I still own a 64 fuel injected Corvette that I drove new out the dealership when I was 17 years old ....yes I had the worlds best Dad...58,000 miles that I should but haven’t driven in years . Only had one issue ever with the injection unit due to additive that gunked up the system.. always idled rough but no other issues . Thanks for a very informative video
This is a great video and I enjoyed reading all the comments. It is nice to see so much interest in the old Iron. I am a mechanic and a Rochester Ramjet Fuel Injection car owner for over 50 years. GM had marketing movies showing how is worked like a jet engine. Very funny stuff. The following are just some observations and ramblings from someone that worked on all the hot rods back in the day and lovingly keep a Rochester FI unit running. First let me say that my FI unit is on a 1957 Belair and not a corvette. I bought the car in 1968 for $950 because it was Fuel Injected. Everyone said that I paid too much for that old car and that the Fuel Injection did not work. Some days I would have to agree with them. I have had the FI unit on 4 motors (283, 327,265, 283). About 15 years ago I found all the parts to build a 1957 283 FI motor. Dead stock. Not bored. Correct heads etc. It runs like the Engineers at Rochester intended. Smooth quick power. Let’s talk about reliability. Cars would often get a tune up every 12,000 miles. This meant replacing the spark plugs and points. Sometimes the distributor cap and wires were also replaced. I had a shop in 1973 and did a lot of this. Now if a high performance 440 or 396 showed up with the plugs all fouled from just putting around town then I would just take it out on the highway and open her up. That usually took care of it. I still charged the $12 for the tune up. So maintenance was an attempt to fix things before they broke if you could afford it. Reliability of the Rochester Fuel Injection (FI) was another matter. If the unit was running right you did not have to do anything to it. I can park my car for a year and it will start up and run fine. BUT--- If I put low octane gas (Below 98 ) with no lead then It won’t like it. If I put gas with ethanol in it then it will hate me. When I rev it to over 6000 rpm ( I used to hit 8300) then I may twist of the FI pump drive cable. Always carry a spare. When other problems occur and the mechanic starts adjusting the FI unit then It may not run right. If you get a bright Idea from a hot rod magazine and change anything it probably will not run right. If you bore out the engine the main diaphragm will get too much signal from the piezometer ring and you will run rich during part of the power curve and the power stop adjustment will not be able to correct this. You can set it up for full throttle operation which can be a lot of fun. Other fun things: The Early FI units came with a coasting shut off valve. When you were coasting down a hill the high vacuum shut off the fuel so you could save some gas. When you got to the bottom if the valve stuck closed then the engine would not run. The dealerships get bulletins and one of them said to remove this valve when you service a FI unit. They quickly stopped putting it on the units. The early units used an electric solenoid to starting. It sometimes stuck or the wire got disconnected. Hard starting was the result. That changed to a cranking signal valve but it can stick open and cause a lean mixture. The rubber diaphragms (there are two) can get go bad like rubber diaphragms like to do. Another popular misconception is that there was no fuel bowl with a float and needle and seat lake a carburetor. Hey it was designed by Rochester and had all of those things. I did not lean out on hard turns I can attest to that! It even has the giant screw to adjust the Idle RPM like the AFB carbs. By the way if you do twist off the drive cable then you better replace the seal or it leaks gas down the back of the engine around the distributer. Then one spark and you got a pretty good fire. I did bend a rod once when a cylinder filled with gas from a leaking check valve. I added the fuel shut off valve that came on the later units and that fix the problem. The fuel control lever likes to get a worn spot in it and that will make tuning a nightmare. The castings are pot metal and prone to bending and not make a proper seal on the diaphragms. The system is low pressure, between ¼ and 4 lbs. The fuel today has a very low boiling point. The fuel will boil inside the injector nozzles at normal operating temperature during a long idle. Like during curse night. So why go to all that trouble. Because we are gear heads, hot rodders and car nuts. Because when I guy asks me to lift the hood he either says WOW or asks “what the heck is that thing?” The same reason we now change the computer chip to a aftermarket one and add cold air induction. The same reason we check out the specs on the 700 hp plus cars today. Back in the day they asked why I needed 283 hp. Now they ask why do you need 700 hp. Tomorrow they will ask why you need a 1.3 gigawatt electric car. They answer will always the same. If you don’t know then I can’t explain it to you.
I Had an early one in a jeep and a buddy had a late one on a 350 in a jeep he checked his fuel mileage and was pulling around 25 mpg the great thing was when 4 wheeling was no floats problems in the rough stuff and no computer to quit in the middle of nowhere
Its ironic, how many folks in the 1970's would conspire about "100mpg carburators" that supposedly Detroit bought just to bury, when in reality GM had the Rochester FI. Unlike the Bendix, GM could have slapped these things on the "corporate 305" and passed emissions and fuel economy requirements that killed the muscle car. Another issue that spelled doom for the RFI was the number of shade tree mechanics available back then. You didn't have a computerized car that required a trained dealer mechanic to fix it, you could take it to your nearest gas station. Instead of convenience stores, every gas station had a two bay garage and a mechanic who may or may not have been up to date. So you bring in your RFI that isn't running right (for the reason mentioned above, or just bad gas--there was lead, not detergents in it back then). As many mechanics know, you think its the carb when its really the ignition--and back then, it was points. Convince the customer the RFI doesn't work because the Bendix units in Pontiacs and Chryslers work even worse, sell your customer a 4bbl carb you have on the shelf, and of course, you have to pull off the distributor to make the swap. Might as well change the points, too, and voila, the engine magically works and there's another bad reputation. but if the system was truly flawed, GM would have looked at all the warantee claims and refused to keep running the system for almost a decade.
I had an early one on a 327 in a 53 high hood jeep my buddy had a late one on a 350 in a CJ-5, in the early 70s we ran in the mud, sand, whatever they were not trailer queen's 25 mpg and no floats bouncing wish I had one today on my 84 K-10. A guy at Ft. Campbell Ky.s dad let him have a 2dr post black 57 chevy fuelie his dad bought new that was in the early 60s
I had a 1965 Vette with FI in the early 70.s. I ended up replacing the FI with a Holley 4 bbl because nobody I knew could work on the FI. Good article . Thanks for sharing .
I had a 65 327/350 hp with the hydraulic cam and Holley 4 bbl, M21, 370 diff. Just a lot of fun without all the maintenance. I helped friends set their solid cam lifters so I got to enjoy the smoke in those great old days.
I Agree Ricky. Mine was 71 Malibu with a 327 out of a 69 Caprice. Was only mildy rebuilt but still out performed many cars I thought I'd be looking at their tail lights.
Amen Trager, the big blocks added way too much weight over the front wheel throwing off the balance. Quater mile perfomance was great but didn't matter is not able to control a degreasing radius turn like found on real roads. Big blocks would understeer. Pushing through turns making more than one pinch mark in the driver's seat cushion...
All the small block engines had the same water pumps, fuel systems, accessories, etc.. so they're all pretty much the same except bore and stroke and whether they had 4-bolt mains or not. So to single out the 283 and the 327...I'm curious, why do you say the 283 and 327 are more dependable than the others? Thank you:)
@Terry Melvin ran 91 bonny 325k same thing gas and brake lines rusted out, they were put in a channel near the rocker panel and dirt and mud collected and rot them out. The lock up solenoid went out in the trans. had to unloosen the motor mounts to get the side pan off to replace it. Intake gasket failed at 250k. Not a problem. Trans finally went out. Engine ran fine though. Used no oil between changes. Original fuel pump, Imagine that.
Terry Melvin I’ve owned two 3800s, one from the mid 70s, the other at almost the end of the run in an ‘06 Buick. Great motors, both of mine were designed for highway cruising torque and they did that well. One of the things that gets lost in these engine discussions is talk about design goals. A SBC or LS with a high rpm cam, long runner intake, big carb or throttle body, ported heads, lightweight valve train etc. can make gobs of power at high RPMs. It does give up some reliability if going extreme. Most OHV V8 engines won’t live for hundreds of thousands of miles at high RPM. The same block with a different cam, lower compression pistons, lower cost conventional valve train, etc. can give great highway manners, fuel economy, still have decent power and be so under stressed as to live seemingly forever.
My parents collected them from 1976-1990. They had a 59 fuelie a61 and 63 split window fuelies. 1967 435 horse tripower and many others including 1970 AAR Cudas and TA Clallnegers.
@@the_kombinator you are correct. Nor would I. My house sits on 40 acres on a working cattle ranch in northern Arizona. 6000 feet above sea level, off grid. A very long way from Canada. Thank you, drive through
I've heard long ago that Chevy got rid of the old reliable 327 because it ran so good without breakdown. The Checker cab company used them in their cabs, and those things would run for about a million miles! My favorite engine 😍
Back in the day the fuel injected Corvette road tests I read showed some astounding numbers. Even the dealer mechanics were mostly out out touch with the old system. A ‘57 BelAir with FI and overdrive are quite rare. Craig Jackson says the production number was 200. Jay Leno’s Mercedes 300 has an oil change interval of 1,000 miles. The mechanical injection pump keeps pumping until the engine stops turning.
As a boy back in the early 60's, I watched driveway mechanics in my neighborhood absolutely ruin these systems because they couldn't admit they didn't know what they were doing. Yes they finally ripped them out, slapped on a carburetor and threw the pieces out. I wish I had scooped up some of those parts!
Just found your channel, I love it! It was a rare mechanic that could keep a fuelie small block running, but when they did it was majic. But if you got it all wrong you could start it on fire. The fastest stock accelerating vehicle I remember was a 68 427 3 deuce 4 spd vette. They had way more than advertised horsepower.x
Neighbor girl had a 1958 Pontiac Bonneville convertible with Factory Fuel Injection. Some mechanic talked her into replacing the fuel Injection with a carburetor. Never saw another car like it, the first Bonneville and the first factory fuel injector
I have a "62 fuelie and you are correct in that good fuel makes them run better(no alcohol), but they can be tuned to be very reliable and it takes patience, a manometer or guage to read vacuum and a pressure guage to read fuel pressure at the nozzel to get them set up properly. These systems were engineered by very smart people it takes experience and intelligence to dial them in. The early Rochester fuel injection systems were continuous and not sequential like those of today so economy wasn't that great but throttle response is awesome. A used Rochester unit in good condition costs about 12,000 to 15,000 dollars today and they cost about 200 dollars in parts to rebuild providing something is cracked or broken. Larry Pack MD
Awesome video! Yeah....I'm an old guy that remembers the local Chevy dealer taking off fuelies and replacing them with carbs. In 1966 (NC) the local dealer had at least 8 fuelies sitting on a top shelf of the parts dept growing cobwebs. I was always interested in the fuelies as one of my classmate's older brother had a 62 vette he bought used and couldn't get the fuelie to work correctly and had it swapped for a carb. Yeah....like so many others.....if I had only known what they would be worth a few decades later, I would have snapped them up and stuck them in the garage. Again, really enjoyed your video.
