Hello everyone,

This is a continuation of the thread hijack that began at the bottom of this page.



You are correct. You did copy it. It is obvious, however, that you did not read it. Offenhauser did not make Cross Ram manifolds, but they did make the manifold I referred to. Are there are two runners to each intake port in the Crossfire/Cross Ram that I didn't know about? Did the crossfire use eight runners for economy and all 16 for power?


So you are saying this is normal for all those cars? Including mine?


Win3.1 was light years ahead of DOS. What's your point?


What were the problems? Were they normal for all cars using that system?


In what way?


Somewhat like the other computers of the day?


Should they have used a separate computer for each TBI?


Like any fuel system malfunction would?

Norm

who said or implied it did?





someone should tell Offy they never made Crossrams



nope, the whole premise was a tad ambitious, the ECMs were far too slow and clumsy to take on the task of running two TBIs


no, most FI set ups supply either use a single injector at each cylinder cylinder or a pair to fuel all cylinders, if an injector on a TBI set up should fail, yes ther would be drivablity issues but that one injector didn't fire 4 out of 8 cylinders by itself like the Cross-fire did*

* I know you are going to correct this, its bad verbage, yes the Cross-fire used 2 TBIs, should one complete TBI fail to work it killed an entire bank of cylinders, if you had one single TBI (Like GM later did) if one injector fails, it didn't kill 4 of the 8 cylinders

The person that first referenced it in the DOD thread.

Now that we have your diversion handled, how about answering the question? You might even consider answering the others you avoided.


BTW, this subject is Crossfire. Please do not discuss TPI in order to avoid answering Crossfire questions.


You need not be concerned, they already know it.


Are you saying this is normal for all those cars? Including mine?


Win3.1 was light years ahead of DOS. What's your point?


What were the problems? Were they normal for all cars using that system? What were the causes?


How did they get from the assembly line, to the Dealer, to the customer without anyone finding out they lacked the electronics to even run properly?


My TBI is on a dual plane intake. Each side feeds 4 cylinders like any manifold of that design. How would it compare to the crossfire in that respect? Are you assuming an improper mixture will always cause a misfire?

Oh, and how do the number of cylinders affected, have anything to do with the topic?


Don't know about verbiage, but both statements appear to be incorrect.


Not what the following image suggests:





Unless, that TBI was on a dual plane manifold (Like GM later did).

If you want to discuss TPI, please start a new thread.

I have no desire to start a new thread discussing something else you don't know about, the only reason I responded to you post was to curb your mis-information with fact
btw I intentionally put the one Offy manifold pic up without the top, as there is no id on the lower manifold. here is the same intake off the engine with the lid. I knew you'd slip

these are Crossfire


notice the EGR provisions and the odd throttle body bolt pattern....the offy intake is there version of the Z28 cross ram looks absolutely nothing like crossfire does it? Gave you more credit though, I figured you'd ahve told me it was an OEM GM Cross-ram not the Offy (atleast they are near identical, so much so people pass Offies off as Z/28 Cross Rams)

Hi Norm, DrRansom442, All,

Heres my intrepretation...





So it was you that first referenced Crossfire as being variable displacement? I didnt think thats what you meant...



I dont see the diversion... wasn't he saying that he thought you were talking about crossfire injection?? How is that a diversion?



But the crossfire intake is TBI?? Does it not use 2 throttle bodies with injectors in them? (hence making it TBI... I really don't know, I am not familiar with them first hand, but have heard stories from my boss at the shop I used to work at...) Isn't the theory that the crossfire used 8 runners for economy and 16 for power?? EDIT> Are we talking about TPI or TBI?? (no offense with the underline, just making it prominent)



Im confused... Even if it isnt a true "cross ram" intake that offy made, he did say "cross ram style"... Are none of those cross ram intakes made by Offenhauser?? Please explain.




I remember my old boss telling me it was "the nature of the beast"... normal, no... in the realm of possibility, certainly. From what I hear, and read... they were prone to problems. I cannot verify this point, as again, I have no experience with them.




I think the point may have been that even with 2 computers, making the device function like the theory says it should would be almost impossible from a production stand point with the available computer managment capabilities. Further spoken about here:



Not that they lacked the ability to run properly, but that the were very finicky?? Thats my intrepretation... Similar to the 4-6-8... good in theory, bad in operation. Same with Diesel Olds V8... prone to problems, but produced anyway. EDIT>Again... he says TBI here... TPI, or TBI??



He may be... and I am assuming, that since there are 16 intake runners in a crossfire intake, that it does not apply...



