From: dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:53 AM
To: dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DML] Digest Number 3165

There are 21 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: "Joe OBrien" <joeyoseppijoe_at_dml_yahoo.com>

2. Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)
From: "d_rex_2002" <rich_at_dml_outernet-tech.net>

3. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net

4. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net

5. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: "Mike Bosworth" <mike.bosworth_at_dml_btinternet.com>

6. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net

7. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: "Mike Bosworth" <mike.bosworth_at_dml_btinternet.com>

8. Re: Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)
From: Chris Shepherd <chrisau79_at_dml_yahoo.com>

9. Re: JZD's grave
From: Andrew Prentis <aprentis_at_dml_rocketmail.com>

10. Re: Re: Passenger side water leak
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net

11. Motor Oil??
From: "Lance" <dvddmc_at_dml_yahoo.com>

12. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: "Patrick C." <PRC1216_at_dml_aol.com>

13. Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)
From: "d_rex_2002" <rich_at_dml_outernet-tech.net>

14. Control Arm Bowed
From: "tuxr" <tuxdarby_at_dml_msn.com>

15. Looking at options...anyone have a frame for sale?
From: "Matt Spittle" <supermatty_at_dml_psu.edu>

16. Please Help - Previous Owner(s) Jury-Rigged Fuel Pump Circuit
From: mike p <cambpd_at_dml_yahoo.com>

17. The first "proper" twin turbo DeLorean PRV since Legend
From: Martin Gutkowski - DMC Ltd <martin_at_dml_delorean.co.uk>

18. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: "Eric" <hollywood2311_at_dml_gmail.com>

19. Re: Control Arm Bowed
From: "Dave Swingle" <swingle_at_dml_dmcnews.com>

20. Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof
From: Soma576_at_dml_aol.com

21. Re: Motor Oil??
From: Soma576_at_dml_aol.com





Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:10:44 -0000
From: "Joe OBrien" <joeyoseppijoe_at_dml_yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

But you can just re-aim your headlight to compensate for the difference in height. That makes no sense, as it would be way cheaper to just adjust the lights.

What US headlamp requirement???



-Joe O'Brien






--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, mike.griese_at_dml_... wrote:
>
> They did it to meet US headlamp positioning requirements.  The
lights would 
> have been out of spec without raising the front end.  The Esprit did
not 
> have this problem, as it has pop-up headlamps that raise to an
acceptable
> height.
> 
> --
> Mike
> 
> 
> -------------- Original message from Shannon Yocom <ssdelorean_at_dml_...>:
-------------- 
> 
> 
> > As previously discussed about the "nose high" look of stock
DeLoreans and the 
> > "intended ride height"... I have run across some physical proof
that the nose 
> > high look was NOT the intentions of the DeLorean Motor Company.
See an 
> > inter-office memo from C. R. Brown at the link below. 
> > 
> > http://www.ohiodeloreans.com/ss/DMCRideHeight.jpg
> > 
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>









________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:06:08 -0000
From: "d_rex_2002" <rich_at_dml_outernet-tech.net>
Subject: Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)

FYI

For those waiting for the link to some photos and the video from both local TV stations covering the Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade, the link below will take you to the DeLorean Midwest Connection club website and the 2006 parade details, photos and wmv video: 

http://www.delorean-midwest.org/events/2006_Events/SPDP/spdp2006.htm

Thanks to Dave Swingle and Wayne Wagner for puuting these pieces together for everyone else to enjoy.

Later,
Rich W.


--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, "d_rex_2002" <rich_at_dml_...> wrote:

Post-parade update...

The luck of the Irish was with the St. Pat's Day Parade organizers and the participants as well as those who came to see the parade.
We had 9 DeLoreans participate in the parade and I'm happy to report the club got almost a minute of TV coverage on both Ch. 9 and Ch. 7.

With 9 cars, we drove in a 2-1 2-1 2-1 formation, which looked great on TV from the high camera angle. We had plenty of time to clean and detail our cars prior to start of the parade and it certainly showed from those high camera angles used by both TV stations.

Although we were unable to get the advertising plugs in for DCS 2006 and the DeLorean 25th Anniversary events this June, it was very good exposure for the DeLorean marquee, even if the TV announcers do not always get the facts straight (sometimes perpetuating false rumors).

