Carburated VS Fuel Injection

backfoot100 wrote: More Horsepower??? Really???? HP numbers are so inflated it's not even funny. Not saying that old numbers aren't either but I've driven new high tech 400+HP cars as well as 350+HP classic muscle cars. There is no way that you can convince me that new 420HP Mustang or 375HP Ram is truly the rated HP. Watch vids of a 340 Six-pack Challenger whipping the s**t out of a new 425HP SRT8 not once, but six different times and everyone immediately screams the 340 was modded and the SRT8 driver didn't know what he was doing. How can new technology get toasted so bad????

I would respectfully disagree. The horsepower ratings are more accurate today than the old days. For example, the new 5.0 Mustangs you mention regularly put down 380+hp on a chassis dyno, which is easily over 420hp at the crank. Conversely. most performance motors were usually underrated in the old days for insurance reasons. There have been countless engine builds using factory parts to duplicate the original specs that show how grossly underrated they were back then.

I'm not surprised a 340 Six Pack Challenger would beat a new 425hp SRT-8. A new Challenger/Charger weighs as much as an F-150, and that "275hp" 340 probably makes somewhere closer to 350hp with a decent tune up. Power to weight ratio advantage goes to the first gen.

backfoot100 wrote: They can be more economical or provide more power but they can't do both.

How many how many blown, carbureted 426 Hemis do you see that can make 707hp with turn-key reliability, pass an emissions test, idle smoothly, still make decent vacuum, and get 20+ mpg on the highway like a Hellcat? None, because EFI and modern technology make that possible.

True, carbs usually make better power numbers in dyno tests, but EFI wins hands-down in enabling efficiency AND power production.

It really just comes down to how much you're willing to deal with as far as tuning goes. My boat has a Holley on it and I'm perfectly fine with it here in FL. But for someone who isn't as mechanically inclined, skis in an area that has a wide variation in temperature or altitudes, EFI has an advantage.

EFI/DI always performs better given everything else is the same. It seems many attempt to return to a golden age of muscle cars that was never a reality as far as performance is concerned.
1970 HEMI 'CUDA
ENGINE / 425 HORSEPOWER 426 HEMI 2x4 BARREL
AS TESTED / 4 SPEED TRANSMISSION AND 3.54 REAR
PERFORMANCE / 13.10 @ 107
DRAG TEST PUBLISHED / CAR CRAFT 11/69

2015 Mustang
Engine: 5.0 liter/ 3.7 liter/ 2.3 liter
Horsepower: 435/ 300/ 300
Torque: 400 lb-ft.
0-60 mph: 4.5 seconds
1/4 mile: 12.9 seconds @ 112 mph
EPA: 15 mpg city/ 25 mpg highway
Energy Impact: 17.3 barrels of oil/yr
CO2 Emissions: 7.8 tons/yr

There are other factors that influence the result here, the biggest being tires, but it still stands that the 2015 Mustang (standard, not a Shelby) beats the 426 hemi Cuda. The Hellcat is only good at melting tires without upgrades. Here

No fuel injection until '94. Multiport EFI debuted in '95.

GlassSeeker wrote: Carbs every once in while, some more than others, need you to put the control in nuetral and open the throttle wide open or pump it or some such fiddling to start the boat...fuel injection you just turn the key to start.

Andy,
In all honesty, If this is a problem with your carb'd boat or any others starting, please read Eddies (backfoot) post. It's the fifth into the thread. I feel a carb rebuild and tuning is needed. You're giving the carb'd engine a bad reputation!

If the "fiddling" you mention is to get the engine to crank, then cable adjustment is needed to close the NSS (neutral safety switch) in neutral. Both carb'd and FI'd engines have NSS's.

Protec came out in '91... Very few boats built 91-93 without it.

The NWZ was cc's first "great" slalom boat... Not quite on par with the tsc hulls but still very good. It's also a very spacious boat as that is when they went to the 19'6"/91" hull. 90-93 are the best looking (IMHO) with the classic bold stripe gel scheme. The NWZ hull in general is a pretty good value, but the 90-92 boats (pre-composite) often get overlooked and bargains certainly exist on those years... Just gotta do your due diligence as with all wood structure cc's that preceded them.

63 Skier wrote: The way prices have dropped on those year boats, I'd have a hard time justifying not going with a '93, think if you're patient you can find one in a similar range to the '90-'92. If you plan to keep a boat long term it's a great comfort to have a no-wood 20 plus year old boat.

Your line thinking (while somewhat flawed, imho) seems to be common, and is the exact reason why the 90-92 boats are such great values.

Hollywood wrote: damn whoever started this thread

Can't remember, what was the original subject?

NWZ are nice boats, but that sloped transom seems pretty impractical. Form over function? I can see paying more money for a composite as if you find out a year or two later that you've got a rot problem in your non composite boat, there goes $3-4k in value down the tubes. If I were buying a 15-20 year old boat, I'd only go for efi if it was one that had a good track record for dependability. Main characteristic I would look for is overall condition of the boat and not fuel system.

Bruce, the angled transom may have been done for looks, but it doesn't give up anything in terms of practicality, imho... No wasted space under that slope, the fuel tank goes in the same place it always does. The distance to the cockpit is the same, but less of a rear deck to step over. No lifting rings, vents or gas caps preventing you from sitting down... Up until they added an upholstered sunpad/trunk in '02, it seems to have been as practical as anything in practice. Looks are subjective though! Personally I like it, certainly more attractive than the bubble butt TSC1.

We loved the slant back look of our '92. It made a comfortable back rest when chilling on the platform relaxing.

Riley wrote: I've grown to like them all, bubble butt included, but that NWZ is a stretch for me. Good for the hamstrings I guess. No doubt a very well maintained non composite NWZ is a very good value.

Step over distance is the same Bruce, LOL. Just less transom there to step over. If making a step from the platform to the rear seat, the distance is the same NWZ/tsc1/tsc2(3). NWZ gives you step plates at platform and gunnel level though. You have the option to step on the sun pad with the tsc2/3, which is also a nicer place to sit- but I don't know many people who step on their vinyl as a regular practice so the hamstring workout would be the same if stepping over.

The earlier boats (2001, bfn) with square transoms were the same. Arguably a better place to sit if you didn't mind sitting on gas caps, lifting rings and scoops or vents. More gel to step on if you like, same hamstring workout if you don't.

I'm not sure I would call them any more practical... But I wouldn't call them impractical either. Purely a style choice.

^^^closet NWZ fan^^^

This has gone a long way from carb vs FI