The developments in the 70's were from wide open fuel air ratio checks, color tune idle, and BSFC dyno tests. And some thinking from race engineers who then got to repair them. Like Jet turbine engineers, they soon became top of the pile on understanding what parts of the system did he work by what parts got damaged.
Modern fuel delivery, its wide band O2, and some pyro work. Hondata and other companies spend a lot of money allowing cylinder to cylinder buffer changes...why would they do that on an EFi engine? Answer....because it is not a House in the Sun of accuracy like people think. There is a pace for scrable cams, differential static and dynamic compression ratio changes and different LCA's and individual cylinder to cylinder spark timing due to a lack of flat fuel curves emanating from simple issues with air flow to each cylinder.
Wet flow systems is carb engines made it easy, with fuel injection and dry air flow, it requires flow net and termatic diagrams to islolate poor fuel air distribition issues. Atmosing fuel before it hits the intake valve is a great idea, but cylinder flow Homogeneity and paddle wheel intake spin is what sets appart great engines like the LS Chevs appart from "Pi55 and Dribble" conversions.
From what I've seen with the EFi Falcons, no. EFi has poor cylinder to cylinder flow, especailly the Ford 5.0 EFi, and the reason most modern EFi and dynamic inlet runner, VCT, and individual cylinder to cylinder fuel to ignition timing exists.
The one 02 sensor is designed to allow more than 10% flow variation Bosh or Siemens injectors to operate as if they were 1% accurate, thats what a Closed loop by PWM fuel system does, it uses the 15.1:1 real or 14.7:1 theoretical air fuel ratio from a resistance thermometer to alter upstream pulse width. In fact, the cylinder to cylinder variance upstream is going to be way different between the six cylinders.
Clamp on header EGT's are such an easy way to tune.
The original Datsun fuel system was very efficient, and the two carb on six inlet system was fine if in good shape. Its why Jag downgraded to twin SU then twin Strombergs, triples didn't have better fuel distribution than 2 carb set ups. Single carb MGB GT's and Midgets on log intakes, the fine atomised Zentiht Strombergs on siamese port heads, you didn't gain better air fuel distribution.
The L series engine, its got some issues.
The modern fuel really doesn't like to be sitting around no matter what system you use. Octane ratio drop is huge, but even 83 octane that started as 91 will work if its cleaned of its ethanol or any parcipitate. Fuel draining dry, probably worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3gU75lZ9gc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJtwz0h-ojQ
14 year old gas,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M352Jw7Ph64
or pulling out ethanol all good ideas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onCG7mIprfE
I love simplicity in fuel delivery, damage to a fuel system happens between dry and submerged states, and I recomend a fuel stablizer or conditioner, and then a conclusive, visual fuel clean. I love race gas fuel spikes to old cleaned gasoline, you can reboost dead, stale gas.
Back to results....its the lb-ft peak torque readings and peak power rpm readings that must be the litmas test for deciding to go EFi.
Modern Modular Fords are at the 1.64 lb-ft per cubic inch level, the old BDA Ford 4 valve per cylinder engines, 1.39 lb-ft per cube, which was a test for good intake design. Peak power levels, I don't use Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP), I use Phil Irvings hp per rpm per cubic inch.
There needs to be a proper 1600 rpm gap between the peak torque and pea power rpm levels, and an ability to over speed 10% past the power peak.
This is classic 350 Fuelie head/Cleveland 351 stuff, engines that had the right combination of peak power without loss of power at high rpm. EFi engines are just pumps, and need to pass the same tests as carb engines of yore to prove the worth of injection.
All people who run dynos are looking for peak torque and peak power improvements over the rev range, but the shape of the curve and how it operates in the transient stages of a race are what is important.
As a lab techncian, I remember my boss saying, Dean, look at the data. Tell me what it is telling you compared to the text book theory. Someones going to ask the same thing of you.
If you rank an engine with venturi sizes, no one can beat these two charts below for peak power. It sets a glass ceiling.
It does drop off in really big engines due to phsical size restraints, and some single 4-bbl set ups out do independent runners in smaller engines because of cylinder to cylinder issues and geometrics of fuel air mix flow.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=71515
http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/intake-tech-c.htm#ir
IR manifolds, where each cylinder can only draw from one barrel, offer the absolute best idle quality, throttle response, tolerance of high-overlap cams timing, and allow accurate tuning of intake length for maximum torque.
Even using the largest common IR carburetors (Weber 48mm IDA with 45 mm venturis) the maximum cylinder size is about 45” (or 70 HP, whichever is less) barely enough to supply a 360” motor @ 7000 RPM
Completely separated IR carburetors for a 500” motor (62.5” cylinders) @ 10,000 RPM would require 63mm(2.47”) venturis!
For other situations, the glass celing is here:-
For torque, EFi is an easy gain if set up correctly.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=35573