Noddy wrote:
>
> "mylorace" <mstivano@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:egJEj.1026$n8.176@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > No, not just my opinion, Fact, a proper predelivery at a proper
dealer,
> > (not backyard Bobs or Ackmuds Gas repairs) see BA Falcon cabs run like
> > clockwork
> > for 100"s of thousand Klms trouble free. the factory Gas is fine.
>
> Like I said, your opinion. I've seen a ****load of them that have been
> problematic pigs.
>
> That's mine.
Mate, anyone gullible enough to pay for the factory variant isn't _ever_
going to acknowledge if the system is inferior. ****ing Achmed my arse,
the problem with the ford gear has been precisely because it's done to a
price, not to reliability (of lpg system). The _fact_ is that unlike
large 4 barrel carbs (whereby a fully optimised rochester, carter or
holley will all be within a couple of % of each other, and the reason
for the old wives tales about each is that they weren't properly
optimised/specced, not the carb brand) - when it comes to lpg gear
there _really is_ a considerable difference in terms of quality,
reliability _and_ accurate a/f metering/deliverary across the entire
operating spectrum. Some lpg setups just aren't in the same league. Of
course there are fly by nighters who run lpg conversion shops that
happily use cheap lpg gear so they can make the conversions more
affordable on paper, ironically the money 'saved' is lost due to
inferior efficiency.
The trick (and it's hardly magical) is to source/utilise an lpg fitter
who has a good rep _and_ fits the more decent lpg systems. Usually those
two go hand in hand anyway, but sometimes even the better installers
will fit the cheaper gear if the customer insists, but usually
reluctantly (and for once in the car industry you can put this down to
the fact they know how ****y some of the gear out there is, and they
aren't trying to get more dough, as they don't make more profit on the
more expensive gear, it's just a higher cost to source it in the first
place)...
Hmm, the factory making a decision based on outlay rather than optimal
customer/owner satisfaction? Not ford (cough, bull****, pinto fuel tank,
cough).
In this case I'm not accusing ford of deliberate malevolence. It's just
a pragmatic approach - they offer the gas option, and it can make them a
dollar. They could run better setups, but wouldn't make more money
(probably less). Owners will not complain thinking 'oh that's part and
parcel of lpg' and hey presto everybody's happy (or believes themselves
to be). Their engine sdrop so much power with the dedicated lpg - I'm
sure that, too, has been explained away as 'par for the course with lpg'
I haven't had one (nor will I in any likelihood) on a dyno, but given
the fairly well known power loss on the egas fords vs their petrol
compatriots (partly by virtue of their conservative ignition mapping
amongst others) - I'd not be the least bit surprised to find that dual
fuel aftermarket conversions done right would actually make more power
You can fool the fans, but you can't fool the players, so to speak.
--
John McKenzie
tosspam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
vice.president@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
president@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
uce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
admin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
world's #1 sardine whisperer root@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$USER@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$LOGNAME@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-h1024@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fraudinfo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
