Here's a private reply I received from Roger Garnett, who intended to
send it to the list instead:
Roger Garnett writes:
> > > [ about the magazine article which declares: ]
> > > "From there it was all downhill. Through 1972 these cars were still
>quite
> > > pure, but in 1973 a pair of smoggalble SUHIF carbs replaced the
>traditional
> > > units and power fell to 78.5 horses.
> >
> > Oh, come now. Are the HIF4s really that inferior to the HS4s?
>
> This is an error in the article- the big power loss cam in 74 1/2, with the
> introductin of the single Z-S, not with the HIF SU's. Some tuners actually
> prefer the HIF's, partly due to more stable operating characteristics. The
> power ratings did drop from mid 71-74, mostly due the bolt-on emmissions style
> of B(PM)L, and absolutly no ongoing engine development.
>
> I like the basic SU thru the HS, partly because they're simpler, partly
> because of tridation...
--
Todd Mullins
todd@nutria.nrlssc.navy.mil On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
|