TBI went on to be used for years then after. It was still used on base model vehicles like Chevy work trucks and vans well into the 1996. My dad loved it because it was such a friendly system to diagnose. No start? Pop off the air cleaner and see if fuel injects. You can visually check for fuel. Likewise if you had a driveability concern. You could see the spray pattern of the fuel injector. It provided better throttle response, and better economy than a comparable carburetor. I'm 40, but got to tinker with a lot of those systems growing up with my dad who passed on down the trade to me.
Joe, well said. I was around when these cars were brand new. Most people that bad mouth these cars never had one and only repeated what other haters had said. As you stated before the computers were dinosaurs compared to what was coming down the pike. They still were great cars and if no one decided to jerk them around they will still run today. I appreciate your channel and keeping alive the tbi systems.
Good info Joe. What most don't realize is that 1982 was the start of the HP wars again. The Mustang GT came in at 150HP(with a 2 barrel), Z28 was 145(Qjet) or 165(CFI) HP, 1983 Mustang went to 175 HP while the Camaro stayed the same. 1984 the Camaro dropped the CFI and went with the Qjet at 190HP. While these are anemic numbers today, they were at the time the best you could expect. Sabotage? No. GM was doing it's best to compete with the Mustang, and was doing a fine job at the time. And as you said, these were 5.0 L engines.
I have owned since new a 1982 Corvette with the crossfire injection and I have never had any issues with this system and never have to tinker with it like a I would with carbed versions of a 350, the ignorance of people on this system a joke since they don’t understand it they knock it, at 130,000 miles mine passes California smog every time with out issues. I recently replaced the valve cover gasket’s and I was amazed at how clean the heads are no grime at all and you could clearly see the clean metal parts. I own a collection of classic cars and enjoy driving any of them in the local mountains and never have been stranded in 50 years of driving.
Can I ask for your input? Is there anything power wise you can do to these and still get them to pass smog? I’m not a heavy race guy but I’d like more oomph off the stop while still being legal.
@@Joesmusclecargarage yes sir, Ca makes everything more difficult than it needs to be. I’m currently watching your tbi ecm swap video, will that only work with a tbi unit or can you keep crossfire with it? I’ve never dealt with this system before, so I’m not entirely sure about any of it.
I used to work at GM and still work in the auto industry. First time I heard the crossfire sabotage theory I knew right away there was no way. Things just doesn't work that way. I am certain that the crossfire team struggled to meet all the requirements while still hitting budgets and schedules let alone worry about it upstaging a future product. If it was true GM would have spent more effort on crossfire rather than replace it so soon with TPI.
Thanks Joe for sharing your expertise! Being new to the CFI, i'm very interested in improving the stock performance on my car. Seems the renegade is pretty hard to find so i'm thinking of porting the manifold and trying some of yr ECM tricks. yes, the 350 just seems strangled by that induction setup! Ouch! Any suggestions? Cloudshepp
It's the ports and flow which they did on purpose imo just incase the TPI didn't work out and they needed to increase the HP easily on future models. They just wanted room for upgrades in the future if they stuck with the system and when they didn't you never saw more advanced cfi setups.
You clearly have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of long runner wet intake manifold design and function. I appreciate you making that public for everybody. That is literally one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long while! 🤣🤣🤣
Hi, Joe, new to your channel, great job. I have a 1982 c3 with a renegade, did a block up refresh. It runs pretty good but , no one wants to mess with the tbi's, so your video's on balancing them really will help. Do you or your subscribers know anyone that re-machines the bores of the tbi's? Thanks
Re-machining meaning enlarging the bores, or installing throttle shaft bushings? If you mean enlarging the actual bores of the TBs, just know they are good for at least 350 crank HP. It’s really unnecessary if you’re running stock heads and even a mild cam. The manifold is the cork, and you addressed that with the Renegade. As far as a place that does them, I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. I can talk to Tom at DCS and see if he knows of anyone that could handle it. If you’re referring to drilling the TBs and installing shaft bushings, you can get a kit off of amazon for about $15 that includes a reamer and an assortment of 3/8 bushings. It takes longer to remove and disassemble the TBs than it does to real and install the bushings.