There are a few members of the DeLorean Midwest Connection club that are working on making the TV clips into mpegs, so when they get the clips finished and posted to the club website (or alternate host), I will post again so others can enjoy this DeLorean TV coverage.

Later,
Rich W.

www.deloreanmidwest.com









________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:40:15 +0000
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

Reaiming did not meet the requirement - otherwise DeLorean would have done that.  The headlights must be within a range of distances from the ground.  They can't be too high and they can't be too low.  The restrictions were made to reduce the amount of glare produced at night.  Remember that this is before all of the slick molded and contoured projection lamp headlight enclosures became available.  There was very little control of the light beam from rectangular or round sealed beam lamps.  Reaiming upwards to give an adequate light pattern would have put too much of the beams right into the windshields of oncoming traffic.

There were exceptions for things like snowplows where the headlights have to clear the blade in the raised position.  

--
Mike


-------------- Original message from "Joe OBrien" <joeyoseppijoe_at_dml_yahoo.com>: -------------- 


> But you can just re-aim your headlight to compensate for the 
> difference in height. That makes no sense, as it would be way cheaper 
> to just adjust the lights.
> 
> What US headlamp requirement??? 
> 
> 
> 
> -Joe O'Brien

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 4
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:47:45 +0000
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

1. The bumper height is fine in either position 2. The headlights were too low with the original front ride height 3. Cheap springs sag, they don't lift a car 4. This is how urban legends start...
5. Lotus did not need to raise the nose of the DeLorean to keep it from outhandling the Esprit.  800 pounds additional weight and the big lump of engine behind the rear axle did that all by itself.

By the way, the headlamp regulation came into force between the time the prototypes were designed and the car finally reached volume production.  There wasn't much that could be done to the design of the car by then.

--
Mike


-------------- Original message from Shannon Yocom <ssdelorean_at_dml_yahoo.com>: -------------- 


> I have heard that too. Among other reasons like: 
> 1. bumper height requirements
> 2. headlight height requirements
> 3. cheep springs were used to save money 4. they just screwed up & 
> made up the reasons in #1 & #2 above
> (http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcforum-archive/msg26772.html)
> 5. better handling that the Lotus so Chaplan mucked it up (like 
> mentioned in my prior email and here: 
> http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcnews-archive/msg25299.html
> and more here
> http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcnews-archive/msg25173.html )
> 
> What I want to know may be trivial to some but I just want to know the 
> truth as the "why" the height was raised. And this is the first 
> physical proof I have seen that the intent was for the car to be lower 
> than the stock high nose.
> 
> Has anyone seen any proof as to the "why"? 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 5
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:56:04 -0000
From: "Mike Bosworth" <mike.bosworth_at_dml_btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

Hi All

It has always been quite a talking point on this side of the 'pond' 
too, a number of documents i have sourced clearly show the regulations in the US for bumper heights and damage caused by impacts to these at the time of the production of the DeLorean. This particular info is taken from:-

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Whilst i could have posted the exact sections relating to our subject i think its important to read the whole document and understand the changes that were going on at the time of design through to manufacture

I read with interest the bumper height stated at the end of paragraph 5 

Quote:-

5) When did the bumper standard first come into effect and how has it changed over the years?


On April 9, 1971, the agency issued its first passenger car bumper 
standard -- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
215, "Exterior Protection," which became effective on September 1, 
1972. This standard called for passenger cars, beginning with model 
year (MY) 1973, to withstand 5 mph front and 2  mph rear impacts 
against a perpendicular barrier without damage to certain safety-
related components such as headlamps and fuel systems.


In October 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and 
Cost Saving Act (MVICS Act) which mandated that the agency issue a 
bumper standard that yields the maximum feasible reduction of costs 
to the public, taking into account the cost and benefits of 
implementation, the standard's effect on insurance costs and legal 
fees, savings in consumer time and inconvenience, and health and 
safety considerations.


The new requirements under the MVICS Act were then consolidated with 
existing requirements in FMVSS 215 and promulgated in March 1976 as 
a new bumper standard, which was added to NHTSA's regulations at 49 
CFR Part 581. The new standard which applied to passenger cars 
beginning with MY 1979, was referred to as the Phase I Standard. At 
the same time, a "no damage" requirement (Phase II) was placed on 
bumper systems for model year 1980 and subsequent years. (See 
question 6 for more information on Phase I and II requirements.)


