my 67 ply or 31 hudson.. hell no.. thats how they were designed and built. would i put a carb on my durango, stratus, or intrepids.. hell no.. i love firing them up in dead cold temps, dropping it in gear and going..


fuel injection is the way to go in my book.

 

You must be quite the hypermiler because I've NEVER heard of anyone getting close to those #'s out of an AWD Explorer. The last EFI 302 I had was in an F150 and it got between 12-15mpg. It was putrid. I've had carb'd big block powered trucks that did better.

Also, the Mustang was not stock. It easily made more power than the Explorer and despite the drivetrain setup that was seemingly designed to prevent MPG and a teenager at the wheel (MPG was the last thing on my mind while I was driving that thing) it still did as good as your modern 5.0. Yes, I know the Explorer is heavier but I'm willing to bet there isn't as much of a difference in aero as you would think. The Old Mustangs have a LOT of frontal area (ever take a good look at the grill opening?) and VERY dirty aero underneath.
Did it run as clean as your late model 5.0, nope. Do I care one little bit? nope. It ran strong and got good MPG for what it was and as a result didn't cost me a ton to drive it.
EFI is most certainly better from an emissions standpoint. It's much easier to make them run cleaner due to the adjustability and auto correcting nature of them. Do they hold a significant advantage to those of us who don't worry about emissions and just want a good runing bike/ car? I still say no, it doesn't. The advantage EFI holds is very small and not worth the tuning costs nor the maintenance costs (all those fancy little sensors DO go bad, dealt with that far more times than I care to-some of us don't always buy new bikes you know). I can troubleshoot a carb bike w/ nothing more than the 5 senses God gave me, an EFI bike requires expensive test equipment or a trip to the dealer. I use my senses and pocket the change, thank you very much.