TBI Throttle Body Injection discussion and questions. L03/CFI tech and other performance enhancements.

crossfire- yay or nay??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 15, 2004 | 11:05 AM
  #51  
Tom 400 CFI's Avatar
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,167
Likes: 781
From: Park City, UT
Car: '92 Corvette, '89 1/2-a-'Vette
Engine: LT1, L400
Transmission: ZF6, T5
Axle/Gears: 3.45, 3.31
Originally posted by wills83z28cfi
I have to try to make the decision myself using everyones opinion.
That's very true. Just keep in mind from whom you hear what. Most people that bash CFI, have never had it, and are therefore fairly unqualified to speak about it.

Don't forget; the only restriction in the CFI system is the intake base. Porting that makes a HUGE difference on a stockish engine, but really only brings the manifold to where it should have been in the first place. The only good thing about that is that it's basically a free mod and you'll get a huge improvement.

Once you get an OFFY under there, and bored TB's, the induction system will no longer be a restriction, unless you are going for over 500 hp. It'll flow as well as any carb set up or a HSR, possibly better.

I only advocate that path over the carb, because once you have CFI, which you do, this route is cheaper, and still nets you the benefits of EFI. Good luck with your decision!

Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Feb 15, 2004 at 11:13 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2004 | 02:21 PM
  #52  
wills83z28cfi's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
From: Orangevale, CA
Car: 07 Silverado
Engine: 5.3L V8, flexfuel E85
Transmission: 4spd. Auto
Axle/Gears: 3.73 locking diff.
Thanks Tom and everyone else for the info. I plan to start on this project soon, once the rain stops, spring or summer time. Maybe I will post some pics and info on what I actually end up doing to the intake system, some before and after stuff.
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2004 | 05:32 PM
  #53  
Fast305's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: DFW,TX
Car: 1983 G20 Van
Engine: 305 4bbl
Transmission: Possesed 700r4
Crossfire is restrictive on 350s because it was designed for 305s. The same situation as the TPI. Put crossfire on a 283 or a 302 and it would scream. On a 305 it makes low and mid-range torque as well as pretty good horsepower. Put it on a 327, 350, 383, or 400 and you will choke the engine. You could always run a restrictor plate cam that compensates for restricted intake. Many cam companies make them and they are affordable.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 09:09 AM
  #54  
kdrolt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
Originally posted by Fast305
Crossfire is restrictive on 350s because it was designed for 305s. The same situation as the TPI. .....
The above statements are two common misconceptions on TGO.

The Crossfire manifold was designed for the Corvette, and hence it was always targeted for the 350 first and for use in the 305 (for Fcars) second. The use in the Fcaqrs was to reduce the unit manufacturing costs.

The TPI was designed as the intake manifold replacement in the Corvette, so it would replace the Crossfire intake. Again this means developed for use on the 350, and used later on the 305 to reduce unit mfg cost.

For the details on this, see my posts on this on TGO, by searching for the keyword Midgley. HTH.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 09:13 AM
  #55  
Ronny's Avatar
TGO Supporter
20 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,880
Likes: 4
From: wisconsin
my choice would be to add single plane weiand 7525, add adapter plate and add a dual TB from 454 chev truck or holley. others that are purists will keep the crossfire manifold and port it and bore the TB to 2.00 or larger. i currently have the xram with bored TB and will convert over this spring to the first option given.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 09:40 AM
  #56  
Ronny's Avatar
TGO Supporter
20 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,880
Likes: 4
From: wisconsin
kdrolt: what about the "rumor" or statements i have seen posted that the GM plan was to use the 305 on all cars(cept trucks) to comply with california fleet mileage as well as pollution standards. it was a decision to have one engine (V8) rather than two. the engineering i thought was initially done on 82 which had 305 in calif (maybe elsewhere) but when 84 came on the grand debut affected the decision to go 350 with CF as the 350 was also being considered for 85. it seems a lot of conjecture here.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 11:16 AM
  #57  
kdrolt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 849
Likes: 2
From: MA
Car: 93 GM300 platforms
Engine: LO3, LO5
Transmission: MD8 x2
Originally posted by Ronny
kdrolt: what about the "rumor" or statements i have seen posted that the GM plan was to use the 305 on all cars(cept trucks) to comply with california fleet mileage as well as pollution standards.....
Rumor can circumvent any argument...... but rumors are sometimes true, so I don't know. I can only say what McLellan wrote, and Midgley said and McLellan reported. It is a fact that the TPI was developed to overcome some shortcoming with the Crossfire, and the Crossfire debuted in the 1982 Vette while atop a 350. So the TPI was definitely designed for a 350 because ti was designed to replace the L83 Crossfire 350, not for a 305.

It was rumored that GM was going to opt for a 305 as the "large" v8 during the late 70s & early 80s, so it is possible that the Crossfire intake was designed for both 305 and 350 use.... or perhaps primarily 305 use knowing that it might be used on the 350. We'd have to ask Midgley to be sure. But the TPI was designed for a 350, because the 350 was already confirmed for use in the 1983 (and thereby 1984) Vette.

Also keep in midn that all the new/best stuff gets developed for the Vette first, and everyone else gets a piece LATER ON..... so don't think for a minute that the Fcar drove & paid for the design work. It didn't. The Vette did, and the Fcar platform helped offset the costs while gaining some prestigue in using Vette parts.

Midgley's name appears in only a few TGO posts -- all of them mine. I was surprised that his role in the development of the TPI (and CFI) hadn't appeared on ThirdGen before, because I haven't been on this board for that long.... and the info was out there for the taking (and reporting).

FWIW, HTH.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 01:09 PM
  #58  
Ronny's Avatar
TGO Supporter
20 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,880
Likes: 4
From: wisconsin
what is most important is the fact that pontiac dropped a big block in tempest and that started the high performance muscle car era!
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2004 | 02:16 PM
  #59  
wills83z28cfi's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
From: Orangevale, CA
Car: 07 Silverado
Engine: 5.3L V8, flexfuel E85
Transmission: 4spd. Auto
Axle/Gears: 3.73 locking diff.
Ronny, I am 99.9% sure that I am going to get rid of the cfi and switch to a setup like you are going to do. I have done a lot of reading and thinking and it looks like it would be the least expensive option, and the easiest to work on. I like the idea of tbi and want to stay with it. I think tbi has a lot more potential than people give it credit for. To many people want to just throw on tpi because they heard it was the best. I think the LO3 option camaros have way more hotrodding potential than any tpi, not to mention for less than half the cost of tpi. Anyway, thanks again for the advice, it's been a big help. :hail:
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RedLeader289
Electronics
6
Sep 23, 2015 06:50 AM
FLYNLOW92rs
Auto Detailing and Appearance
22
Jun 6, 2003 12:09 AM
FLYNLOW92rs
Auto Detailing and Appearance
23
May 4, 2003 01:35 AM
fast86z28
Organized Drag Racing and Autocross
1
Apr 11, 2003 07:47 PM
C-Dawg
Exhaust
2
Apr 10, 2003 12:27 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 PM.