In 1968 right after I got out of the Army, I bought a Nassau blue 65 Corvette conv from the 2nd owner. Ex fuelie converted to Chevy aluminum manifold with Holley carb, 4:11 posi, close ratio 4 sp. That car screamed. The original owner offered to sell me the orig fuel inj for $100, I said I didn't want it, I'd heard the inj was hard to keep in tune. The next year I put on headers & slicks, unbolted bumpers, exhaust system, spare tire carrier, all splash panels & brackets not necessary to drive and ran high 11.80's at the local drag strip - couple tenths off the AHRA national record. I still have 7 or 8 trophies from the strip and some nice pictures of me racing there..
Food for thought. There is a whole series of post on the Corvette forum dealing with some C4 owners who have installed various sizes of the Chevrolet big block in their cars. The weight difference is negligeble when using aluminum heads and induction. Plus these engines are making 600-900 H.P. and tons of torque for incredible H.P. that is reliable. There are several cars that are running aluminum blocks also. They run the 4L60 trans with a higher stall converter and a special made Dana rear end in either live axle or a fully independent Special purpose Dana with an almost 10 inch ring gear to handle the torque of these monster big blocks. The engines range in size from 427, 454, 540 and 572 cubic examples. I will post a link later to the series of post dealing with these big block C4's .
Great content as always, love hearing the history of the C1 C2 fuelie cars. Small blocks all the way, even in the C3 I would take a little 350 over a slobbering big block, run like little sewing machines.
You have researched your subject well and I admire the way you have put it together and delivered it; my only criticism is that you made no mention of the awesome Chevy 409.
According to my Corvette book, Rochester Division reduced the price of the fuel injection system that it charged Chevrolet every year, until it reached a reduction of over 400%, charging just $125 in 1965; it was Chevrolet who raised the price of the system every year until it became so expensive the public could not afford it. Short sighted indeed.
The 60s were awesome! What a great time to be young. Things were so exciting back then. We had the Beatles, 8tracks, sock hops and I was still a virgin. (Pretty much)
I got hold of a 350 horse 327 as a kid in high school during the late 60s and put it in a 63 Impala. Wish I still had that car. They were real easy to work on. The new 5.3 which is a 327 is a nice engine. I have 325 HP one in a pickup.
I think the late 80s and early 90s were the last vestige of a true, classic childhood (going outdoors, getting in trouble, somewhat innocent life) and the end of being a regular teenager (getting into more trouble, tuning cars, dating). Now everything seems washed down, weak, dating seems to be completely impossible in the traditional sense (based on what I am hearing from younger family members). Having said that, I bet the 50s and 60s were even better. I wonder how it'll pan out for my now two year old :X
My college room mate had a big block 1968 Vette. I borrowed it a few times. I thought it had a hole in the gas tank. I never checked the mileage but couldn't afford to drive it even at gas being less that 30 cents/gal. interior temp was an issue as well. But it was a hoot to drive.
'62-'65, my high school years, I remember looking at a fuelie Sting Ray in the Chevy showroom with sticker price between 4500 and 4800, can't remember exactly, seemed like a lot at the time. That was an amazing decade to be a kid.
Having had both a 1964 FI convertible and a 1965 FI Coupe I can safely say they were fun to drive. Because there were very few dealers who knew anything about how to service it, you had to join a Corvette Club or get Corvette News to find how to do it yourself. I used the 64 to autocross/rally in for over 35 years. I could run the 1/4 in 13.3 with good tires-, the 2000-2008 period tires gave the best times, and in autocrossing it would routinely beat the carburated cars--big blocks included. High speeds, the BB would blow it away.
Scott, you are exactly right. When the split window Vette was featured on the cover of Hot Rod magazine, I thought it was gorgeous. I was in a distinct minority.
Besides fuel injection, Chrysler invented crankshaft triggered computer controlled ignition for the 1958 model year Chrysler 300. But the control unit was as big as a suitcase and took up a larger portion of the car's trunk. If the Fuel injection system had met up with the ignition system that Chrysler invented the result at that time would have been incredible! As it was the Chevy injection system was well designed, with intake runners flowing from the top of the injector manifold flowing almost straight down to the intake valve. Find a cross section view to see how well it was engineered. Awesome was the only way to describe it.
The Chevy mechanical fuel injection was tough to get running right. I had a older guy that worked on a lot of them at a dealership in early/mid 60’s. He taught me how to make them work but they took time and patience to get right. For daily drivers electronic fuel injection is superior.
By the mid 1970s, 2 barrel carburators were engineered to a fine science - wonderful mechanical computers. Once the altitude compensating valve circuit was perfected for the carb this almost equates to modern fuel injection. 4 barrel carbs have always been more on the fussy side though.
It was also a lot more expensive than the big block, which produced a lot more torque, and ended up being overall a better street car because of it at the expense of weight up front. The big block killed fuelies.
At the time Fuel Injection was very cool to some people but just mysterious and weird to most. I live in Nebraska but when they were new most of the dealerships had no idea how to make it run right. With a good dual plane intake and 750 Holley dual pump carburetor the horsepower was very similar. Thats why when they acted up most got scrapped for a carburetor. Factory or professional race teams aside most people worked on their own cars then and were so much more comfortable with normal induction.
It took reliable solid state electronic control for fuel injection to go mainstream. The electronics just didn't exist back in the 60's. The first GM small blocks used mechanical injection. But Chrysler was installing electronic fuel injection in some models by the late 50's, the first production examples of such, although I think there were problems with the early ones.
You laid this out so perfect and eloquently. You're channel is a tremendous resource. I believe you will go down in the history books as well. You are to automobiles as to what Ian McCollum is over at forgotten weapons.
Great video!!! I always wondered why they didn't use aluminum V8s in the corvette starting in the '70s. If you have to cut HP, and displacement, you may as well add lightness.
I appreciate the fact that you didn't ask for a subscription until the end of the video... And it was an awesome video, so ... Sub... scribed ! Thanks for such a great video ❤️. You covered everything!
I owned a 84 Corvette all through high school, college, and even my first few years of work...it was my daily driver. The 84 Corvette was?equipoed with the Cross Fire injection, (two throttle bodies with one large injector per throttle body) it actually wasn't as bad as people seem to let on but sometimes it sounded like the engine was knocking at idle due to those two injectors clanking away. I now have a 85 Corvette, (have had it close to 8 years now) with the Tuned Port injection system and the biggest difference I noticed between the 84 and 85 is the overall throttle response, 85 Corvette seems to react a little quicker to throttle changes. The 85 Vette itself rides smoother as well, they loosened the suspension just a bit and it was a night and day difference to smoothness of the ride.
@@rickwilliamsjr.4003 They have, do, and will Always follow FORD. Better ideas come from Ford.The best of the best comes from Ford. FORD is, and always will be a leader!!! And GM knows it!!!! So they FOLLOW!!!!!
@@eugeneschulte4950 I guess that is why Ford stuck with mechanical brakes and buggy spring suspension long after GM and Chrysler went to hydraulic brakes and independent suspension eh?
I own a 1964 coup with a 550 hp high winding 327 engine and a 6sp manual trans. Big brakes, racing suspension. Runs 11’s in the quarter on street tires. Way more fun than an original 327 fuelie with a 4sp. And my car still looks fairly stock except it’s lowered 2 inches.
NOTE: I worked at the Flint, MI small block V-8 engine plant from 1968 - 1972 in the engine test division. Also, my father retired as Chief Metallurgist / Chemist for Chevrolet Mfg. In those days, all of the naturally aspirated (carbureted) engines were tested on natural gas w/o the carburetors. The fuel injected engines were tested in a special room on gasoline due to the mechanical injector. After the room had an explosion / fire for the fourth time, GM’s underwriters told management that the gasoline had to go, or they would not underwrite their $100,000,000 plant. The choice was simple, and that is why fuel injection disappeared mid year.
I think that no doubt a rare option where most buyers just liked the sporty car itself as long as it always ran and was decently quick would go away at some point. But certainly what you say could also be it. Many of us car people/hot rodders tend to think in our preferential and with hindsight terms. We have to realize when these cars were new it was mostly just average people buying them and most could care less about some fancy and potentially troublesome option or be thinking of future value. They were mostly interested in my first line of thinking. Show me new car buyers that want that freaking thing sitting broke down at all? Thanks for your info.
@Chazz Ram incorrect. Fuel injection in a nut shell refines how fuel is delivered and atomizex, which maximizes fuel efficiency AND power. Let's look at a 3rd gen Camaro that came with an assortment of engine sizes and fuel delivery. The L69 305 was a High Output engine, it was the highest powered carburated engine for the 3rd Gen F-Body with a higher lift cam and a few other goodies, it pumped out 190hp. A 305 TPI (still very archaic compared to day) with a lesser aggressive cam compared to the L69 produced 215hp. A whole 25 more horsepower on just fuel delivery.
James Wiliams You are absolutely correct. I owned a 65 327 with the double hump heads. My buddies and I overhauled it in 1979 and installed a Crane Blazer 300H hydraulic camshaft (292/488) When we first fired the thing up, Dear God, what a sound. It was a sweet mechanical sound, not a heavy exhaust noise, but a sweet lumpy, loping of the valves responding to the lift and duration of that camshaft. We installed the motor in a 66 Chevy C/10 pickup truck with a 4 speed rock crusher, Hurst T-handle shifter. I am hear to tell you, from a short roll, get the rev's up and stand on the throttle, that motor would almost lift the front wheels of that heavy truck. To this day, I still hear that motor idling when I look back at those days.