The most recent revisions to the bumper standard took place in May 
14, 1982, effective for MY 1983 and subsequent model year passenger 
cars. This amendment reduced test impact speeds from 5 mph to 2.5 
mph for longitudinal front and rear barrier and pendulum impacts and 
from 3 mph to 1.5 mph for corner pendulum impacts. In addition, 
Phase I damage resistance criteria were substituted for Phase II 
criteria and a bumper height requirements of 16 to 20 inches was 
established for passenger cars.


6) What do Phase I and Phase II mean? How do they differ and how 
much damage does the standard allow?


Phase I and II refer to a two-phased rulemaking action on bumper 
requirements. Phase I of the standard became effective on September 
1, 1978 for passenger cars beginning with MY 1979. It incorporated 
the FMVSS 215 safety criteria, and added new performance criteria 
which prohibited damage to all exterior vehicle surfaces. For MY 
1979, the standard required that there be no damage to safety-
related parts and exterior surfaces not involving the bumper system
(e.g., sheet metal; lamps; and fuel, exhaust and cooling systems) 
with damage to the facebar and its fasteners at impact test speed of 
5 mph front and rear impacts with barrier and pendulum; 3 mph corner 
impact with pendulum.


More stringent damage resistance criteria known as Phase II became 
effective one year later, on September 1 1979, for MYs 1980 to 1982, 
and consisted of 5 mph longitudinal front and rear impacts with 
barrier and pendulum; 3 mph corner impact pendulum, all with no 
damage to the bumper itself beyond a 3/8 inch dent and 3/4 inch set 
or displacement from original position.

Two cars i have measured witth 'euro height' springs now fitted are 
between 15" and 15.5 " to the bottom of the 'black' part of the 
bumper. 

What is the standard height on a non lowered d  to the bottom of the 
black part of the bumper?

Kind Regards

Mike
#2001
Yorkshire UK



--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, Shannon Yocom <ssdelorean_at_dml_...> wrote:
>
> I have heard that too. Among other reasons like: 
> 1. bumper height requirements
> 2. headlight height requirements
> 3. cheep springs were used to save money
> 4. they just screwed up & made up the reasons in #1 & #2 above
> (http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcforum-archive/msg26772.html)
> 5. better handling that the Lotus so Chaplan mucked it up (like 
mentioned in my
> prior email and here: http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcnews-
archive/msg25299.html
> and more here
> http://www.projectvixen.com/dmcnews-archive/msg25173.html )
> 
> What I want to know may be trivial to some but I just want to know 
the truth as
> the "why" the height was raised. And this is the first physical 
proof I have seen
> that the intent was for the car to be lower than the stock high 
nose.
> 
> Has anyone seen any proof as to the "why"?
> 
> I hope this doesn't screw up you concours competitors. Are the 
rules based on how
> they actually left the factory or how they should have left the 
factory? Because
> it is obviously not the creators intent to be nose high.
> 
> Shannon Y
> 16506
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: mike.griese_at_dml_
> Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006  2:07 pm
> Subject: Re: [DML] Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof 
	
> 
> They did it to meet US headlamp positioning requirements.  The 
lights would
> have been out of spec without raising the front end.  The Esprit 
did not
> have this problem, as it has pop-up headlamps that raise to an 
acceptable
> height.
> 
> --
> Mike
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>








________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 6
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:01:10 +0000
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

And the mass of the engine in the VX220.  In a car like the Elise and the 
VX220, added weight is very noticeable.  And since that weight was in 
the rear - different rear springs.

As far as the DeLorean outhandling an Esprit - old wives tale.  Physics
doesn't allow the DeLorean to outhandle the Esprit because of the 
location and the size of the masses.  The Esprit has a lower polar moment
of inertia and a lower roll center.  Two critical values when it comes
to handling.

