From carb, to CFI, to TPI is all technological evolution...with those three, in regards to driveability the TPI is obviously the best choice...for all out strip, the carb is the best choice.

The 1984 had a bhp of 205 @ 4300 RPMs
The 1985 had a bhp of 230 @ 4000 RPMs
1986-the same as 1985
1987- bhp 240 @ 4000 RPMs
1988 & 1989 the same as 1987

I could list the B2ks also but they were twin turbos
I might also add the 1984 was the lightest in weight of the years listed above,3,117 pounds, almost 100 pounds lighter.

 

 

OK, some of you will notice that I had to edit the content of this thread.

First off, never ever take a thread off topic.

Second, opinions are welcome, but keep it civil.

Third, it's extremely hard to communictae through a keyboard. Some folks use proper grammar and punctuation and are still read wrong where as others will never punctuate, make misspellings and get their point across in the way they meant it.

Fourth, it's plain and simple, if somebody riles you to the point you have to reply, use the ignore function. It'll make my life easier.

Fifth, if you feel somebody is out of line, there is a little button under the username(not your own) that's shaped like a triangle with an exclamation point. That's called the "report bad post" button, use that before and instead of replying.

Those who reply are just as guilty of hijacking as the person they are replying to.

 

So what makes my 89 about 177 lbs heavier?

 

These numbers show why the TPI system is much better than the old discontinued crossfire sytem. KJones you made a great decision.

 

I personally like my TPI aka batch fire EFI. Its good with the stock cam even with a MiniRam on top. Stuff is easier to work on, get to and there are no pesky runners in the way of everything. Is a MiniRam on a stock L98 a mismatched combo? Dunno, but my dyno numbers are right in the LT1 range. But if you say a MiniRam on a stock cam L98 is a mismatched combo, then so is your stock LT1.

RAGE ON!!!

 

 

Those numbers wouldn't show the old discontinued TPI system, THAT much better than the Crossfire, if you had used accurate numbers. The 1984 L83 with the Crossfire intake had:

1984: 205 HP @ 4300 rpms, and 290 Ft.lbs. of torque @ 2800 rpms.

If the TPI were misrepresented to the degree you have the Crossfire, the CFI would show to be more powerful. By the way, the 1992 and later cars use Gen II, LT, engines. Other than that, you've done a good job.

To KJones;
The cars improve most every year. There is no question that a TPI with an injector in every port, near the intake valve, and it's dry flow manifold is an improvement over the TB injection. The larger leap, however, was when GM went to the Crossfire ELECTRONIC fuel injection, in 1982, with it's computer controlled, feed back, engine management system. Both the Corvette early EFI systems used a flawed manifold design. The stock TPI just doesn't provide enough of a performance, mileage or drive-ability advantage over the Crossfire to be cost or effort effective. Port injection, YES. But GM factory TPI, NO.

RACE ON!!!

 

Kinda changed your tune! I don't want or need your approval.

Rage On!!!

 

Same tune. Approval for what? Message sent...out!

RACE ON!!!

 

Badduck, You may not need his approval, but you appear (based on what you've posted) to be ignorant to this subject at hand. Because of that, your posts are basically misinformation.

The original poster seems like he's tentaively making the move to TPI from carb and CFI. What he hopes to gain from that is unclear since he didn't say but most people do that in HOPES of better power, drivability, and fuel economy. If this is the goal, then moving to TPI while already having a working induction system (like CFI) is money and effort poorly spent.

If you already have a working intake system on your car, you will get WAY more bang for your buck working w/that, than by switching to TPI which itself is another out dated, inefficient intake system.

Having had a ~320hp CFI car that cost me less than $600.00 to get to that point I can speak from experience about this. The CFI is capable of supporting 300+ hp with nothing more than a home port job and the $40 worth of intake gaskets to do that work.

The OP has a CFI that works (Presumably). For ~$40.00, and an afternoon's worth of labor (he said he like to tinker on his cars), he can have a 300+ hp capable induction system.

The OP also has a carbed car. For about $200.00 he can get an RPM Air gap intake manifold and have an indiction system capable of supporting 400+ hp.

What's it take $$-wise to get a TPI to support 300+hp? 400hp? More than $40 or $200, that's for sure.

If you allready have a working intake system, working on that system is the most efficient road to take.

Different story if you are looking to BUY a car and choosing between model years. But the OP already owne both his cars. CFI-EFI was right to question the OP's motivation to switch, IMO as it could save the OP money to reach his goal.

-Tom

 

Or in lieu of massaging what he has, which IS a better allocation of resourses than installing a TPI, convert to an EFI that IS an improvement, like a Mini Ram, Super Ram, or one of the "all in one box" conversions offered by Edlebrock, Holley, and others.

RACE ON!!!

 

 

LOL! What are you finger shaking at??

You're posting inaccurate data....and trying to use THAT to prop up your....whatever it is you're trying to say?? It makes you look all the less credible.

The only thing 165hp and CFI have in common is that is the power that the 1982 CFI Camaro and Trans AM were rated at when the 3rd generation debuted with that engine, which was new for that year. They were 305 CID, not 350 CID that the Corvette had in 1984. Furthermore, NO stock CFI engine made peak power at 5200 RPM ever. Even the little 305 peaked at 4400 RPM. This fact further undermines your flawed data that you repeatedly post.

As has been stated on this thread MULTIPLE times now, the 1984 Corvette which features a 350 CID engine, was rated at 205hp. Further more, by 1983, there were zero CFI engines rated lower than 175 hp; 305 CID or otherwise. Get that worked out in your head please before posting further mis-information. Thanks.

-Tom

 

I don't quite understand the point of BADINFO (er... I mean badduck) posting in this thread.

 

That's an excellent summary of what CFC4tech is. We should add it to the FAQ.

 

Nobody ****ing listens.