Captain Obvious

LOL. Me too. Changed my life. Interesting though about the numbers... The 6801 is a microcontroller with on-board RAM and ROM while the 6802 is just a processor. So even though the 6802 has a higher number, it doesn't necessarily mean it's "more".

The ECU I have here is from a non-turbo 83 with an auto trans. I believe it's the original ECU from the car. I'll get the number off the case when I get a chance. And take a pic of the microcontroller.

Well this EFI guy can tell you that by 1983, the ECU's WERE computer controlled. 6801 microcontroller running at 4MHz I don't know when the transition officially occurred, but by 83, they were programmed devices.

I get that. My suggestion was that you could use COP's and connect them in parallel pairs and do the same thing on the low voltage side instead of sharing a high voltage coil between two plugs. You would still be wasting a spark, but it's not the traditional "two plugs in series" circuit. Gives you the same distributor-less function as the traditional wasted spark system, but you wouldn't get any weird electrode erosion and the energy used to fire the plug on it's exhaust stroke would not be subtracted from the plug that really matters. Instead of "two plug in series being fed from the same coil", you could use "two coils-on-plugs in parallel being fed from the same control source". Maybe it would be clearer if I whipped up a couple simple sketches?

Since two plugs are always fired in pairs, I don't think so. Out of curiosity,,, Why would you need different dwell on just cylinder #4 (for example) than all the others? So I haven't thoroughly researched the name "Wasted Spark", but I always thought that the "waste" was referring to the spark on the exhaust stroke that didn't do anything. Didn't cause any harm, but it was "wasted". If that's the true origin of the name, then what you said about the spark jumping backwards doesn't have to be the case. Granted, most of the times the wasted spark systems pair two plugs in series on the high voltage side, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't simply connect two COPs in parallel and fire them at the same time from the same low voltage source. You wouldn't have the (cost) benefit of cutting the number of coils in half, but you could still run COP with a wasted spark system. Some people may consider the removal of the high voltage wires a benefit worth the extra cost of three more coils.

Haha!! Glad to help. I only even know that because I modified the shocks from my old 260 to allow the new owner @GGRIII to customize the bumper depth.

I've been casually rolling some ignition stuff around in recently as well. Stuff like who controls the dwell and advance, etc... Different options and the like about that. Here's a bunch of links I was poking around on: https://www.hotrod.com/articles/convert-a-ford-or-chrysler-ignition-to-gm-hei/ https://www.powerperformancenews.com/tech/spark-it-up-how-to-convert-a-ford-or-mopar-distributor-to-gm-hei/ http://megasquirt.free.fr/sources/MS/manual/ms2/GM_7pinHEI.htm http://www.megamanual.com/ms2/GM_7pinHEI.htm http://www.megasquirt.info/HEIgn.htm https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mus/2008/11/The-lost-art-of-servicing-GM-HEI/1719426.html https://www.celica-gts.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=m15m00cdf1sj27pk5r472sjv05&topic=11116.15

To clarify-- Nuh-uh. The bumper shocks started in EARLY 74. My thin bumpered early 260 had the shocks.

I'm not sure what that fourth connection was intended to do. The first year for the carbon canister was 1974, and (even though the 1974 model used carburetors) they capped off that fourth connection. I don't think "CARB" means "Carburetor". I would guess that it means "CARBON". I've never seen a picture or vacuum diagram that did NOT have that fourth connection capped off. I don't know what it does.

It screws into the block, or the head? You got a pic?

The thing about the cam sensor... If you're running a wasted spark system, you don't need cam sensor. Two pistons will be approaching TDC at the same time. Of the pair, one of the rising pistons is approaching TDC on it's compression stroke, and the other one is approaching TDC on it's exhaust stroke. A cam sensor would allow you to differentiate between those two, but if you're running a wasted spark system, you don't care... Just spark both of them at the same time. If you had a cam sensor, you could spark just the cylinder on it's compression stroke alone without "wasting" a spark on the other cylinder. On edit - I don't know about the accuracy of the spark timing stuff. Maybe a cam sensor can get you a tiny bit more accurate with your spark timing, but I'm not sure.

Huh? Who said that? Seriously though, I hope this whole thing was a non-problem and will resolve with no internal surgery required.

