At 8:13 +1100 18/12/97, Barry Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> History books show th petrol injection was "unable" to meet the new 1968
>> emissions "laws" (guidelines?!?) and a pair of emission control Strombergs
>> was hastily cobbled up. Everyone else got injection.
>
>>I read somewhere that this was not the case, and the reason was that BL would
>>haveproblems servicing the unit in the U.S, because the technicians were not
>>trained on Lucas
>>F.I. Apparently the injection unit had quite low emissions.
>*****************************
>I'd have to concur here. I find it hard to believe that any fuel injected
>engine runs "dirtier" than a carburetted one. It was probably a logistics,
>and possibly a financial, or monetary reason that the 'better', albeit more
>costly fuel injection didn't make it to these shores. JMHO :-)
>
>Barry Schwartz
>bschwart@pacbell.net
The story that I have heard is that the US distributor did not want the
additional expense of the PI (could have been either the vehicle cost or
the product support costs - or both). The same reason why the US got the
non-IRS TR4A.
Trevor Jordan
74 TR6 CF29281U (with two ZS carbs)
|