Are Carburated Cars more reliable than Fuel Injected Computer Operated Cars

[Mighty Thor]

I don't know why, but I seem to find that carburated cars are more reliable.

My Mitsubishi Pick Up has over 250k and my dad's car is over 200k. My uncle's old vettes. Our custodian's buick with a carb 3.8 has over 300k. Very little problem. And if there are problem, it's usually an easy fix. And the major problems that it may develop are sometimes not engine related.

With a computer, fuel injected car, I don't hear them going that high in mileage. Plus when they do have problems you have more issues with the sensors and what not.

Maybe my next car should be an older carb one.

[majeskyb]

I don't know. I've never had any experience with carbs, but two of my cars ('89 camaro and '86 rx7), had/has higher mileage. Granted the highest I've seen personally is 136k miles on the rx7 but the only fuel related problem so far are a couple of leaky injectors. I personally like them more. I like the look, I like that the computer can compensate for altitude and temperature changes. Also, gdi is looking promising, I'd like to try a car out with it

[JohnD.]

More reliable, no. Easier to fix, yes.

[ellik]

Originally posted by JohnD.:
More reliable, no. Easier to fix, yes.

probably all of those higher milage cars Thor listed already have had the carbs rebuilt or replaced a couple of times.

[rhouse21]

Mine has 202k miles and is as happy as a clam. Still passes emmisions with no problems and still snaps my passengers' necks back at full throttle. I'm planning to dyno it in a few months in case you're curious.

Out of all the things that have broken on my car over the past 8 years, the engine has neer been one of 'em. The rest of the drivetrian... now that's another story.

[Scarano]

I doubt they are more reliable. I own a 95 Grand Am for my day to day driving, and it has been one of the most reliable cars I ever owned. No carb, and I have close to 400,000Km (249,000 miles) on it and its running perfectly fine. I am the original owner and I never needed any major work other than regular mainteance. No transmission, engine or fuel injection problems - ever. But watch, now that I wrote this message the tranny or engine will experience a major malfunction tomorrow.

[Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by ellik:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JohnD.:
More reliable, no. Easier to fix, yes.

probably all of those higher milage cars Thor listed already have had the carbs rebuilt or replaced a couple of times. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I know the Vettes has had there carbs done. But my truck and my dad's no.

I did have tranny problems in the past and that was it.

My pick up still passes Calif. emission. [img]graemlins/banana.gif[/img]

[98Camaro3.8]

"They don't make 'em like they used to."

Not sure how much of it is related to the style of the engine versus the quality/crafstmanship of the work. Stuff today is crap compared to when they actually cared about the endurance and quality of the product.

Now they want cheap and easy so they can make the most money. Who cares about what happens 5-10 years from now?

[3.4 slow to go]

My 76 BOnnie ran great (except for one incedent @ Dans) and it had the origanol carb onit. I'm going to a bastard carb (computer feedback) . Carb is sooooo easy to work on (Quadrajets me me) and cost is phenominal compaired to all teh sensors on FI. Not as efficient, but then you cain make more power cheaper ;)

[KBeezy]

I'd say carb'd cars, if they are built right, are easier and more reliable. IF they are built right. But I'm kind of old school.


The 4bbl on my Mustang is cake. =D

[Johnny Ray]

Yes.

:cool:

[Dr Todd]

mmm I started driving in 1976...Dont laugh....stop it. With a carb car (for example a 1978 camaro with a stock 350) you could change rearend gears, tire size, add a cam, headers, a true dual exhaust, manifold, and a Holley 650 with just a little bit of trouble and money and get a whole lot of punch for the money. Simple stuff...no head change or engine work.

You can do the same on an injected car, without the manifold and Holley, BUT then to get the true value out of the package you HAVE to by a programmer that is another $300 to $400 dollars. Then you have to know what you are doing. Then to get it right it should be put on a dyno. Or you can send the pcm away for someone else to do it, still...$300 to $400. Then if something else is changed, yep, you have to send it back.

On the other hand, once you have made the initial investment of a programmer AND you know how to use it, it can be very simple to make a change. Yes I am old school, but I do like the computers and injection. (As long as the computer does not short out, sensors dont go bad, injectors stay clean, theft deturant ignition works, oxygen sensors are working fine,...etc)

[JusFlyinBy]

Originally posted by Scarano:
I doubt they are more reliable. I own a 95 Grand Am for my day to day driving, and it has been one of the most reliable cars I ever owned. No carb, and I have close to 400,000Km (249,000 miles) on it and its running perfectly fine. I am the original owner and I never needed any major work other than regular mainteance. No transmission, engine or fuel injection problems - ever. But watch, now that I wrote this message the tranny or engine will experience a major malfunction tomorrow.

Long live the 95 Grand Am! :D I gave mine to my father to use as his commuter car back and forth to work, and it now has 250,000 on it too. Its been to Florida and back a few times and North Carolina. The car payed for itself, no engine issues.

[rhouse21]

One thing I've learned is that a the biggest factor in reliability is maintenance. A butt-head can kill even a bulletproof engine in no-time, but a really conscientious, caring owner can keep even the most unreliable engines running for a long, long time. Just look at all those guys who love the old British roadsters.

In a lot of ways, they really don't build things like they used to. As an engineer, I can tell you that most of the parts being designed today are built with a certain lifetime in mind. Managers want X number of failures per million cycles or per thousand operating hours or something along thise lines. Designing a part that is too durable is frowned upon because it would usually be more expensive to produce. Everything is about cost-effectiveness, and if an manager has the opportunity to save 10 cents per part in material costs by making a part that will last just long enough, chances are he'll jump on it.

Back in the old days, they didn't have all the computer models or reliability spreadsheets, so they just designed stuff to not break. So, thet tested the heck out of things and if a part broke in testing, they ran to the shop and made the same part, but beefier. Materials were cheap, so cost savings meant saving engineering design hours and making things easy to build with fewer parts.

I really like the simplicity of design in a lot of the old cars, but I love the technology in the new ones. Maybe I will have to baby mine a little more to get it to 300,000 miles, but I baby it any way. In the end, I think that anybody who didn't baby their car would send it to the crusher way before getting that many miles anyway.

[SpeedingFirebird]

Originally posted by 98Camaro3.8:
"They don't make 'em like they used to."

Not sure how much of it is related to the style of the engine versus the quality/crafstmanship of the work. Stuff today is crap compared to when they actually cared about the endurance and quality of the product.

Now they want cheap and easy so they can make the most money. Who cares about what happens 5-10 years from now?

Man, my experience it totally different. I remember those cold Maine mornings - darn carbs were finicky. We would have to fix and tune those things constantly. FI was a GREAT thing for us.

Another note, FI allowed my Jeep to climb grades carb Jeeps couldn't go. :D