1984 Corvette -

[prowlerjc]

^Added hp was a side benefit, but they had other issues. Maybe it was the dealers, I don't know, but down here they got a really bad rap that hurt the other FI systems.

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by prowlerjc

^Added hp was a side benefit, but they had other issues. Maybe it was the dealers, I don't know, but down here they got a really bad rap that hurt the other FI systems.

I remember when these cars were new, most owners I have known have had good luck with the system. I have also spoken to some Chevrolet mechanics who worked on these Cross-Fire Corvettes back in the day and they usually mention that the Cross-Fire system was reliable.

The bad rap comes from those who were disappointed about how very hard it was to modify the system. Back in 1982 to 1984, a lot of buyers were used to the former 4 bbl equipped C3 Corvettes which could be rolled off the dealer lot and performance mods could be easily and cheaply added. With Cross-Fire this wasn't happening, there were no mods that you could make to this system, you took the system with the 200 (1982) or 205 (1984) horsepower as it was. And for Corvette buyers that was a hard pill to swallow. When the free-flow TPI system arrived it had the advantage of flowing so well, it responded very well to aftermarket modifications. With the Cross-Fire system its choking point was the restrictive intake manifold - only 475 CFM. With this little CFM there's really not many mods you could make to a Cross-Fire system. Nobody made an aftermarket free-flow intake manifold replacement for GM's Cross-Fire system until almost 20 years after Cross-Fire's original release. Performance Plus Systems offered a 1440 CFM Cross-Fire intake (called the X-Ram) that really made the engine perform and respond well to performance mods. Unfortunately Performance Plus Systems is no longer around.

Essentually Chevy strangled the Cross-Fire engine back in the early 1980s - they were trying to offer decent performance along with efficient gas mileage. With the TPI system it offered better fuel metering which equated to better gas mileage. And with TPI, Chevy could do this and still offer neck snapping performance. Cross-Fire was a transitional system, never intended to be a permanent system.

As a side note GM released in its 1988-1992 f-bodies (Camaro/Firebird) a 170 horsepower (L03) 5.0 liter TBI V8, this TBI system was also reliable but it too was dogged by contraversy since it was also a "take it as it is" system, that was very hard to modify.

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by EPA2

When cross-fire owners yanked off the system it was because they could get more horsepower from a 4 bbl carb since they could swap out the restrictive (cross-fire) intake manifold with a free-flow 4 bbl intake. I currently own a cross-fire Trans Am which has been in my family since new (it's 27 years old). Never had to touch or adjust the TBI system, it runs just as good as new.

The 1982 Cross fire motor is also infamous for being so underpowered that the 350 Crossfire equipped Camaro that paced Indy that year caused a huge pile up on the first lap BEFORE the green flag... 'cause it was going so slow... Nice, you swap a 350 in place of a 305 and even that car is too slow to avoid a huge accident in front of the whole world.

I wish I could find a you tube clip of Kevin Cogan saying that the pace car was "too slow to get out of its own way"

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by EPA2

I remember when these cars were new, most owners I have known have had good luck with the system. I have also spoken to some Chevrolet mechanics who worked on these Cross-Fire Corvettes back in the day and they usually mention that the Cross-Fire system was reliable.

Memory's are such a funny thing... I bought a Z28 in 1983 and I specifically wanted to order a crossfire engine.. the salesman, a friend of the family, REFUSED to order that option. Told me that they had nothing but problems with the system... from cloged fuel injectors, to failed fuel pumps, to mechanical gremlins, to bad ECMs... His words, "The engine was not ready for prime time" The fact that it was killed in less then 3 years adds some credence to that observation.

I have over 300,000 miles on the LG4 Chevy with zero problems... I rebuilt the carb at 200,000 miles for about $60 and other then that the car has been rock solid reliable... I hope to give it to my son or daughter some day.

[Ttple]

The C4 was the last good looking Corvette. The C5 looked like a glorified Firebird. The C4 still looks modern.

