will the intake on my 305 crossfire work on a 350? my 305cfi is a dog, and iam looking for some power

 

82crossfire,

My son and I are currently replacing the engine in our '82 Z-28. The car was originally a Cross-Fire. Unfortunately, when we purchased the Z-28 the only portions of the cross-fire remaining were the Dash Badge and the Functional Cross-Fire Hood Scoop. The remainder of the Cross-Fire and Original Block were long gone and the wiring had been completely hacked. We've decided to convert to a CC Carb Set-up on a 350.

We have a long running thread on our progess (Unfortunate Engine Swap Victim...ADVICE PLEASE). Early in that thread several had suggested we could restore the Cross-Fire on a 350 with no complications. We did not want to return the originial cross-fire because of $$ and parts availability. One of the people that submitted a response to our thread we copied for your use below I don't think he will mind.

THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED TO ANOTHER THREAD.

I hope the link JoBy provided helps you out.

Sincerely,
Kurt

 

Crossfire will function just fine on a 350... the Corvettes that came with the Xfire system in '82 and '84 (Corvette trivia for ya.... there was no '83 Vette) had a 350" motor, unlike the F-bodies.

Now if you are looking for power, the Crossfire is really shooting yourself in the foot. Something like TPI would make better power, but still nothing impressive. A carb or aftermarket EFI are your best options.

 

We did this once, and had great success. What you might want to consider doing though, is scrap the CC-Quadrajet.... in favor for either a JET, or Summit remanufactured Quadrajet, while maintaining the ECM's electronic spark control.

 

Street Lethal,
For the moment the CC Q-jet is a financial decision {$$$}. An aftermarket carb is a luxury we cannot afford. We have too many other problems and SAFETY Issues to address with our vehicle first. Next year, maybe an upgrade will be on Santa's List.

Check out our long running post "Unfortunate Engine Swap Victim - ADVISE PLEASE" for more details....

Thanks,
Kurt & Derek

 

In all honesty, a computer controlled quadrajet (new), costs a great deal more than a non-computer controlled quadrajet (new). I myself picked up an ole 850-cfm quadrajet from the local junkyard for $20.00. Not to mention, having you're son learn how to rebuild a cheap quadrajet from the boneyard (rebuild kits are cheap), being the added bonus here...

To be quite honest, this is where it's going to cost you the most money... if the vehicle is in that bad of a state (brake & suspension wise)...

I just briefly did, and let me tell you, you're car is in a much better state than my 1986 IROC was when I first purchased her. The stock LB9 block (305-TPI) was cracked, and the torque arm was off on the tranny side, which made a nice big 'cut' into the floor-board as it continually smashed into it everytime the car was given hard throttle, or when shifted. I'll honestly spare you the headache of just how bad the original wiring schematic was off...

I was upset too, but hey, had this not been the case, the 454 would never of found it's way in....

Many of us have been through it...

 

Street Lethal,
We've probably got signals crossed here. We are going to use a J.Yard (NOT NEW) Q-Jet. We have two(2) on the bench now. However, they are very old NON-CC (One is a '73, The other may be older, BOTH unrepairably damaged). Meaning we need to find in the J.Yard.....

A CC-carb (or Computer Command Control Carb) that has three electrical connectors on it. They are:
1) Electric Choke, single connection.
2) Fuel/Air Ratio Control Solenoid connector thats located on top of the float bowl area of the car. This is a two wire connector.
3) Thottle Position Sensor connector, three wire, on the front of the carb.

Sincerely,
Kurt

 

Hi All,

I really don't understand you young guys out there who don't want computer control. Any computer control carb, tbi, or tune-port is much better then 100 year old technology. Diagnostics on computer contoal fual system is a lot easier then any carb system.

As for Cross-Fire, if the intake in ported it will make lots more power. Before I did my 350 TPI conversion, I actruly look at doing a cross-fire conversion to my 82.

But after examing all of the factors, I decided to go with the TPI.
Some of the main reasons were,
1) Increase power with using stock parts.
2) The availablity of new parts. In 1998 some of the parts for Cross-Fire was no longer available.
3) The ECM control and diagnostics.

What is biols down too, is want you want to do with your car.

There are some newer aftermarket ECM control systems that may enhance the duribity and driveablity of the Cross-Fire systemI

If I was doing the conversion today, I would consider the porting the Cross-Fire and using one of the after market ECMs a great combination.

 

Bruce,

You really need to take a peek at what Ben73 was able to accomplish with his Cross-Fire Injection set-up. After installing a different ECM (and properly calibrated chip, of course), running the X-Ram, stock throttle bodies (albeit, now totaling two inches a piece), and better cam... he's already made a mid 12 second pass with his 383.

