Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > For sure!
> >
> > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to just
> > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor so
> > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> >
> > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb if
> > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > electronic injection....
> >
> > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
be able to limp it home if need?
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
computer to really screw things up.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
know how to work on them and fix them.
The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
tune up.
Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > For sure!
> >
> > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to just
> > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor so
> > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> >
> > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb if
> > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > electronic injection....
> >
> > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
be able to limp it home if need?
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
computer to really screw things up.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
know how to work on them and fix them.
The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
tune up.
Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > For sure!
> >
> > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to just
> > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor so
> > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> >
> > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb if
> > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > electronic injection....
> >
> > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
be able to limp it home if need?
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
computer to really screw things up.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
know how to work on them and fix them.
The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
tune up.
Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > For sure!
> >
> > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to just
> > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor so
> > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> >
> > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb if
> > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > electronic injection....
> >
> > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
be able to limp it home if need?
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
computer to really screw things up.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
know how to work on them and fix them.
The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
tune up.
Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Next time look at the Real Jeeps that make it to the top of the
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Next time look at the Real Jeeps that make it to the top of the
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Next time look at the Real Jeeps that make it to the top of the
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
hill: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm Of course after they come down
to go back to camp.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simian Junco wrote:
>
> Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> passing branch.
>
> I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > For sure!
> > >
> > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
just
> > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
so
> > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > >
> > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
if
> > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > electronic injection....
> > >
> > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> >
> > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
>
> What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> be able to limp it home if need?
>
> >
> > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > passing branch.
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
>
> >
> > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
>
> All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> computer to really screw things up.
>
> >
> > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
>
> Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> know how to work on them and fix them.
>
> The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> tune up.
>
> Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
emissions and less things that can go 'out of tune'. This is better for
the environment because people are lazy and forget to tune their engines
when needed.
I have yet to see any TJ even come close to the gas mileage the old
CJ7's and 258 YJ's get 'if' their 258's are manually tuned with no
computers running things.
I have tuned several CJ7's and YJ's up and we go on off road runs
together with YJ 4.0's and TJ 4.0's. We do the same 200 miles on the
highway and the same off road trails.
We always get better mileage on the highway and a radical amount better
off road.
I get a consistent 23+ mpg or 11L/100km. TJ mileage is in the teens....
Now let me loose with a 4.0 engine, a proper manifold and good carb with
a hot spark, headers and maybe a cam in it and it will blow the doors
off any stock 4.0 FI out there, headers or no headers.
I have owned 'land yachts' like a Pontiac wagon with a 350 that got 20
mpg. I also owned a Dodge Coronet with a 318 that got 24 mpg. These
were carburetor engines!
Then they brought in FI and emissions computers and the gas mileages
went right down the toilet.
Now they are trying to con everyone with these expensive 'hybrids' to
try and come close to the 'old' gas mileage carb engines used to get.
Wassn't the first ****** car advertised as getting 30 mpg or something
like that?
Mike
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
> computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
> a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
> taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
> thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
> just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
> fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
> carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
> by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
> cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
>
> Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > For sure!
> > > >
> > > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
> just
> > > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
> so
> > > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > > >
> > > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
> if
> > > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > > electronic injection....
> > > >
> > > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> > >
> > > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
> >
> > What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> > be able to limp it home if need?
> >
> > >
> > > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > > passing branch.
> >
> > I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
> >
> > All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> > ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> > computer to really screw things up.
> >
> > >
> > > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
> >
> > Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> > know how to work on them and fix them.
> >
> > The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> > mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> > tune up.
> >
> > Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> > work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
emissions and less things that can go 'out of tune'. This is better for
the environment because people are lazy and forget to tune their engines
when needed.
I have yet to see any TJ even come close to the gas mileage the old
CJ7's and 258 YJ's get 'if' their 258's are manually tuned with no
computers running things.
I have tuned several CJ7's and YJ's up and we go on off road runs
together with YJ 4.0's and TJ 4.0's. We do the same 200 miles on the
highway and the same off road trails.
We always get better mileage on the highway and a radical amount better
off road.
I get a consistent 23+ mpg or 11L/100km. TJ mileage is in the teens....
Now let me loose with a 4.0 engine, a proper manifold and good carb with
a hot spark, headers and maybe a cam in it and it will blow the doors
off any stock 4.0 FI out there, headers or no headers.
I have owned 'land yachts' like a Pontiac wagon with a 350 that got 20
mpg. I also owned a Dodge Coronet with a 318 that got 24 mpg. These
were carburetor engines!
Then they brought in FI and emissions computers and the gas mileages
went right down the toilet.
Now they are trying to con everyone with these expensive 'hybrids' to
try and come close to the 'old' gas mileage carb engines used to get.
Wassn't the first ****** car advertised as getting 30 mpg or something
like that?
Mike
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
> computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
> a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
> taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
> thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
> just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
> fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
> carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
> by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
> cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
>
> Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > For sure!
> > > >
> > > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
> just
> > > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
> so
> > > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > > >
> > > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
> if
> > > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > > electronic injection....
> > > >
> > > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> > >
> > > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
> >
> > What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> > be able to limp it home if need?
> >
> > >
> > > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > > passing branch.
> >
> > I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
> >
> > All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> > ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> > computer to really screw things up.
> >
> > >
> > > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
> >
> > Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> > know how to work on them and fix them.
> >
> > The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> > mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> > tune up.
> >
> > Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> > work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
emissions and less things that can go 'out of tune'. This is better for
the environment because people are lazy and forget to tune their engines
when needed.
I have yet to see any TJ even come close to the gas mileage the old
CJ7's and 258 YJ's get 'if' their 258's are manually tuned with no
computers running things.
