Cross-Fire injection was new for 1982 and found on Camaros and Corvettes. The setup featured a pair of throttle bodies mounted on an intake manifold that recalled the one found on the original Z28. This was trick-looking stuff that helped user in the modern era of fuel injection.
Cross-Fire injection performed so well, in fact, that it was gone after …
Just saw a performance manifold in Summit racing for this....
The graybeards at my work referred to them as "Cease-fire Injection" and "Misfire Injection". According to them, they never ran properly off the showroom floor
Nick you beat me to it! I cant remember what old article I read, but I still laugh when I think of crossfire being referred to as cease fire injection. Wasn't this still available in the c4?
In reply to jorcane :
84 only I believe.
Only time in "modern" times that it was acceptable to go backwards and put a carburetor on.
82 and 84, so technically it was both a c3 and c4 thing. I actually actively want an 84 c4 that still has a complete crossfire setup. I'm completely confident i can make it better than good enough. 
If it was not throttle body injection it would be fine.
I can fix that...
Mod the manifold for port injection and rock and roll.
In reply to bentwrench :
I read on The Internet, so you can trust that this next bit is true, that the Cross-Fire manifold is dead on a 350 by 4500 RPM. It's another one of those situations where Chevy/GM put pretty decent truck engine parts in their sporty cars and called it a day, only this time the system wasn't reliable either. I think I'd rather go scrounging for a TPI setup or mod some 3rd party single-plane intake to add injection to. Or just revert back to a carb.
Vigo said:82 and 84, so technically it was both a c3 and c4 thing. I actually actively want an 84 c4 that still has a complete crossfire setup. I'm completely confident i can make it better than good enough.
Dad had one. It ran good. All the torque of a TBI 350 and non of the fun of a sports car engine. His had the 700R behind it.
Not sure a TPI flows much better....
But at least port injection cures the evil that throttle body injection is.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:In reply to bentwrench :
I read on The Internet, so you can trust that this next bit is true, that the Cross-Fire manifold is dead on a 350 by 4500 RPM. It's another one of those situations where Chevy/GM put pretty decent truck engine parts in their sporty cars and called it a day, only this time the system wasn't reliable either. I think I'd rather go scrounging for a TPI setup or mod some 3rd party single-plane intake to add injection to. Or just revert back to a carb.
TPI would have been a fantastic motor home engine. All that torque. No need to rev. They were also done around 4500rpm in stock form.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
Puts into perspective all of the nonsense around having a "Corvette" engine in their vehicle, eh?
In other words, unless its an LT5 or one of the LS variants, its not much to write home about.
New for 1982? In 1982 I was driving a 1970 VW Type III that had fuel injection. 
And, I believe, the start of GM's weird insistence on putting the entire 'features' list in badging on the outside of the car.
NickD said:The graybeards at my work referred to them as "Cease-fire Injection" and "Misfire Injection". According to them, they never ran properly off the showroom floor
I've heard it referred to as the No-fire Injection.
Duke said:And, I believe, the start of GM's weird insistence on putting the entire 'features' list in badging on the outside of the car.
1980 Camaro Z/28 had AIR INDUCTION on the hood bump, with flappers at the back of the cowl that opened up at full throttle. (My ex-wife had an '81 with that.)
RealMiniNoMore said:Duke said:And, I believe, the start of GM's weird insistence on putting the entire 'features' list in badging on the outside of the car.
1980 Camaro Z/28 had AIR INDUCTION on the hood bump, with flappers at the back of the cowl that opened up at full throttle. (My ex-wife had an '81 with that.)
That was cooler than when they started putting ABS on every center cap on every car.
noddaz said:New for 1982? In 1982 I was driving a 1970 VW Type III that had fuel injection.
Um, the original C1 had fuel injection as an option.
The C1's mechanical continuous flow fuel injection was downright primitive and continuously squirted gas into the intake through a static 'nozzle'. The VW's Bosch unit while primitive, more closely resembles a modern, controlled pulse, fuel injection system, utilizing a modicum of electronics.
Here's some old technical papers on the Chevy injection:
The C1's mechanical continuous flow fuel injection was downright primitive and continuously squirted gas into the intake through a static 'nozzle'.
Yes, similarly primitive to the systems diesels continued to use for almost 40 more years.
TPI had a hell of a lot more 'curb appeal' with the hood popped for sure but it wasn't much more powerful than Crossfire and i'd rather rock a funky rare dual TBI unit that other people can't figure out how to make work right than a plain jane boring TPI setup that functions fine but is only... fine. My .02
What exactly makes TBI evil? It worked on GM trucks for eons. What about it exactly makes it no good? I get that some implementations of it may have been flawed, but I don't buy that there is any inherent flaw in it. Am I wrong to think that?
A 401 CJ said:What exactly makes TBI evil? It worked on GM trucks for eons. What about it exactly makes it no good? I get that some implementations of it may have been flawed, but I don't buy that there is any inherent flaw in it. Am I wrong to think that?
It's better than a carb, just barely, mostly because it is less bothered by extreme angle or g loads and it self-adjusts for changing air pressure.
That said, it dumps fuel into the intake where it can very easily pool or puddle in the runners making all that atomization effort worthless.
Some implementations mounted the injector in the airstream, making it a restriction.
For a lazy, low revving truck motor, it's a great solution over a carb when you want it to work fairly reliably.
For a sportscar motor? It could work, but it would need some effort applied to make it as good as a port injection system where the fuel can be delivered to the backs of the intake valves and you can shape the intake to deliver the air instead of the entire charge.
NickD said:The graybeards at my work referred to them as "Cease-fire Injection" and "Misfire Injection". According to them, they never ran properly off the showroom floor
The guy I worked alongside for 15 years knew how to make them work well.
He never told me all of his secrets, but he did let on that getting the throttles synchronized properly was absolutely critical.
Coupefan said:The C1's mechanical continuous flow fuel injection was downright primitive and continuously squirted gas into the intake through a static 'nozzle'. The VW's Bosch unit while primitive, more closely resembles a modern, controlled pulse, fuel injection system, utilizing a modicum of electronics.
The Rochester fuel injection system was purchased by Bosch and refined into the system we know and love as K-Jetronic, which was used as recently as 1994, on Porsche 911 Turbos.
Bosch marketed K-jet as the upmarket, refined fuel injection, and D-jetronic (what the VW had) as the cheap model.
It should be noted that D-jet used a second set of points in the distributor to trigger the injectors...
You'll need to log in to post.