To term it as "unreal", would still be considered an understatement...

 

honestly, computers are awesome... but i like the fact that my car has 3 things: fuel, fire and air. if one is missing, it doesn't work. with a computer, you have to add electrical gremlins or emissions controls diagnostics, and the latter is not a skill I'm very strong in. a carb is simple, and works well. I'll stick with it til i can afford a simple-stupid EFI setup. (a long way away.)

 

The X-ram goes a long way in helping the crossfire breath. Another option if you want to retain the crossfire setup is to find and retrofit something like an old Offenhauser intake. These flow very well too.

 

true, but i'dtry and stick with something newer. things are known now about flow and power that were not known then, and thus, the casting may be outdated. but either way, trying to make a crossfire fast is admirable. I wouldn't do it, but i give serious respect to someone willing o make a go at it. good luck.

 

a few people were sayin how the X-ram jet will flow the air better on the cross-fire. i wont argue that point @ all. but just remember the more air you get in @ once, the more you need to get out, thats all, just a lil reminder. alot of guys i talk to always seem to forget that. As for the guys who want to go carb. i honestly dont see why. if these are project cars, which i'm kind of assuming they are, save some money and get a decent TPI setup. cause if you go about it to get a ****ty q-jet now, then want to upgrade later, thats a waste of money buyin both. i feel like i'm soundin like a parent, but dont rush ****, give it time. i remember around prolly the begining of the year, i think it was either chevy hi peformace or the fledgling camaro performance mags that basiclly told you how to find, set up, get a good solid TPI set up goin, i dont remember what issue it was though. But seriously, a stock TPI setup, yes i will admit isn't to terribly great, but start addin stuff, upgraded runner tubes, bigger throttle body, headers and a decent hi-flo cat, n believe you me, that thing will start to go places, then as always a chip or a computer hook up to advace timin and increase fuel delievery will always help, so dont knock the TPI or Cross-Fires. chevy wouldn't put a crappy intake on a corvette now would they?

 

I agree, you don't see why. IMPO - A Q-Jet is a better choice over "TBI" anyday or everyday..... "TPI" is an entirely different animal and if it weren't sooooooooo much more expensive to install, tune, and upgrade onto a "non-TPI car" I'd definatley be interested in going that route.

The cross-fire (or Corvette X-Fire) was so successful, so reliable, so sought after by masses of buyers wanting every bit of that astounding 185hp (Z-28) that is was in production for just over 1 year? It had multiple recalls and has been blamed for countless engine fires. Yea! Chevy did a great job with that one!

Kurt

 

not only that, but I can still upgrade my carb setup for cheaper. different intake, carb, headers, heads, cam, shortblock, trans, rear, basically the same as you would with an EFI setup, except i don't have a bunch of engine management sensors to worry about. before you knock carbs, think about why every major class in NHRA drag racing runs a carb.

 

Perhaps because they don't care about MPG or driveability around town.

Electronic fuel injection is superiour to carbs and that is a fact.

If you only care about 1/4 mile performance, then it is cheaper to run a carb. A carb with a perfect tune is almost as good as EFI with a perfect tune if you only look at performance.

 

When i stated they wouldn't have put a crappy intake/injection on the corvettes, @ the time, they thought that was the best route to go. but as time proved, yes i will agree that they were crap, but also remember this was pretty much the first high performance fuel injection, so ya, stuff might happen that you never would have thought about, i mean were talkin early 80's. they didn't have the huge computer systems that they do now, that can simulate certain conditions of heat, cold, too much fuel, not enough, to much air, not enough air, primitive fuel injection is what i'm baisclly sayin. but take it as you want

 

EXACTLY!

"IMPO"(In My Personal Opinion) One would be very foolish to replace a "late model" fuel injection with a carb of any sort! Although I have no references or scientific data to quote that would allow we me call anything a "FACT". I BELIEVE IMPO that "Late Model" Fuel Injection IS vastly superior to a carb motor. That said......

IMPO I also believe that Early 80's and older fuel Injection was Trash.. Apparently, based upon the above quote YOU WOULD AGREE.

IMPO Carb is a much better alternative for such an engine/car.

That's all I have to say on this thread.

Sincerely.
Kurt

 

Hi all,
While I may agree, I going to disagree with you all. Any form of fual system that uses feedback controls is a step up above carboration.

