wetoolowdingbangow
1/2 ton status
Nah LS is used as a broad term. Iron blocks like Lq4 and lq9 are the 6.0l and theres the lm7 etc 5.3l motors.
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Fuel Injection versus Carburator. Which one you think is better?
- Thread starter blackandgold51
- Start date
Interesting you bring it up. The Hurricanes and Spitfires with the Merlin engines were carbureted - they couldn't pitch over into a steep dive in the Battle of Britain like the Messerschmitts because their bowls would starve for fuel (the -109s had direct injection).
There were other examples of tech mismatch throughout the War.
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
I hear you. I don't like aluminum
black dawg
1/2 ton status
did anything carbed ever go 200k plus without being touched?? See injected stuff all the time with 200k that has never had anything but oil changes (and sometimes very few oil changes). The highes miles I have personally seen and known to be true, was 280k on a tbi 350 burb, with nothing but oil changes. Not even an ignition module or fuel pump.
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
So the 6.0 are cast irons? While 5.3 is aluminum
Only the L33 5.3's are aluminum.
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
So like the last poster said. an LS 6.0 in my 90' suburban v1500?
I hope there's not some computer stuff I would have to encounter
wetoolowdingbangow
1/2 ton status
The early Geo Metro's were carbed IIRC, and they get crazy mileage, like 50MPG. There seems to be an almost fanatical following of those cars, so I wouldn't be surprised that some of the motors lasted that long.
I would accuse much of the lack of longevity of previous engines on poor tolerances and "poor" design as much as the type of induction. They just didn't need to be designed to last as many miles as the new engines are. Driving habits have changed massively since the gen 1 SBC was born.
Expecting to achieve large gains in mileage from going injection (or more modern components on an older engine) is normally a pipe dream. These trucks are heavy, and they have massive drag numbers. The engines are not as efficient as the modern (LS-based) ones either. While on most of our trucks 1 or 2 MPG would be 10-20% increase in economy, you can do as I did, and swap from carbed old school 350 to injected with Vortec (they are not vortex) heads, roller rockers, roller cam, etc., and see pretty much zero increase in MPG. If the vehicle is running right to start with, the efficiency gained within the engine just isn't enough to mitigate the external factors. And that's a lot of money to dump into an engine even IF you gained 1-2MPG. You'd have to drive a ton of miles to recoup $2000+ worth of fuel.
Edit: And I couldn't leave this one alone, I know too much about British stuff "The Hurricanes and Spitfires with the Merlin engines were carbureted - they couldn't pitch over into a steep dive in the Battle of Britain like the Messerschmitts because their bowls would starve for fuel (the -109s had direct injection)." You mean the British were behind the times in technology? Say it ain't so lol
I would accuse much of the lack of longevity of previous engines on poor tolerances and "poor" design as much as the type of induction. They just didn't need to be designed to last as many miles as the new engines are. Driving habits have changed massively since the gen 1 SBC was born.
Expecting to achieve large gains in mileage from going injection (or more modern components on an older engine) is normally a pipe dream. These trucks are heavy, and they have massive drag numbers. The engines are not as efficient as the modern (LS-based) ones either. While on most of our trucks 1 or 2 MPG would be 10-20% increase in economy, you can do as I did, and swap from carbed old school 350 to injected with Vortec (they are not vortex) heads, roller rockers, roller cam, etc., and see pretty much zero increase in MPG. If the vehicle is running right to start with, the efficiency gained within the engine just isn't enough to mitigate the external factors. And that's a lot of money to dump into an engine even IF you gained 1-2MPG. You'd have to drive a ton of miles to recoup $2000+ worth of fuel.
Edit: And I couldn't leave this one alone, I know too much about British stuff "The Hurricanes and Spitfires with the Merlin engines were carbureted - they couldn't pitch over into a steep dive in the Battle of Britain like the Messerschmitts because their bowls would starve for fuel (the -109s had direct injection)." You mean the British were behind the times in technology? Say it ain't so lol
Last edited:
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
I remember those GEOS. They were laughable but had good mileage.
And you're right. The old cast iron tbi engines are like bricks.
Is switching to an last motor a good idea?
I wouldn't consider swapping from TBI unless it failed. At which point I would probably do an LS-based motor unless I had a spare TBI motor sitting on the shelf.
Most of us I think have grandiose ideas of making something awesome, better than factory, but there is a difference between just making something because it's cool, and expecting to increase something as tangible (and difficult) as economy.
Most of us I think have grandiose ideas of making something awesome, better than factory, but there is a difference between just making something because it's cool, and expecting to increase something as tangible (and difficult) as economy.
Yeager hit the nail on the head here.. Id argue that carbs are just as difficult to setup properly like EFI is, the only difference is your stinky with one and not with the other.. I would kill for a full blown MPFI setup with widebands on both banks twin turbos and crazy compression, a little meth injection to top it off.. thats nearly impossible with a carb.. nearly.. it can be done but its a ton of work.
I will say carbs have their place.. If it was up to me and I was building a simple cruiser say only saw the road sat, fine deal with the carb.. dont let it sit though..
I will say carbs have their place.. If it was up to me and I was building a simple cruiser say only saw the road sat, fine deal with the carb.. dont let it sit though..
I have seen several carberated engines go over 300K miles,though they are the exception to the rule much of the time...