--
Mike


-------------- Original message from Martin Gutkowski - DMC Ltd <martin_at_dml_delorean.co.uk>: -------------- 


> This is not unusual behaviour for Lotus. The Vauxhall VX220 is basically 
> an Elise underneath yet has a *slightly* different suspension setup and 
> doesn't handle as well as an Elise.... Guess what the difference is..... 
> go on..... bet you can't... :-) 
> 
> (rear springs) 
> 
> Martin 
> 
> Shannon Yocom wrote: 
> 
> >If someone at the Lotus 06 gathering could also ask them about what Robert 
> heard 
> >at an Open House event... 
> > 
> > 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 7
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:15:30 -0000
From: "Mike Bosworth" <mike.bosworth_at_dml_btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

Also take a look at early pics of the proto / dsv cars front end 
ride height, something made them change this to our typical front 
end stance, it certainly wasn't for looks or handling :)

for example:-

http://tinyurl.com/jjduj

http://tinyurl.com/zldsk

http://www.outatime.it/delorean/image44proto.jpg



Mike

#2001


--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, "Joe OBrien" <joeyoseppijoe_at_dml_...> 
wrote:
>
> But you can just re-aim your headlight to compensate for the
> difference in height. That makes no sense, as it would be way 
cheaper
> to just adjust the lights.
> 
> What US headlamp requirement???
> 
> -Joe O'Brien









________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 8
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:20:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Shepherd <chrisau79_at_dml_yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)

The video downloads as an HTML document. Makes it a bit hard to view. ~G~
   
  Chris
  06301

d_rex_2002 <rich_at_dml_outernet-tech.net> wrote:
  FYI

For those waiting for the link to some photos and the video from
both local TV stations covering the Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade,
the link below will take you to the DeLorean Midwest Connection
club website and the 2006 parade details, photos and wmv video: 

http://www.delorean-midwest.org/events/2006_Events/SPDP/spdp2006.htm




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 9
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:42:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Prentis <aprentis_at_dml_rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: JZD's grave

Bob,
Maybe it's the way he wanted it. A humble grave for a
humble man.
I think the fact that people from all over the world
come together to discuss his creation 25 years after
it's end is pretty good recognition.

All the best,
Andrew
Australia

--- Bob Brandys <BobB_at_dml_safety-epa.com> wrote:

> Corey,
> 
> I was very disappointed by JZDs grave.  He deserves
> much better and 
> should be immortalized in a JZD museum.  Maybe
> someday, he will get the 
> recognition he deserves.






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 10
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:04:54 +0000
From: mike.griese_at_dml_worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Re: Passenger side water leak

Dave

From your desctiption it sounds like the water is coming in through
the A-pillar itself.  There are lots of places where water could get
into the roof of the car above the pillar.

Windshield header retaining screws - these are located behind the
outer door seal

Windshield side trim retaining screws - these are located behind the
outer door seal

Torsion spring mounts

Door hinge mounts

Wiring harness access panel under T-panel

Since you poured water into the channel, we can probably rule out 
the T-panel and the windshield seal itself.  The other places are still
possibilities.

--
Mike


-------------- Original message from "usndmc" <usndmc_at_dml_gmail.com>: -------------- 


> David, 
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I do indeed plan to start redoing the RTV 
> around the car after I get this squared away. Better preventative 
> than needed. As for the A/C drain, I did clean this out recently 
> when I had to replace the blower motor, and yes you are right there 
> was a bunch of junk in there. 
> 
> However the leak I'm trying to track down now is on the right wall, 
> closest to the door edge. If you were to sit in the passenger seat 
> with the door open, and run your hand along the front of the 
> dashboard on the right edge, at the bottom of the dashboard, below 
> the door switch, is where the water is coming from. Right where the 
> bottom right front corner of the dashboard meets the fiberglass 
> wall. It comes straight down from there, barely on the inside of the 
> fiberglass wall. I have to have the door sill carpet piece pulled 
> back, with the vinyl part that wraps the edges pulled back too, to 
> see it. The way I found these leaks was having the door open, and 
> pouring water from a cup into the area between the inner and outer 
> seals at the top front, behind the windshield. As the water ran and 
> drained down the forward pillar those points would leak. However, it 
> also leaks from there with the seals in place and door closed, 
> because after sealing the other 2 leaks I closed everything up and 
> left the car, and it has rained numerous times since then, and it 
> has leaked every time it's rained. Hopefully one of you all has seen 
> this problem before, I really would hate to have to pull out the 
> dashboard to find out where the water is coming from. Again any and 
> all help is greaty appreciated! Thanks! 
> 
> Dave 
> #5968 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 11
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:45:17 -0000
From: "Lance" <dvddmc_at_dml_yahoo.com>
Subject: Motor Oil??

what is the Normal Oil to be used in the Delorean Engine  and what are 
some that People use that they like ??










