Re: more details sbc in place of lt1

[garwillis@msn.com (Garfield Willis)]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:29:18 -0400, Len Sabatine <sabatine@epix.net>
wrote:

>    Gees , such a goings on about timing indexing on 360 Degree basis
>in SEQUENCE no less. Hmmmmm. Sounds like very sound Fuel /Spark
>management to me folks. Chevrolet did their homework IMHO.
>They Switch the Res from startup to Run, pretty smart. Fairly reliable
>system too , provided there's no water intrusion. '93s trapped moisture,
>it was subsequently fixed in 94 MY. Have seen units with 100k that
>have never failed. Hi speed pud muddles  and pressure washers
>cause grief tho!! Anyone is free to question the logic however.

No no, I wudn't actually questioning the logic, what I meant by "was it
temporary madness?", is look how quickly they swung back in the udder
direction of rough timing resolution. Currently what production vehicles
use hi-res IGN timing? Well, I WAS questioning the wisdom/madness of
using optics in ANY non-hermetic environment, but much higher IGN
precision coulda been gotten from even magnetic tech if they'd wanted
to. Why the flip-flop?

The desireability of higher IGN resolution I figure pretty much everyone
of us can appreciate, but why give up after one small skirmish, and some
bad choice of sensing techniques/design. It's almost like that one
experience gave them such a bad taste in their mouth that they never
tried it again? I dunno, I don't really know the history well enough to
guess; it just seemed like an odd hystorical event, thas all.

Gar


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org