Another "Is Fuel Injection a Worthwhile Upgrade?" Question

My understanding is the production cars went roller for the following reason. EPA by '74-75 had most cars running catalytic converters. I remember full well by the time these cars had 65-70k miles the cats were plugged even with unleaded gas and folks were cutting them off. It was common practice. The zinc in the oil was blamed, so it was cut back by the mid 80's from around 1200 ppm to about 600 ppm. Car manufacturers went to roller cams due to the lack of zinc and cams going flat. Roller cams are more expensive for the manufacturers and they didn't do it to be kind. They did it, in the end, because the EPA and cats. Now, I'm not saying that roller cams aren't better than flat tappet cams, I'm just stating what I've known to be the reason car companies went roller cams. There were plenty of flat tappet cams going to 200k+ miles prior to the changes.


That’s exactly what happened. Since the OE’s never fight back on government overreach you get stupid **** like catalytic converters, which are the solution to something that’s never been an issue, unless you think we have no oil left (peak oil lie) or that the oceans will turn to blood in 2001 (or whatever year that idiot Ted Danson and a bunch of other communists were puking out their faces years ago) that didn’t happen, or if you think the ice caps are shrinking (a they are not).

If you think like that then you deserve CAFE standards and all the junk we deal with because of it.