Fuel Injection versus Carburator. Which one you think is better?

[454Sub]

The P-51 also used the Rolls Royce Merlin, albeit with design adaptations like a pressure carburetor for production by Packard in later variants. The predominant US radial (Pratt & Whitney R-2800 in P-47s, F-4Us, F-6s and others) also used pressure carbs. These pressure carbs were developed by Bendix midstream during the War and were transitional technology - kind of a mechanical TBI system which used a series of diaphragms for pressure/density feedback. The Germans were using Bosch direct injection.

The Japs ran all float-type carbs. That worked early in the War, but by the end our planes were dominating them pretty handily.

The Japs had a bigger problem with lack of pilots than design flawed planes. The Zero could still outmaneuver the Hellcat and Corsair, out climb them and so on, but by 1943ish, they had depleated their resource of experienced and lethal pilots and were just tossing guys in to make up the difference. But like was mentioned, the tech differences between the Allies and Axis were amazing, the Axis had many many many more advanced weapons and tactics, yet oddly hardly had a non bolt action operated rifle.

 

[Burbdood 74]

The Japs had a bigger problem with lack of pilots than design flawed planes. The Zero could still outmaneuver the Hellcat and Corsair, out climb them and so on, but by 1943ish, they had depleated their resource of experienced and lethal pilots and were just tossing guys in to make up the difference. But like was mentioned, the tech differences between the Allies and Axis were amazing, the Axis had many many many more advanced weapons and tactics, yet oddly hardly had a non bolt action operated rifle.

The issues with the Japanese air forces go a little farther than just lack of pilots. We were out producing them and we had tons more pilots yes, but our Corsairs, Hellcats and Mustangs also survived getting shot at a whole lot better. We used armor piercing incendiary rounds. One or two rounds to the fuel tanks of their planes and they would light up and explode. Had the Japanese used more armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks on their planes like e did, it would've reduced the maneuverability but it would've saved a few more pilots.

 

[ryoken]

EFI does EVERYTHING it can do to keep running, carb's do everything they can do, to DIE......

 

[Mastiff]

EFI wins hands down for dirveability and off-road prowess, but how about zombie apocalypse (or third world expedition stuff)? One thing you'll never recover from is a fried computer, or probably a fried in-tank pump, unless you are very prepared. That's the one way I feel like my TBI conversion is a downgrade. A carb setup without all the emissions spaghetti is pretty basic. It's hard to get it running great, but easy to get it running at all.

 

[Blue85]

I used to run an electromagnetic interference test lab. I often schemed ways to store an extra ECU, etc. in the corner of one of the shielded chambers in case of EMP or nuclear holocaust. I've also considered keeping a points distributor, carb and intake on the shelf for such circumstances, but I would probably be too busy during an EOTWAWKI event to wrench on the truck for half a day.

I wonder how much shielding you could get from a metal pole barn with metal roof and metal doors by tying all the panels together with ground straps...

 

[campfire]

Boy, this thread has been all over the place! Y'all beat me to the Spitfire-ME109 comparison. My answer to Blue85 and to the O.P. is the same: 6.2/6.5TD engines solve both of your problems. No shielding required, so Luke should be happy. (though I think your pole barn idea should work, I haven't tested it ).

The main gaol I'm looking for is fuel economy. Even though it's not simple, there must be a way of getting that in am old tank suburban....

For the O.P., if mileage really, really, really is your goal, even an LS is not likely to beat a stock 6.2 truck with good highway gearing. There are lots of 6.x trucks pulling 20+ MPG, and there aren't many gasoline trucks from this era pulling similar mileage, no matter what folks do to them. They give the reliability of fuel injection with the simplicity of being a 1-wire engine. The parts all fit nicely in OEM configuration. And you can either engine swap into your current rig or pick up a good stock rig and build it as-is.

If fuel cost is your driving parameter, look into propane conversions. They can be cheap (or pricey if you let them!), and the fuel cost often averages about half that of gasoline if you buy in bulk. Talk to Big Dan on here or start a thread about it for folks to post up their experiences.



But the bottom line here is that you aren't going to get abnormally good mileage out of a brick unless you do abnormal things to it. Swapping in any standard drivetrain will yield a standard result, and the EPA has already cataloged what mileage you should expect out of it.

 

[blackandgold51]

Boy, this thread has been all over the place! Y'all beat me to the Spitfire-ME109 comparison. My answer to Blue85 and to the O.P. is the same: 6.2/6.5TD engines solve both of your problems. No shielding required, so Luke should be happy. (though I think your pole barn idea should work, I haven't tested it ).



For the O.P., if mileage really, really, really is your goal, even an LS is not likely to beat a stock 6.2 truck with good highway gearing. There are lots of 6.x trucks pulling 20+ MPG, and there aren't many gasoline trucks from this era pulling similar mileage, no matter what folks do to them. They give the reliability of fuel injection with the simplicity of being a 1-wire engine. The parts all fit nicely in OEM configuration. And you can either engine swap into your current rig or pick up a good stock rig and build it as-is.

If fuel cost is your driving parameter, look into propane conversions. They can be cheap (or pricey if you let them!), and the fuel cost often averages about half that of gasoline if you buy in bulk. Talk to Big Dan on here or start a thread about it for folks to post up their experiences.



But the bottom line here is that you aren't going to get abnormally good mileage out of a brick unless you do abnormal things to it. Swapping in any standard drivetrain will yield a standard result, and the EPA has already cataloged what mileage you should expect out of it.

I'll start a thread now about people's experience with a 6.2 6.5 engine

 

[dyeager535]

The main gaol I'm looking for is fuel economy. Even though it's not simple, there must be a way of getting that in am old tank suburban....

Yep. It's called an NA 6.2L diesel.

You aren't getting better than 20MPG (and that is a big stretch itself) in one of these things with any sort of gas engine any of us are likely to be able to afford to dump in one of these trucks.

I'm being dead serious, as I'm an MPG fanatic myself who now realizes my mistake. The mistake was sticking with gas. ~25MPG is possible in these trucks with the 6.2L diesel. No gas engine is going to approach that. You may not have power, and you may pay a bit more for fuel (and that's not a guarantee anyway) but that's how you get economy.

Edit: Dunno what happened, did not see the diesel responses above or I wouldn't have commented.