Who is saying the LT-5 isn't a Corvette engine? Not sure what you are disagreeing with.



same way a BUICK 231 V-6 isn't an Oldsmobile engine right? GM got in alot of trouble dropping Buicks in Oldsmobiles, atleast the ZR-1 they made no bones about it that is was built by Mercury Marine



ofcourse its a Corvette, but much like the B2K Corvettes it was built engine delete then fitted with the LT-5 and all the other ZR-1 appointments.



Again, if you are claiming the LT5 is the engine you've been speaking of all along (which I'm sure its not, it just was just the closest to fit the bill). After what 1950s design is it based on? Only 50s Chevy V-8 was the SBC (till the 348/409), therefore if the LT-5 is based off that design you are claiming it has to have something in common with the SBC. When in reality.... it is a Lotus design.



my point is you have yet to substaniate your claims, weither or not you are a "dumb f@@k" you can prove or disprove that yourself (so far it isn't looking good)





well I don't have the same reporte with him, I don't think he does know what he is talking about and he can feel free to prove me wrong, since he expects me to justify anything I say, he can oblige me this once.


I think we can call that a retraction, until you chimed up about the LT-5 (trying to pass that off as the subject), we were discussing SBCs so yes I suppose that ws to be assumed, especially since this was based on a 1950s design, which was atleast 30 years prior to the LT-5, and would therefore be a SBC, yes? As for responding to me, seems you like to TRY and get under my skin by disputing anything I say, regardless of if it is correct and/or if I cite a source. Andrew pointed out a mistake and an unsubstainible comment I made, I admitted both. Heck I figured I'd try and annoy you back by acting in your manner (which has to annoy ANY rational person), but I should have realised I wasn't dealing with a rational person. Your sole intent seems to be to annoy. I was not out to make you look a fool (you can do that yourself) I was merely trying to correct a few errors and add to the initial topic. My fault. I consider this done. thanks

Hi andrewk, All,


So am I. I am making a little headway as I compose it, though




It wasn’t. From the information given, It’s a long stretch, to connect anything in my post to Crossfire induction.


Try this.

He put the words in my mouth, and no one noticed.
Then followed by a cut and paste that has little technical value, voilà, he's an "instant authority" at my expense. He also had the added benefit, that since Norm doesn't know anything about the subject, there won't be any embarrassing questions to evade.


Where does it show how CFI works?


Whether Norm was correct or not, is far from the point.

I’m guessing that Norm mentioned (along with a disclaimer) a snippet from a magazine he read in a doctors office, 15 plus years ago, and some internet educated A$$hat expected him link to it on that internet.


No.


How many followup questions did he ignore? Did anyone notice the great lengths he went to, in order to "divert" everyones attention from those questions?


Not his source. Its not the same information as he posted.
According to my memory, the information on that page is reasonably accurate. Considerably more accurate that that pasted by DrRansom442. That would be why refuses to answer my follow up questions.


He used the Offie as a “red herring” to divert attention from my 16 runners question to avoid answering it. The answer shows the lack of any connection between my 16 runner comment and his Crossfire, his not seeing it, showed his lack of knowledge of either setup.


They did. The joke is, that fact has no bearing on anything, except for him to refer to (along with flames) to avoid discussing his own statements.


As he explained, they were a trap he placed there to trick me into proving I’m a Dumb f@@k. He said two are Offie Cross Rams and one is a crossfire. I don’t know and don’t care.

For the record it only matters that they are all open plenum (except, possibly, the Chrysler) and none will shut down one bank of cylinders if a carb or TBI fails to function.


Actually, if you had asked before Weiand sold to the Conglomerate, I could have gone over to their shop in East LA and snapped a pick.


If I had one, you and several others would have had copies at the outset.


Don't know the Mfr for sure and don't know what they called it. If I see a pic from the side I'll know it. I didn't have enough information to write a white paper and I believe I said that in the post


No.

If he knew of the ZR-1 at that time, he would have known what I was talking about, only because of the two runners per Cylinder.

If he knew anything about the Crossfire technology, he would have known it was designed for max performance, not fuel economy, and therefor, no way of switching between modes.


Not mine, when have you known me to avoid answering a serious question. Rather than changing the subject, I find it easier and less confusing to just say "I don't know".

