carb, fuel inj, and fuel economy

Are there any carb vs. fuel injection experts out there? I am curious why two cars of same size and weight, with the same engine and transmission, except one is older and has a carburetor, the other
has fuel injection... both cars run fine... why would the carbureted one get significantly worse gas mileage at interstate speeds (65-70 mph)? In this case we are talking about two front wheel drive GM A body vehicles (which are obviously not new cars at this point) with 2.5 4 cyl engines and auto trans... Both are in a good state of tune... why would both cars get about 25 mpg city... but on the highway on a long trip, going 65-70, would the one with fuel injection, get 32 mpg, while the one with a carburetor get only 27 mpg?
I don't think it is an ignition issue as both run great. It isn't a tire pressure issue since both have equal tire pressure. Any thoughts appreciated. I plan to keep both cars but think the older, carbureted one could do better on gas (who wants to spend extra money on gas these days...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There exists what is known as an ideal gasoline-to-air mixture. Any deviation richer or leaner has a negative effect on mileage/efficiency. Electronic fuel inj. continuously monitors this ratio and alters the mixture, many times per second, to keep it at this ideal. Carbs just cannot achieve this accuracy, even with computor-monitoring and altering. Also, carbs put the mixture into the general proximity of all the cylinders, meaning that with all 4 cylinders receiving fuel from the same source, some cylinders will get more, some less, depending on its distance from the carb. With elec. fuel. inj.--esp. multi-port inj.--each cyl is the same distance from its injector and can receive the same, theoretically exact, input of fuel on each pulse of the injector:hence a second important feature for economy. The throtle-body injection, esp. before the "Vortec" type that GM has, has the similar precise control of mixture, but lacks the equi-distant-to-cylinders characteristic of multi-port. Its efficiency probably lies somewhere between carbs and multi-port. HTH, s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I realized another difference between the two cars that probably makes a big difference. The older, carbureted car has 13 inch wheels, while the newer one has 14 inch wheels. The older car's engine would turn at higher rpm's at a given speed, and burn more fuel.
For some reason, though, driving at say 60 mph instead of 67 or 68 mph makes a big difference on the carbureted car. I know I used to get more like 30 or 31 mpg with it, and I think driving slower was why. I'm just surprised what a huge difference it makes.
sdlomi2 wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.