________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 12
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0000
From: "Patrick C." <PRC1216_at_dml_aol.com>
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

The document that Shannon posted came out of the collection that I am
currently scanning belonging to Cliff Schmucker.  

I have spent the last week scanning hundreds, if not thousands, of
documents that Cliff was fortunate enough to obtain from a former DMC
executive. These memos will be able to be viewed in their entirety at
the DCS Show in Pheasant Run, so consider the link to the Ohio
DeLoreans page a teaser of what will be in the museum at the show. 
There are numerous other company memos regarding rideheight, as this
was something the company wanted to correct.  I have seen no mention
of any headlight positioning requirements in my readings so far.  

-Patrick C.
1880


--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, mike.griese_at_dml_... wrote:
>
> They did it to meet US headlamp positioning requirements.  The
lights would 
> have been out of spec without raising the front end.  The Esprit did
not 
> have this problem, as it has pop-up headlamps that raise to an
acceptable
> height.
> 
> --
> Mike
> 
> 
> -------------- Original message from Shannon Yocom <ssdelorean_at_dml_...>:
-------------- 
> 
> 
> > As previously discussed about the "nose high" look of stock
DeLoreans and the 
> > "intended ride height"... I have run across some physical proof
that the nose 
> > high look was NOT the intentions of the DeLorean Motor Company.
See an 
> > inter-office memo from C. R. Brown at the link below. 
> > 
> > http://www.ohiodeloreans.com/ss/DMCRideHeight.jpg 
> > 
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>












________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 13
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:06:53 -0000
From: "d_rex_2002" <rich_at_dml_outernet-tech.net>
Subject: Re: Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade 2006 (video)

Chris and others,

Until the link can be corrected, just make sure to select all file
types and add the .wmv extension (Windows) to the [paradewmv] file
and the file should download successfully.  I believe Windows Media
Player must be at ver. 9 or higher (or codec update is required).

Later,
Rich W.


--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, Chris Shepherd <chrisau79_at_dml_...> wrote:
>
> The video downloads as an HTML document. Makes it a bit hard to 
view. ~G~
>    
>   Chris
>   06301
> 
> d_rex_2002 <rich_at_dml_...> wrote:
>   FYI
> 
> For those waiting for the link to some photos and the video from
> both local TV stations covering the Chicago St. Pat's Day Parade,
> the link below will take you to the DeLorean Midwest Connection
> club website and the 2006 parade details, photos and wmv video: 
> 
> http://www.delorean-
midwest.org/events/2006_Events/SPDP/spdp2006.htm
>









________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 14
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:43:24 -0000
From: "tuxr" <tuxdarby_at_dml_msn.com>
Subject: Control Arm Bowed

The car has been pulling to the right for a while, brought it into the 
shop, the passenger side control arm is "bowed".  I'm told it looks 
fine, just slightly bowed.  I'm guessing from one of the many tows 
I've had.  But anyway, it was new 2 years ago.  I can accept the 
slight pulling to the right, but don't want a dangerous situation, 
though don't want to spend the money right now to get it fixed unless 
I have to.  Do I have to?









________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 15
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:23:34 -0000
From: "Matt Spittle" <supermatty_at_dml_psu.edu>
Subject: Looking at options...anyone have a frame for sale?

I'm looking to potentially purchase a DeLorean frame, since mine is in
rough shape, and I'm considering separating it from the body anyway. 
Does anyone have one for sale?  It should be free of rust.  

thanks,

Matt
#1604







________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 16
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:01:52 -0800 (PST)
From: mike p <cambpd_at_dml_yahoo.com>
Subject: Please Help - Previous Owner(s) Jury-Rigged Fuel Pump Circuit

Hello All, 
  Does anyone know how the 20amp Fuse No. 7, controlling the fuel pump can be  by-passed to get the engine to start?  Are there any relays that can be  jumpered to bypass a destroyed Fuse position No.7 ?  I may have "disturbed" a big sleeping problem  in my "car"!
  