Another reason was back in the early/mid 60's you had an entire generation of young men raised on carburetors who understood how to maintain them and tune them...whereas Fuel injection kind of scared guys who didn't know how to maintain FI systems. Fyi, I owned a 1965 Vette Roadster with the new "Porcupine" 396 425 HP BBC...she was burnt orange and had off road exhaust. Girls loved that car...I used to half joke that when I went under a bridge with the top down I could hear them stick to the seat :) Also, when I was in H.S. I had a buddy who had a fuelie 283 in a '57 chevy...it was one of the fastest cars in town.
Exactly right on FI. Look at even the heavy and justifiable hesitance to move over to it even in more recent times. Even with the obvious advantages look how many still set up a car with a carb or delete the FI? I understand and can work on these things and I still prefer my carbs, for more than one reason.
Higher cost up front for fuel injection, but the savings in fuel savings would eventually make up for it. Glad you mentioned the handling improvements with a lighter engine.
Even the big block v8 wasn't over the front wheels, it's called a front-mid engine car because the engine is behind the front wheels. Interesting vid though. Nicely done.
The older 283 /327 engines were great but don,t belong in a ford .The only reason you see this done so much is because old GM bodys have rotted away because of all the wood construction support and are scarce to be found . plus the ford made a better looking hot rod .the trend seems to be moving away from this today with many other good engines being used instead .
@@tubedude4859 The small-block Chevies fit better in a Ford than any other engine. They were smaller in size. I agree that ford made a better-looking hot rod, that's why builder's put Chevies in them. What wood support are you talking about?
My uncle had a black 57 convertible fuel injection and as you said nobody could turn them and they put two four barrels on this car God bless you Uncle Freddy
Mechanical FI was a bit difficult to dial in, but the fuel mileage was far superior than the dual quad models when tuned well. The computer controls sealed the fate of the carb.
@Bruce Carney - Being mechanical, it lacked the sensors that allow modern EFI systems to compensate for a wide range of operating conditions, such as changes in temperature and altitude as well. That hook up did do a good job of adjusting fuel flow in response to changes in air density.
Yep, the 1987 Chevette, which I owned, and the last year they made them, was rated at 65hp. I highly doubt I was getting all 65hp, as I couldn't even beat a fully loaded city bus off the line. However, it was extremely reliable, especially in sub zero weather. Started no problem. Just had no power.
I had a friend in high school whose first car was a copper/black stripe/cream interior 1970 Chevelle SS 396 with Corvette fuel injection added. Bench seat, column shift automatic. Such a beautiful car.
I had an original '65 Fuelie back in the mid 60's. At National Speedway, my totally stock Fuelie (4.11 rear gear set) with the original gold line 7.75 x 15 tires ran the quarter mile at 13.8 seconds at 101 mph. On the street, my Fuelie could always jump the new 396 Vettes. Only when the 427/425 HP 1966 Vettes appeared, were my street dominance days over.
I actually have a 1961 Impala fueling, dubbed “the car that doesn’t exist.” Chevrolet offered two FI options in the 1961 Corvette; 275 hydronic lifter and the 315 solid lifer. Although dealer installed, my car has option 353, equipped with part number 7017200 Rochester FI. Only 2 are believed to exist and I drove mine to Lancaster (CA) and back home today, 125 miles.
One of my friends was a mechanic. he bought a 58 corvette eventually it broke the crank shaft and he asked me. I can get the 375hp/327ci long block engine new through dealer but they will not sell me the injection. I can buy a used injection system. But, can you tune it for me. I asked. do you have a portable exhaust gas analyzer? Yes, ok buy it. he bought it and put it together. just adjust idle speed and mixture. then set the full power mixture stop for 11.5:1 and the cruise mix stop for almost 14:1 its still running to this day and in the possession of his son(he passed away in 1985). A simple system that worked great.
Fascinating, and had a old neighbor who had some early to mid 60's 'vettes, and I helped him service the engines, but as much as he knew about the engines available, never mentioned a fuel injected setup. Also interesting because I was the among the first 'motorheads' to endorse and even covet fuel injection, while so many others said they didn't know how to work on them, told them it was easy,lol just had to learn a bit. And I'll take the vehicle not flooding the cylinders with gas and better performance everytime. even recently on motorcycles, still here about the carb'd ones.."well at least I can work on it"
So in 1965 gas prices averaged $0.31 but corrected for inflation that comes to $2.50 per gallon in todays dollars. As of writing this the current average gas price today is $2.88 so really gas isn't much more expensive today than it was back then.
They still don't sell a car marketed for efficiency that's fun that's why all they can sell are trucks. All they had to do was market it as +1 HP per cu and they wouldv'e sold more.
I think most people don't adjust in inflation and wages between today and back in the 60's. Average yearly income in the 60's was like $7000 for a family, $4100 for an individual. Base MSRP for a 65 Vette was $4000. So that's almost all of a couples or ALL of an individuals YEARLY income. Fuel was about almost even with today's market.
When Chevy had the FI in 1957, there were two varieties--the 250 hp @ 5,000 RPM, and the famous 283 hp version. Pontiac and Chrysler had FI as well, but it was the Bendix units that failed. If you wanted fuel economy, it was probably cheaper to get the 3 speed with overdrive, even though it had 4.10 rear gears. But, fuel economy WAS an issue, America had a recession in 1958 coming up. Chevy went from 3.70 rear gears to 3.55 in the stick shift models, 3.34 instead of 3.55 with the Turboglide, in 1957, so the engineers were either looking at fuel economy for the larger 1957 or they were worried about warrantee claims.
@Terry Melvin exactly! The Edsel had its issues, but so did other cars--the recession hurt it, and Ford didn't change its look in 1959 whereas GM did. And the recession also drove consumers into smaller cars--before malls, mom would shop in town, going from store to store for individual purchases. Imagine trying to parallel park those long wheelbases a few times an afternoon.
And today we have 300hp from a 4cyl engine. Sure would have liked to have seen quality turbocharged 4cy right at the time of the FORD Pinto. We had to wait until the mid-80's to get a quality 4cyl with turbo from SAAB. The 2.0L engine used in the SAAB 900 is a very good engine even if it is installed backwards. I owned 2 57 Belairs,in 1973. Bought one for 100.00 the other for 200.00. This is what these cars brought back then.
Bottom line: back in the day, having Chevrolet performing service on your Corvette was always the best way to go. And today it's even more true. Personally, only a GM Master Technician works on my Corvettes[old and newer alike]. Great UA-cam channel!
+Gene Ebeling Nah. Not taking it to a street corner gas station mechanic who couldn't spell carburetor if his life depended on it is the best way to go. There are and were plenty of independent shops more than capable of servicing Corvettes. But they cost commensurate money and still do.
lokisgodhi I agree to disagree. Certainly many ASE certified mechanics, and small shops around the country that know anything Corvette tend to get a bad wrap. Don't know if you've checked lately on GM prices at their dealerships, but good honest work doesn't come cheap! Folks may take their car wherever their wallet or personal whim dictates. For me, I wouldn't trade my Chevy Master Tech who specializes in Corvettes for any other shop's mechanic.
+Gene Ebeling How do you know the dealership doesn't just foist the repair job on whichever tech is unoccupied when you happen to bring the car in? That's the title they give to any tech who shows up for work that day. :-) There is no such thing as a 'Chevy Corvette Master Tech'. There are GM Master Mechanics. To get certified on Corvettes they take a few interactive video courses over satellite and some tests (no hands on work). You do know what the Corvette specific training is, don't you? Its training on how to say "Yep, that's normal. All Corvettes do that" It takes a week, as its taught in several languages and its followed by a workshop in making up things to make unreasonable explanations sound plausible.
Yes, mechanical fuel injection can work but for it to really be practical it had to wait to be paired with computers. That said, mechanical FI does live on at the drag strip, particularly among alcohol-fueled race cars where exact air/fuel ratios over all driving conditions are not necessary. They just need to idle and go full throttle and they work great for that.
@@kinzieconrad105 I'm making over 4k hp blown alcohol hemi. Mechanical fuel injection meaning enderle big and ugly 5 9/16 butterfly hat with 1200 enderle pump and hat/port injection. Enderle k barrel valve and 2 high speed leanout poppets
Zora Duntov himself stated that the primary reason for dropping the fuel injection system was that carburetors had progressed to the point that fuel starvation under hard cornering was no longer a problem. This was the biggest advantage the fuel injection system gave and was the reason for inclusion on the Corvette -- for SCCA and other racing endeavors. Duntov said that once the fuel starvation issues were solved with carburetors, there was no longer a need for the high cost fuel injection. I met Mr. Duntov in the mid-1980s.
Exactly! It requires a computer and EFI to beat carbs. Carbs performed better and more tuneable to conditions. The air box became the base for the tunnel ram.
@@curtispaul9717 Your belief doesn't change fact. The early FI had terrible tunability. They went to it to solve bogging issues but was complicated and unreliable. The moment they could get away from it they did.
on the subject of more affordable fuel injected vehicles that made the average consumer really appreciate the the advantages and also see the simplicity and reliability of a well engineered mechanical system I think an episode on the first VW Rabbit GTI with the Bosch mechanical Jetronic four port injector system plus one plenum injector to provide cold start enrichment. I purchased my used GTI at a used car clearance sale for 600$ in January 2000. It was -20F as a Canadian winter can be, the sales man handed me the keys, a snow brush and explained that it hadn't run in about 3 or 4 weeks and said he would get a booster as the battery was likely not too lively. I brushed 6-8 inches of snow off, hopped in , looked at the odometer showing 250 000 km (`155 000 miles), cranked the motor to life in about 4 or 5 seconds, no boost needed, brushed the rest of the snow off the hood, roof and glass, checked all the lights, and controls, waited for the heater to start pushing heat and cranked up the defroster and embarked on a ten minute test drive only to find that it was a well running diamond in the rough with no apparent problems Over the next few years I put about 100 000 km (62 000 miles), about 80% highway, with only basic regular maintenance (CV shafts, timing belt, filters, brakes, tires, plugs,one exhaust hanger and a quick weld on the pipe were the broken hanger let the pipe crack). That car never left me broken at the side of the road, got excellent fuel economy, had enough power to cross the Rocky Mountains (Vancouver to Calgvary roundtrip Via the Coquahalla) with only a few downshifts to 3rd as well as a couple convoys up the pass behind the snowplow. Just one of my few cars I wish I could have kept. I'm not sure if you will feature a first gen Rabbit GTI on your channel, you could always do a video on a 67 Rambler American 2 door with the 232 2 barrel carb 6 cylinder and the Borg Warner aotomatic (another regretful loss, 170 000 mile California car that I drove about 40 000 miles through the southern states, 8000 miles of Mexican 1980s highways, west coast states, Alberta and BC in Canada until I rolled it on a northern logging road after hitting a washboard at about 25-30 mph). replaced with a 1972 GMC 2500 Fleetside for about 100 000 miles, 74 4door Chrysler Newport, 77 Lancia Beta, 3x 2nd gen Dodge Dakotas, and probably a few cars I am forgetting .
