Fuel Injection was a rare option on car's in the 1950s and 60s. I guess it was new technology and not quite perfected. When the Big Block came on the scene FI was put to rest in the Corvette until 1982. I realize eveyone knows this simple bit of history but all this got me thinking. Was there really a noticable difference between the stated 20 horsepower increase between the early FI cars the the dual four barrel cars. Did the FI unit actually pump more fuel into the cylinders then the carb set up or was it more show then go? As I understand it the internal makings of both engines were the same.
-
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
It was more responsive, didn't starve on hard turns, and more fuel-efficient, for starters. You say it was not "perfected": when were carburetors perfected? After the initial 1957 bugs, FI was relatively trouble-free. -
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
My experience with both set ups on the same 58 FI engine was that the dual quads seemed to have more low end torque, but would run out of "breath", so to speak, at higher rpm's. The Fuelie could be felt "coming on to cam" at 3500 rpm and pull stronger up to redline. In the case of the basic engine, the 283 engines were different, I.e. The 270 hp had 9.5 to 1 compression ratio vs. 10.5 to 1 for the Fuelie (283 or 290 hp). There were also some further differences in the 60 and 61 versions. As far as I know, the 327 engines (340 or 365 hp single quad vs. the 360 and 375 hp fuelies) were pretty much the same, I.e. both had the same comp. ratios Maybe others can provide more details, but these considations influenced my interests back in the day. I could make a dual quad set up equal/better than a stock Fuelie. I also liked the 3 stage progressive operation of the dual quads at low end.
Stu FoxComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
I think GM saw the benefits in a single carb with a better design of the intake manifold. This was the trend once the 327 replaced the 283. The 327 fuel cars were better than the 283 fuel cars only because of the refinements in FI. But the single Holley or AFB did rule the streets in the early 60's. As FI was never in the main stream as carburetors were. Was cost a factor with fuel injection for GM? But one thing is for sure the big block put an end to FI.Comment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
And the fuel crisis put an end to the big block.
Even the early RubeGoldbrg mechnical FI was incredbly fuel efficient at time when fuel eficiency was all the rage and still is.
Selling cars is all abut marketing and sometimes good ideas are the result. Too bad GM took a siesta from FI production though certainly they continued to work on improving it.Comment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
The longer FI inlet manifold runners (about 6") combined with the 5" long ports for a total inlet length of 11" versus 3" long manifold runners on the 2 x 4 manifold for a total length of 8" made higher mid-range torque than the 2 x 4 setup.
And as mentioned, FI fuel consumption was much less in normal driving because fuel distribution was within a couple of percent and they could run very lean while the 2 x 4 setup had to run a richer average A/F ratio in order to ensure that the leanest cylinder would not misfire.
The closest comparison is the 245 HP 2 x 4 engine versus the 250 HP FI engine. Both had essentially the same long block and peak power and torque (300 and 305 lb-ft) ratings within about 2 percent, which is within the range of normal production variation and run to run dyno tests.
The fairly close ratings of 327s were probably relatively accurate even though all were overrated by a good ten percent, but the biggest restriction is head flow. Massage the heads and FI will pull well ahead.
What domed the FI system was cost. It was a lot cheaper to shoe-horn in a bigger carbureted engine to get more power. FI returned in less expensive electronically controlled form because even fuel distribution was required to meet ever-tightening emission and fuel economy requirments, and EFI also allowed more flexibility in manifold design. Consider the eighties TPI engine versus the early nineties LT1. The long runner TPI engine was a torque monster. The LT1 made less peak torque, but a lot more top end power, partially because of the short inlet track length.
DukeComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
Typically, there were two cylinders that tended to run lean with the factory dual quad manifold. They made an attempt to correct the problem with the cross cut on the second version (design revision) of the manifold. I toyed with it by running an engine with the exhaust manifolds off to observe the color of the flame. I found that by elevating the carbs 1-1/4" using five 1/4" spacers with the cross cuts added helped to pack enough more A/F charge for those two cylinders to even things out. I ran my 57 Chevy Bel Air post for the better part of a season using this arrangement with either modified Chevy dual quads or Caddy WCFB's on a 292ci. Using one size over street tires, It ran consistent low 13's @ 106 mph. In stock eliminator, the only close competition was a 57 flip top Ford with a turned up blower. Fuelie Chevy's were rare, but those that showed were not competitive. My car was in B/S, the Ford in A/S, and we handled most all B/SS, A/SS and U/S along the way. I finally got protested out due to my matched ports. Apparantly, some of the grind marks were still noticeable even after sand blasting. They just wouldn't believe that they came from the factory that way - ya think!
Ah, the good old days.