I have tuned several CJ7's and YJ's up and we go on off road runs
together with YJ 4.0's and TJ 4.0's. We do the same 200 miles on the
highway and the same off road trails.
We always get better mileage on the highway and a radical amount better
off road.
I get a consistent 23+ mpg or 11L/100km. TJ mileage is in the teens....
Now let me loose with a 4.0 engine, a proper manifold and good carb with
a hot spark, headers and maybe a cam in it and it will blow the doors
off any stock 4.0 FI out there, headers or no headers.
I have owned 'land yachts' like a Pontiac wagon with a 350 that got 20
mpg. I also owned a Dodge Coronet with a 318 that got 24 mpg. These
were carburetor engines!
Then they brought in FI and emissions computers and the gas mileages
went right down the toilet.
Now they are trying to con everyone with these expensive 'hybrids' to
try and come close to the 'old' gas mileage carb engines used to get.
Wassn't the first ****** car advertised as getting 30 mpg or something
like that?
Mike
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
> computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
> a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
> taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
> thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
> just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
> fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
> carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
> by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
> cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
>
> Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > For sure!
> > > >
> > > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
> just
> > > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
> so
> > > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > > >
> > > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
> if
> > > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > > electronic injection....
> > > >
> > > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> > >
> > > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
> >
> > What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> > be able to limp it home if need?
> >
> > >
> > > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > > passing branch.
> >
> > I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
> >
> > All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> > ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> > computer to really screw things up.
> >
> > >
> > > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
> >
> > Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> > know how to work on them and fix them.
> >
> > The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> > mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> > tune up.
> >
> > Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> > work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
emissions and less things that can go 'out of tune'. This is better for
the environment because people are lazy and forget to tune their engines
when needed.
I have yet to see any TJ even come close to the gas mileage the old
CJ7's and 258 YJ's get 'if' their 258's are manually tuned with no
computers running things.
I have tuned several CJ7's and YJ's up and we go on off road runs
together with YJ 4.0's and TJ 4.0's. We do the same 200 miles on the
highway and the same off road trails.
We always get better mileage on the highway and a radical amount better
off road.
I get a consistent 23+ mpg or 11L/100km. TJ mileage is in the teens....
Now let me loose with a 4.0 engine, a proper manifold and good carb with
a hot spark, headers and maybe a cam in it and it will blow the doors
off any stock 4.0 FI out there, headers or no headers.
I have owned 'land yachts' like a Pontiac wagon with a 350 that got 20
mpg. I also owned a Dodge Coronet with a 318 that got 24 mpg. These
were carburetor engines!
Then they brought in FI and emissions computers and the gas mileages
went right down the toilet.
Now they are trying to con everyone with these expensive 'hybrids' to
try and come close to the 'old' gas mileage carb engines used to get.
Wassn't the first ****** car advertised as getting 30 mpg or something
like that?
Mike
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I have never had any trouble with fuel injection components, including the
> computer, except for my 1977 Bug, which ate some hoses, due to age, and had
> a pump failure, due to rust in the fuel tank. I have, on the other hand,
> taken apart far too many carburetors for one human lifetime, and became
> thoroughly sick of the exercise. What you say about mileage and power is
> just plain false. FI computers let the manufacturers dial in the precise
> fuel requirements for far more sets of operating parameters than any
> carburetor can account for. They also let them meet emissions requirements,
> by replacing a whole raft of late seventies and eighties Rube Goldberg style
> cheap plastic devices, that never worked in the first place.
>
> Computers, good. Carburetors, bad.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:446770A9.9769F7F1@sympatico.ca...
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > For sure!
> > > >
> > > > I have dumped the computer out of my CJ7 and have looked into
> > > > retrofitting a points style distributor. I found it was cheaper to
> just
> > > > have a spare ignition module and coil pickup than the new distributor
> so
> > > > I 'have to' carry the extra electronic parts with me always.
> > > >
> > > > I have a mechanical fuel pump, but can 'easily' gravity feed my carb
> if
> > > > I say took out the gas tank or the fuel line on a rock. (been there,
> > > > done that with a jerry can on the hood) You can't do that with
> > > > electronic injection....
> > > >
> > > > I wheel in the deep Canadian bush and if the electronics let the smoke
> > > > out, it is about 75 miles to walk for parts...
> > >
> > > Sounds like you would be better off with a horse as well Mike... The
> > > same ridiculous argument you're using for justification also works as an
> > > argument against having a motor vehicle at all.
> >
> > What is ridiculous about wanting to be able to fix what you drive or to
> > be able to limp it home if need?
> >
> > >
> > > The horse has no gas tank to worry about, uses road side vegetation for
> > > fuel and even steers itself when you get whacked in the head by a
> > > passing branch.
> >
> > I wouldn't know how to fix him if he broke either...
> >
> > >
> > > I'm asking for a reasonable, realistic, reason why anyone should want
> > > remove the tried and tested GM TBI fuel injection system off a 4.3 to
> > > replace it with the antiquated, FAR MORE complex, finicky, hard to tune
> > > rube Goldberg device we call a carburetor.
> >
> > All of the above were good reasons, plus power, better gas mileage,
> > ability to fix and make run under the worst of conditions and no damn
> > computer to really screw things up.
> >
> > >
> > > Of course I suspect the reason has more to do with old dogs not wanting
> > > to learn new tricks, than anything else.
> >
> > Sorry if 'old fashioned' mechanical things scare you. Some of us still
> > know how to work on them and fix them.
> >
> > The computerized system is put in as a compromise. It costs you in gas
> > mileage and power in exchange for little to no user serviceable parts to
> > tune up.
> >
> > Great for some people with lots of money to just change parts that don't
> > work, but I don't mind actually doing a tune up or fixing things....
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)