fallacy: n; misleading, false( New Websters Dictionary, pocket vest edition )
The fallacy is the statement that FI is the reason of low to minimal cylinder wear, it's not THE reason. It helps some but a bad injector can piss a lot of gas at 70 psi and wash down a cylinder just as well as any carburetor.
Manufacturing technologies were not done for improved longevity of cars; it was done to cut costs! Instead of 6 skilled machinists at 6 different machines, you've got 1 semi-skilled operator who's function is to push "start", "stop", "pause".
I don't beleave materials are better; a great deal of the iron poured is recycled scrap and there are A LOT of impurities left in the iron ( copper, zink, aluminum, lead, what ever the car was made up of that just went thru the shredder ).
I was gonna say lubricants may be better but then it struck me that the trouble people have keeping a lobe on a new flat tappet cam; if lubricants are better, why is there this problem?? And going back to technology; why are cam shafts so damn soft?? In my history of playing with cars, close to 50 years; not knowing I should have kept count; I had like a half-a-dozen engines I put together that I did nothing special in the realm of cam shaft break in. Nothing!!! I installed the cam, fired the engine; some fired right away, some didn't. Once running, I shot timing and then drove the car; one case I drove it 2000 miles with no trouble!
I think the article makes a pretty strong case for singular cause and effect.
That's twice you've cited a failed injector/driver to discredit the superior fuel control the system offers. I got news, if after 50yrs. You can honestly tell me you've seen routine
examples of this failure vs. routine chokes stuck/malfuntioning,floats stuck/sinking/dirt in the seat, & some just plain carb hemorrhages. Lets not forget cranking until the batt.
goes dead because of flooding/vapor lock/& any combo of the above......get real. I know it happens, but I can count the number of failed injectors that totally failed on both
hands, and the drivers that failed usually involved a "crossed" jump start attempt. Mopar-wise, I saw that on a 2nd gen Neon, and an '88 Omni.......but these are FUBARs,
not common or standard to the system.
Rings are better, pistons are better, and machining is better, period. Std. manufacture for modern engines is as good as race prep was in the old days.....it may be auto-
mated & mass production oriented for sure, but torque plates,fixtures,machining, finish quality is superior in general 'cause it has to be. If You think You can cast an aluminum
head,block, housings,valve covers(they actually house OCV's and oil passages now), etc. that don't spring oil & coolant better than they do today for mass prod. get a patent.
Cams are a different subject altogether, and we all know the myriad of reasons, poor core quality & finish sure, lack of ZDDP...well if so it was O2's and Cats that also made
unleaded a mandate that was an impetus for such. Hmm, thankfully flat tappets aren't an issue for modern engines.
Here is My strong case that while technically informative, the study falls flat in the real world. I have taken everything from late '50's engines to todays engines apart, and
here is many actual observations, every carbureted engine w/a contemporary FI counterpart had more cyl. wear/ridge. I can tear the heads off of a feedback carb 318 w/a
roller cam, and find the same ridge I found on My '72 318. BUT pull the head off a turbo 2.2 w 100K on it, and once you clean what carbon is there, the ridge reamer has
nothing to catch(roller/bit style). Nobody is going to argue the 318 had to work harder, or had higher operating temps/pressure so,.... what then? Hmmmmmm
I am NOT saying FI is the sole cause of decreased wear, and I thought I made that clear. But the fallacy is saying that FI has minimal effect based on that study, esp.
when "in the shop" has proven that to not be the case in My experience.