@@Joesmusclecargarage Good morning, the heads are blue print alum. 64cc and the cam is a Crane119631. Did you drill out the plugs on the tbi's like the manual said? Thanks Jan
@@janchrisler6097 Drill out the plugs to balance the TBs? Of course. They must be removed in order to get to the adjustment screws. And that is A LOT of cam for a CFI car without some serious tuning. I would suggest talking to Tom at DCS as far as getting you a good baseline tune, since you already have the EBL.
I think they could've gotten away with larger runners if the computer technology for control was good enough. The only things I've done to my 84 are headers, a Renegade, and EBL flash 2. With just the headers it ran a 15.1 at the strip. With the Renegade it runs low 14's on the street but I haven't been back to the strip. And my fuel economy is up to 22 average city/highway. That's commuting to college from my apartment every day. If I'm just running down the interstate I get 25 all day. The big catch is I've deleted all my emissions equipment. That's what a ton of people forget. You can increase power and fuel economy but often times it will screw up emissions
I absolutely agree. I ported my stock base, swapped in an 8746 ECM, shortys and full exhaust, 13psi, and bumped timing took my 305 from low 16s to low 14s, and I get 19mpg city and 25mpg hwy. Still running the stock cam and stock 416 heads. I’m still running a cat, A.I.R, and EGR as well. It’s a daily driver and is reliable as can be.
@@Joesmusclecargarage for how much a TPI gains from an intake improvement I guess people who say the CFI was sabotaged should also say the TPI was sabotaged haha
Absolutely. Any TPI car will benefit from a HSR or Mini Ram. Aftermarket runners and base don’t do much for a TPI, as the length of the runners doesn’t change, only the volume. It’s pretty safe to say ANY stock vehicle will benefit from performance modifications.
I’m aware. Most people have no clue about the 76 Seville and the Bosch/Bendix equipped Olds 350. It was an open loop analog system, not comparable to even the 5055/6026 driving the LU5/L83. It had more similarities to the Bosch D-Jetronic, and even the Bendix Electrojector than the more “modern” TBI systems of the 80s.
One of the dumbest 'wives tales' about Crossfire was the fantasu about vacuum leaks. You forgot to mention the wickedest witch in the castle: the throttle shafts. The supposed leak at the throttle shafts was blamed for all kinds of things; bad idle, poor power or fuel mileage or emissions, running too rich, running too lean and a favorite; the off idle stumble. BUT, a leak at the throttle shaft on a TBI has ZERO effect on any of those things. The TBI has a HUGE vaccume leak BUILT IN right AT the throttle shaft, so for those who believe in unicorns and GM sabotaging their own car, they may as well blame the IAC because that where the biggest vaccume leak is DESIGNED IN And by the way, to claim that the 83 vette was delayed because it could not meet emmisions in California is near the top of the list of stupid beliefs. It is equivalent to claiming GM only sold Corvettes in California. The Corvette was delayed because of problems with high speed handling due to vibrations in the all new chassis. Some Mustangs had similar problems. That's why they have those big stabilizing braces on the spring towers. Of course, it might have been sun spots or UFOs. It's just hard to tell.
The delay of the 1984 Corvettes has been reported to be emissions compliance issues for 40 years. It has been stated in books, magazines, and by GM employees of the day. As far as the throttle shaft wear, I agree to a point, but with excessive play in one or both throttle shafts/bores, the TBs will NOT stay in sync, no matter what you or anyone else says. When the TBs open from different “starting positions”, you WILL get an off idle part throttle stumble. The IACs are wired in parallel, and the TBs being out of sync WILL cause rough or surging idle, stumble as mentioned above, etc. As I have said many times, it’s an archaic but very reliable system, but it was dogged almost immediately out of the gate due to the “out of box” performance, the lack of understanding regarding EFI at the time, and the lack of modification capabilities until the last 15-20 years. People make something so simple out to be rocket science, and the LS fanboys certainly don’t help the situation. Not everyone needs or wants a twin turbo LS stroker. I love the “experts” that chime in on these comment threads 😂
Not even close. They’re advertised at 9.0:1, but in reality they’re closer to 8.0:1 due to how far in the hole the pistons are. The main corks are the boat anchor 624 heads, as well as the broomstick of a cam. Valve size doesn’t matter on a 624 head. You can machine them for 2.08s and they’ll still be corks. 😂
The weakness is not the intake, it is the tiny 4 banger throttle bodies. I don't recall if it was this channel of some other 'crossfire expert', but someone said there was a 'consensus' that the two Crossfire TBI's together totalled 750 CFM. That's dreaming.