[F14CRAZY]

+ YouTube Video

the C4 is the most awesome car ever produced

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

Memory's are such a funny thing... I bought a Z28 in 1983 and I specifically wanted to order a crossfire engine.. the salesman, a friend of the family, REFUSED to order that option. Told me that they had nothing but problems with the system... from cloged fuel injectors, to failed fuel pumps, to mechanical gremlins, to bad ECMs... His words, "The engine was not ready for prime time" The fact that it was killed in less then 3 years adds some credence to that observation.

I have over 300,000 miles on the LG4 Chevy with zero problems... I rebuilt the carb at 200,000 miles for about $60 and other then that the car has been rock solid reliable... I hope to give it to my son or daughter some day.

I have spent a lot of time working with cross-fire motors and acting as a technical advisor to owners of these cars and have spoken to mechanics who worked on these systems for many years, and the cross-fire system is no less reliable than TPI.

The cross-fire engine was only an interim solution for Chevy until TPI came out. TBI systems like Cross-Fire were really no more efficient than the 4 bbl and 2 bbl carb systems of the same era. This is why Cross-Fire was cancelled. TPI and other fuel rail (fuel injector per cylinder) systems were much more efficient, this is why carbs bit the dust also (and the quadrajets, even the electronic quadrajets were reliable).

The 2.5 Iron Duke used the same TBI injector found in the 5.0 liter Cross-Fire system and similar sensors and electronics, and that engine also proved to be reliable.

There are many cross-fire cars still on the road like mine, if they were such junk they would have been long gone.

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

The 1982 Cross fire motor is also infamous for being so underpowered that the 350 Crossfire equipped Camaro that paced Indy that year caused a huge pile up on the first lap BEFORE the green flag... 'cause it was going so slow... Nice, you swap a 350 in place of a 305 and even that car is too slow to avoid a huge accident in front of the whole world.

I wish I could find a you tube clip of Kevin Cogan saying that the pace car was "too slow to get out of its own way"

I'd like to see that clip.

I am not sure what the rating was on the 1982 Camaro Z28 pace car with the 350 Cross-Fire, however the official 1982 Trans Am Daytona Pace Car which also had a 350 Cross-Fire was rated at 250 horsepower according to Pontiac reps (the engine was rumored to have no catalytic converter). This was not too shabby for 1982 and it was much better than the stock 165 horsepower 305 Cross-Fire. As a comparison the 1985 Corvette with the 350 TPI motor was rated at 230 horsepower.

[LeSabre]

Originally Posted by EPA2

I agree! With the success of the new Camaro, a semi-retro '63-'67 Corvette C7 would be a big hit in my opinion.

You are right the current style is a evolution rather than a revolution.


...

Thank you, EPA2.

Indeed. The Corvette team adopted Porsche's slow evolution process of the 911, which is fine for the 911. It was a very bad idea to do this w/the Corvette as the Corvette didn't(really) do that at all until the C5 came around & continued on doing it w/the C6. Its BS!
Each gen. of the Corvette should be an all around revolution. A platform for the Corvette should only be used for no more than 2 generations. I have no qualms for the Corvette platform being shared w/Cadillac for a 2nd gen XLR or whatever it would be called should GM/Cadillac go ahead w/one. Obviously, a XLR successor would have Cadillac skin & not Corvette skin.


!!!

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

I have over 300,000 miles on the LG4 Chevy with zero problems... I rebuilt the carb at 200,000 miles for about $60 and other then that the car has been rock solid reliable... I hope to give it to my son or daughter some day.

Just out of curiosity, when you rebuilt your electronic quadrajet did it still have the factory plugs blocking the idle air mixture screws? These usually got punched out when the first adjustment of these screws occurred which was usually by 50,000 miles. If the plugs were gone then your carb has had adjustments done to it. However 200,000 miles on the original carb before a rebuild is pretty darn good.