Chevy SB 327 with aluminum intake and fuel injection 535 pound's, Chevy BB 396 with cast iron intake and carb 685 pound's. 327 stock Corvette with fuel injection 14.2 second quarter mile compared to 14.1 with the 396. The 396 may have been slightly faster going straight but the lighter 327 FI Corvette would have killed it in overall driving ability!
The success of the big block, even 53 years later made it a very worthy replacement for the FI small block. L88 with aluminum heads would outrun any FI small block (and any furd or chrysler engine for that matter). The greatest travesty in auto history was congress' threat to break up GM bc of their unfair advantage in the market. Cue the racing ban so they wouldn't sell as many cars, stifling any further racing development. The compromised BB was the result. Thanks, big government. You're welcome, furd. FI was typical of a monster GM though. Only a company of that size and scope could futz with it while producing so much else.
We had, from my dad, a 66 hard top/ convertible with a 327. What a fun car to drive, and maintenance was very low. Handling was great, brakes really great, peppy enough. It was a real road car.
I had a close friend, a Mechanical Engineer graduate that put a "built" 327 with the Rochester Fuel Injection on it into a two door 1957 Chevrolet sedan. The engine was followed up with a close ratio four speed Muncie manual transmission a, combination made it an amazing performance vehicle He was the only person around here that could work on that injection system and tune it precisely. I wish I owned that car, it was fantastic!
There isn't much to it. Some vertical stacks and a throttle body at a 90 degree angle. It's effectively a mini tunnel ram intake. Not that that much of a point for mechanical throttle body injection, it's a carb with mechanical spraying of fuel. Even with EFI performance is underwhelming, more like a smart carb. It's not until you move to port or direct injection that fuel injection really starts to shine for performance. A carb can match the performance of a throttle body, it's not matching the performance of port or direct injection though.
I remember the Rochester injection unit. Actually it was a simple unit but the mechanics at that time really didn't know how to service it. It had two problems. They didn't have really good fuel filters at that time and the nozzles would clog . Sometimes it would lean a cylinder out and melt a piston. Second IT had a mechanical fuel pump and sometimes it wasn't good enough to maintain fuel pressure. They did create a lot power and delivered really good gas mileage
BEST V-8 EVER! I've done >220mph in one, in a 1973 Stingray. It sounded and smelled like an aircraft engine. And would go through a set of back tires faster than the tank of gas. You need it in a vehicle that weighed more than 4000lbs., any lighter and it was dangerous. That's why it had to be pulled out of my 1964 Malibu.
Ah, brings back memories. While in high school, my little brother and I built a 327 starting with a bare short block. Added 12.5:1 domed pistons, high lift cam, Edelbrock intake manifold, Holly dual feed, headers, ported and polished heads, chromed everything that was not painted Chevy orange, etc. Every piece of it except the block and heads was brand new. I finished it right before I left home for college and had it on display on an engine stand. Dad later sold it, but he had paid for everything except the bare block and I had no further use for it nor even a car to put it in. It was beautiful. I lost interest in cars, got married and never built another engine after that.
One of the biggest problems when GM started going into more complex fuel systems was a lack of techs to work on them. And the early F. I. was certainly a problem in this area. I didn't watch the video so I dont know if this was mentioned.
My sister had a mechanical FI Audi Fox and they proved quite difficult for North American trained mechanics to repair and tune properly as compared to the carbs. That and the additional cost sealed the fate of fuel injection until computer control came about in the late 70's and early 80's.
Appreciate the history on the Chevrolet Fuel Injection system, it was ahead of it's time and was available in the Chevrolet Cars and still sought after by the collectors of Americas most popular classic cars. I wish a modern version with the latest engineering would be produced in the 1957--58 Chevrolet models including the Corvette, I would probably buy one.
Mike Skidmore Wow, I didn't realize they came with that price tag. But if you're doing a high dollar restoration or looking for authenticity then it's a small price to pay. Thanks for the info. ✌✌
You can search for almost anything on E-Bay gives you a good idea of Market Value .. I have a Winters Foundry 4 barrel intake of from a 1966 Vette 327 360 HP not overly valuable yet.. but is a good working intake .. many modern day Weind and Edelbrock to choose from
I had a fuel injection on a bored out 283....placed in a 51 Chevy......I never could get it to pull good.....people told me later in life probably did not have the valves needed!
I just wanted to say that I really love this channel. The commentator has a perfect voice for the job and the music and video production are a perfect match. They deserve more subscriptions than just 58k, gang!
My third grade teacher's son was head of sales at the county's largest Chevrolet dealership. He got his mom a good deal on a real nice Nova. He would give her a loaner car when the Nova was being serviced. Everyone was stunned the one time she drove to school in a white stingray coupe with "327 fuel injection" badges on its fenders. I remember looking down on it in awe from the window seat of the school bus as we drove past it.
when I was a kid the next door neighbor always got a new vette as soon as the came out.The 65 FI would eat the 66 lunch easy but like you said when it had 7,000 miles on it the dealer could not fix the FI when it got out of wack.He refused to let them put a carb on it and it took them 1 month to get it right,by then it was early Sept. and time for New one .The 66 did not have the same power. Now listen the dealer could not tune up the FI, what he heard was P51 mechanics could fix them. But being in San Antonio he never found one.
Kind of true as the GM FI system was basically the same as the Bendix pressure carb system popular in WW2, and later in aircraft engines. The Bendix system is still around.
I had two friends in NYC who owned a ‘61 and a ‘62 “ Vette fuelies” which were very fast. They had problems unless they were tuned correctly. Bobby had the ‘61 and had it dyno-tuned by an outfit in New Jersey while the owner of the ‘62 left his alone, just tuning his by a local Brooklyn mechanic. I rode with Bobby when they raced on the Belt Parkway. Bobby was pulling away from his opponent until the clutch and flywheel detonated. Great stuff in those days despite the destruction which for seconds, convinced me I had died. I miss those days so much.
I still own a 64 fuel injected Corvette that I drove new out the dealership when I was 17 years old ....yes I had the worlds best Dad...58,000 miles that I should but haven’t driven in years . Only had one issue ever with the injection unit due to additive that gunked up the system.. always idled rough but no other issues . Thanks for a very informative video
You need to run race gas in it, available from Napa Parts. Needs to be at LEAST 100 octane!
Silver spoon.
This is a great video and I enjoyed reading all the comments. It is nice to see so much interest in the old Iron. I am a mechanic and a Rochester Ramjet Fuel Injection car owner for over 50 years. GM had marketing movies showing how is worked like a jet engine. Very funny stuff.
The following are just some observations and ramblings from someone that worked on all the hot rods back in the day and lovingly keep a Rochester FI unit running.
First let me say that my FI unit is on a 1957 Belair and not a corvette. I bought the car in 1968 for $950 because it was Fuel Injected. Everyone said that I paid too much for that old car and that the Fuel Injection did not work. Some days I would have to agree with them. I have had the FI unit on 4 motors (283, 327,265, 283). About 15 years ago I found all the parts to build a 1957 283 FI motor. Dead stock. Not bored. Correct heads etc. It runs like the Engineers at Rochester intended. Smooth quick power.
Let’s talk about reliability. Cars would often get a tune up every 12,000 miles. This meant replacing the spark plugs and points. Sometimes the distributor cap and wires were also replaced. I had a shop in 1973 and did a lot of this. Now if a high performance 440 or 396 showed up with the plugs all fouled from just putting around town then I would just take it out on the highway and open her up. That usually took care of it. I still charged the $12 for the tune up. So maintenance was an attempt to fix things before they broke if you could afford it.
Reliability of the Rochester Fuel Injection (FI) was another matter. If the unit was running right you did not have to do anything to it. I can park my car for a year and it will start up and run fine.
BUT--- If I put low octane gas (Below 98 ) with no lead then It won’t like it. If I put gas with ethanol in it then it will hate me. When I rev it to over 6000 rpm ( I used to hit 8300) then I may twist of the FI pump drive cable. Always carry a spare. When other problems occur and the mechanic starts adjusting the FI unit then It may not run right. If you get a bright Idea from a hot rod magazine and change anything it probably will not run right. If you bore out the engine the main diaphragm will get too much signal from the piezometer ring and you will run rich during part of the power curve and the power stop adjustment will not be able to correct this. You can set it up for full throttle operation which can be a lot of fun.
Other fun things: The Early FI units came with a coasting shut off valve. When you were coasting down a hill the high vacuum shut off the fuel so you could save some gas. When you got to the bottom if the valve stuck closed then the engine would not run. The dealerships get bulletins and one of them said to remove this valve when you service a FI unit. They quickly stopped putting it on the units.
The early units used an electric solenoid to starting. It sometimes stuck or the wire got disconnected. Hard starting was the result. That changed to a cranking signal valve but it can stick open and cause a lean mixture.
The rubber diaphragms (there are two) can get go bad like rubber diaphragms like to do. Another popular misconception is that there was no fuel bowl with a float and needle and seat lake a carburetor. Hey it was designed by Rochester and had all of those things. I did not lean out on hard turns I can attest to that! It even has the giant screw to adjust the Idle RPM like the AFB carbs.
By the way if you do twist off the drive cable then you better replace the seal or it leaks gas down the back of the engine around the distributer. Then one spark and you got a pretty good fire.
I did bend a rod once when a cylinder filled with gas from a leaking check valve. I added the fuel shut off valve that came on the later units and that fix the problem.
