[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU

To: gmecm@diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU
From: Scot Sealander <Sealand@clarityconnect.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:52:54 -0500
References: <01BF8B7A.ABDB2500@amy-and-mike> <020101bf8ba8$f9eeb300$5e0ac9d8@s3h1j5> <38CBE32D.89B9E3CD@clarityconnect.com> <010401bf8c50$c8807f80$0200a8c0@gamester> <001701bf8c5e$d2558e20$2d0ac9d8@s3h1j5>
Reply-to: gmecm@diy-efi.org
Sender: owner-gmecm@lists.diy-efi.org

nacelp wrote:
 
> Is it a thread in (pipe thread?), or one that uses a clip to hold it in?.
> Grumpy

Pipe thread.  Was in a 6 cyl 3rd gen Camaro.

Scot Sealander
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

References:
- RE: 89 F-body ECU file = 89 Y-body ECU file?
  - From: Mike rolica <97005620@lambton.on.ca>
- Re: 89 F-body ECU file = 89 Y-body ECU file?
  - From: "nacelp" <nacelp@bright.net>
- Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU
  - From: Scot Sealander <Sealand@clarityconnect.com>
- Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU
  - From: "Thomas Matthews" <tmatthew@stny.lrun.com>
- Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU
  - From: "nacelp" <nacelp@bright.net>

Prev by Date: Re: MAP signal damping
Next by Date: Re: Idle richness with 7747.
Previous by thread: Re: Sensor response times; was 89 F-body ECU
Next by thread: Big cams are better
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread