Do I think they would make the bikes worse? Well, they've done it before, at least according to relatively unreliable sources like Bob Hannah. And haven't we forgotten about the massive downgrade that everyone made for themselves in the name of "new technology" with this whole four-stroke fiasco? Newer does not necessarily equal better, as any passing glance at the 1981 and 1982 Maicos, or 1969 and 1985 Ford Mustangs would quickly reveal. On the aggregate, yes new is generally better than old, but that is not a law cast into granite.
BUT, what you're missing is that this whole time, I've been using the word "if" very liberally and with a lot of weight placed upon it. IF the bike is worse over-all because of a new technology, then I don't see any reason to think it's a good thing. If. If! IF!!
The proper way to look at bikes, is to imagine that both exist entirely without context, so they can be held to the same standard. Want to compare a 1995 KX to a 2006 KX? Imagine that they're both different bikes sitting brand-new on a 2010 show-room floor, and the friendly dealership man is saying, "These are our two models for 2010, here are the details on both, which one will you be buying today?" All I'm saying is that we should be looking at the technology to determine which bike is better, NOT at which has a bigger number in the box marked "Model Year." IF the carburetor works better than the injection, taking into account performance, cost, durability, etc, then that should be the bike to prefer. IF the injection works better than the carburetor, then that is the bike to prefer. I am not trying to say that the carburetor will be better than fuel injection, I'm saying that I don't know.
You can't say that the new TM is like the BRP snowmobiles, because there is a massive, MASSIVE difference between "fuel injection" and "direct injection" in two-strokes. "Fuel Injection" just means the bike is exactly the same, except the fuel is added to airflow by a high-pressure nozzle, rather than by a tube working on Bernoulli's principle. All your engine is going to get is a finer mist and slightly cleaner combustion, as well as whatever flexibility comes from working with the electronics in the injector. The whole exhaust-port-fuel-escaping problem is still present on a fuel-injected bike, so don't expect a radical environmental game in this new TM; it won't be there.
In the end, this line,
If I can get an eco-friendly ( yeah I care about the air we are breathing) 2 stroke engine with more power without the hassle of more maintenance.. I will show the money
says it all. You qualified your statement by saying that there can't be the hassle of more maintenance. That's all we're getting at, and it appears you agree. With the BRP technology, it passes this test. TM's system will be entirely different, so we have to reserve judgement until we can see if it passes.