Probably to add to the reasons it was an ass pain. As opposed to a MultiPortEFI system, where if one injector goes bad, the rest will continue to fire...



Is the point that the cross-ram and cross fire are unrelated? I agree though... definatly doesnt have 16 runners, so it cant be a crossfire... Please explain...

[/quote]

If you had one single TBI on a dual plane manifold, and it quit working, wouldn't ALL the cylinder be killed?? Are we talking TPI or TBI??? I am assuming TBI, since the crossfire pic posted above is certianly not TPI. I am slightly confused at what you are getting at Norm...


Andrew

OK, I called a manifold by the wrong name. How does that prove I don't know what I'm talking about?


OK. So post the CF next to it, so you can show everyone how my statement is flawed.

Those names have no bearing on how either works, and, therefore, have no relevance to the discussion. It would be more productive to post images of both manifolds so we can discuss their differences, similiarities, and how they relate to the many problems you say the Crossfire had.


I’ll admit I’m wrong, when I’m actually wrong.

Why don't you answer the questions? Afraid of being wrong?


As soon as you stop ducking my 2534234523465345 questions. If you can't answer them, just say so.


OK. We are all familiar with the statement, we are not familiar with what is wrong, and why. Post the quote.


Your choice. I'd rather discuss it with someone who wasn't educated on the internet, anyway.


Post the quote. If you can find one I'll have Brandon explain it to you.


And what does any of that, have to do with the subject? Maybe it would help your case if you post a CF pic next to it.


I wasn't paying attention, which did I tell you it was?








Are you saying this is normal for all those cars? Including mine?


Win3.1 was light years ahead of DOS. What's your point?


What were the problems? Were they normal for all cars using that system? What were the causes?


How did they get from the assembly line, to the Dealer, to the customer without anyone finding out they lacked the electronics to even run properly?


My TBI is on a dual plane intake. Each side feeds 4 cylinders like any manifold of that design. How would it compare to the crossfire in that respect? Are you assuming an improper mixture will always cause a misfire?

Oh, and how do the number of cylinders affected, have anything to do with the topic?


Don't know about verbiage, but both statements appear to be incorrect.


Not what the following image suggests:

Hi andrewk, all,

Good to see someone visit that will ask those questions DrRansom442 hasn't the huevos to ask.


My post referred to a variation of the VVT concept. Seems the Corvette expert is not aware of it, so posted what he thought I might have meant, and made the first reference to Crossfire.


To understand the context, read from the twelfth post on this thread and then from the top of this one.


Makes sense.


That is the whole point of this Thread.


Then why did so many have no problems and only a few did? I'm thinking about the the guy that threw that POS Qjet away and put a good carb on it.


Most ran like any other 350. Why did only some have issues?


Gross exaggeration It worked like it was supposed to. Might have worked out better if GM chose to use it in a car aimed at a different customer base. In a Sports Car, proper marketing might have made it a status symbol.

But, I digress.


Depends who you talk to and what they expected. It's a long story I won't go into here.


Count the runners in the pix he posted. While you're there check out how the runners are laid out, and where the TBIs are placed. Then picture how any common dual plane intake is layed out. Then a single plane.

Then go back and reread it.


Not good enough, he's the only one that can answer.


For purposes of this part of the discussion, they are the same.


The manifold with 16 runners is the one I mentioneded in the DOD thread. 16 runners is why I could not have been talking about Crossfire.

It doesn't matter whether it's a Crossfire or a Cross Ram. The pic proves DrRansom442 doesn't have a clue in this area.


If both barrels failed, Yes. If only one barrel failed, it would kill 2 cyls on each bank, or the equivalent of one whole bank.

I wonder why he didn't want to answer such a simple question.


Not getting at much. Just trying to learn about a major problem I'd never heard about before. Shoulda known he'd be still blowin smoke.

Thanks for the help

Regards, Norm

Norm, looking over the posts, I wonder instead of disputing everything I say and asking me to prove you wrong, why don't you just start a new thread and ask what it is you don't know and wish to know. The long posts with all the quotes is getting kind of old. Especially since all you seem to do is contradict everything I say and not cite YOUR source. You aren't always right, in fact I don't see you as being right most of the time. I don't know everything (no one does) but I will usually tell someone how certain I am or try and cite a source that supports my response. Instead it seems I can state "black is black" yet you'd say I was trying to divert the question and that black should really be white. I even posted pics, you still don't see your error. Its amazing.

Did I say they looked alike?

