Hi all,


Surprise, a commercial ad for Chevrolet in "Superchevy" magazine.

In fairness, it did show how it works, if not how well.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/ ... /RoadTest/
I'm inclined to believe someone who has actually tested the product.

Looks like they are still folllowing the thinking that put GM, Ford, and Chrysler, in the position they are in: DOD was developed in house, variable valve timing was not. Therefore, DOD is good, VVT is not. Note to engineering: Make it work well enough that Marketing can sell it.

Preventing 4 cylinders from doing their fair share of the work does not make the engine any smaller or lighter. It still has the same reciprocating/rotating mass and friction, and it takes the same amount of fuel to overcome the losses whether 4 or 8 cyls are operational.

The only possible DOD advantage I see, is keeping intake velocity higher, in the 4 cly mode, at the expense of the greater control of the VVT system. However, the chamber designs our "offshore" friends are using seem to work as well at the lower velocities.

How GM goes about selling the concept, is another story.

Regards, Norm

Hi all.

Starting a new "Crossfire" thread here, because we all know where this one is headed.

Regards, Norm

Hi 85cieraholiday, All,


You do remember right. Many people did. Seems like '84 and up were the better choice. They might have the earlier intake system I was talking about.

We'll find out, from DrRansom442, on the new thread.

Regards, Norm

well assume knowit all isn't a GM exec and would have had a crack at 2 of the 3 83 Corvettes made (and subsequently destroyed leaving just ONE 83 Corvette at the NACM) 68-82 (C3) Corvettes and 84-95 (C4) were totally different creatures ... enthusists tend to shy away from 84s because of 1) problematic digital displays (that were somewhat better in the subsequent years) 2) Doug Nash 4+3s (total garbage) 3) Crossfire Injection ... GM wisely discontinued crossfire with the 85 and introduced the TPI set up. So 85 and up is the desired, unless you are a collector and your car just sits, because so many people tossed the Crossfires for TPIs (and Doug Nash for T-5s, 700-r4s or the T-56 that would come out years later) it makes them kind of a rarity...other then the old mechanical Rochesters, I have no clue what other injection setup you could be referring to, The Cross-fire was the Vettes first FI setup in 17 years. Now I am going out on a limb but I believe 70 or 71 was the last year a tri-power or dual quad intake was offerred, leaving various single barrel intakes as the ONLY option. So what intake are you referring to? Post a link or a picture.

Hi all,

Need to make a couple of corrections


I inadvertently used the name Offenhauser above, I should have used the name Weiand in it's place. Fortunately the name makes no difference, as the discription (such as it is) is accurate.


Other than the mileage issue, it worked as advertised. Only problem was the jerky shift between modes. Cadillac customers paid premium for smoothness and comfort. V-8-6-4 was not the smoothness the buyers wanted. Some cars spent a lot of time in shops with the mechanics trying to devise ways of smoothing the transitions, That's what gave rise to rumors of mechanical failures. As I said before, the typical Cad Owner was not concerned with fuel mileage, per se.

Regards, Norm

Hi 88delta88, all,

Make sure he has a maintenance schedule, and follows it to the letter. If the PO did, he won't have any problems.

I don't expect to hear much till the weather changes, but be sure to keep us up to date.

Regards, Norm

I certainly will keep you up to date. The car isnt moving too far these days, because of gas prices...

Hello everyone,

Probably no interest in this, because no one asked me to elaborate on the following, casual observation.


Seems the induction system was a bit more modern than a '50s design and I was off a little on the year, so sue me.

Google searches seem to return lots of marketing BS and useless specifications. Substance is hard to find.

I did find a short statement that will help clarify it at: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Fe ... eId=100444

I’m pasting this quote because it’s one of those long articles with little substance.


EDITED TWICE: Deleted two unnecessary statements.

Please PM me if you have any questions.

Regards, Norm

LT5? the 89-95 ZR-1 engine has NOTHING in common with anything from the 1950s, its not even technically a Chevy engine and shares nothing with the architure of the SBC.

The LT5 was an aluminum creation of Lotus (at the time owned by GM), built by Mercury Marine (they build SBC and BBC boat engines - I think the LT5 maybe still availible through them as a crate motor) specifically for the "King of the Hill" Corvette, but nice try Norom (read it backwards it fits you perfect). I will conceded that since the LT-5 was a 32 valve DOHC engine ... 16 intake runners would make sence. Now where is this 16 port SBC intake from the 1950s? Perhaps you are thinking of Zora Arkus Duntov's experimental DOHC SBCs he was hoping would be used competitively in the Grand Sport Corvettes of 1963-1967 that raced Le Mans ... these engines not only didn't see use competitively, they were certainly not availible to the public ... in fact I had read an old old copy of Hot Rod (no I do not have a copy to scan), these engines weren't even seen by the public till 1975 (Zora's retirement). Again even if my assumption is correct, they have no commonality to a LT-5

BTW I read that Edmund's article, not bad, not 100% (right away the article had an error calling Standard Oil the fore-father of Exxon/Mobile - Standard became Amoco which is now BP - Exxon/Mobil's larger/largest competitor). Not 100% correct but better then some E-magazine articles, I've read

Standard oil is in fact the "fore-father" of Exxon/Mobile, but not in the sense that Standard became Exxon/Mobil. Standard oil was the 1st great oil giant, and was downsized substanially when the government cracked down on monolopies way back in the day, (20's i believe) and Exxon/Mobil is a modern day oil monopoly. Similary, the fore-fathers of this country didnt actually have sex with all the women and make us all decendents of them, but they did create the model of government that we have modified and made to fit our now international and electronic world that we now live in. That may not be so clear, but I think that any American would get the drift.

Andrew

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Abo ... rosene.asp

Hi Norm, everyone,



Good find Norm... I was going off of my recollection of all the history classes I have taken, and apparantly my recollection isn't what I thought it to be... You would think I would have learned that by now... At least I had the general idea, that means I was at least paying attention in class

Andrew

OK so I must have been sleeping or staring at the achitecture of the Chrysler building when Rockefeller came up in history, but I remember the signs


and this is where I went estray. Didn't realize long before that the were part of the same conglomerate. Way to keep me on my toes, BTW Exxon/Mobil isn't a monopoly, according to Fortune .... BP is still bigger (#2) but Exxon/Mobil (#3) is more proffitible Also Shell (#4) Total (#10) round out the top 10.