cross fire injection, truly crap??
07-23-2003, 12:21 PM
#77
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 39
well everyone, i just found out today that i might have a 350. i have to check the casting number on it, but im crossing my fingers for a 350!
i dont want to be mean, but the previous owner of my car was mentally retarded... literally. so he didnt know much about what the car had in it or what not. he replaced the engine with a new ATK remanufactured engine, but he didnt state if it was a 350 or a 305.
doesnt 1750$ sound like alot for a 305 short block?
i dont want to be mean, but the previous owner of my car was mentally retarded... literally. so he didnt know much about what the car had in it or what not. he replaced the engine with a new ATK remanufactured engine, but he didnt state if it was a 350 or a 305.
doesnt 1750$ sound like alot for a 305 short block?
07-26-2003, 01:43 PM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Alliance,OH USA
Posts: 22
Just for the record, yeah it was my first post, but i would venture to say that you had one of those yourself a while back. So because it is my first, that makes me a idoit? And as far as the TPI changing to an LT1, then to the LS1, yes they did. But how long did they use TPI, what, 8 years, the LT1, what, 6 years, then you have your junk CFI, that they used for 2 or 3, and had nothing but problems with it. That is my point, it was changed so soon, because GM knew it was no good. GM is not stupid, if they saw any potential for the CFI, plain and simple, they would have kept it around longer. Really i dont care either way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Except for me, mine sucks.
07-26-2003, 02:02 PM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7
From what I've read (accuracy may vary), CFI was born because GM didn't have TPI functional yet, and needed something in the interim. Its not like they started using it & decided it didn't work so they sent the engineers back to design TPI...
Again, i'm not arguing CFI is better than anything else, I'm just responding to the question in the subject, and I don't think it is "truly crap"
Again, i'm not arguing CFI is better than anything else, I'm just responding to the question in the subject, and I don't think it is "truly crap"
07-26-2003, 05:01 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orlando,florida,usa
Posts: 1,151
Originally posted by 1986MCSS
Just for the record, yeah it was my first post, but i would venture to say that you had one of those yourself a while back. So because it is my first, that makes me a idoit? And as far as the TPI changing to an LT1, then to the LS1, yes they did. But how long did they use TPI, what, 8 years, the LT1, what, 6 years, then you have your junk CFI, that they used for 2 or 3, and had nothing but problems with it. That is my point, it was changed so soon, because GM knew it was no good. GM is not stupid, if they saw any potential for the CFI, plain and simple, they would have kept it around longer. Really i dont care either way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Except for me, mine sucks.
Just for the record, yeah it was my first post, but i would venture to say that you had one of those yourself a while back. So because it is my first, that makes me a idoit? And as far as the TPI changing to an LT1, then to the LS1, yes they did. But how long did they use TPI, what, 8 years, the LT1, what, 6 years, then you have your junk CFI, that they used for 2 or 3, and had nothing but problems with it. That is my point, it was changed so soon, because GM knew it was no good. GM is not stupid, if they saw any potential for the CFI, plain and simple, they would have kept it around longer. Really i dont care either way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Except for me, mine sucks.
my point on the realtionship of the CFI, TPI, LT1, LS1 is just to show that designs come and go. was the TPI such a bad thing that they had to replace it with the LT1 inake? not really. they used a long runner design. figured out it was RPM limited. then went to short runner design. figured out there was a low RPM flaw. now the LS1 is a design right in the middle.
07-26-2003, 07:50 PM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: So.Cal on the Best coast
Posts: 866
What's Next?
Originally posted by mrr23
as chevyhacker stated, the CFI was an interim desgn until they got the TPI working the way they wanted it. if you ever cared to look at the inside of the CFI manifold, you'll noticed that the runners are the exact same as the TPI. so let's see. they used CFI to get test data for the TPI.
my point on the realtionship of the CFI, TPI, LT1, LS1 is just to show that designs come and go. was the TPI such a bad thing that they had to replace it with the LT1 inake? not really. they used a long runner design. figured out it was RPM limited. then went to short runner design. figured out there was a low RPM flaw. now the LS1 is a design right in the middle.
as chevyhacker stated, the CFI was an interim desgn until they got the TPI working the way they wanted it. if you ever cared to look at the inside of the CFI manifold, you'll noticed that the runners are the exact same as the TPI. so let's see. they used CFI to get test data for the TPI.
my point on the realtionship of the CFI, TPI, LT1, LS1 is just to show that designs come and go. was the TPI such a bad thing that they had to replace it with the LT1 inake? not really. they used a long runner design. figured out it was RPM limited. then went to short runner design. figured out there was a low RPM flaw. now the LS1 is a design right in the middle.
T.
07-26-2003, 07:59 PM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orlando,florida,usa
Posts: 1,151
well maybe they should get trounced on. to tell a person hurry up and replaced immediately makes them feel like they just bought a plague. well how about this. hey your LS1 is truly crap. you must immediately replace it with a lambourghini. it's the worse thing ever made. get the point yet? time to let this post go people.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post