The fuel control lever likes to get a worn spot in it and that will make tuning a nightmare. The castings are pot metal and prone to bending and not make a proper seal on the diaphragms.
The system is low pressure, between ¼ and 4 lbs. The fuel today has a very low boiling point. The fuel will boil inside the injector nozzles at normal operating temperature during a long idle. Like during curse night.
So why go to all that trouble. Because we are gear heads, hot rodders and car nuts. Because when I guy asks me to lift the hood he either says WOW or asks “what the heck is that thing?” The same reason we now change the computer chip to a aftermarket one and add cold air induction. The same reason we check out the specs on the 700 hp plus cars today. Back in the day they asked why I needed 283 hp. Now they ask why do you need 700 hp. Tomorrow they will ask why you need a 1.3 gigawatt electric car. They answer will always the same. If you don’t know then I can’t explain it to you.
I Had an early one in a jeep and a buddy had a late one on a 350 in a jeep he checked his fuel mileage and was pulling around 25 mpg the great thing was when 4 wheeling was no floats problems in the rough stuff and no computer to quit in the middle of nowhere
Its ironic, how many folks in the 1970's would conspire about "100mpg carburators" that supposedly Detroit bought just to bury, when in reality GM had the Rochester FI. Unlike the Bendix, GM could have slapped these things on the "corporate 305" and passed emissions and fuel economy requirements that killed the muscle car.
Another issue that spelled doom for the RFI was the number of shade tree mechanics available back then. You didn't have a computerized car that required a trained dealer mechanic to fix it, you could take it to your nearest gas station. Instead of convenience stores, every gas station had a two bay garage and a mechanic who may or may not have been up to date. So you bring in your RFI that isn't running right (for the reason mentioned above, or just bad gas--there was lead, not detergents in it back then). As many mechanics know, you think its the carb when its really the ignition--and back then, it was points. Convince the customer the RFI doesn't work because the Bendix units in Pontiacs and Chryslers work even worse, sell your customer a 4bbl carb you have on the shelf, and of course, you have to pull off the distributor to make the swap. Might as well change the points, too, and voila, the engine magically works and there's another bad reputation.
but if the system was truly flawed, GM would have looked at all the warantee claims and refused to keep running the system for almost a decade.
I had an early one on a 327 in a 53 high hood jeep my buddy had a late one on a 350 in a CJ-5, in the early 70s we ran in the mud, sand, whatever they were not trailer queen's 25 mpg and no floats bouncing wish I had one today on my 84 K-10. A guy at Ft. Campbell Ky.s dad let him have a 2dr post black 57 chevy fuelie his dad bought new that was in the early 60s
Thank you for this.😊
I had a 1965 Vette with FI in the early 70.s. I ended up replacing the FI with a Holley 4 bbl because nobody I knew could work on the FI. Good article . Thanks for sharing .
I had a 65 327/350 hp with the hydraulic cam and Holley 4 bbl, M21, 370 diff. Just a lot of fun without all the maintenance. I helped friends set their solid cam lifters so I got to enjoy the smoke in those great old days.
Doesn’t change a thing for me. The 327 well always be my favorite Chevy small block.😀
I Agree Ricky.
Mine was 71 Malibu with a 327 out of a 69 Caprice.
Was only mildy rebuilt but still out performed many cars I thought I'd be looking at their tail lights.
I have a 68 Chevy pickup with a 327/ M20 4speed.
Like the 400 small block one of the hottest 302
I love the 327 but id give my left n-t for the Chevy 302
Amen Trager, the big blocks added way too much weight over the front wheel throwing off the balance. Quater mile perfomance was great but didn't matter is not able to control a degreasing radius turn like found on real roads. Big blocks would understeer. Pushing through turns making more than one pinch mark in the driver's seat cushion...
Fuel injection aside, the 283 and 327 were the most dependable engines that GM ever offered.
3.8
All the small block engines had the same water pumps, fuel systems, accessories, etc.. so they're all pretty much the same except bore and stroke and whether they had 4-bolt mains or not. So to single out the 283 and the 327...I'm curious, why do you say the 283 and 327 are more dependable than the others? Thank you:)
@Terry Melvin ran 91 bonny 325k same thing gas and brake lines rusted out, they were put in a channel near the rocker panel and dirt and mud collected and rot them out. The lock up solenoid went out in the trans. had to unloosen the motor mounts to get the side pan off to replace it. Intake gasket failed at 250k. Not a problem. Trans finally went out. Engine ran fine though. Used no oil between changes. Original fuel pump, Imagine that.
Go look on van forums at how many Express vans with the 6.0 LS are hitting 300k and 400k. It’s unreal.
Terry Melvin I’ve owned two 3800s, one from the mid 70s, the other at almost the end of the run in an ‘06 Buick. Great motors, both of mine were designed for highway cruising torque and they did that well.
One of the things that gets lost in these engine discussions is talk about design goals. A SBC or LS with a high rpm cam, long runner intake, big carb or throttle body, ported heads, lightweight valve train etc. can make gobs of power at high RPMs. It does give up some reliability if going extreme. Most OHV V8 engines won’t live for hundreds of thousands of miles at high RPM.
The same block with a different cam, lower compression pistons, lower cost conventional valve train, etc. can give great highway manners, fuel economy, still have decent power and be so under stressed as to live seemingly forever.
Pretty accurate. My father had a 63 spit window fuelie. Incredible car. Incidentally, it would be worth more than my house today! Lol
My parents collected them from 1976-1990. They had a 59 fuelie a61 and 63 split window fuelies. 1967 435 horse tripower and many others including 1970 AAR Cudas and TA Clallnegers.
Didn't the 1957 Chevy black widow set a track record in the 12: seconds
Looks like you don't own a house in Toronto!
@@the_kombinator you are correct. Nor would I. My house sits on 40 acres on a working cattle ranch in northern Arizona. 6000 feet above sea level, off grid. A very long way from Canada. Thank you, drive through
@@russellmooneyham3334 man that's how I'm trying to live
I've heard long ago that Chevy got rid of the old reliable 327 because it ran so good without breakdown. The Checker cab company used them in their cabs, and those things would run for about a million miles! My favorite engine 😍
Your thinking about the 283 power pack, couldn't blow em up!
@@wildestcowboy2668 they were great too!
The fuel injected 327 was dropped after 1965 because of the higher cost of including fuel injection on it.
The C3s started out strong but by the end of it's run they were a joke
Back in the day the fuel injected Corvette road tests I read showed some astounding numbers. Even the dealer mechanics were mostly out out touch with the old system. A ‘57 BelAir with FI and overdrive are quite rare. Craig Jackson says the production number was 200. Jay Leno’s Mercedes 300 has an oil change interval of 1,000 miles. The mechanical injection pump keeps pumping until the engine stops turning.
As a boy back in the early 60's, I watched driveway mechanics in my neighborhood absolutely ruin these systems because they couldn't admit they didn't know what they were doing. Yes they finally ripped them out, slapped on a carburetor and threw the pieces out. I wish I had scooped up some of those parts!
I have both the 396 and 327. They both are fabulous.
That black '62 is sweet looking.
Yes, It IS!!!...A True Classic of Older Cars...
Heavy metal bet.
Steelies and dog dish FTW.
Just found your channel, I love it! It was a rare mechanic that could keep a fuelie small block running, but when they did it was majic. But if you got it all wrong you could start it on fire. The fastest stock accelerating vehicle I remember was a 68 427 3 deuce 4 spd vette. They had way more than advertised horsepower.x
This is awesome. I am a huge GM fan and have had many, including my 68 Camaro, but I never knew of this!
Neighbor girl had a 1958 Pontiac Bonneville convertible with Factory Fuel Injection. Some mechanic talked her into replacing the fuel Injection with a carburetor. Never saw another car like it, the first Bonneville and the first factory fuel injector
I have a "62 fuelie and you are correct in that good fuel makes them run better(no alcohol), but they can be tuned to be very reliable and it takes patience, a manometer or guage to read vacuum and a pressure guage to read fuel pressure at the nozzel to get them set up properly. These systems were engineered by very smart people it takes experience and intelligence to dial them in. The early Rochester fuel injection systems were continuous and not sequential like those of today so economy wasn't that great but throttle response is awesome. A used Rochester unit in good condition costs about 12,000 to 15,000 dollars today and they cost about 200 dollars in parts to rebuild providing something is cracked or broken. Larry Pack MD
Awesome video! Yeah....I'm an old guy that remembers the local Chevy dealer taking off fuelies and replacing them with carbs. In 1966 (NC) the local dealer had at least 8 fuelies sitting on a top shelf of the parts dept growing cobwebs. I was always interested in the fuelies as one of my classmate's older brother had a 62 vette he bought used and couldn't get the fuelie to work correctly and had it swapped for a carb. Yeah....like so many others.....if I had only known what they would be worth a few decades later, I would have snapped them up and stuck them in the garage. Again, really enjoyed your video.
The 396 big-block V8 was available not only on the Corvette, but also in the six-passenger Caprice and Impala. There was also the Chevelle SS396.
But less h.p. ratings
It was a slug, next to the 327
In 1968 right after I got out of the Army, I bought a Nassau blue 65 Corvette conv from the 2nd owner. Ex fuelie converted to Chevy aluminum manifold with Holley carb, 4:11 posi, close ratio 4 sp. That car screamed. The original owner offered to sell me the orig fuel inj for $100, I said I didn't want it, I'd heard the inj was hard to keep in tune. The next year I put on headers & slicks, unbolted bumpers, exhaust system, spare tire carrier, all splash panels & brackets not necessary to drive and ran high 11.80's at the local drag strip - couple tenths off the AHRA national record. I still have 7 or 8 trophies from the strip and some nice pictures of me racing there..
Food for thought. There is a whole series of post on the Corvette forum dealing with some C4 owners who have installed various sizes of the Chevrolet big block in their cars. The weight difference is negligeble when using aluminum heads and induction. Plus these engines are making 600-900 H.P. and tons of torque for incredible H.P. that is reliable. There are several cars that are running aluminum blocks also. They run the 4L60 trans with a higher stall converter and a special made Dana rear end in either live axle or a fully independent Special purpose Dana with an almost 10 inch ring gear to handle the torque of these monster big blocks. The engines range in size from 427, 454, 540 and 572 cubic examples. I will post a link later to the series of post dealing with these big block C4's .
