No one ever said that the offy was a 'vette specific manifold. That would open the door to all kinds of different manifolds that have 2 sets of runners.... V8, V6, I6... "Variation" means inspired? I don't know about that either... Like I said before, a friend once told me, "Always read what is there, and disregard what you think is there." Not tryin to bust balls, just calling it like I see it.




I was wondering about this too... How does the LT-5 shut down the valves? Since the cams have to be timed, I would think that it would be rather difficult to make one stop turning. I am ignorant of this part of the subject, so any clarification would be great...





Where have you "got" him? Do you have a link where I could read up about the ECM functions (which are not common knowledge)? I also dont know how grown up it is to stoop to name calling... just doesnt seem very classy...


Andrew

Brilliant logic.

You don't know of the Offenhauser manifold I described, and can't find it on the internet, so you look for a Corvette manifold to fit the description of the Crossram that you do know about.

So, if you do not know about it, and can't find it on the internet, it doesn't exist?


I'm more than familiar with the early Corvettes. My knowledge comes from first hand experience, not from the internet.

The site you found that data on, must not have mentioned the 6 cylinder as standard and the V8 as an option for the ’55, or any of the different cams used. That would be why you didn't include those facts in your off topic post.


I'm fascinated by your deductive abilities.


And you can keep your money, I don't need it.


It limits the fuel without limiting the air?

We'll deal with spark advance after we finish with the fuel mixture.


So, you are saying I was wrong when I stated they are similar, and both manifolds are actually identical in operation?

If so, I stand corrected.

Hi andrewk, All,


I'm sure DrRansom442 posted before you could ask.

Since it's obvious, the subject of my post predated the DOD that is able to keep a valve from opening, I believe any reasonable person would question my statement. I always expect to be questioned when I'm unclear.

My answer might have something to with my keeping track of DrRansom442s many bogus posts.

Then again, it might have been a ruse, to pep up an otherwise quiet thread.

I think I’ll just let my previous post speak for itself.

Regards, Norm

Thanks andrewk. I didn't see this one.


Why do you keep denying you are lying? No one has asked you for proof of any of your statements.

If I'm wrong, post the quote.


Post the quote.


That was big of you.

Now, can you explain this one or do you want to admit your mistakes. I see several.

Unlike you, I can "post the quote".


Having a little problem understanding the purpose of a discussion group?


Post the quote.

If I've already answered it and I wasn't clear, we can discuss it.

DrRansom442,

The above menu is a little hard to digest, so I'll ask you to reply to the most important of your three posts at the core of the "misunderstanding".


If you see anything else you'd also like to respond to, please, be my guest.

ofcourse I can keep my money, the intake doesn't exist. Its real easy to say it. Save for alot of boring "discussion" on a thread that should have died when you were starting to admit your errors. The LT-5 intake is not related to any Offy design, the crossfire vaguely is (I'd say more like the 302 Z/28 crossrams - especially since the Offy was a copy of the same). The crossfire doesn't have 16 runners - it doesn't need them. the LT-5 had 16 runners out of neccesity, one runner per intake valve. The only thing you will find on a LT-5 intake that limits air intake is the throttle-body, however you will find that the LT-5 was still using a mechanical throttle, so no the ECM doesn't limit air intake, your foot does. The "valet mode" was essentially the ECM recurving fuel and timing to limit power. I grow weary of repeating the same things over and over to you, only to have you say the same question wasn't answerred. You keep bringing the net up .... seeing as how the net as we know it today was non-existant when I started working on cars (wasn't even all that big in the early 90s when I was in Vo-Tech), I'd guess you are wrong about where I learn. Books, magazines, parts service manuals (I have a nice library of auto related publications) and plain old get your hands greasy. Now I have accussed you of misinformation - I've cited examples. Tell me where have I been wrong and not admitted to it?

I held off as long as I could... but its time...








The comic relief was needed, in my opinion...

Andrew

Already answered.


Already answered.


Looks like you got your information from the other Crossfire thread on March 28th. Reinforces my view on your "internet education".




Not related to the discussion, but I'd be interested in your explanation. I'll start a new thread.


Already answered.


Thank you for the clarification on both points.


Possible your answers need clarification. If so, I may need to rephrase some of my questions. Please post the quotes, and we can discuss them.


Already answered.


You haven't posted the quotes.


Already answered, many times. Here's the most recent.

playing childish mind games isn't classy either. Norom seems to love TRYING to twist words in his favor and creating new threads so that he doesn't have to admit, his premise was entirely wrong. We both have asked for photos of this 16 runner Offy/Corvette design (and no I haven't looked for something I know doesn't exist - error 1). I posted pix of Offy crossrams (BECAUSE Norom said they didn't exist - error 2). He incorrectly ID'd one of these as a Crossram (to me that just indicates he's not familiar with them - error 3). Now I am not going to go through all his posts and count how exactly how many times he was wrong, but I think that is enough examples to substanciate, it does happen. I've showed him various pictures of Crossfires and instead of admitting he was wrong, he'd rather badger me about where I found the pix. Truth be told they were "googled" I have no idea. The pictures stood for themselves, I fail to see where someone talking about porting his intake has any relevence, I read the site, has no explaination of operation or development, if the subject becomes "how to port a Crossfire" I will try and relocate the site for reference, but then again that would really a topic for a Chevy board now isn't it? So, yes, I'd say factually, he's busted.
If the point of his numerous threads has nothing to do with facts, but to be a major annoyance --- clearly he has won. I see his "another new thread" and I bow out. I conceed ... he is far more stubborn then I am.