No idea why he would parrot the word. DrJay did the same thing, with the same word, under the same condidtions. I'm thinking it's a thing "drunks" do.

Questions? I'll be here.

Regards, Norm

gee a quandry ignore Norom's mis-information and let everyone have peace or clear the matter up ONCE again. Once again Norom has ALOT of wrong facts.

I rest my case.

Hi all,

It makes sense now. Since Norm was never even talking about CFI to begin with, the assumption that he was is the entire basis of it all. False premesis= False arguement.



How can the "facts" be wrong? They are quoted verbatum from the their respective threads.



It is true that many of those follow up questions in regards to CFI were ignored.



This isnt his source?





"Taking from a light" is the same. Tell tale sign of a copy and paste. He pasted their grammatical error (the ommission of the word "off" between "a" and "light"). Not saying he didn't "know" that, just that he more than likely got it there.



It doesnt. I did some further research on another board. (www.crossfire.homeip.net) You have to register to see content, so I did, and I will quote it here when I gather it all up...




Funny, we just talked about "red herring" fallaicies in my english class today... Anyway... I see your point here. It was never about cross ram intakes at all, it was about DOD, and the intake that had 16 runners, that was similar to that of the ZR1. that wasnt a CFI unit. Much clearer now that I go back and re-read everything in that context.

The only confusion was the date on it, which led DrRansom to believe you were talking about CFI...



It doesnt matter if the pope built or designed the LT5, the point is that the intake design was either very similar or was taken from another source, namely the Weiand intake that Norm had mentioned. Again the assumption of what is being said is what is perpetuating the "arguement".

On the assumption that we are talking about a SBC intake...





We were actually discussing the caddy V8-6-4 and its relation to chevorlets new DOD. In the 50's, and I know you are aware of this, There were other v8's other than chevys.


Nope.

This whole thing would have died if no one were to assume what someone else meant. Someone once told me, "Read what's there, not what isn't."

I'll respond to Andrew as he's been very cordial




there is NO way Norom was discussing the LT-5 then arguing with me about Crossfires, further and I ask this for like the 6th time....where is proff of this 16 runner Offy or Weiand or whoever intake. You will not find anything from the 1950s that resembles the LT5 intake in any way shape or form. My assertation of Cross Fire wsa it was on a Corvette and did mimick the function and design of the 60s Cross Rams, make no mistake this is where Norom was heading, there's just no 16 runners. Should Norom find proof of such amazing technology in the 1950s (or 60s) that looks like a LT5 intake, hell I'll pay pal him $50. for a picture




Norm's posts are quoted verbatum?




I fully admit I ignored any question answerred and asked again. Its pointless





Norm is right, I actually don't have a source for that info other then my recollection but thanks for posting an almost verbatim link, saying what I said




your contention now is that we were never talking about Crossfire so why does function matter, but if need be I can justify "LH TBI supplies RH bank" et cetera .... first indicator, they called it CROSS FIRE





again I am calling BS on 1950s (60s) LT-5 intake precessors


only confussion is Norom and his intentional misdirections that "divert" his misinformation





actually the LT5 has no common ground with anything prior, hence why it was so evolutionary for GM, a semi-production all aluminum non pushrod V-8, has no common ground with any prior GM designs


not in a Corvette there weren't and no DOHC GM V-8s, which is my point regaurding the LT-5




Norom knows he's busted, the LT-5 was lame cover up, btw the LT-5s 16 intake runners are because the engine has 16 intake valves, has nothing to do with fuel economy, 8 runners/valves aren't shut off at any point. Making further distictions between Norom's responses and the truth

Hi, DrRansom442, Norm, all



That is a good point. He didn’t correct you, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t talking about it. I am taking the posts for face value here. I wouldn’t rule it out of the realm of possibility. Since there is no real expression, but only “netspression” it is difficult to discern the tone of the context.



Don’t know much about the 50’s and 60s, but this doesn’t look like any older intake manifold I have seen.



(Taken from wikipedia)



Again, its apples and oranges here. If it was where he was heading, do you think he would be wasting time just to make himself look good? The original subject was V8-6-4 and DOD. The ZR-1 had a DOD of sorts with the 2 power modes. With the context of the orginal topic, the assumption you have made with respect to the direction he was heading in the thread is false. We all have the same internet- If you can’t find a picture of it, how can he?