A walk down memory lane , thanks and a great video!
1963 Corvette; most beautiful car ever! Back in those days, in my area, no one trusted the dealers to work on your car!
Great content as always, love hearing the history of the C1 C2 fuelie cars. Small blocks all the way, even in the C3 I would take a little 350 over a slobbering big block, run like little sewing machines.
😂My babies slobber. My dogs slobber . Even I slobber. I like my babies. I like my dogs. I like my BBs. 🤪👍
Cats don't slobber and neither does my hellcat charger!
@@wildestcowboy2668 Yeeeaaahh, Baby!👍👌
You have researched your subject well and I admire the way you have put it together and delivered it; my only criticism is that you made no mention of the awesome Chevy 409.
Or 348 I have a few of both lol
This channel is always a joy to watch.
Love the great detail and 'long view' insight into the topic.
According to my Corvette book, Rochester Division reduced the price of the fuel injection system that it charged Chevrolet every year, until it reached a reduction of over 400%, charging just $125 in 1965; it was Chevrolet who raised the price of the system every year until it became so expensive the public could not afford it. Short sighted indeed.
The 60s were awesome!
What a great time to be young. Things were so exciting back then. We had the Beatles, 8tracks, sock hops and I was still a virgin. (Pretty much)
Yes, the 60s were a hoot.
I got hold of a 350 horse 327 as a kid in high school during the late 60s and put it in a 63 Impala. Wish I still had that car. They were real easy to work on. The new 5.3 which is a 327 is a nice engine. I have 325 HP one in a pickup.
I think the late 80s and early 90s were the last vestige of a true, classic childhood (going outdoors, getting in trouble, somewhat innocent life) and the end of being a regular teenager (getting into more trouble, tuning cars, dating). Now everything seems washed down, weak, dating seems to be completely impossible in the traditional sense (based on what I am hearing from younger family members). Having said that, I bet the 50s and 60s were even better.
I wonder how it'll pan out for my now two year old :X
@@the_kombinator now the girls pursue the boys
@@benlancaster6535 That was sometimes the case for me, even back in the 90s and early 2000s.
Great commentary and analysis of the Chevy fuel injection of the 60's.
Man, what a find it would be to find one of the removed FI systems in an old barn.
My college room mate had a big block 1968 Vette. I borrowed it a few times. I thought it had a hole in the gas tank. I never checked the mileage but couldn't afford to drive it even at gas being less that 30 cents/gal. interior temp was an issue as well. But it was a hoot to drive.
'62-'65, my high school years, I remember looking at a fuelie Sting Ray in the Chevy showroom with sticker price between 4500 and 4800, can't remember exactly, seemed like a lot at the time. That was an amazing decade to be a kid.
Wow adjusted for inflation, that's only around $40,000 today. Good luck getting a 2021 stingray for that price!
Having had both a 1964 FI convertible and a 1965 FI Coupe I can safely say they were fun to drive. Because there were very few dealers who knew anything about how to service it, you had to join a Corvette Club or get Corvette News to find how to do it yourself. I used the 64 to autocross/rally in for over 35 years. I could run the 1/4 in 13.3 with good tires-, the 2000-2008 period tires gave the best times, and in autocrossing it would routinely beat the carburated cars--big blocks included. High speeds, the BB would blow it away.
Yay CCM. Great auto-x's and loved Waterford.
... But isn't autocrossing and/or gymkhanas MORE FUN... than simply being ultra-fast in a straight line?? I'll bet you agree!
The 1963 corvette is a stunning car.
That 63 stingray split window was a master piece.
For sure. I love all of them from 58 to 67, especially 63 thru 67
Here's a little known factoid about the '63 split-window: They only made it for one year because people hated it so much.
Scott, you are exactly right. When the split window Vette was featured on the cover of Hot Rod magazine, I thought it was gorgeous. I was in a distinct minority.
I still HATE IT... Always have...
Besides fuel injection, Chrysler invented crankshaft triggered computer controlled ignition for the 1958 model year Chrysler 300. But the control unit was as big as a suitcase and took up a larger portion of the car's trunk. If the Fuel injection system had met up with the ignition system that Chrysler invented the result at that time would have been incredible! As it was the Chevy injection system was well designed, with intake runners flowing from the top of the injector manifold flowing almost straight down to the intake valve. Find a cross section view to see how well it was engineered. Awesome was the only way to describe it.
The Chevy mechanical fuel injection was tough to get running right. I had a older guy that worked on a lot of them at a dealership in early/mid 60’s. He taught me how to make them work but they took time and patience to get right. For daily drivers electronic fuel injection is superior.
6
I've got it on my 93 dodge d250 Cummins engine and never had an issue with the mechanical injection!
By the mid 1970s, 2 barrel carburators were engineered to a fine science - wonderful mechanical computers. Once the altitude compensating valve circuit was perfected for the carb this almost equates to modern fuel injection. 4 barrel carbs have always been more on the fussy side though.
Had a 62 fuelie Vette
First 327 ,what an amazing car.Also had a 65 L78 big block.
You get your answer at the 3:32 mark: "It was a lot more expensive than a carburetor".
It was also a lot more expensive than the big block, which produced a lot more torque, and ended up being overall a better street car because of it at the expense of weight up front. The big block killed fuelies.
At the time Fuel Injection was very cool to some people but just mysterious and weird to most. I live in Nebraska but when they were new most of the dealerships had no idea how to make it run right. With a good dual plane intake and 750 Holley dual pump carburetor the horsepower was very similar. Thats why when they acted up most got scrapped for a carburetor. Factory or professional race teams aside most people worked on their own cars then and were so much more comfortable with normal induction.
It took reliable solid state electronic control for fuel injection to go mainstream. The electronics just didn't exist back in the 60's. The first GM small blocks used mechanical injection.
But Chrysler was installing electronic fuel injection in some models by the late 50's, the first production examples of such, although I think there were problems with the early ones.
You laid this out so perfect and eloquently. You're channel is a tremendous resource. I believe you will go down in the history books as well. You are to automobiles as to what Ian McCollum is over at forgotten weapons.
I also wish you wrote books. Something I would certainly have in my home.
Great video!!! I always wondered why they didn't use aluminum V8s in the corvette starting in the '70s. If you have to cut HP, and displacement, you may as well add lightness.
Excellent narration! Thank you very much!
Love this channel. Thanks for the great presentations.
I appreciate the fact that you didn't ask for a subscription until the end of the video... And it was an awesome video, so ... Sub... scribed ! Thanks for such a great video ❤️.
You covered everything!
I owned a 84 Corvette all through high school, college, and even my first few years of work...it was my daily driver. The 84 Corvette was?equipoed with the Cross Fire injection, (two throttle bodies with one large injector per throttle body) it actually wasn't as bad as people seem to let on but sometimes it sounded like the engine was knocking at idle due to those two injectors clanking away. I now have a 85 Corvette, (have had it close to 8 years now) with the Tuned Port injection system and the biggest difference I noticed between the 84 and 85 is the overall throttle response, 85 Corvette seems to react a little quicker to throttle changes. The 85 Vette itself rides smoother as well, they loosened the suspension just a bit and it was a night and day difference to smoothness of the ride.
Great info on the fuelie... rode in a 63 the ride of my life, can still hear the unmistakable chatter at full throttle...thank you.
Wow, GM seems to always be ahead of the times but never has the fortitude to follow through.
No!!! they always followed FORD. But injection was the way to go, and they had it early.
haha. no...no one followed ford.
matthew portilla they weren't ahead of the over head cam hemi
@@rickwilliamsjr.4003 They have, do, and will Always follow FORD. Better ideas come from Ford.The best of the best comes from Ford. FORD is, and always will be a leader!!! And GM knows it!!!! So they FOLLOW!!!!!
@@eugeneschulte4950 I guess that is why Ford stuck with mechanical brakes and buggy spring suspension long after GM and Chrysler went to hydraulic brakes and independent suspension eh?
I own a 1964 coup with a 550 hp high winding 327 engine and a 6sp manual trans. Big brakes, racing suspension. Runs 11’s in the quarter on street tires. Way more fun than an original 327 fuelie with a 4sp. And my car still looks fairly stock except it’s lowered 2 inches.
Yes indeed- It is a sweet car you have.
NOTE: I worked at the Flint, MI small block V-8 engine plant from 1968 - 1972 in the engine test division. Also, my father retired as Chief Metallurgist / Chemist for Chevrolet Mfg.
In those days, all of the naturally aspirated (carbureted) engines were tested on natural gas w/o the carburetors. The fuel injected engines were tested in a special room on gasoline due to the mechanical injector. After the room had an explosion / fire for the fourth time, GM’s underwriters told management that the gasoline had to go, or they would not underwrite their $100,000,000 plant. The choice was simple, and that is why fuel injection disappeared mid year.
I think that no doubt a rare option where most buyers just liked the sporty car itself as long as it always ran and was decently quick would go away at some point. But certainly what you say could also be it. Many of us car people/hot rodders tend to think in our preferential and with hindsight terms. We have to realize when these cars were new it was mostly just average people buying them and most could care less about some fancy and potentially troublesome option or be thinking of future value. They were mostly interested in my first line of thinking. Show me new car buyers that want that freaking thing sitting broke down at all? Thanks for your info.
Mark Phillips 🤔🇺🇸ohhh
@Chazz Ram no where near any truth on that.
@Chazz Ram incorrect. Fuel injection in a nut shell refines how fuel is delivered and atomizex, which maximizes fuel efficiency AND power.
Let's look at a 3rd gen Camaro that came with an assortment of engine sizes and fuel delivery. The L69 305 was a High Output engine, it was the highest powered carburated engine for the 3rd Gen F-Body with a higher lift cam and a few other goodies, it pumped out 190hp. A 305 TPI (still very archaic compared to day) with a lesser aggressive cam compared to the L69 produced 215hp. A whole 25 more horsepower on just fuel delivery.
What year did the Tonawanda plant open?
James Wiliams
You are absolutely correct.
I owned a 65 327 with the double hump heads.
My buddies and I overhauled it in 1979 and installed a Crane Blazer 300H hydraulic camshaft (292/488)
When we first fired the thing up, Dear God, what a sound. It was a sweet mechanical sound, not a heavy exhaust noise, but a sweet lumpy, loping of the valves responding to the lift and duration of that camshaft.
