Tuned Port Fuel Injection LT1?

[LT4man]

One of my customers owns a 94 Vette with the 2.59 axle. His Vette is pretty quick. Of course, not as fast as my 92 was with the 3.07 performance axle.

Even some Vettes with the L48 engine are quick. I guess the individual Vette has to be taken into account.

AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, BE SURE TO SAVE THE !

 

[LT4man]

How many years was L83 Crossfire engine made?

From what I have been told: 82, 83, 84. Of course the 83 was only found in Camaros & Firebirds.

I did see the "Only" 83 Vette this week at the National Corvette Museum. I did not open the hood, but I suspect the "Crossfire" was resting in there!

AFTER TAKING A WELL DESERVED NAP, I WILL TRY TO SAVE THE !

 

[TWISTERUP]

How many years was L83 Crossfire engine made?

Crossfire was in the Vette in '82 and again in '84

 

[vetteoz]

Crossfire was in the Vette in '82 and again in '84

I know that.:eyerole
I was enquiring as to whether Mr Nelson was aware his engine had a shorter life span than the LT1 he is paying out on.

 

[TWISTERUP]

I know that.:eyerole
I was enquiring as to whether Mr Nelson was aware his engine had a shorter life span than the LT1 he is paying out on.

Oops...my bad.....thought it was common knowledge for Vette fans...I understand now

 

[nelson84]

The crossfire was a Gen I engine built from 1955 to 1991 in the corvette it just had different cams, intakes, carbs, fuel injection, heads over the years. If you think an engine is different because it has a different intake from the preveious year you should not be commenting on the subject. Are you having a tough time keeping up it has already been established that there has only been 3 different engines in the vette that were 350 cubic inches.

 

[LT4man]

I know that.:eyerole
I was enquiring as to whether Mr Nelson was aware his engine had a shorter life span than the LT1 he is paying out on.

Very sorry. I was taking your question quite literally. Won't happen again (in this thread!) :L

IN A SHORT WHILE I WILL BE TRYING TO SAVE THE !

 

[vetteoz]

it had different cams, intakes, carbs, fuel injection, heads over the years. If you think an engine is different because it has a different intake from the preveious year you should not be commenting

So by that definition, a LT1 is not that much different than any of the other GenI versions.
Different heads ,reverse flow cooling , dizzy at front:confused

 

[nelson84]

You are really having trouble with this whole corvette thing. That is just sad.:eyerole

 

[Schrade]

I'd say just about any Corvette with a 2.59 gear is a pooch, no matter what engine is in it. No on who drove even halfway hard bought that axle.



Corvette 350s in production less than 5 model years:
L46
L83
LT1 (the original)
LT4
LS6

Pooch? That's another word for dog. Like a political word. Politicians are disgusting.

But back to the point here; what's the cut-off line between 'dog', and 'non-' dog? How much power? Torque? Is there a year cut-off for a dog/pooch? ET? Gearing???

It's good to know what peoples' standards are...

 

[TedC]

I've owned a 1988 L98 with 2.59 and own a 1989 with 3.07, and the difference is night and day. Driven over 10 different LT1s. Never found one LT1 (w/2.59) who could walk the 1988 in the first 500 feet. Advantage of the low and wide L98 torque with granny econo gear. My 1989 with 3.07 screams off the line. Tire traction is my biggest concern (need to keep the tank full). Let's hear it for the L98 in round 1 (first 500'). Second round (next 500'+) goes to the higher reving LT1. LT1 may produce less peak torque, but they produce it higher in the RPM range, and that gives them the advantage around 70+ MPH. The 2.59 gear is not a great performance choice for the L98, especially on the LT1.

 

[92BlackVette]

My 92 LT1 says: 3.45 on the rear end, so I can't comment here.

 

[Surfbug1]

LT1 IS a tuned port injected motor, same as L98..

Yes, this is what I wanted to confirm. I do like those stickers! Reminds me of the early C3 vettes.....

Big Al

 

[Hib Halverson]

They're not even arguing about 'tuned port injection', which is what OP was askin' about.

'Tuned port injection' means one injector (or more, like LT5) per cylinder. L98, LT1, LT5, are tuned port motors.

edit:
The injector IN EACH PORT has it's own pulsewidth. The pulsewidth duration is TUNED for that cylinder. Tuned port injection.

Actually, some the above is not correct.

First of all the LT5 did not have one injector per cylinder. It had two.

Secondly, with L98 and even Gen 2 engine, each injector did not have a specific pulse width. Some L98s and Gen 2s had separate pulse widths per bank. SEFI Gen 2s had cylinder-specific pulse widths.

The term "tuned port injection" refers to an fuel injection system with the injectors located in the intake ports just upstream of the intake valves and that the port length and shape are selected or "tuned" to perform best within a specific RPM range.

I tell you one thing...this thread has some longevity.

 

[Robertwav1]

Because TPI is better than a LT1.

L-98 has:
no optispark
makes more torque
easy to mod
looks better under the hood


Just a better engine in my opinion. A classic 350 small block. If the LT-1 was better they would still be making them and sticking them in other models.

I guess that's why their outfitting the new vette with an LT2 based on the LT1 which was remarkable reversed cooled 350. For a mid-engine sports car that says something!

 

[Hib Halverson]

I guess that's why their outfitting the new vette with an LT2 based on the LT1 which was remarkable reversed cooled 350. For a mid-engine sports car that says something!

The LT2 Gen V Small-Block is not based on the LT1 Gen II Small-Block.

LT2 is derived from the Gen V LT1 used in 2014-2019 C7s.

Also, the Gen II V8's reverse flow cooling was not that remarkable. It was only used for four model years and GM has never had another engine like that. While the system did work well in providing the '92 LT1 with the extra cooling it needed to make 300-hp, it was a complex and costly system. Plus GM had to defend a very expensive lawsuit over the technology. Though GM won at trial, the engine's Chief Engineer eventually was fired over that. The completely revised Gen III V8 of 1997 eliminated the need for such complexity and used a conventional cooling system.