All internal combustion engines operate under dyanmic
conditions. There are a lot of factors that effect the operation of these engines; Air Temp, Engine Temp, GAS Quality, Barometric Pressure, Load, etc. To proclaim that a simple carborator is better then early Feedback Systems is just simplely
foolish.

Today'y single chip micro computers are far more powerful then what they were 20-30 years ago. They have also developed varible valve timing, etc. that go to further enhance engine performace.

The early Cross-Fire Injection system was an atempt to enhance engine performace and increase fual efficancy above the system that was based on the CCC-Quad Carborator (CCC-> Computer Command Control) The CCC system were the first feedback controled system that GM developed. The CCC-Quad systems also used more advance technology then what was used to land man on the moon in 1969.

As for the Third-Generation-Fbody, the Tune Port Injection system brought out the most performace from the 35 year old design SBC V8 in 1985 and is why my 82 Firebird has the TPI system on it.

 

For all around driving? Of course. For all out drag-racing? I beg to differ...

Man actually stepping foot on the moon is a heavily debated subject. As for the CC-Quad system's being superior to 1969 NASA technology, hmm... tough one.

I disagree. I'll race you with a 850-cfm quadrajet powered L98 (which is what some of the CC-Quadrajet's were rated at), against a Tuned Port Injected L98 anyday (same bore, stroke, CAM, gearing and weight, just to make it even) and win. Hands down.

 

Hay StreetLegal,
Most of us do not race and do not run our cars at WOT. If you want to dump fual into the intake at WOT all day long the CARB will do it. But if you have to contend with getting good MPG, low emissions, etc, you will not beat fual injection.

Please correct me, but I think this thread started some discussions about the cross-fire.

I stand by my above comments as regard to the Moon Landing stuff. I am a computer engineer and have seen the drawings and specifications for the computer system that was use on the LEM(moon lander) back in 69.

As for everyday driving, I don't think there is a single automobile that is made today that comes with a carb. Carbs are old technolgy and the technology is dead. Just move on!

 

But yet there are plenty of various aftermarket companies that still consistently improve on them...

I disagree. I myself plan on ordering Aeromotive's new "Tuning Tool" for carbureted applications (part# 16304). If what they say is in fact true, then Carb's just took a giant step into the 21st century...

 

An engine needs the right amount of fuel and correct spark timing for optimal performance. What is right varies with engine load and RPM ... this is nothing new.

There is no way a carb and a mechanical ignition can be tuned as precise as an EFI engine at all different operating situations. EFI is also much better at varying weather and different altitude. With computer control you can also be safe closer to the limit, because you detect problems, like knock, and adjust fuel and ignition.

New fancy tuning tools does not change anything.

 

Nahh, you're right. I mean, it only earned SEMA's most prestigious award a few months ago, that's all.

As for fuel injection being superior to carburetion, I think I already agreed to this concept (for everyday driving) above. But in straight line performance, I, personally, prefer carburetion.

I've owned plenty of TPI powered cars, and they all served me well.... but I don't see the guys over at NASCAR and Pro-Stock jumping on the TPI bandwagon for high horsepower, however they are in fact giving the nod to that "new fancy tool" from Aeromotive, thats for sure...

 

Just wanted to add, I believe the LG4's came with a electronic ignition, not mechanical...

 

As far as the NASCAR and NHRA and all the other national racing series and weekend warriors using carbs, its because a carb is easy to inspect, make rules on, things of that nature, not because it is superior in performance. believe me, with all the technology that the big boys in NASCAR are usin to make roughly 800 hp cars out of a small block 355 that is car, i'm sure, no, i guarentee that the engine builders at places such as Yates, DEI, RCR, n Hendrick would be able crank out another oh, say 30 hp with FI. but see that would be much harder to control, make rules on and such than with a carb

 

And the LG4 used an feebback engine control, aka Computer Command Control. The LG4 did not have a simple carb. The main problem with LG4 was not it carb, electronics, etc but was with the engine itself. Yes GM could have made it more powerful, but then they would not had sold as many as they did because it was had cost a lot more.

 

You are not comparing apples to apples here. The main problem here everyone is talking about different appliations. And I will say it again. FOR EVERY DAY DRIVING, YOU CAN'T BEAT ELECTONIC FUEL INJECTION. Sorry for yelling.

 

The Orginal Question!

350 crossfire?
will the intake on my 305 crossfire work on a 350? my 305cfi is a dog, and iam looking for some power!

Correct answer!
As with any small block motor, yes it can!. But in order to acheive any kind of power boost from the intake, its going to have to be ported to match the 350.

 

The originator hasn't been back, the question was answered, and the thread has degraded to foodfight level.

Time to say goodbye for now.