Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca> writes:
> However, it is the emissions ZSs that gave them the
>bad reputation. Mostly because many popular british
>cars (Spitfires, Midgets, MGBs, etc) switched to
>ZSs explicitly for emissions purposes and also came
>with less power than older cars.
And it wasn't the carburetors that caused the power loss but
the lower compression ratio and other internal de-tuning tricks
the auto makers resorted to to meet the requirements. How many
times has someone decided to "get rid of all this smog junk and
get back all the original power" and proceed to rip out the smog
pump, the EGR, the PCV, and everything else he doesn't understand
and find out that not only does the car not have any more power
but the drivability has also suffered.
> The simplification process of the consumer mind
>became "Powerful old cars have SU's, new wimpy cars
>have ZS's, therefore ZS's are very very bad".
>
> It's not the fault of the ZS, it was just that
>it was the carb that was able to be detuned to
>make the cars legal for sale.
I think a lot of the ill will is from those who have figured out
how the SU works and now "they" are forcing these "different
carbs on us. Why do I have to learn something new?" The SU's
had 2 adjustments, the main jet and the idle speed adjust. The
ZS's had those and a few more which is why they would meet the
emissions standards and the SU's would not. The ZS's are more
difficult to set up because there are a few more adjustments and
because the adjustments were much more critical because now they
must be adjusted to give the right emissions, not just drivability.
They are more difficult to set up but they hold their settings
better than the SU's which require more frequent fiddling.
IMHO
Dave (if I can figure out how to set a ZS carb so can you) Massey
71 TR6 74 TR6 78 TR7
|