  Here is my problem:   I went into the fuse box/wiring/relay area  behind the passenger seat of my D to check the fuse for the cooling fans.   However when I took the black plywood cover off the wiring area I noticed the  position for the 20amp Fuse No. 7, controlling the fuel pump, had had a  violent electric blow in the past.  I also noticed a loose wire with a  20amp fuse in the middle of it laying loose in the wiring and fuse box  area.  Not too concerned, I reseated the fuse 5 for the cooling fan  circuit, reconnected the battery, and went to start the car up again.   (The car had been running no more than 5 minutes earlier.)  But when I  tried to start it up again, it just cranked and would not  start.  I  smelled gasoline from the attempted start. Does the smell of gasoline indicate  that the fuel pump is working and something else is wrong?, or does do you  think the problem is that the fuel pump circuit is open now?  I have never  noticed the sound of the fuel pump when the
 car has been running correctly so I  can't tell when the fuel pump runs.  I'm thinking maybe the wire with  20amp fuse was jury-rigged into some legs on the fuel pump relay(s) to by-pass  the burned out Fuse Position #7.
  
  Please help, any advice is greatly appreciated!!
  
  Mike
  #5781
  
  
  
		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 17
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:02:26 +0000
From: Martin Gutkowski - DMC Ltd <martin_at_dml_delorean.co.uk>
Subject: The first "proper" twin turbo DeLorean PRV since Legend

Hi All

What with all this recent talk about engine mods, I thought I'd share a 
couple of random, and fairly poor photos I took today of an engine I'm 
working on with a friend (not for a customer :-)

It -was- an Island twin turbo DeLorean engine from auto #2727 which is 
getting a 5-speed conversion as well as this engine. I have fitted the 
crank, pistons and one head from a 2458cc Renault 25 turbo. The cam in 
the other head is off being machined to fit the distributor drive from a 
3 litre Renault Safrane engine so it can go at the "wrong" end of the 
head, so that head is still waiting to go on. It isn't pretty as this is 
in the realms of experimentation and general curiosity but the heads 
have been faced, the (sodium cooled) valves are all clean and re-lapped 
(hands still sore) with new stem seals, all new shells, seals and rings 
on the pistons. All the shiny bits are on the inside, basically! Damn 
it'll go well on a bar of boost :-) I'm using the bellhousing from a 25 
turbo (identical apart from trigger sensor mount - ain't ebay great), 
the gearset from a donor DeLorean gearbox, built in to a Renault 30 
casing. 25 turbo clutch (stronger), I'm using the flywheel from a 25 
turbo with the trigger ring slightly modified to suit a configurable 
aftermarket ECU (why oh why did Renault pick such a stupid trigger 
pattern?!). Exhaust will be 100% Island setup, the intake pipework will 
be custom with twin intercoolers where the exhaust muffler isn't, dump 
valve and a couple of simple cone filters on the turbo intakes, ducted 
from inside the pontoons. Compression ratio is 8:1 and this is achieved 
in the heads, not by the pistons. At first glance, they look exactly the 
same as DeLorean ones, but you can see the blocked off unused 
distributor port and the un-machined drive on the camshaft. We had a 
nightmare of a time putting the pistons in and I suspect the conrods 
were ever-so-slightly out of true because I ended up re-fitting the rods 
from a 24v 3 litre Citroen PRV (identical) which fit perfectly. Praise 
be to the PRV god that made all even-fire gudgeon pins fully floating! 
Intake manifold, throttle body, injector rails etc, all 25 turbo, with 
the injectors themselves being Alpine A610/ Safrane bi-turbo as they're 
really cheap from Renault at the moment, for some odd reason.

http://www.delorean.co.uk/DSCN2196.JPG
http://www.delorean.co.uk/DSCN2198.JPG
http://www.delorean.co.uk/DSCN2199.JPG

I might do DeLoreans for a living, but this stuff is still fun to me :-)

Martin
DMC Ltd
www.delorean.co.uk





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 18
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:28:40 -0000
From: "Eric" <hollywood2311_at_dml_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

I just measured my own car (100% original suspension), and it measured
in at 17.5 inches from ground to the bottom of the flat black front
bumper.  A full 1.5 inches more than the 16" as stated in your post
(and this is obviously not taking into account any "sagging" the front
suspension has done since it was built nearly 25 years ago).


Eric Campbell
Hickory, NC
VIN 1776


--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, "Mike Bosworth" <mike.bosworth_at_dml_...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
> 
> It has always been quite a talking point on this side of the 'pond' 
> too, a number of documents i have sourced clearly show the 
> regulations in the US for bumper heights and damage caused by 
> impacts to these at the time of the production of the DeLorean. This 
> particular info is taken from:-
> 




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 19
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:12:01 -0000
From: "Dave Swingle" <swingle_at_dml_dmcnews.com>
Subject: Re: Control Arm Bowed

No hurry as long as you don't mind buying tires more often than you 
should have to. 