I know of a straight six that had over 450K on it before it needed a valve job,in a 70's GM pickup..many of the "P" series step vans,with 292 sixes go well over 200K without major issues,used for daily deliveries,but have a regular schedule of maintenence performed on them in a fleet basis..
It's not impossible for an engine with a carb to last a long time,they will require more frequent oil changes to offset the oil getting diluted some after each cold start,and tends to run rich until warmed up good..
A friends daughter had a GEO with a 1.3 liter engine that went over 170K before it finally started to rap,due to it being run low on oil when the oil pan rusted enough to allow it to lose oil...
He searched many salvage yards before he found another running engine--most sold immediately,or were kept by the owners before they junked the car..the one he found was the salvage yards "torch car",that had been run for several years with no gauges or speedometer,they said the car had well over 150K when it was hauled in too!--he paid 75 bucks for it "as-is" --it was one year newer than his daughters car was,and had to swap practically every un-boltable external part from her old engine to that one!..
His daughter went on to drive that car another 45K miles before it was too unsafe to drive due to rotted strut towers...and the engine still ran as good as when it was swapped in!..someone bought it for a parts car for 200 bucks..
There is no comparison as far as EFI and carbs when it comes to engine longevity --the EFI just burns so much cleaner,the engine suffers less from oil dilution,carbon buildup and sludge,of course it will last longer--have any of you ever seen the inside of an engine run on natural gas or propane fuel?...you'd swear it was brand new--everything is so clean and shiny...
I have,I owned a truck that had a propane/gas dual fuel straight 6 in it--even years after I had ran it on gasoline only,I had to remove the oil pan,and the inside of that engine was perfectly clean and spotless..
I have taken air cooled generator engines apart that ran on LNG or Propane and the combustion chamber had only a light white-tan powdery looking residue on it,the bores and pistons looked new,no gunk on the rings either...hone marks still plainly visible too..
I know of a straight six that had over 450K on it before it needed a valve job,in a 70's GM pickup..many of the "P" series step vans,with 292 sixes go well over 200K without major issues,used for daily deliveries,but have a regular schedule of maintenence performed on them in a fleet basis..
It's not impossible for an engine with a carb to last a long time,they will require more frequent oil changes to offset the oil getting diluted some after each cold start,and tends to run rich until warmed up good..
A friends daughter had a GEO with a 1.3 liter engine that went over 170K before it finally started to rap,due to it being run low on oil when the oil pan rusted enough to allow it to lose oil...
He searched many salvage yards before he found another running engine--most sold immediately,or were kept by the owners before they junked the car..the one he found was the salvage yards "torch car",that had been run for several years with no gauges or speedometer,they said the car had well over 150K when it was hauled in too!--he paid 75 bucks for it "as-is" --it was one year newer than his daughters car was,and had to swap practically every un-boltable external part from her old engine to that one!..
His daughter went on to drive that car another 45K miles before it was too unsafe to drive due to rotted strut towers...and the engine still ran as good as when it was swapped in!..someone bought it for a parts car for 200 bucks..
There is no comparison as far as EFI and carbs when it comes to engine longevity --the EFI just burns so much cleaner,the engine suffers less from oil dilution,carbon buildup and sludge,of course it will last longer--have any of you ever seen the inside of an engine run on natural gas or propane fuel?...you'd swear it was brand new--everything is so clean and shiny...
I have,I owned a truck that had a propane/gas dual fuel straight 6 in it--even years after I had ran it on gasoline only,I had to remove the oil pan,and the inside of that engine was perfectly clean and spotless..
I have taken air cooled generator engines apart that ran on LNG or Propane and the combustion chamber had only a light white-tan powdery looking residue on it,the bores and pistons looked new,no gunk on the rings either...hone marks still plainly visible too..
And that's just it: you can either keep after a carb to tune, re-tune, and adjust for conditions every time they change...or you can let the PCM do it for you continuously (and not have gravity issues as a bonus).
Horsepower is simply a question of scale for either system.
Horsepower is simply a question of scale for either system.
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.
A carb is simpler? Look under the hoods of '86 and '87 square bodies side-by-side. Which setup is simpler? When's the last time a carb told you what was wrong with it? How is iterative teardowns and jet changes simpler than typing numbers on a laptop?
Yes..... there would be some computer stuff you'd have to "encounter" if you wanted to put a 6.0 in your 1990. Your best bet is to just keep your vehicle exactly the way it is and not change much. If you want a newer "LS" based engine, the newer 1999+ Burbs are very nice and can be bought for pretty cheap these days.
I think I remember my grandfather telling me about these "carburetor" thingies when I was a kid. And here all this time I thought he was just pulling my leg.
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
I wouldn't mind getting a mid 1990s to today's Suburbans with a 6.0 vortex engine and four wheel drive(while keeping my current one as a second hand)
However, there's nothing like being in a tank Suburbans from the 1970s to 91.
Along with the attention from the ones who forgotten or do not know the old Suburbans. Also, everyone has a suburban from the mid 90s and up. Their too common (especially here in New Orleans)
Plus their simple to work on. And parts Including the new ones are cheap and these Suburbans are tanks.
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....
blackandgold51
1/2 ton status
Same goes for my former girlfriend's stepfather that hates fuel injection and loves carburaters.... He would even put a carb on a 5.3 engine.
He wanted me to put a carburator on my suburban after he rebuilt the 350 engine a year ago(back in2014).
I was ok with it but I said no. I rather fuel injection