@Mike, LOL!

Haha! Well I had very little doubt, but someone had to ask!

Have you checked the oil level? I'm Captain Obvious, and I approve this message.

You're asking about the webbed belt that I made to replace the original? I think I have the belt length around here somewhere.

Yes, the Allen key is what goes into the head. I've heard them called all sorts of things here including Allen screw, but I believe the official name (here) is Socket Head Cap Screw (SHCS). I'd rather call it an inbusbout. I like it.

Sheesh. That's bad karma. Hope you're all even now!!!

Original pic links were dead (because photobucket sucks!!), so I refreshed the pics below. I recently did some work on my front diff mount and strap and here are my findings from the project. It was my first time messing around with these parts. Here is a pic of the old mount and original hardware. I'm replacing the mount because the rubber is soft and squishy. The original hardware holding the mount to the diff is hard to remove because the mount itself is partially in the way. It's much easier with the whole diff out of the car, but if you're trying to replace the mount without dropping the diff it's a pain in in the butt. I think you're supposed to remove the hardware using an open end wrench on the bottom and a box end up in the trans tunnel hump on the nut up top: I decided that since my original mount was already 75% split and squishy, that I would just split it the rest of the way and pull the bottom part of the mount off which allowed me to use a standard socket on the bolt head. In other words, I finished the destruction of my old mount to get to make getting to the hardware easier. Here's my old split squishy mount: When it came time to put my new mount in, I changed the mounting hardware scheme to socket head cap screws instead of the original hex head bolts. I don't know if this is old hat or not, but my custom hardware looks like this. Socket head cap screws on the left in this pic: So what's the big deal about using SHCS there instead of hex head bolts? The SHCS allowed me to use a hex driver on my ratchet like this: And tighten the bolts from the bottom like this. The hex driver clears the bottom plate on the mount so you don't have to deal with the original hardware anymore. If I ever have to mess with this thing in the future, it will be much easier to R&R. Box end wrench braced against the diff body to hold the nut on top and hex drive to tighten from the bottom, I found this much easier to work with than the original hardware scheme. (Edit for new info) Only update I would make to the original procedure is that I would use a grinder to notch the diff mount plate a little bit to clear the heads of the socket head cap screws. The reason for that is the heads of the SHCS are taller than the original hex head hardware and even though I don't think I'm having a problem on my car, I can see the possibility that the lower plate of the diff mount may hit the heads of the screws if the mount is twisted enough. So just to be sure, I would take a little metal off the diff mount to clear the new screw heads. But in any event, here's how easy it is to access the SHCS heads with the modified design: I used 1/2-13 x 4 inch long socket headed cap screws. You could also use M12 SHCS if you can't deal with the English hardware on the Metric car, but since the English stuff is so much more prevalent and cheaper for me, I used Engilsh. I used the black oxide hardware below to test fit, but for my final install, I bought some new zinc plated hardware for corrosion protection. This pic was before I had the zinc plated parts bolts on hand:

I think it was this:

Agreed. That would have been a whole lot worse if it had happened while the engine was running. So about that website... Did you see this note on their home page? THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ON HIATUS AND IS IN DISPLAY-ONLY MODE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO BROWSE BUT NO PARTS CAN BE SHIPPED AT THIS TIME PRICES SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE SHIPPING VERY SORRY- I AM UNABLE TO TAKE PHONE CALLS REGARDING THIS WEBSITE PLEASE DO NOT CALL EMAILS WILL BE ANSWERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE RECEIVED HOWEVER DUE TO THE VOLUME OF EMAILS REPLIES MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATE I've bought some parts from them recently (anecdotally, including your rings and head gasket) and they will still do business through email, but they changed computer systems a little while ago and it completely messed up their vintage parts business. If you can't get things to work, let me know and I'll fire off an email to them.

I concur. A little JB Weld "spackle" in those divots should be fine. I like the chain of lakes analogy. So I've never used that copper spray stuff... Is it "authorized" for use on head gaskets?

Looking at your pic, if it's a 74, it's a late one. What's the build date on the door jamb plate?

Certain year Sentras are drive by wire. My notes say this is 03-06. Not positive about the mounting bolt pattern, but I think it's the same as the Z: