Re: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach

2006-03-08 Thread Barry Stark
Luther -
Could be, but it may be that one of the capacitors in the amp has gone bad.
May also be the sensor lead but it seems that was doing wieder stuff when I
has that malady. Best thing is to test your amp in another car or plug
theirs into your socket. Makes the troubleshooting much easier and narrows
it down real quick.

Barry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Luther Gulseth
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach



   The  tach  on my SD likes to wave around 4k-6k at random times.  Other
   times it will run 300-500 high.  Is this the standard cig butt repair?
   --
   Luther KB5QHU
   Alma, Ark





Re: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach

2006-03-08 Thread Luther Gulseth
Are the tach amps the same between my '83 SD and '82 CD? (126/123)??

~Luther -
~Could be, but it may be that one of the capacitors in the amp has gone bad.
~May also be the sensor lead but it seems that was doing wieder stuff when I
~has that malady. Best thing is to test your amp in another car or plug
~theirs into your socket. Makes the troubleshooting much easier and narrows
~it down real quick.
~
~Barry
~
~-Original Message-
~From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Luther Gulseth
~Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:00 AM
~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~Subject: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach
~



-- 
Luther KB5QHU 
Alma, Ark 
'83 300SD (231,xxx kmi) 
'82 300CD (159,222 kmi) 
'82 300D (74,000 kmi) needs MAJOR work



Re: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach

2006-03-08 Thread Jim Cathey

Are the tach amps the same between my '83 SD and '82 CD? (126/123)??


If they're in a screw-in can they're the same.

-- Jim




Re: [MBZ] erratic '83 300SD tach

2006-03-07 Thread Jim Cathey
   The  tach  on my SD likes to wave around 4k-6k at random times.  
Other
   times it will run 300-500 high.  Is this the standard cig butt 
repair?


Couldn't hurt, though I thought the usual failure was a 0 reading.

-- Jim