Hello everyone,

This is a continuation of the thread hijack that began at the bottom of this page. Since you have gone off the "Crossfire has nothing to do with variable displacement" subject. You should respond here instead

Nice of you to start a new thread, even if does start out with a rant.


I have no opinion about your intentions. I Have, however, been unclear about some details of your statements. How does one get clarification for a vague statement without asking questions? Flames, Sarcasm, namecalling, and other forms of BS answers do not contribute to anyone's knowledge. Other than asking questions, as I do, what do you suggest.

When, on a message board, one posts an "urban legend", is everyone supposed to ignore it, or should someone question it? I'm am one who will question it in a heartbeat, and will not apologize for it.


Would you care to post an example, so we can discuss it.


I question all information I'm presented with, it indicates an interest in learning more about the subject, regardless of what I might already know, or might not know.


Please explain how anything I've ever said, meets the criteria you've just described. Examples are welcome.


I believe I already said, I don't have an image or a name for it. Since it doesn't have anything to do with anything I wouldn't post it if I could.

If, at the time I posted the comment, someone asked me about it, I probably would have said "that's all I remember ....... Hopefully, someone else can fill in the holes". Or something to that effect.


This would be one of those times when I would ask for a little of that clarification ........ WTF did you just say?

just mimicking your favorite "diversion" progression of subject leads to a brand new thread



you seem to have an opposing opinion on anything I type

re-read them then, no one else is asking your idiotic "clarifications". I do not speak a foreign language and convey myself quite clearly.

Ask a NEW question don't rehash that which was answerred.


ask less questions perhaps? One doesn't have to debate every sentence in every post, especially when someone has done that which you have you asked and cited sources, now if you have an alternate take.Please by all means cite YOUR source....your knowledge and experience has NOT shown through to me. I refuse to treat you as a viable resource for anything other than hot air


explain yourself, I will not post hersey and if something is my opinion I state it as such. I pass my beliefs as facts. I will leave that to you, as you do it well.

when someone tells you "the only stupid question is the one not asked" Don't believe them, I've heard alot of moronic questions in my brief life.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" Honest Abe Lincoln



nope, I'm done recycling old convos ...go back and read for yourself



you learn more listenning then you do by talking. Besides if something is justifible and/or the source of information is cited, unless you have information to the contrary, why question facts? It's like a 3 y/o responding to every statement their parent makes with "why?" "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!"



1) 80s are hardly what I'd call an "earlier" Corvette 2) that is a not so nice way to call your bluff. I think you can't find a picture of this manifold because it doesn't exist (atleast in the respect of an OEM Corvette part and in respect that you seem to change your story a bit, Is it an Offy or a Weiand?)


Now this post said and done, Pretty annoyying having someone go line by line adding their editorials, questioning EVERYTHING you post and in general being an annoying pest ehhh? This is how you sound to me. I would request in the future should you post against a statement I make. you better have proof and you better be respectful. This I ask man to man. Do you have the huevos?

Not at all. It's exactly the the way I would expect a rational discussion to be conducted. I do, however, expect straight answers to straight questions, in the same manner that I give serious answers to all serious questions.


I better have proof? Or what? You won't answer?

I do not generally ask for proof of anyones statements. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ever making that request of anyone. All I've ever asked of anyone is that they be prepared to verbally defend any statement they make.

I will honor your request, one time, when I find the necessary documentation.


You want my respect? Or what? You won't answer?

One who gets my respect, is one who will not make a statement unless he/she can defend his/her position.


Man to man? All of a sudden you've seen fit to treat me like a man? I'm honored.


Why do you ask?

uhmm, no offense guys, but this gets kinda . why don't u guys use PM??

no offense here, just don't like to read up on u guys arguing. that doesn't help anyone here...

Hi Highway_star, all,


None taken.


Actually, it is on topic. It's one of two similar threads started specifically for his pleasure. I'm just along for the ride.


Good question. I'm sure he will be along to answer. My guess is, he needs an audience.

Then again, it looks like a straight forward question, so he will probably avoid answering it.


There are some threads I have no interest in. They are the ones I don't read.

I suggest you try looking for the humor. It's subtle but there's lots of it.


For those that don't see the humor, I agree.

Regards, Norm

yes well, offcourse there are some topics that don't interest me, but i always grow curious, so i read them anyway.. hahaha. and yes, offcourse i alwasy like to see/hear/read a fight, but i was busy trying to get world peace and thought i started with u guys.. haha lol.

anyway, fight nicely u two! lol and oh yea, forget about this post then... haha

Started with him, not me. As I said, I'm just along for the ride.

Thought about your first post. If I ignored all his rants, these threads would be shorter and funnier.


No problem, I always appreciate constructive comments, negative as well as positive.

Regards, Norm

Once again Norm, I'd re-read the threads you lil world seems to have a deluded reality. BTW where is my picture?

As you've so aptly pointed out, I have a "head full of mush" and have trouble comprehending your eloquent posts. All your references will need to be in one place, so I (with my limited intelligence) will be able to comply with your request.


Please explain what picture, what it pertains to, how it applies to anything previously posted on TOC, and why you think I should post it.

If you can rationally make your case, I'll be happy to oblige.

According to the normal standards relating to posts on this type of board, one is expected to post the quote he is responding to. Isolating the specific point is preferable to copying a complete post.

Sort of like I've been doing.

One is also expected to cite any source one refers to.

Sort of like I've been doing.

Further, one is expected to show a link to an article of interest, along with a short explanation of its contents, rather than pasting it into ones post. Pasting only part of an article is not recommend, as it can be misleading.

Sort of like I've been doing.


I do have more that one source for this post.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search

Your choice.

Hi Norm, DrRansom442, all,

Still trying to figure this all out… not sure where the argument is, or if there is one.



This is the first mention of Cross-Fire Injection. No reference is made to it being like DOD, it was mentioned it seems solely for the purpose of discussion on ways GM tried to help fuel economy and keep performance, which was the subject of the thread. For the record, 82 vettes had crossfire, and here is a link of a cross fire in a C-3 vette…
http://www.badcorvette.com/before.htm

Noone ever mentioned that they didn’t, but Norm was correct in that they 1st appeared in the ’82 vette.



Here, DrRansom442 states his findings, and states that he believes that it is Cross-Fire Injection is what was refered to by 88Coupe. Also, no mention of it being a version of DOD, just more “factual knowledge” on Cross-Fire Injection for the sake of more knowledge on the subject. At least that’s my intreperetation… Still no real argument.




Right. DrRansom never said it did. Nor did Norm. Is what you [Norm] were talking about (the variation on the “offenhauser” design) Cross-Fire Injection or not?


I wasn't aware "Crossfire" had problems? Please explain.

To which he explained…



After further research, I believe to have found his source… http://www.x-ram.com/commonproblemswith ... stems.html

I was unable to find anything to qualify this site. Since they are selling a product, I question their bias. If anyone else can prove this, I would like to see it.



Ok, I think I missed the joke, but did Offenhauser make cross rams or not? If the pictures of what DrRansom posted are not cross rams, then what are they? I would also like to see the picture of the early weiand intake that you referenced, Norm. Not that it matters for the purpose of this discussion, but just because I am curious.

EDIT: Unless you [Norm] own a picture, dont bother... I cant find anything, so I can't expect you to.



But DrRansom made no statement saying that CFI was related to DOD. You made a reference to an induction system that tried to increase fuel ecomomy while keeping performance. It seems that DrRansom has assumed that you meant CFI. Did you?
.



Whose diversion was it? It seems that he only mentioned it because you did…





No one has yet to claim they know it all... For sure though, you should hold off on any such claim if you were thinking about it…

There were actually 44 83 prototypes built, according to Wikipiedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette

Yes, there is one 83 vette left, and it is at the NACM, but there were more than 3 made. It is actually the 23rd prototype that is the sole survivor.

So, 1982-17= 1965… Yessir, you are correct, Chevorlet quit using the Rochester fuel injection after 65 because less than a thousand of them sold… at least according to that wikipedia link… However, the last part is contradictory… Norm is seemingly referring to the cross-fire injection that was available on the 82’s and the 84’s. While he may have gotten the year wrong for the “desireable” C-4’s, it still seems to me that he is still talking about CFI, although I can't assume that.

I still dont see the arguement... Maybe I just dont have the "huevos"...


Andrew

thank you Andrew, Perhaps we can let this drop having a second perspective. As for the number of 83s, I may once again be incorrect but not all of the "mules" got VINs. I can dig for verification but I think of the "83"s only 3 had VINs and that was what I was basing my statement on.

(edit) I went looking for th einfo, didn't find anything to back it up so I will withdrawl said claim....according to the Corvette Museum's site

"The only 1983 Corvette in the world is on display at the Museum, and is one of the most valuable Corvettes in existence. A total of 61 serial numbered '83 Corvettes were built. Of these, 18 were "prototypes" and the other 43 were "pilot-line" cars built with the production tooling at the Bowling Green Assembly Plant. With various delays, and reliability and durability testing, the 83' Corvette was changed to sell as a 1984 model. There were no 1983 models ever sold to the public. The remaining 60 Corvettes were destroyed"

That number just grows and grows, point is there is just one known to exist. I think we can all agree there.

I guess what really intrigues me, is having seen Norm post for about a year and a half on ROP and here, is that he doesnt usually post if there isnt any point... I just cant see the point he is trying to make. Time to dig some more...

Yes, Since it cant actually be proven, I am sure it has been emellished a few times...

Hi andrewk, All,


Easy find, as I knew exactly what to look for. Might be because I had less history to learn.

Only posted the link to let him know I was here.

I always use my memory. It’s the reason you seldom see me cite sources. It’s also why I invite questions/comments on my posts.


And I'll disagree. Did Wikipedia say the ZR-1 was not a Corvette engine?

If a Corvette was built by a GM contractor and delivered through an Authorized Chevrolet Dealer, with a legitimate RPO optioned engine. Why would it not be a Chevrolet engine?

If you believe the ZR-1 is not a Chevrolet engine, then do you believe that car is not a Corvette?

I'll save my last two points, in case I need them.

Now, if I was totally wrong in every way he says I am, how would that make my original comment invalid?

Finally, how is it germane to the discussion? Is it, that, if DrRansom442 says it's not a chev engine, it will prove Norm to be a dumb f@@k that doesn't know what he's talking about? I think that is his goal.


I wonder why he makes excuses about not having the HRM to scan.

Duntovs retirement wasn't that long ago. I should have the mag, and I could easily look it up, if I gave a s**t. Nothing in the post has anything to do with anything on TOC. It all has to do with making Norm admit he made a mistake.

I thought I covered this subject (except for Esso) here. If there is anything I wasn't clear about in post nine, I will happily answer any rational questions here.

I know, I said I wouldn't respond to his Rants. I just noticed this one, and I can't help myself:

Did I say it was SBC manifold?

Regards, Norm