We installed the motor in a 66 Chevy C/10 pickup truck with a 4 speed rock crusher, Hurst T-handle shifter.
I am hear to tell you, from a short roll, get the rev's up and stand on the throttle, that motor would almost lift the front wheels of that heavy truck.
To this day, I still hear that motor idling when I look back at those days.
Another reason was back in the early/mid 60's you had an entire generation of young men raised on carburetors who understood how to maintain them and tune them...whereas Fuel injection kind of scared guys who didn't know how to maintain FI systems. Fyi, I owned a 1965 Vette Roadster with the new "Porcupine" 396 425 HP BBC...she was burnt orange and had off road exhaust. Girls loved that car...I used to half joke that when I went under a bridge with the top down I could hear them stick to the seat :) Also, when I was in H.S. I had a buddy who had a fuelie 283 in a '57 chevy...it was one of the fastest cars in town.
your mileage may vary but back then girls i found out didnt know what a car was.
back seats yes.
cars no.
Lic Driver Circa 1968
Exactly right on FI. Look at even the heavy and justifiable hesitance to move over to it even in more recent times. Even with the obvious advantages look how many still set up a car with a carb or delete the FI? I understand and can work on these things and I still prefer my carbs, for more than one reason.
"a fuelie 283 in a '57 chevy"? Was that a transplant? I believe the stock "small-block" available in '57 was the 327...?
+Gary Garnier And no 327 until the 60's
I stand corrected. It's late, and Ambien...
Higher cost up front for fuel injection, but the savings in fuel savings would eventually make up for it. Glad you mentioned the handling improvements with a lighter engine.
Even the big block v8 wasn't over the front wheels, it's called a front-mid engine car because the engine is behind the front wheels. Interesting vid though. Nicely done.
Good info. Enjoy the vids. My 1980 VW Scirocco with it’s powerful 70hp ? 😜 Had fuel injection. What a response car that was
I have seen more small-block Chevies in Ford's than any other engine. The 283/327 was the ideal engine to use for Hot Rodding.
The older 283 /327 engines were great but don,t belong in a ford .The only reason you see this done so much is because old GM bodys have rotted away because of all the wood construction support and are scarce to be found . plus the ford made a better looking hot rod .the trend seems to be moving away from this today with many other good engines being used instead .
@@tubedude4859 The small-block Chevies fit better in a Ford than any other engine. They were smaller in size. I agree that ford made a better-looking hot rod, that's why builder's put Chevies in them. What wood support are you talking about?
@@williamnair1991 I suppose if you are looking for the easy way out
My uncle had a black 57 convertible fuel injection and as you said nobody could turn them and they put two four barrels on this car God bless you Uncle Freddy
I'm old school so this is terrific information - thanks for doing this!
Yep!
Excellent video, very informative!
Mechanical FI was a bit difficult to dial in, but the fuel mileage was far superior than the dual quad models when tuned well. The computer controls sealed the fate of the carb.
Bruce Carney remember the early 1980's? GM had some computer controlled carburetor cars, like my dad's 1983 Chevy Celebrity with the 2.8 v6...
@Bruce Carney - Being mechanical, it lacked the sensors that allow modern EFI systems to compensate for a wide range of operating conditions, such as changes in temperature and altitude as well. That hook up did do a good job of adjusting fuel flow in response to changes in air density.
The Chevette had an 'electronic' carb. We all know how those turned out.
Yep, the 1987 Chevette, which I owned, and the last year they made them, was rated at 65hp. I highly doubt I was getting all 65hp, as I couldn't even beat a fully loaded city bus off the line. However, it was extremely reliable, especially in sub zero weather. Started no problem. Just had no power.
not a carb, was a single body injection, very common on low cost european cars in the 80'...
I had a friend in high school whose first car was a copper/black stripe/cream interior 1970 Chevelle SS 396 with Corvette fuel injection added. Bench seat, column shift automatic. Such a beautiful car.
I had an original '65 Fuelie back in the mid 60's. At National Speedway, my totally stock Fuelie (4.11 rear gear set) with the original gold line 7.75 x 15 tires ran the quarter mile at 13.8 seconds at 101 mph. On the street, my Fuelie could always jump the new 396 Vettes. Only when the 427/425 HP 1966 Vettes appeared, were my street dominance days over.
didnt last too long did it ..1 year lol
I actually have a 1961 Impala fueling, dubbed “the car that doesn’t exist.” Chevrolet offered two FI options in the 1961 Corvette; 275 hydronic lifter and the 315 solid lifer. Although dealer installed, my car has option 353, equipped with part number 7017200 Rochester FI. Only 2 are believed to exist and I drove mine to Lancaster (CA) and back home today, 125 miles.
One of my friends was a mechanic. he bought a 58 corvette eventually it broke the crank shaft and he asked me. I can get the 375hp/327ci long block engine new through dealer but they will not sell me the injection. I can buy a used injection system. But, can you tune it for me. I asked. do you have a portable exhaust gas analyzer? Yes, ok buy it. he bought it and put it together. just adjust idle speed and mixture. then set the full power mixture stop for 11.5:1 and the cruise mix stop for almost 14:1 its still running to this day and in the possession of his son(he passed away in 1985). A simple system that worked great.
Is that portable exhaust gas analyzer turbo charged? Or is that just the floor model?
Fascinating, and had a old neighbor who had some early to mid 60's 'vettes, and I helped him service the engines, but as much as he knew about the engines available, never mentioned a fuel injected setup. Also interesting because I was the among the first 'motorheads' to endorse and even covet fuel injection, while so many others said they didn't know how to work on them, told them it was easy,lol just had to learn a bit. And I'll take the vehicle not flooding the cylinders with gas and better performance everytime. even recently on motorcycles, still here about the carb'd ones.."well at least I can work on it"
Good chit, man! Especially on theVette! Thanks
Greetings: Good presentation. Thx 4 the share.
Gas was way cheaper then too so people weren’t willing to pay more for the car to save a bit of gas
So in 1965 gas prices averaged $0.31 but corrected for inflation that comes to $2.50 per gallon in todays dollars. As of writing this the current average gas price today is $2.88 so really gas isn't much more expensive today than it was back then.
They still don't sell a car marketed for efficiency that's fun that's why all they can sell are trucks. All they had to do was market it as +1 HP per cu and they wouldv'e sold more.
I think most people don't adjust in inflation and wages between today and back in the 60's. Average yearly income in the 60's was like $7000 for a family, $4100 for an individual. Base MSRP for a 65 Vette was $4000. So that's almost all of a couples or ALL of an individuals YEARLY income. Fuel was about almost even with today's market.
When Chevy had the FI in 1957, there were two varieties--the 250 hp @ 5,000 RPM, and the famous 283 hp version. Pontiac and Chrysler had FI as well, but it was the Bendix units that failed. If you wanted fuel economy, it was probably cheaper to get the 3 speed with overdrive, even though it had 4.10 rear gears. But, fuel economy WAS an issue, America had a recession in 1958 coming up. Chevy went from 3.70 rear gears to 3.55 in the stick shift models, 3.34 instead of 3.55 with the Turboglide, in 1957, so the engineers were either looking at fuel economy for the larger 1957 or they were worried about warrantee claims.
@Terry Melvin exactly! The Edsel had its issues, but so did other cars--the recession hurt it, and Ford didn't change its look in 1959 whereas GM did. And the recession also drove consumers into smaller cars--before malls, mom would shop in town, going from store to store for individual purchases. Imagine trying to parallel park those long wheelbases a few times an afternoon.
What's the 710 cap on the motor?
Slick trick. Turn it around and it says OIL. I read that story a long time ago. Lol. Lol.
"Wait, what? GM is short-sighted?" Asks the 1988 Fiero and 2002 F-Bodies.
And today we have 300hp from a 4cyl engine. Sure would have liked to have seen quality turbocharged 4cy right at the time of the FORD Pinto. We had to wait until the mid-80's to get a quality 4cyl with turbo from SAAB. The 2.0L engine used in the SAAB 900 is a very good engine even if it is installed backwards.
I owned 2 57 Belairs,in 1973. Bought one for 100.00 the other for 200.00. This is what these cars brought back then.
Great information, thanks
Thank you for the information. Never could understand why they stop the fuel injection.
it was expensive to manufacture and to maintain.
Bottom line: back in the day, having Chevrolet performing service on your Corvette was always the best way to go. And today it's even more true. Personally, only a GM Master Technician works on my Corvettes[old and newer alike]. Great UA-cam channel!
+Gene Ebeling Nah. Not taking it to a street corner gas station mechanic who couldn't spell carburetor if his life depended on it is the best way to go. There are and were plenty of independent shops more than capable of servicing Corvettes. But they cost commensurate money and still do.
lokisgodhi I agree to disagree. Certainly many ASE certified mechanics, and small shops around the country that know anything Corvette tend to get a bad wrap. Don't know if you've checked lately on GM prices at their dealerships, but good honest work doesn't come cheap! Folks may take their car wherever their wallet or personal whim dictates. For me, I wouldn't trade my Chevy Master Tech who specializes in Corvettes for any other shop's mechanic.
+Gene Ebeling How do you know the dealership doesn't just foist the repair job on whichever tech is unoccupied when you happen to bring the car in? That's the title they give to any tech who shows up for work that day. :-)
There is no such thing as a 'Chevy Corvette Master Tech'. There are GM Master Mechanics. To get certified on Corvettes they take a few interactive video courses over satellite and some tests (no hands on work).
You do know what the Corvette specific training is, don't you?
Its training on how to say "Yep, that's normal. All Corvettes do that"
It takes a week, as its taught in several languages and its followed by a workshop in making up things to make unreasonable explanations sound plausible.
So glad you dispelled the unreliability myth. Was Bendix the original supplier?
Yes, mechanical fuel injection can work but for it to really be practical it had to wait to be paired with computers.
That said, mechanical FI does live on at the drag strip, particularly among alcohol-fueled race cars where exact air/fuel ratios over all driving conditions are not necessary. They just need to idle and go full throttle and they work great for that.
177SCmaro vw mastered the mechanical fuel injection. There is a limit to mechanical injected engine hp.
Exactly right.
