Mike Romain

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)

Earle Horton

I am getting 45 mpg with a stock 1999 Honda Civic, with mechanical tappets,
FI, and no hybrid technology. According to the Nevada State Patrol, it can
do 125 mph too. I think that you could compare that to your first ******
car with its 30 mpg and a top speed of what, 70? There are other things
holding the TJs back than the FI. Inappropriate axle gearing for example.
In fact, you could take your stock 4.0, put 4.11 or 4.56 gears in it, forget
the headers and the carb, and blow the doors off your CJ7s and early YJs.

Earle

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:44688B85.96859BE1@sympatico.ca...
> 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)

Earle Horton

I am getting 45 mpg with a stock 1999 Honda Civic, with mechanical tappets,
FI, and no hybrid technology. According to the Nevada State Patrol, it can
do 125 mph too. I think that you could compare that to your first ******
car with its 30 mpg and a top speed of what, 70? There are other things
holding the TJs back than the FI. Inappropriate axle gearing for example.
In fact, you could take your stock 4.0, put 4.11 or 4.56 gears in it, forget
the headers and the carb, and blow the doors off your CJ7s and early YJs.

Earle

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:44688B85.96859BE1@sympatico.ca...
> 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)

Earle Horton

I am getting 45 mpg with a stock 1999 Honda Civic, with mechanical tappets,
FI, and no hybrid technology. According to the Nevada State Patrol, it can
do 125 mph too. I think that you could compare that to your first ******
car with its 30 mpg and a top speed of what, 70? There are other things
holding the TJs back than the FI. Inappropriate axle gearing for example.
In fact, you could take your stock 4.0, put 4.11 or 4.56 gears in it, forget
the headers and the carb, and blow the doors off your CJ7s and early YJs.

Earle

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:44688B85.96859BE1@sympatico.ca...
> 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)

L.W.(Bill) Hughes III

Hi Mike,
Ditto.
Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
made for the dumbing down of America.
An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------


Mike Romain wrote:
>
> 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

L.W.(Bill) Hughes III

Hi Mike,
Ditto.
Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
made for the dumbing down of America.
An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------


Mike Romain wrote:
>
> 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

L.W.(Bill) Hughes III

Hi Mike,
Ditto.
Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
made for the dumbing down of America.
An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------


Mike Romain wrote:
>
> 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

Ever been inside one of those things? If so, 'nuff said.

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:446900CB.98708E6D@***.net...
> Hi Mike,
> Ditto.
> Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
> made for the dumbing down of America.
> An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
> http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > 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

Ever been inside one of those things? If so, 'nuff said.

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:446900CB.98708E6D@***.net...
> Hi Mike,
> Ditto.
> Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
> made for the dumbing down of America.
> An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
> http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > 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

Ever been inside one of those things? If so, 'nuff said.

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:446900CB.98708E6D@***.net...
> Hi Mike,
> Ditto.
> Electronic (not mechanical cylinder injection) fuel injection is
> made for the dumbing down of America.
> An old Nash brochure saying up to forty miles per gallon:
> http://www.----------.com/temp/nashMetropolitan.jpg
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > 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