The mush that I call a mind, sees images of two manifolds, one with a top and one without. Would it be too much trouble for you to show them both uncovered, in order to better illustrate your point?

BTW, how do the images pertain to the topic? Top is still on the CF, so it can't be to show the puddled fuel inside.


That puts a whole new light on the whole subject.

Did the shop you worked in, take in any Crossfires with the problems we're discussing? What were the symptoms, and what did you (or the shop) do to rectify those problems?


Yes, you have.

Other than pointing out my obvious mislabeling of a Weiand manifold as an Offenhauser, you failed to explain how and why they are mistakes. Until someone does, they will be considered fact.

Pointing out a percieved error is far different than defining it as a real one.


And you failed to explain how they address my original Crossfire question.


Did I?


Thank you. I believe you just took the first step in learning how to answer a question in order to clarify your statement.


Picture? Have I made a claim that needs to be backed up with an image?


So in other words, you made an off the wall (and off the topic) statement, that you do not have the technical knowledge to explain?



















Thanks again, Andrewk

anyone know when we were discussing Weiand intakes? I think I will make this my last post on this thread, once again we have Norm trying to change the facts around instead of admitting just maybe he doesn't know

Hi Norm, all-

No problem... I am intrested to see what develops...

Have I been doing that?


Here is the original question. Since it's about Crossfire, which is the subject of this thread, you can deal with it here.




Quotes have been getting more plentiful in direct proportion to your increasing unclear/unrelated responses.

Have I been contradicting you?

Unless I'm speaking from my own experience, I always cite my source.


Did I ever make that claim? In this case, you see what you see because you don't understand what you've read.


And if someone questions your statement, you give them a half a$$ed answer that may, or may not, pertain to that question, or even the subject. If that person persists, you snivel that you're being bullied.

With few exceptions, if I don't know the subject, I keep quiet and read. If I'm interested in the topic, I ask questions.

When I do post, it's what I know to be fact, not something I heard on the street, or read on the internet, and I expect to questioned/challenged on it's merits.


If your black is actually black, your statement will stand up to all possible scrutiny. If you didn't notice it was a very dark shade of grey and someone points it out, then accept the correction and move on. Part of making any statement, is being able to defend it. Lack of challenges is why there is so much BS, misinformation, and "Urban Legend", being accepted as fact on the internet, as well as on the street.

Changing the subject, would be a method of diverting the questioners attention in order to avoid an answer. It would be called a diversion. Asking for clarification might put it in a different perspective, and make it easier to answer.


I think this is where I came in.

What's the problem? You've been trying to discuss Offenhauser manifolds to avoid dealing with the Crossfire? You could easily use the Weiand for the same purpose?

As I stated two or three time earlier, I typed "Offenhauser" in error, and it should have been Weiand. That fact has no bearing on either discussion, in any way, shape, or form.


Having said that: Since the post was on the subject of "Variable Displacement" and mentioned "variable valve timing", my post was related (albeit loosely) to the topic of that thread. The name or the manifold had little to do with that post and nothing to do with this thread or this subject.

The big mystery, is how DrRansom442 managed to make the stretch from my post to Crossfire.

It seems I have not been clear enough for everyone to understand.


Easier that answering a few simple questions on a subject you know so much about?

I don't think it's the facts changing around, I think maybe it's your room spinning.


Can't admit to something I know nothing about. Please spell it out for this Dumb F@@K. What is it that I don't know. Please be as specific and complete as you can, as far as what, when, where, why, and how.

Or is that more than you can handle?

I have to this point responded to every inane inquiry you have made. You asked for me to cite issues with Crossfire, I did.
You've asked me to cite how you were wrong. I showed you pictures. Point is with your vast amount of experience with factory Crossfire manifolds you still identified an aftermarket Offy Cross-Ram as a Crossfire. Top on, Top off they look nothing alike. Everyone else with experience (including corp GM) consider the glitches of V8-6-4 and Crossfire as phenomial failures .... they obtained bad reps and were appropriately axed. Now you refuse to accept my word on this. You refuse to listen to anyone else that "recalls" something of this nature ... at that point I say to you if you need proof, go find it yourself. There is plenty of proof out there, trust me. If you can't trust internet links, well I don't have the time or desire to locate a factory manual for that vintage Corvette and start copying pages. I don't have to prove to myself I know what I am talking about. If you need proof, hop in your Cross-fire injected Corvette and drive to the local Chevy dealer and ask. You are like an itch, that no matter how hard you scratch it refuses to go away. BTW I still want to see the pix of your mystery intake, reguardless who makes it