Are we reading the same forum? Yes they are. No editing on this end, nor are there any edit tags at the bottom of them.



That is the most coincidental thing I have ever seen… I am skeptical, but if you say so…



That is my contention. I’m sure what Norm was referring to in his initial post about an intake with 16 runners for a v-8 was not CFI. I couldn’t tell you, however, why function matters at this point, but I would guess it’s purely academic. You brought it up, he said he had one, and he asked about the inherent problems you mentioned CFI had. From the look of it, he was going along with the hijack. ( I have most of my info gathered, and will create a new thread on CFI.



I don’t think so.



From this info he posted regarding the LT-5 from this link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Fe ... eId=100444

So the initial post that we keep going back too isn’t even relevant anymore. LT-5 is what he apparently meant and he corrected himself. He admitted the mistake, let it die. Again I say, False premises= False argument.

Andrew

(Note: I did remove all the flames from DrRansom’s posts, as I again have no beef with Norm.)

Ive followed this post everyday looking at the newest updates and I must say Norm you lost your touch man, give it up your just going around in circles at this point asking DrRansom442 for stuff he has already given and your starting an argument over nothing.

Norm your a very smart guy and I think on most things your one up one most everyone here as far as repairs etc, but this time I would just let it go and admit he is right.

It takes a big man to admit your wrong, I think you should do so in order to save the peace and your rep. as the go to guy for repair questions on TOC.
Just my $.02

Hi 85cieraholiday, All,


I have been. I'm not now.


Easy to do in a rational discussion.


Andrew brought up some good points. We'll deal with any and all errors I may have made, as that discussion continues.

Thanks for your comments. Looking at it from your viewpoint, I fully agree with you.

Regards, Norm

Hi andrewk, All,


I believe you were right. I didn’t read it that close. Just noted, his version didn’t contain any reference to “hot weather” conditions, and all the other points covered on that page are contrary to his original statement. That would be why he didn't post the link.


I wasn't serious. I should have used a smiley. Sorry if I confused the issue.


16 runners, yes. The configuration provided better control of intake velocity, which is its only similarity to the system use on the ZR-1.


I thought my use of the word “possibly” was definitive of my position. In retrospect, it was not. It does not, however, excuse his failure to ask for clarification, of a statement he did not understand, before proceeding.


Did I say that?


Everyone: I know, I know:

A little unsure of his position?

Regards, Norm

Hi andrewk, All,

My response to the comment on page 1, post 2 at: http://www.oldsconnection.com/forum/vie ... php?t=1901


Your misconception came from my exhanges with DrRansom442. His evasiveness (diversions) added to the confusion, just as he intended.




OK. What's the difference?



Everyone: Any more questions or comments?

Regards, Norm

you can't tell those are two totally different manifolds? man I thought my eyes were bad


examples
1) design of plenum
2) location of T-stat housing (there is a 90 degree difference)
3) lack of EGR provisions
4) larger runners
5) slope of runners
6) lack of factory "stamps" (i.e. firing order)
7) height
8) number of plenum bolt holes
I'm sure I've missed somethings, but like I said, my eyes aren't the best

BTW that Crossfire manifold isn't stock, its been "machined" <---best term for the rather crude manner in which a lot of material was removed from the cavity of the intake (attempt to create a full open plenum? I bet that made drivability even worse), I think I found a better picture (of an ummolested Crossfire intake with no lid) and have it saved at work .... I will try and remember to post it tommorrow unless I happen upon it tonight

OK here is a good picture to use for a comparo. A "well used" Crossfire intake and one that has had a higher quality of modification and cleaning



A) notice (what I presume was a restrictor wall --between planes) has been removed
B) the edges of the ports have lost their cresent shape
C) an EGR valve block off plate was installed

I don't have underside shots but presumibly the modified intake has had a thorough porting


and once again the Offy as seen from above with lid to the side

Thanks for posting the pix, and for pointing out some of the many cosmetic differences.

Please post a link to the source of those pix.

Despite all these differences, all these intakes posted here (except the LT-5) have one thing in common. 8 intake runners for 8 intake valves... not 16 as was presumed.



I know, I said that when I posted them in the CFI thread... I couldnt find good shots of a unmolested one, so thank you for providing those.