Did they actually check the alignment? Often the flanges on the bottom 
of the control arm get bent from hitting things without actually 
bending the whole arm. Are the rubber bushings in the end of the sway 
bar tight? If one of them fails the car will pull all over the place, 
in the DMC it's not just the sway bar, its also sets the caster angle 
(nice parts-efficient Lotus design).

Dave S

--- In dmcnews_at_dml_yahoogroups.com, "tuxr" <tuxdarby_at_dml_...> wrote:
>
> The car has been pulling to the right for a while, brought it into 
the 
> shop, the passenger side control arm is "bowed".  I'm told it looks 
> fine, just slightly bowed.  I'm guessing from one of the many tows 
> I've had.  But anyway, it was new 2 years ago.  I can accept the 
> slight pulling to the right, but don't want a dangerous situation, 
> though don't want to spend the money right now to get it fixed unless 
> I have to.  Do I have to?
>








________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 20
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:47:55 EST
From: Soma576_at_dml_aol.com
Subject: Re: Front Ride Height Intentions - Documented Proof

 
 
I always heard that these springs actually get LONGER as they get older -  or 
am I way off base here?
 
Andy
 
 
In a message dated 3/20/2006 10:09:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
hollywood2311_at_dml_gmail.com writes:

I just  measured my own car (100% original suspension), and it measured
in at 17.5  inches from ground to the bottom of the flat black front
bumper.  A  full 1.5 inches more than the 16" as stated in your post
(and this is  obviously not taking into account any "sagging" the front
suspension has  done since it was built nearly 25 years ago).


Eric  Campbell
Hickory, NC
VIN 1776



 
Fargo, ND  
1982 DeLorean DMC12 VIN 11596



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Message: 21
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:43:01 EST
From: Soma576_at_dml_aol.com
Subject: Re: Motor Oil??

 
 
Well you will get as many answers as there are list members, and I think  
that as long as you stick with a name-brand oil in the weight(s) recommended in  
the shop or owners manuals, you will be fine.  Can't say as I have actually  
heard of an oil-related failure on a DeLorean due to choosing the wrong weight  
of oil. 
 
I am also considering recruiting some list members to help me do some oil  
analysis testing on the PRV.  I would need people that have 100% well  running 
engines who do mostly in town driving and they would have to use the  Purflux 
filter.  Perhaps over the course of a couple years we could test  enough oil so 
we could come to some real conclusions.  There are some  variables that would 
be hard to control however.  For instance you couldn't  participate if you 
recently took the engine apart w/o running a rinse oil first,  and you couldn't 
use any oil additives or anything.  Hopefully each person  could use whatever 
oil their engine has been using for at least a couple of oil  changes in order 
to further reduce variability due to a recent oil type  change.  The number 
of different climates we all live in will take an  effect too.  I am starting 
the process this spring by running a rinse oil  of Mobil 10W40 (leftovers) 
after I get my oil pan and exhaust back on, run that  for 500 miles, then change 
oil and filter with Mobil Delvac Super 1300  15W40.  I have a feeling the PRV 
will really like this oil.  It is  also diesel rated with a very robust 
additive package. I will run this for a  couple of oil changes, and then sample it.  
 
I would also like to try out a 5W30 and check for oil consumption and wear  
metals (due perhaps to too thin of an oil?) as well as a 10W30 and a  20W50.  
10W40 will probably quickly sheer down to a 10W30 so I don't know  if I will 
even bother testing that except to see if I am right.  
 
Andy
 
 
In a message dated 3/20/2006 10:08:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
dvddmc_at_dml_yahoo.com writes:

what is  the Normal Oil to be used in the Delorean Engine  and what are 
some  that People use that they like ??



 
Fargo, ND  
1982 DeLorean DMC12 VIN 11596



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


To address comments privately to the moderating team, please address:
moderators_at_dml_dmcnews.com

For more info on the list, tech articles, cars for sale see www.dmcnews.com

To search the archives or view files, log in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    dmcnews-unsubscribe_at_dml_yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------