Sam Staton wrote:
> IMHO, the only reason computers exist in modern automobiles is
> to provide the user with some kind of acceptable power and
> performance while appeasing the public masters who decree
> what and when we can drive
Acceptable power and performance? How many muscle car guys
are making giant horsepower gains by installing EFI systems? Like
it or not, EFI is superior in every performance way, including
emissions.
You can't even begin to refute this point, because any carb
tuning you could possibly desire can be duplicated in an EFI system
and you will be more accurate and more consistent at delivering it.
If you don't like modern technology, that's your right, but
spreading misinformation is not.
> It is this that I think most people resent about automotive
> computers - 1) we didn't ask for them - they were mandated
Computers were never mandated. What WAS mandated was engines
that could control themselves under all situations and weren't
subject to the failings of carb systems wearing over time. The
mechanism was emissions, but the underlying problem was that
our beloved cars are just not very efficient.
Computers were merely the powerful tool that appeared to the
car makers. They are the tool that allowed us all to keep driving
cars, that not only met the EPAs requirements, but also provided
more power, milder manners, and enhanced reliability.
Once again, your blame is in the wrong place. The EPA is
apparently whom you have a problem with, the computer is
on your side, allowing you to have a car that behaves well
and is fun to drive but still meets the laws passed due
to the EPA.
> 2)we don't know what they're doing and have no easy way to discover that
> information
How many LBC manuals do you have? I'm sitting right beside a
Haynes manual for Fuel Injection covers 1978-1985 and cost
$15CDN. Is that an easy enough way to learn?
Anyone with an evening of free time can learn every
component of an EFI system and how to test them. The only
part you can't learn about in an evening is the computer
itself, and failures here are EXTREMELY rare and easy
to diagnose by ruling everything else out.
> 3)they are outrageously expensive (read higher automobile
> costs).
Ridiculous. How much has a 25 year old LBC spent on
carbs? How much on reduced mileage due to inefficient
carbeuration? Most modern cars have never needed anything
on their computer systems, and will be accidented,
worn out, or rusted away long before they will need
anything.
It's just proving my point. Every person who stands up
in this thread against computers starts their message
with "Well, I don't really know anything about engine
computers, and I don't know how to work on them, but
I don't like them".
How many people can you find that say "I fully understand
both LBC mechanicals and modern car electronics. I am
equally well versed and diagnosing and fixing either. There
is no doubt in my mind that the old systems are better
in every way"?
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|