It may be a topic for a Chevy board, but then again, isn't that why we are in the "off topic lounge"? I posted all the CFI info, including the pictures of the ported CFI intake, in the CFI thread I authored. It has no real relevance to this or the DOD thread, much like your initial CFI inference. It also wasnt intended to be an extention of this thread; I merely wanted to find out more about CFI, and since there was some intrest, I posted my findings. Unless you are a member of the "Crossfire Vault" there is no way whatsoever that you could go back and read the site referenced by me, which in fact had operational info, which is what I was looking for. I just wanted to discuss some of the finer points of CFI, and I did so appropriatly in a different thread. I couldnt find any pictures of a normal CFI intake when I created the thread, so I used the ones I had. Here's the quote.



I was under the impression, from your post after Norm's in the DOD thread, that the CFI intake used 16 intake runners. Here's the quotes...



To which you replied:



You can see my initial confusion now.



I think he is referring to the offy design more than the 'vette. Take away the vette reference, and its an open debate.



Lets talk Chemistry first...

The melting point of Aluminum is 660.32 degrees Celsius.

Gasoline, or C7H11 (actually could be anything... gasoline is nothing more than carbon and hydrogen in different arrangements... could be anything from C6H6 to C17H17... but C7H11 is the most common.) has a consumption point of 1585.125 degrees celsius per mole. (melting point of carbon is 4489 degrees C, Hydrogen is -258.4 degrees C.)

My point is that an engine is not pure aluminum, it is an alloy, and it has a higher melting temp than the heat of combustion. Aluminum valves would not hold up, and I would bet they are steel, and could be closed magnetically, although I still wonder how they can be unused with the 2 cams tied together with a timing chain.


This is longer than I intended it too be, and if you have any questions, im here.

Andrew

Hi andrewk,

DrRansom442 is too weary to respond to my last entry, but has plenty of energy to post comments/statements that have already been resolved.


Does he actually believe it's about "winning" and "losing"? Isn't it possible, it's about keeping false and misleading information away from the new guys?

Let's go back to the beginning. Here they are in the order they were posted.


My first and last sentences show I don't know much about DOD or VVT.


Without reading the "2 runners per cylinder"part and only seeing "possibly 82", DrRansom442 Googled “Corvette & 1982” and found “Crossfire. Thought about telling him he was off topic, decided against it. In retrospect, I should have. Odds are, he would have gone in the same direction anyway.


I corrected this and he did not comment.


First paragraph is a statement of fact, nothing else. He let this one pass without comment also.

I had heard the the "Urban legend", and was pretty sure it was just that. I asked for clarification.


Doesn't sound like anything my local Chevrolet Dealer would sell. And he sold a lot of Corvettes.

Started a new thread, asked for clarification there. That's when the runaround started. Rereading that thread, I see I shouldn't have let myself get sidetracked.

DrRansom442 has gone to extreme lengths to avoid discussing any of the above since March 21st. Any other issues DrRansom442 brought up were intended to divert our attention from his biggest mistake.

He pasted three different items in one post. He assumed, since he plagiarized them from the internet, they were fact. They all contained false information and the Fool didn't know the subject well enough to even realize it. I don't think he could admit this many gross errors in such a short space, without admitting to his lack of knowledge on the subject.

I wonder how many noobs are going to read his trash and think it's fact.

Questions? Comments? Criticism? Unlike DrJay and DrRansom442, I am mature enough to handle them.

Regards, Norm

Its done, its over, you were wrong, that's all that needs to be said. If you want noob OLDSMOBILE owners to not be ill-advised about Ceasefire injection, I'd suggest you stop posting and ACTING like you know ANYTHING. Your "urban myth" is based on experiences these owners had. The crossfire board, though obviously more familiar with the issues maybe a tad bit biased. To blame all drivablity issues on someone removing the plenum lid and not resealing it or knocking out the idle screw plugs is rediculous. There would be no reason to do either if a problem wasn't existing. Why fix something not broken? Sure, I will conceed that owners not maintaining a car properly would make things worse and perhaps the "issues" are blown out of proportion. That can be said for many components (TH200-4Rs come to mind - a fine trans/bad rep). GM coverred up the idle screws on Q-jets and Dual-jet carbs too .... what is one of the first things a rebuild involves??? knocking out these plugs, infact GM was nice enough to carve a "saw line" in the base to aid in knocking these plugs out (if I had a digital camera, I'd take pix of the spare parts dual jet I had to canibalize to fix the 81's carb...since we obviously don't like internet pictures). As far as googling Crossfire, nah I am well aware of it, obviously more so then you Norm, because I know what one looks like. Now please, we can drop it ... you've proved yourself enough

As far as Rants go, you've done better.

My question is:

If you were aware of all this information at the outset, why didn't you post it when I asked you for clarification?

...and... crickets.. chirp....chirp...

Don't know about him, but I'm working on his accusations RE: I lie about my Coupes and an intake manifold. So far, I can't find any good answers on the internet.

Probably won't answer his charge that I don't know what I'm talking about, because he might be right.