Captain Obvious

It's true.

And here's the final test: When they can get from one end of the country to the other without ever once pushing that "imaginary brake pedal"... You know the one that we all use when we aren't the driver? If they can get completely across the country without ever pushing that pedal once, then they're done.

I know I'm beating this topic pretty hard, but just to illustrate why all of this scares me..... Here's a situation we have all shared: You're driving along minding your own business and see a car approaching the road you're on. He's got a stop sign so he's supposed to stop. But as he approaches the intersection, something about him makes you start to lift your foot off the accelerator. You don't know what it is, but "you don't trust him." You can't quite put your finger on it, but there's just something that makes you pause.... Even though he hasn't done anything wrong, there's something about the whole situation that makes you uncomfortable and you give him special attention. You've just got a funny feeling. In most cases, everything turns out fine. He stops and waits for you and the whole thing was a false alarm. You put your foot back down and continue on your merry way. But then there are the cases where you suspected he was going to do something stupid, and you were right... He pulls out in front of you or cuts across your lane a little too close for comfort. The point is that you saw a non-logical feeling before something bad happened and reacted to it. You can never program a computer to react to a feeling. You THINK another driver MAY pull out in front of you. You THINK a person MAY step off a curb. You THINK another driver MAY change lanes. You THINK another driver MIGHT turn left in front of you. You THINK another driver MAY run a yellow or red light. Not to mention things like you've made eye contact with the truck driver and are sure he knows where you are.

Ummmm.... I think that might be an old nickname. Crap! He beat me to it!

Haha! Well I'm no expert, but since I can't judge the parts with my own two beady eyes, I should err on the side of caution. We don't need any "Z widows" for reasons other than spending too much time with the other woman (the Z). Keep us posted!

Yuck. That's no fun. Glad to hear that nobody got hurt. How's it feel to see all those flashing lights outside and know that you AREN'T involved?

Here's what they should do.... Once the companies pushing for this believe they have this thing working, they should do a multi-year long road test. And the owners and employees of the companies involved should be required to be the test subjects. In other words, the people who own the companies, developed the technology, and wrote the code should be required to use these things as their only form of automotive transportation for five years to prove it works correctly. Prove how confident THEY are when they have to put their wife or husband and infant kid in the back seat, close the door, and wave goodbye as they head off two states over to go visit grandma?

Here's a crappy pic of the back of my 280 tach:

It's a 280 tach. Probably came from the same car as the speedo. The wiring is the same as the one on my 77, so it should definitely work in 77 or 78. Might work in 74 through 76 too, but I believe somewhere in there they may have changed the connector shape. I could research that if someone with a different year wants it. But I'll hold off on that since it seems you've got a nibble already from jcb (a 77 owner). Biggest issue would be the cut off wire at the connector (the one out by the connector that goes nowhere). Looking at the un-populated connector position, the cut off wire should go in the empty corner. I believe that's a green/white wire? And if so, that's one of the wires that feeds power to the illumination bulbs.

I think the same thing. I have no problem with driverless cars in their own sequestered tunnel lane where there is no interaction with the rest of the sentient traffic. Then to me it becomes more of a subway or railway system. There will still be accidents, but with less unpredictability comes less accidents. Brains are great at both predicting and reacting. Computers can only react.

Oh, I'm sure there is lots more than just GPS involved. But it still not enough to take the place of sentient thought. Which do you think the computer is gonna hit. The kid, or the dog? The arguments about horses to cars to planes doesn't hold water with me. All of those transportation modes have one thing in common... They are (or at least are supposed to be) being controlled by sentient thought in real time. The driverless car is not. How confident in the technology are you going to have to become before you're willing to put your wife and infant kid in the back seat, close the door, and wave goodbye as they head off two states over to go visit grandma? Open the pod bay doors HAL.

Crap. I knew that was gonna happen. Maybe next time I'll sign an affidavit stating that I didn't it? That would work, right?

Yeah, I'm going to walk back my thoughts a little on this one. Chickenman is right that the stakes are pretty high and if there's any question at all about it being risky, then it's best to replace parts to tighten things up. My assumption earlier on in this thread discussion is that it is the correct thread, but just maybe a fit class a little looser than expected. However, without actually seeing the parts with my own two eyes, my assumption is just that. And it carries all the risks that any assumption carries. For all I know, it is NOT the correct thread, even though it engages without excessive force, Unfortunately, I cannot tell that for sure without actually seeing and measuring the parts. So if you're unsure about it and don't have anyone local with suitable expertise who can look at the parts and pass judgment, then you should probably replace parts.

Well that could be an issue! IMHO that would fall into the category of "Unless the threads are so loose that you're worried you'll actually pull the outer tie rod off the inner". Let's not do that!

Oh Long Johnson! Oh Long Johnson!

The I Robot reference was philosophical. The robot who saved the lead character's life many years before. Calculated the odds and options, crunched all the numbers, ran multi-outcome scenarios... And then after all that, made a decision that wasn't human. The "logically correct" decision, but it was still wrong. And we are still light years away from being able to have even THAT level of sophistication. Kid and his dog run out into the street and unfortunately you have to hit one or the other. Lose contact with the satellite for even just one second. That's 88 feet of travel on the highway. EMI interference from the construction worker who just keyed his walkie-talkie on the side of the road. Skid and/or spin recovery and mitigation. Swerve into oncoming traffic, or dive for the shoulder? They can pull my steering wheel from my cold dead hands.

Captain Obvious is compelled to point out that you already got two opinions. Mine, and confirmation from the tech support from MSA. Seriously though, however you proceed is up to you. Personally, I hate sloppy threads.

I never said that.

Checking the AFM with resistance like that doesn't really work. The black saw tooth shaped thing on the AFM circuit board is a resistor. And it's resistance follows a similar saw tooth shape. That's what you were seeing on your meter. You need to check it hooked up to a voltage, and check voltage not resistance. I think @Dave WM posted a video showing that method? And if not, I'm sure he'd be happy to put one together?

It's that movie 'I Robot' in real life. The computer will never-ever be able to do what a human can in every situation. Either conceivable, or unconceivable. I honestly can't believe the whole self driving car has gotten this far in our litigious society. Bugs happen. Surprises happen. Hacks happen. Who is it that's pushing hard for this to become reality in the first place? Liability lawyers?

So she's stuck working on your engine while you went out for a bike ride? Thats not very nice!

I've messed with it a bunch. Couple years ago Blue and I also measured the mixture effect that screw caused. He gave my car a rectal and monitored the mixture numbers while I changed the screw setting. I've got notes around here somewhere, and when I put my finger on them, I'll post them. And I'm not surprised that screw did not have a direct effect on manifold vacuum. That screw is upstream of the throttle plate, and while it might result in a tiny tiny change in flow resistance, the majority of the vacuum is going to be developed across the plate in the throttle body. Sure, messing with that screw could 1) change the mixture, which in turn could 2) change the RPM, which might 3) change the vacuum reading... But not a direct "flow path restriction" related effect.

I got info. Lots! Of course most of it is completely useless, but I got lots of it!! Happy to share!

Maybe that part of the documentation was instructions on how to dispose of the old struts? Drill a small hole to release the pressure first, and then chuck them. I hate the international "icon only" based instructions. I wonder if they make sense to people in other parts of the world, because they certainly don't make sense to me at this part of the globe.

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think that's OEM. z boy mn, What makes you so sure that bolt was grade 10.9? It has the grade marked on the head? As an aside... I verified the FSM spec, but 50 ft-lb sure seems a lot for a bolt that size.