Why do older carbureted Festivas get better fuel economy than fuel-injected ones?

[the_feist_in_festiva]

I thought fuel-injection was supposed to increase fuel economy or something. I know nothing.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1989_Ford_Festiva.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1990_Ford_Festiva.shtml

[bhazard]

Its epa ratings....take them with a grain of salt.

They say my TDI gets 42 highway...ha

[neanderpaul]

None of that is correct.

A common best MPG for efi 5 speeds is 53.
A common best MPG for efi Autos is 36.
A common best MPG for carbed 5 speeds is 49.

[neanderpaul]

Its epa ratings....take them with a grain of salt.

Its epa ratings....take them with a grain of nope.
FTFY

[Bert]

Fuel injection is easier to govern electronically and can therefore better be used to reduce "harmful tailpipe emissions". If you look on the EPA site my 86 manual tranny carbed 4.9 litre straight six F150 gets considerably better fuel economy than the 87 EFI version. But the 87s met that year's smog requirements whereas the previous year's carbed engines couldn't. Same goes for auto trannys. Fuel economy drops but there is no uncontrollable spike in emissions during shifts! So guess what manufacturers start doing as a result; no more carbs and ultimately no more sticks.

[TorqueEffect]

I'd be lucky to go any higher than 40MPGs on my EFI, I think the absolute best I ever got was 42.

[sketchman]

I was getting 48 consistently with mine before the 14s.

[nitrofarm]

I thought fuel-injection was supposed to increase fuel economy or something. I know nothing.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1989_Ford_Festiva.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod..._Festiva.shtml

To answer your question directly-The introduction of Fuel Injection Engines was not brought on by a desire to better our fuel economy."Emissions", was the driver of change. Tighter regulations on the Manufacturers to produce "cleaner" cars. Has caused power-plants & drive-trains to evolve to the current tech savy 7 Spd Auto trannys with fuel being cut to individual cylinders. Once the engineers figured out the "Emissions" they were better able to focus on MPG & HP.

[Bert]

To answer your question directly-The introduction of Fuel Injection Engines was not brought on by a desire to better our fuel economy."Emissions", was the driver of change. Tighter regulations on the Manufacturers to produce "cleaner" cars. Has caused power-plants & drive-trains to evolve to the current tech savy 7 Spd Auto trannys with fuel being cut to individual cylinders. Once the engineers figured out the "Emissions" they were better able to focus on MPG & HP.

Truth be known there is a huge amount of money at stake here (billions of $) and entirely driven by political-motivated legislation to 'reduce pollution'. Back in the 70s-80s this was a very powerful incentive; in one direction only; to reduce tailpipe emissions. But Makers have slowly been figuring all that out and are now cashing-in on increasingly sophisticated computer-controlled EFI to keep up emission 'appearances' and at the same time utilize those features to produce more power. Somewhere along the line both sides will have to meet and agree upon something.
Now that mass-produced engines can routinely produce 1 hp per cc (as opposed to 'special and high performance' 1 hp per cubic inch of the 1960s) you really do know that things have changed.
But at what cost? An ordinary Joe can no longer expect to be able to diagnose, service nor tinker with an automobile engine. Kids today are left toying entirely with computer chips and wouldn't/couldn't so much dare as to remove a valve cover looking to put in stiffer springs, bigger valves or search for a mixture adjustment screw!

[F3BZ]

hey! all i know, and i lernt this watchin ALL them FAST & FURIOUS movies, iz if i put a cold air kit on any 4 cylinder Honda, i git an extree 200HP.

[TorqueEffect]

Lol I have learned quickly that high performance air-filters, and cold-air intakes don't do jack for horsepower.

If cold air did anything for horsepower on any car, then why don't our cars feel more powerful when it is like 10 degrees Fahrenheit outside? Even warmed up, my engine actually feels like it has less power is the cold, then when it gets warm outside.

[the_feist_in_festiva]

My love for fuel economy and my bitter hatred for carburetors are at a crossroad. I'm just going to buy a Geo Metro. Did I just say that?

[Pu241]

My love for fuel economy and my bitter hatred for carburetors are at a crossroad. I'm just going to buy a Geo Metro. Did I just say that?

Hey, it your money to waste!
But don't think your going to get a lot of help with the Metro here!
We did have a joint meet with members of ecomodder.com some time ago, and many of them use Metros in their quest for Max MPG.
Nice guys too!

[TominMO]

Metro motors are not known for going 400K miles. Heck, many need work before 100K.

[db2u]

Lol I have learned quickly that high performance air-filters, and cold-air intakes don't do jack for horsepower.

If cold air did anything for horsepower on any car, then why don't our cars feel more powerful when it is like 10 degrees Fahrenheit outside? Even warmed up, my engine actually feels like it has less power is the cold, then when it gets warm outside.

Actually almost every car already has a cold air intake. The airbox routes into the fender, which sucks in cooler air from outside. "Performance" CAI systems usually just undo manufacturer engineering for the sake of looing cool. Cars feel slower when very cold partly due to the fact that all of the fluids become thicker, and the tire pressure drops some when it is that cold.