Long term cost of ownership... carb'd vs. EFI?
 

I've been thinking about this everytime somebody with a FI bike starts comparing it to the Superhawk.

I can't help but think the first criticism is always that the Hawk is carbureted.

Is that really such a bad thing? I guess it's giving up some power somewhere on the curve, and burning a bit more fuel, but aside from that, what's the big deal? It seems that it's going to get harder and harder to own these FI bikes when they're 10+ years old and start losing aftermarket support. From the work I've done on carbed bikes so far, there doesn't seem to be much that can't be fixed.

Time marches on? I'm not quite so sure.

I like carbs they're easier to work on and you don't have to have a chip to reprogram the map. Even though EFI is nice cause it can adjust the air/fuel mixture to give you a clean running engine. EFI is really nice when you have a inductions system, easier to tune.

It just really depends on the vehicle, but for the hawk I'm happy with carbs.

FI bikes wish they had the butta-smooth on/off throttle response that the carb'd Superhawk has.

I'm voting for old faithful... carburetion. I'm not just saying that because I own a VTR... it IS the reason I own a VTR! I use to dream of a VTR with FI, but a few years of working on modern motorcycles with complex FI systems has really changed my tune. I think that the those gigantic carbs add a lot to the VTR's personality. For some bikes FI is great... can you imagine an RC51 without it???

<edit>
I should correct my statement... I wouldn't take any carburetion over fuel injection... just constant velocity carburetion.
</edit>

FI has some major advantages. I took the Hawk around the Smokies/Blue Ridge Parkway a few years back. The thing didn't want to run at high altitude. Wouldn't idle, coughed, lost power,etc. The 919 on the same roads didn't change it's mood at all. Altitude compensation is sweet on a FI bike.

You can pop intake/exhaust mods onto a FI bike and if you have a PCIII just load a different map and away you go. Much easier than trying to pull your tank and rejet or shim needles. You can also map across the spectrum, richer at low rpm and leaner up top for example, which you can't do with carbs.

Not that using a choke is a big deal, but I've never had to use the enricher on the 919. Just hit the starter button and it's running. JBAXX is right, on/off throttle transistions on FI bikes seems more abrupt than on a carb machine. Some are better than others. The 919 is not the best at it.

As far as cost IDK.

I like carbs just fine. If you have tools, a brain and some time, you can spend $60-$80 on a jet kit and tune your bike as you wish. About a third or a quarter the cost of a Power Commander or equivalent.

The manufacturers didn't go to FI because it provides a massive performance advantage, they went with FI 'cause it's easier to meet EPA and Euro emission standards. That means the FI comes with lean/flat spots at the rpms where the compliance testing is done.

I've got nothing against FI. If you've got the money for the black box, the money and time for the dyno, you can probably map it and make the bike run as good and strong or better than it would with any carb set up. It just will cost you more.

As for elevation? My house is at 800 ft. I regularly ride at sea level and in the mountains at 7000 ft. or more. Runs fine through that entire range.

either one is ok by my. EFI gives you easy starting, smooth running regardless of elevation and air temp. carbs are finikey sometimes depending on where and what you have done to the bike. but they still give you great power and reliability

what i don't like about the new bikes is the emissions control they have on them. my dad has a 07 st1300 and the thing has catalytic converters on it. i know that a motorcycle does put out emissions after all it is still a internal combustion engine. but arn't the manufacturers getting a little carried away i thought the PAIR system was bad enough

Manufacturers would like nothing more than to never put emissions B.S. on any of their bikes. It's our government who demands it. Unfortunately, it doesn't go unwarrented... it's just a sign of the times. That is why the VTR is such a valuable bike to me. it's the last of it's kind emissions-wise. Just block of the pair system and you are good to go.

As for FI being better at elevation... it's really marginal. My '04 VFR800 ran like crap at 10k feet right along with my buddies Super Hawk. It can only compensate so much before it has to be remapped.

Agreed, in SD here, the bike will see everywhere from 6,000 feet to sea level in the same day. It never even hinted at acting up, so I never even thought about it until now.

The elevation of the blue ridge parkway can't be higher than that.

i WOULD say carbed, but i hate CV carbs. i prefer a good carb set up for its easy tunability. the next bike im looking at getting has FI. not because i want it too. just because its newer.

Since carbs rely on a difference in air pressure to operate, they run richer as altitude increases. In the '70s up at Mammoth Lakes (8000') most cars had black smoke (rich) coming out the exhaust. Since the '90s you don't see that anymore.

EFI systems on cars have a much more elaborate sensor system than motorcycles such as: maniford absolute pressure (MAP) sensor, intake air temperature sensor, manifold air temperature sensor, mass air flow sensor, which allows for much more accurate monitoring of the air/fuel mixture. Therefore EFI can adjust to changes in altitude much better than carbs. It relies on fuel pump pressure, not atmospheric pressure, to supply fuel to the cylinders.

My understanding is that motorcycles have a much simpler EFI system due to space limitations.

My VTR runs better at idle and part throttle when above 3000' (no carb farts). That's with stock jetting and exhaust. This is because it's running lean at sea level for emission control. My wife's SV650S doesn't know the difference between sea level and altitude and starts right up regardless of air temp. And with EFI the pulseair system (PAIR) is not needed to pass emissions.

So my vote is for EFI if motorcycle manufacturers can improve it to the point that cars are at now.

i'd much rather be able to plug in my laptop and tune the bike for new exhaust etc etc than having to rip the tank off (spill some gas), pull the airbox off, pull the carbs off...always a possibility of something or other messing up (stripped bolt, FOD falling into intake runners...etc etc), and having to do this several times before getting the tune right is DEFINITIVELY not attractive...

knowing that the bike is running 100% perfect only on the exact same temparature/altitude as when tuned is not cool IMO.

i like that EFI tunes for this, i like that u can alter the tune to whatever u want....and speaking of Cat converters, just like we remove PAIR, FI guys take them off too and put aftermarket pipes on....same deal.

If you have a FI bike not running right at altitude you've got a bad MAP sensor or ECU. Otherwise, even 2D mapping will compensate.

The ST1300 engine is a Acura V-6 engine minus 2 cylinders.

CV?

The problem I see though is for every 1 revision that makes the bike more reliable, there's 10 more useless things they add that can fail and leave you broke, or broken down.

Well said

I said carbs; this assumes you know how to work on them.

I don't think it assumes I need to know how to work on shit. I gotta be able to tell a tuner when it doesn't work. The bike doesn't turn, the bike falls in - whatever.

Just watch - new tires will solve everything by track day 05-10

EFI on today's cars is super reliable and has been for many years. Most "Check Engine" lights are emission control related, not EFI.
Rarely a TPS or another sensor goes bad, but even the VTR has a TPS.

And if it's a Japanese car, the EFI system is pretty much bulletproof.

I drove up Pikes Peak in a rental Dodge Intrepid (FI, of course) and it had absolutely no power at all at those altitudes. Maybe 25-30 mph top speed going up with 4 average sized adults. I rented the car in Denver, so I don't know if it was a high altitude car or not.

I bet a turbo or supercharger would have helped a lot.

I had the same issue on the "Million Dollar Highway". There are a few 10k'+ passes... one over 11K'. We'd go to pass a car... downshift, realize that wasn't enough... downshift again, then slowly pass. Kinda funny at the time. :D Nothing does well at those elevations... except for airplanes! ;)