Stu FoxComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
ZORA told me in the mid 80's, that SMOG in California and later in the US forced fuel injection onto the scene. He said some day, every car will have fuel injection. The benefit was more power and better fuel economy. He passed in 1996, and now we see nothing but fuel injection. Even NASCAR is getting away from their big carb set ups.Over 80 Corvettes of fun ! Love Rochester Fuel Injection 57-65 cars. Love CORVETTE RACE CARS
Co-Founder REGISTRY OF CORVETTE RACE CARS.COMComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
Stuart,
Hate to highjack this thread but I have a question on the 300 hp 312 Fords. I was at an early Indy Nationals in the late 60s. There were a couple '57 Fords in stock competition (don't even remember the stock classification). I could swear that they were shifting three times going down the quarter. I am quite sure that Ford didn't have an optional 4-speed until around 1960. So there never was a 4-speed '57 Ford. Would those 3-speed manual shift Fords have been switching into overdrive to make that noticeable third shift?
Strange, the things that stick in your memory over the years.
Jim SheaComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
Jim;
My main year for competing was 1961 all around the Midwest, but mostly at Great Lakes Dragway. I started the season using a 3 speed column shift (overdrive box), but changed to 4 speed in early July. I didn't even know they had a rule change until the first race day of a 3 day 4th of July event. I got beat (barely) by a friend from Racine that showed up with his 57 Bel Air hard top with a 4 speed. I had set up the quads and distributor for him earlier, and I knew he was running an Isky cam. That night I went home, changed to a 4 speed and some new ported power pack heads. I had been using truck heads until then which cost me a point in compression ratio, which I chose due to larger intake valves that were not as shrouded as the power pack heads. I was also restricted to truck valve springs which were larger in diameter, but were no good above 6500 rpm. Getting beat prompted me to make the changes which resulted in my immediately dropping from the low 15's to the low 14's. I beat him badly the next day, but it took some further chassis development for better off line weight transfer to work my ET's down into the low 13's. I only used the Caddy El Dorado WCFB's for stock eliminator runs and top speed. They required a different launch off line due to the extra low end torque from having to run both primary's together. They also idled both carbs with air screws only.
As to the Fords; I believe they were restricted to 3 speeds, but they used a Borg Warner box like the 4 speeds which lent itself well to use of a good floor shift linkage. The syncros were much like the B/W 4 speeds. Chevys, up to that time had that drum syncro set up that was impossible to shift fast. I did have a nice 59 box (w/56 tail shaft) in my other car (a show 56) that I used a set of NASCAR ball bearing column shift linkage in. That was good enough to match rpm's and downshift to first.
I recall the 61 Fords, running U/S w/ 390 c.i. And Holley tri-powers, were still restricted to 3 speeds. The flip top 57's would have probably been in B/SS, but because of their added weight they dropped them down to A/S.
Stu FoxComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
"GM took a siesta on the old fuel injections". They had no other option guys. They had to quit producing it. Dealer complaints, customer complaints passed on to GM and RP didn't help. When I went to the GM training senter in Pittsburgh in 1961 and 1962 the class room was full of mechanics from various dealerships. They were forced to go to these classes. I was the young guy at the time. The mechanics slept thru the classes. Flunked the tests. Weren't interested in squat.
And the rest of the stuff you read is hype. If you can't fix a product then it's history.
The above info came from Frank Sciabica from RP in the old days. A lot of you knew Frank.
But I witnessed it and complained to my instructor. Paul Glagola from United Delco. He said to me his hands were tied. He liked his job so he kept quiet. John
P.S. Can't remember if the classes were sponsored by United Delco or United Motors. Help!!! JDComment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
John without trying to highjack my own thread i found your commensts interesting. My older brother worked at Benson Chevrolet in brooklyn N.Y where my Dad was service manager for many years. He was considerd by most to be a automotive genius for his time . He once brought home a 61 Fuelie that belonged to a customer for a long test drive. I as a kid got one of my rare Corvette rides. As i remember the car ran like a bat out of hell. But then my brother tells me of a story of another fuelie that no one could get to run right so a big shot from the Zone office was brought in. My brother tells me before the day was over the Fuelie set in flames in the shop. This makes me think some units may of had issues as others did not? I know some guys who own Fuelies in NCRS and swear by there reliability. Others have raced sucessfully .I guess this will be and issue that is never settled one way or the other.Comment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
John D. will certainly confirm this, BUT, to have a dependable, properly performing FI unit, IT IS IMPERATIVE that the theory/system of the specific Rochester FI unit be thoroughly understood. I've been working on and rebuilding FI units for 40yrs, and for the first 10yrs I really didn't understand crap about them. Once I began to READ everything I could get my hands on about FI and studied it thoroughly, I have become much more proficient dealing with them. I personally own two cars with FI. One of them is a moderately modified early unit which I have incorporated changes/parts that were used in later units (and a couple of home made mods). Both work as well or better than Rochester intended---------------flawlessly.Comment
-
Re: Fuel Injection vs two four barrels
I spoke with the previous owner (1961-1964) of my '57 2X4 car who ran both the dual WCFB's and FI on the street and strip. His experience was that there was no discernable difference in straight line performance. In the mid-late 60's personal experience showed that very few dealership techs had knowledge of FI workings or how to tune and they and the dealerships had little interest due to low volume sales. Most pulled out the manual and stumbled because they had no training and seldom saw FI. I knew of one tech and two private owners in NE Indiana area who could tune a unit well. I saw a new '65 Milano Maroon/maroon leather coupe leave a dealership running much worse than when it went into the stall. SteveComment
Comment