@@correctednews1463 I’m well aware of the weakness of an L83/LU5, and the manifold is the biggest cork. The stock TBs won’t touch 750cfm in a wet dream in stock form, so I don’t know where you’re getting your bullshit from. The stock TBs flow roughly 630cfm together, which is plenty for a smog motor with pistons .080” in the hole, a dowel rod for a cam, and corks for heads. Either way, an L83 long block will be a rat even with a carb on it. The manifold in stock form does it no favors.
Yippie skip! 🤣 First of all, 275 horse is nothing to brag about. Second, how did you verify the earth shattering horsepower that hellraiser of yours is putting out? If you would have kept the L83 manifold, took a few hours and literally no money, you’d be running circles around that Carterbrock while maintaining fuel economy and driveability. Like I say in my videos; don’t let 40 year old EFI outsmart you. Apparently you allowed it to 😂
😂 An L82 is NOT an L83. The L83 has the 624 heads and a much smaller cam, whereas the L82 used the 882 heads, which are also doorstops. There were no L82s in the “early 80s”. The last year for L82 production was 1980. Either way, you’re bragging on one of the slowest, and definitely ugliest Corvettes made; the 73-82 C3 🤮
TBI went on to be used for years then after. It was still used on base model vehicles like Chevy work trucks and vans well into the 1996. My dad loved it because it was such a friendly system to diagnose. No start? Pop off the air cleaner and see if fuel injects. You can visually check for fuel. Likewise if you had a driveability concern. You could see the spray pattern of the fuel injector. It provided better throttle response, and better economy than a comparable carburetor. I'm 40, but got to tinker with a lot of those systems growing up with my dad who passed on down the trade to me.
Joe, well said. I was around when these cars were brand new. Most people that bad mouth these cars never had one and only repeated what other haters had said.
As you stated before the computers were dinosaurs compared to what was coming down the pike. They still were great cars and if no one decided to jerk them around they will still run today.
I appreciate your channel and keeping alive the tbi systems.
Good info Joe. What most don't realize is that 1982 was the start of the HP wars again. The Mustang GT came in at 150HP(with a 2 barrel), Z28 was 145(Qjet) or 165(CFI) HP, 1983 Mustang went to 175 HP while the Camaro stayed the same. 1984 the Camaro dropped the CFI and went with the Qjet at 190HP. While these are anemic numbers today, they were at the time the best you could expect. Sabotage? No. GM was doing it's best to compete with the Mustang, and was doing a fine job at the time. And as you said, these were 5.0 L engines.
I totally agree to your opinion about the rumours of sabotage 👍
I have owned since new a 1982 Corvette with the crossfire injection and I have never had any issues with this system and never have to tinker with it like a I would with carbed versions of a 350, the ignorance of people on this system a joke since they don’t understand it they knock it, at 130,000 miles mine passes California smog every time with out issues. I recently replaced the valve cover gasket’s and I was amazed at how clean the heads are no grime at all and you could clearly see the clean metal parts. I own a collection of classic cars and enjoy driving any of them in the local mountains and never have been stranded in 50 years of driving.
Can I ask for your input? Is there anything power wise you can do to these and still get them to pass smog? I’m not a heavy race guy but I’d like more oomph off the stop while still being legal.
@@SirGuidemere91 Of course. Heads, cam, port the base, bump FP and timing, headers and exhaust, gears, 7747/8746 ECM swap, PROM tuning, etc.
@@Joesmusclecargarage all of this will pass CA smog?
@@SirGuidemere91 It can. I know Commiefornia has to have everything CARB certified. Don’t go wild with the cam and you’ll be fine.
@@Joesmusclecargarage yes sir, Ca makes everything more difficult than it needs to be. I’m currently watching your tbi ecm swap video, will that only work with a tbi unit or can you keep crossfire with it? I’ve never dealt with this system before, so I’m not entirely sure about any of it.
