The new vehicles were built with fuel injection to meet emission standards, not for power or reliability. The latter became true through extensive development.
Sorry Kern, but I have to disagree with you on this.
Yes, fuel injection does help meet emission standards. Less raw, unburned fuel is going through the cylinders, so it is more efficient. This means you can make the
same power with
less fuel. I don't know about you, but I like that, especially with today's gas prices. And the computer control can adjust EFI better so it consistently does this (as the barometric pressure changes, for example). My father-in-law drag races with a carb on his car. But guess what, he changes his carb every time he races based on weather. Why does he do that? To give it an ideal tune.
So in most cases, especially for street cars, an EFI system will be tuned better than a carb and provide better power and efficiency.
The arguments against EFI could be the same as arguments against using electronic ignition. "Get rid of the electronic mystery shitbox because they will eventually fail and leave you stranded!" Yes, they do fail. But they are much more reliable than points, and provide a hotter spark. Points fail too, and need more constant maintenance. So why would you not want to use electronic ignition?
The point is, both EFI and electronic ignition have proven themselves to be better technology than carbs and points. That doesn't mean carbs and points should never be used. If a person knows them well and wants to continue using them, that's great.
I disagree with saying either carbs or EFI are bad. Like anything, there are pros and cons to each. Learn and understand the pros and cons, and decide what you want for your application.
