|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
29-01-2011, 09:25 AM | #1 | ||
Had Rep of GT-HO. Legit.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 870
|
What are your thoughts people.
Early muscle cars, are they meant to be kept carburetted to have the spine shivering idle note and general sound that just cant be reproduced nowadays by computer managed fuel injection. Or is there no difference in a Fuel Injected engine swap, saying that Muscle looks muscle is. Thought came to me because I've been offered to have my 250 Crossflow worked with tripple webbers and the lot, or swap it for a FG XR6 engine. IMO it would be a bit dissapointing to see a fuel injected engine in a classic. There's just something about carby fed engines that give them their own personality, and they look like a work of art if done right.
__________________
I'm back! Finally. |
||