I used to work at GM and still work in the auto industry. First time I heard the crossfire sabotage theory I knew right away there was no way. Things just doesn't work that way. I am certain that the crossfire team struggled to meet all the requirements while still hitting budgets and schedules let alone worry about it upstaging a future product. If it was true GM would have spent more effort on crossfire rather than replace it so soon with TPI.
Thanks Joe for sharing your expertise! Being new to the CFI, i'm very interested in improving the stock performance on my car. Seems the renegade is pretty hard to find so i'm thinking of porting the manifold and trying some of yr ECM tricks. yes, the 350 just seems strangled by that induction setup! Ouch! Any suggestions? Cloudshepp
It's the ports and flow which they did on purpose imo just incase the TPI didn't work out and they needed to increase the HP easily on future models.
They just wanted room for upgrades in the future if they stuck with the system and when they didn't you never saw more advanced cfi setups.
You clearly have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of long runner wet intake manifold design and function. I appreciate you making that public for everybody. That is literally one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long while! 🤣🤣🤣
Another great video.
Hi, Joe, new to your channel, great job. I have a 1982 c3 with a renegade, did a block up refresh. It runs pretty good but , no one wants to mess with the tbi's, so your video's on balancing them really will help. Do you or your subscribers know anyone that re-machines the bores of the tbi's? Thanks
Re-machining meaning enlarging the bores, or installing throttle shaft bushings? If you mean enlarging the actual bores of the TBs, just know they are good for at least 350 crank HP. It’s really unnecessary if you’re running stock heads and even a mild cam. The manifold is the cork, and you addressed that with the Renegade. As far as a place that does them, I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. I can talk to Tom at DCS and see if he knows of anyone that could handle it. If you’re referring to drilling the TBs and installing shaft bushings, you can get a kit off of amazon for about $15 that includes a reamer and an assortment of 3/8 bushings. It takes longer to remove and disassemble the TBs than it does to real and install the bushings.
@@Joesmusclecargarage Thanks Joe, I'm trying to do what Tom at DCS has done, but can't get the throttle bodies re bored, and the EBL is a pain.
@@janchrisler6097 What are you running for heads and cam?
@@Joesmusclecargarage Good morning, the heads are blue print alum. 64cc and the cam is a Crane119631. Did you drill out the plugs on the tbi's like the manual said? Thanks Jan
@@janchrisler6097 Drill out the plugs to balance the TBs? Of course. They must be removed in order to get to the adjustment screws. And that is A LOT of cam for a CFI car without some serious tuning. I would suggest talking to Tom at DCS as far as getting you a good baseline tune, since you already have the EBL.
Well researched and stated,, how do you spell "hib halberson".. can't find anything
Hib Halverson, just like it sounds.
I think they could've gotten away with larger runners if the computer technology for control was good enough. The only things I've done to my 84 are headers, a Renegade, and EBL flash 2. With just the headers it ran a 15.1 at the strip. With the Renegade it runs low 14's on the street but I haven't been back to the strip. And my fuel economy is up to 22 average city/highway. That's commuting to college from my apartment every day. If I'm just running down the interstate I get 25 all day. The big catch is I've deleted all my emissions equipment. That's what a ton of people forget. You can increase power and fuel economy but often times it will screw up emissions
I absolutely agree. I ported my stock base, swapped in an 8746 ECM, shortys and full exhaust, 13psi, and bumped timing took my 305 from low 16s to low 14s, and I get 19mpg city and 25mpg hwy. Still running the stock cam and stock 416 heads. I’m still running a cat, A.I.R, and EGR as well. It’s a daily driver and is reliable as can be.
@@Joesmusclecargarage for how much a TPI gains from an intake improvement I guess people who say the CFI was sabotaged should also say the TPI was sabotaged haha
Absolutely. Any TPI car will benefit from a HSR or Mini Ram. Aftermarket runners and base don’t do much for a TPI, as the length of the runners doesn’t change, only the volume. It’s pretty safe to say ANY stock vehicle will benefit from performance modifications.
1976 Seville was the first not the Crossfire
I’m aware. Most people have no clue about the 76 Seville and the Bosch/Bendix equipped Olds 350. It was an open loop analog system, not comparable to even the 5055/6026 driving the LU5/L83. It had more similarities to the Bosch D-Jetronic, and even the Bendix Electrojector than the more “modern” TBI systems of the 80s.