@@kinzieconrad105 I'm making over 4k hp blown alcohol hemi. Mechanical fuel injection meaning enderle big and ugly 5 9/16 butterfly hat with 1200 enderle pump and hat/port injection. Enderle k barrel valve and 2 high speed leanout poppets
Enjoyed the old Chevy history lesson...I've always wondered about the old Rochester injection system!
Zora Duntov himself stated that the primary reason for dropping the fuel injection system was that carburetors had progressed to the point that fuel starvation under hard cornering was no longer a problem. This was the biggest advantage the fuel injection system gave and was the reason for inclusion on the Corvette -- for SCCA and other racing endeavors. Duntov said that once the fuel starvation issues were solved with carburetors, there was no longer a need for the high cost fuel injection. I met Mr. Duntov in the mid-1980s.
Exactly! It requires a computer and EFI to beat carbs. Carbs performed better and more tuneable to conditions. The air box became the base for the tunnel ram.
@@curtispaul9717 Your belief doesn't change fact. The early FI had terrible tunability. They went to it to solve bogging issues but was complicated and unreliable. The moment they could get away from it they did.
on the subject of more affordable fuel injected vehicles that made the average consumer really appreciate the the advantages and also see the simplicity and reliability of a well engineered mechanical system I think an episode on the first VW Rabbit GTI with the Bosch mechanical Jetronic four port injector system plus one plenum injector to provide cold start enrichment. I purchased my used GTI at a used car clearance sale for 600$ in January 2000. It was -20F as a Canadian winter can be, the sales man handed me the keys, a snow brush and explained that it hadn't run in about 3 or 4 weeks and said he would get a booster as the battery was likely not too lively. I brushed 6-8 inches of snow off, hopped in , looked at the odometer showing 250 000 km (`155 000 miles), cranked the motor to life in about 4 or 5 seconds, no boost needed, brushed the rest of the snow off the hood, roof and glass, checked all the lights, and controls, waited for the heater to start pushing heat and cranked up the defroster and embarked on a ten minute test drive only to find that it was a well running diamond in the rough with no apparent problems Over the next few years I put about 100 000 km (62 000 miles), about 80% highway, with only basic regular maintenance (CV shafts, timing belt, filters, brakes, tires, plugs,one exhaust hanger and a quick weld on the pipe were the broken hanger let the pipe crack). That car never left me broken at the side of the road, got excellent fuel economy, had enough power to cross the Rocky Mountains (Vancouver to Calgvary roundtrip Via the Coquahalla) with only a few downshifts to 3rd as well as a couple convoys up the pass behind the snowplow. Just one of my few cars I wish I could have kept. I'm not sure if you will feature a first gen Rabbit GTI on your channel, you could always do a video on a 67 Rambler American 2 door with the 232 2 barrel carb 6 cylinder and the Borg Warner aotomatic (another regretful loss, 170 000 mile California car that I drove about 40 000 miles through the southern states, 8000 miles of Mexican 1980s highways, west coast states, Alberta and BC in Canada until I rolled it on a northern logging road after hitting a washboard at about 25-30 mph). replaced with a 1972 GMC 2500 Fleetside for about 100 000 miles, 74 4door Chrysler Newport, 77 Lancia Beta, 3x 2nd gen Dodge Dakotas, and probably a few cars I am forgetting .
Chevy SB 327 with aluminum intake and fuel injection 535 pound's, Chevy BB 396 with cast iron intake and carb 685 pound's. 327 stock Corvette with fuel injection 14.2 second quarter mile compared to 14.1 with the 396. The 396 may have been slightly faster going straight but the lighter 327 FI Corvette would have killed it in overall driving ability!
The success of the big block, even 53 years later made it a very worthy replacement for the FI small block. L88 with aluminum heads would outrun any FI small block (and any furd or chrysler engine for that matter). The greatest travesty in auto history was congress' threat to break up GM bc of their unfair advantage in the market. Cue the racing ban so they wouldn't sell as many cars, stifling any further racing development. The compromised BB was the result. Thanks, big government. You're welcome, furd. FI was typical of a monster GM though. Only a company of that size and scope could futz with it while producing so much else.
Pound's what?
Are you stupid?
Why would you use apostrophes that way? ARE YOU STUPID?
Take it easy guys the so called hi -tech phones like spelling it that way even if you try correcting it, smh.
We had, from my dad, a 66 hard top/ convertible with a 327. What a fun car to drive, and maintenance was very low. Handling was great, brakes really great, peppy enough. It was a real road car.
Thank god for youtube's playspeed feature. This video is much more watchable at 1.5x...
Agreed.
I had a close friend, a Mechanical Engineer graduate that put a "built" 327 with the Rochester Fuel Injection on it into a two door 1957 Chevrolet sedan. The engine was followed up with a close ratio four speed Muncie manual transmission a, combination made it an amazing performance vehicle He was the only person around here that could work on that injection system and tune it precisely. I wish I owned that car, it was fantastic!
Thanks. Would have been nice to see the internal mechanics of the first Chevy fuel injection system.
There isn't much to it. Some vertical stacks and a throttle body at a 90 degree angle. It's effectively a mini tunnel ram intake. Not that that much of a point for mechanical throttle body injection, it's a carb with mechanical spraying of fuel. Even with EFI performance is underwhelming, more like a smart carb. It's not until you move to port or direct injection that fuel injection really starts to shine for performance.
A carb can match the performance of a throttle body, it's not matching the performance of port or direct injection though.
I remember the Rochester injection unit. Actually it was a simple unit but the mechanics at that time really didn't know how to service it. It had two problems. They didn't have really good fuel filters at that time and the nozzles would clog . Sometimes it would lean a cylinder out and melt a piston. Second IT had a mechanical fuel pump and sometimes it wasn't good enough to maintain fuel pressure. They did create a lot power and delivered really good gas mileage
Great video learned some things.
I always enjoy your videos !
Exactly, shade tree mechanics couldn’t deal with, as most mom & pop garages...🤨
BEST V-8 EVER! I've done >220mph in one, in a 1973 Stingray. It sounded and smelled like an aircraft engine. And would go through a set of back tires faster than the tank of gas. You need it in a vehicle that weighed more than 4000lbs., any lighter and it was dangerous. That's why it had to be pulled out of my 1964 Malibu.
I miss my '69 Camaro 327
Vette Engine 😣
Ah, brings back memories. While in high school, my little brother and I built a 327 starting with a bare short block. Added 12.5:1 domed pistons, high lift cam, Edelbrock intake manifold, Holly dual feed, headers, ported and polished heads, chromed everything that was not painted Chevy orange, etc. Every piece of it except the block and heads was brand new. I finished it right before I left home for college and had it on display on an engine stand. Dad later sold it, but he had paid for everything except the bare block and I had no further use for it nor even a car to put it in. It was beautiful. I lost interest in cars, got married and never built another engine after that.
switch to "morning voice" at 7:20? :) Great narration and info. Love your videos.
One of the biggest problems when GM started going into more complex fuel systems was a lack of techs to work on them. And the early F. I. was certainly a problem in this area. I didn't watch the video so I dont know if this was mentioned.
I loved those 327 engines
My sister had a mechanical FI Audi Fox and they proved quite difficult for North American trained mechanics to repair and tune properly as compared to the carbs. That and the additional cost sealed the fate of fuel injection until computer control came about in the late 70's and early 80's.
I really love your channel, thanks so much!
Appreciate the history on the Chevrolet Fuel Injection system, it was ahead of it's time and was available in the Chevrolet Cars and still sought after by the collectors of Americas most popular classic cars. I wish a modern version with the latest engineering would be produced in the 1957--58 Chevrolet models including the Corvette, I would probably buy one.
I would imagine all of those removed fuel injection systems would resale for a high price nowadays. ✌✌
$7,500 for Rochester system restored there is also a modern injection system that looks like an old Rochester unit for sale
Mike Skidmore Wow, I didn't realize they came with that price tag. But if you're doing a high dollar restoration or looking for authenticity then it's a small price to pay. Thanks for the info. ✌✌
You can search for almost anything on E-Bay gives you a good idea of Market Value .. I have a Winters Foundry 4 barrel intake of from a 1966 Vette 327 360 HP not overly valuable yet.. but is a good working intake .. many modern day Weind and Edelbrock to choose from
Mike Skidmore thanks for your insight. 👍👍
I had a fuel injection on a bored out 283....placed in a 51 Chevy......I never could get it to pull good.....people told me later in life probably did not have the valves needed!
I just wanted to say that I really love this channel. The commentator has a perfect voice for the job and the music and video production are a perfect match. They deserve more subscriptions than just 58k, gang!
Better fuel efficiency, and more power is why they stopped it.. Imagine if they hadn't stopped doing research and development??
My third grade teacher's son was head of sales at the county's largest Chevrolet dealership. He got his mom a good deal on a real nice Nova. He would give her a loaner car when the Nova was being serviced. Everyone was stunned the one time she drove to school in a white stingray coupe with "327 fuel injection" badges on its fenders. I remember looking down on it in awe from the window seat of the school bus as we drove past it.
when I was a kid the next door neighbor always got a new vette as soon as the came out.The 65 FI would eat the 66 lunch easy but like you said when it had 7,000 miles on it the dealer could not fix the FI when it got out of wack.He refused to let them put a carb on it and it took them 1 month to get it right,by then it was early Sept. and time for New one .The 66 did not have the same power. Now listen the dealer could not tune up the FI, what he heard was P51 mechanics could fix them. But being in San Antonio he never found one.
Kind of true as the GM FI system was basically the same as the Bendix pressure carb system popular in WW2, and later in aircraft engines. The Bendix system is still around.
the old stromberg carburetor...I think
I had two friends in NYC who owned a ‘61 and a ‘62 “ Vette fuelies” which were very fast. They had problems unless they were tuned correctly. Bobby had the ‘61 and had it dyno-tuned by an outfit in New Jersey while the owner of the ‘62 left his alone, just tuning his by a local Brooklyn mechanic. I rode with Bobby when they raced on the Belt Parkway. Bobby was pulling away from his opponent until the clutch and flywheel detonated. Great stuff in those days despite the destruction which for seconds, convinced me I had died. I miss those days so much.
... I'm glad that your left leg / ankle weren't hit by "shrapnel" from the clutch & flywheel disintegration!