That's great that you'll be passing your '83 Z28 to your son or daughter. That's how I got my 1982 T/A, my dad bought it new and gave it to me several years ago.

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by LeSabre

Thank you, EPA2.

Indeed. The Corvette team adopted Porsche's slow evolution process of the 911, which is fine for the 911. It was a very bad idea to do this w/the Corvette as the Corvette didn't(really) do that at all until the C5 came around & continued on doing it w/the C6. Its BS!
Each gen. of the Corvette should be an all around revolution. A platform for the Corvette should only be used for no more than 2 generations. I have no qualms for the Corvette platform being shared w/Cadillac for a 2nd gen XLR or whatever it would be called should GM/Cadillac go ahead w/one. Obviously, a XLR successor would have Cadillac skin & not Corvette skin.


!!!

Part of the reason has been due to Chevrolet playing it safe - being too conservative. However with all the rumblings I have heard since the new Camaro was released from Chevy fans about how the Corvette needs a new design. I think if Chevy is listening we may see a different design direction in the C7.

BTW do you have any pictures of your LeSabre? I always liked that model of the LeSabre. One of my favorites of that era LeSabre was the 1986 LeSabre Grand National:

http://www.lesabret-type.com/LeSabreGN.html

..

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

the C4 is the most awesome car ever produced

It surely is a classic, the design never grows old. I liked the car the first moment I laid eyes on one back in March 1983 driving down the road.

[prowlerjc]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

Memory's are such a funny thing... I bought a Z28 in 1983 and I specifically wanted to order a crossfire engine.. the salesman, a friend of the family, REFUSED to order that option. Told me that they had nothing but problems with the system... from cloged fuel injectors, to failed fuel pumps, to mechanical gremlins, to bad ECMs... His words, "The engine was not ready for prime time" The fact that it was killed in less then 3 years adds some credence to that observation.

My uncle wanted to buy an 84 'vette and was pretty much told the same thing by his salesman. The salesman said wait for the 85s, the build quality will be up and the motor will be better. The 85 was a rocketship back in the day.

I always wondered why they didn't push the 190 horse HO over the Crossfire units. I would have thought that would have been easier to get in production in 82. I always wondered what the deal was with that.

[EPA2]

Originally Posted by prowlerjc

I always wondered why they didn't push the 190 horse HO over the Crossfire units. I would have thought that would have been easier to get in production in 82. I always wondered what the deal was with that.

Chevrolet made the decision. In reading all the behind the scenes, the Chevrolet engine engineers were really taken with the Cross-Fire system. They apparently had a really hot pre-production Cross-Fire 1982 Z28 with a manual transmission that was a test mule. I don't have any performance figures but apparently it was a fast car. By the time they started putting the engine through the EPA certification, the manual transmission went out the window and this is probably when the restrictions to the motor were added.

In essence the late-1983 to 1986 190 horsepower L69 (5.0 liter H.O.) 305 is the same fortified 305 CID block which the '82 and '83 (LU5) 5.0 liter Cross-Fire engine had. The LU5 and L69 also shared the same cam (Corvette's L83 cam) and both L69 and LU5 had a 9.5:1 compression ratio. The fortified 305 block was not available on the LG4.

You have to remember these were the days when GM was scrambling to meet the C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards. And they did some crazy things to improve a motor's gas mileage by even a 1/2 mpg. For instance from this era was the V4-6-8 Cadillac motors, the 4+3 manual transmission for the Corvette, etc. I remember reading auto magazines back during this time and most were predicting a V6 Camaro Z28 by 1988.

[prowlerjc]

Originally Posted by EPA2

I remember reading automagazines back during this time and most were predicting a V6 Camaro Z28 by 1988.

Remeber Hot Rod Magazine even made a project car called Z26.

I recall Chevy came pretty close to putting the 2.8 V6 in the Chevette about the same time. I heard it got so close to production that part numbers were released for the engine mounts, etc.

Would have been a cool ride.