** tell me the love story of the corvette zr1 lt5 ---> lotus - mercury marine - chevrolet ... please GOD Bless
One of the dumbest 'wives tales' about Crossfire was the fantasu about vacuum leaks.
You forgot to mention the wickedest witch in the castle: the throttle shafts.
The supposed leak at the throttle shafts was blamed for all kinds of things; bad idle, poor power or fuel mileage or emissions, running too rich, running too lean and a favorite; the off idle stumble.
BUT, a leak at the throttle shaft on a TBI has ZERO effect on any of those things.
The TBI has a HUGE vaccume leak BUILT IN right AT the throttle shaft, so for those who believe in unicorns and GM sabotaging their own car, they may as well blame the IAC because that where the biggest vaccume leak is DESIGNED IN
And by the way, to claim that the 83 vette was delayed because it could not meet emmisions in California is near the top of the list of stupid beliefs. It is equivalent to claiming GM only sold Corvettes in California.
The Corvette was delayed because of problems with high speed handling due to vibrations in the all new chassis.
Some Mustangs had similar problems. That's why they have those big stabilizing braces on the spring towers.
Of course, it might have been sun spots or UFOs. It's just hard to tell.
The delay of the 1984 Corvettes has been reported to be emissions compliance issues for 40 years. It has been stated in books, magazines, and by GM employees of the day. As far as the throttle shaft wear, I agree to a point, but with excessive play in one or both throttle shafts/bores, the TBs will NOT stay in sync, no matter what you or anyone else says. When the TBs open from different “starting positions”, you WILL get an off idle part throttle stumble. The IACs are wired in parallel, and the TBs being out of sync WILL cause rough or surging idle, stumble as mentioned above, etc.
As I have said many times, it’s an archaic but very reliable system, but it was dogged almost immediately out of the gate due to the “out of box” performance, the lack of understanding regarding EFI at the time, and the lack of modification capabilities until the last 15-20 years. People make something so simple out to be rocket science, and the LS fanboys certainly don’t help the situation. Not everyone needs or wants a twin turbo LS stroker.
I love the “experts” that chime in on these comment threads 😂
1982 has 9-1 compression! 194 heads weakness is the intake.
Not even close. They’re advertised at 9.0:1, but in reality they’re closer to 8.0:1 due to how far in the hole the pistons are. The main corks are the boat anchor 624 heads, as well as the broomstick of a cam. Valve size doesn’t matter on a 624 head. You can machine them for 2.08s and they’ll still be corks. 😂
The weakness is not the intake, it is the tiny 4 banger throttle bodies.
I don't recall if it was this channel of some other 'crossfire expert', but someone said there was a 'consensus' that the two Crossfire TBI's together totalled 750 CFM.
That's dreaming.
@@correctednews1463 I’m well aware of the weakness of an L83/LU5, and the manifold is the biggest cork. The stock TBs won’t touch 750cfm in a wet dream in stock form, so I don’t know where you’re getting your bullshit from. The stock TBs flow roughly 630cfm together, which is plenty for a smog motor with pistons .080” in the hole, a dowel rod for a cam, and corks for heads. Either way, an L83 long block will be a rat even with a carb on it. The manifold in stock form does it no favors.
I put an Edelbrock carb and manifold on mine plus dual magnaflows HEI and no converter no other changes now it has 275HP and hauls azz!
Yippie skip! 🤣 First of all, 275 horse is nothing to brag about. Second, how did you verify the earth shattering horsepower that hellraiser of yours is putting out? If you would have kept the L83 manifold, took a few hours and literally no money, you’d be running circles around that Carterbrock while maintaining fuel economy and driveability. Like I say in my videos; don’t let 40 year old EFI outsmart you. Apparently you allowed it to 😂
Duraspark was introduced 1973.. DS2 was 1976
Was later used by AMC too...
Thanks for the info. I’m not much of a Ford guy 👍
Not true the L-82 had 225-230 HP late 70s early 80s
😂 An L82 is NOT an L83. The L83 has the 624 heads and a much smaller cam, whereas the L82 used the 882 heads, which are also doorstops. There were no L82s in the “early 80s”. The last year for L82 production was 1980. Either way, you’re bragging on one of the slowest, and definitely ugliest Corvettes made; the 73-82 C3 🤮