[Gmecm] Re: MAF specs and MAP replacement.

[gary]

Yea, beat me to the punch.  That was an oops.  My reply to my
initial post would have noted the LT(x)  designation would not have
been appropriate in that instance, as it should have read LT1
exclusively.  The LT4 was not available until '96.

> That was admirable restraint on your part - flamethrower not
> warmed up?

Don't go there fella.  It also matters little that you added the [ :) ]
That irresponsible comment was unjustified, and uncalled for.  This is
a whole different list.  Unlike 'other' list, on this list, 'off topic'
posts are
rare, not the rule. Also, this list has very few kiddy personalities to deal
with, as I found out not to be the case, on 'other' list.  (It should be
noted however, as it's unfair to those people, that many exceptions can
be found.)  It's obvious some of the guys on the 'other list', were not
prepared for the blunt TRUTH.  I found the responses to be amusing.

It was unfortunate, there was a 'breakdown' of maturity on your part,
on 'other' list.  I hope you can post as a mature grownup on this list.
But based on the post/comment I am responding to here, I wonder.
Hopefully, you can handle THIS paragraph as an adult.  We'll find out.

GAS

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Stevens" <9secz at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: MAF specs and MAP replacement.


> > I am not aware of any '94 or '95 LTx variety of GM 350 (5.7) V8
> > that DIDN'T have both MAF and MAP sensors.
>
> I'm not aware of any '94 or '95 LTx for which x is not equal to 1.  But
yes,
> your facts are correct, if possibly misleading.  '94 and '95 LT1s are OBDI
> and use both MAF and MAP sensors.
>
> That was admirable restraint on your part - flamethrower not warmed up?
> :)
>
> LJ