I wasn't going to get involved in this, but following on from several replies, and several replies to those replies (each personally addressed by Bill), here goes... I'd firstly like to acknowledge Louie's post praising Bill and his car. It was that post that got -me- thinking. Do I have a problem with Bill personally? No, we've never met. Do I have a problem with his modifying his car? Certainly not! I came to one simple conclusion: I have a problem with the way Bill constantly presents his modifications/upgrades/changes as "improvements" moreover accompanying the statements with constant criticism of the original vehicle. Was the car flawed? Sure! No car isn't! But a newbie joining the list and reading Bill's posts might be forgiven for running away from the "dream" at 100mph! Often, Bill proudly states how he has overcome an original design flaw, seemingly never stopping for one moment to wonder why it was done that way in the first place. Two piece headliners are much easier to install on a mass production line; the hose to the bottom of the blower motor is not a drain hose but a vent hose; the trailing arm bolts are like that because Lotus lifted the design straight out of one of their other cars; the radiator "bleed" hose is not meant as a one-stop-shop to bleed the entire system, but to prevent small bubbles accumulating in the radiator. And here's the biggie: K-Jet was required to allow fine metering of the fuel enabling the use of a catalytic converter. Naturally aspirated Alpines were all carb'd. The non-cat K-Jet B28E was within a few hp of the carb'd 2.8 in the Alpine GTA. Carb's are not "better" - they're just an open book to Bill. K-Jet (and EFI) is evidently not, based on several absolute howlers (the cold start valve acts like a carb...?!) As Marc pointed out some months back, it's not the constant praise of carb's that winds people up (well, him and me at least), but the way Bill responds to someone trying to fix their K-Jet system by saying they're better off binning the whole thing and going with carbs, rather than actually trying to help with the problem. Bill recently wrote about oil viscosity... I read it and agreed with pretty much everything - until making some crack about how the PRV isn't a race engine and therefore treat it as a " balding and paunchy middle aged father would" (paraphrased). Why not just say it's an older engine, and doesn't benefit from modern "performance" oils...? after all, the same oil pump in the same block with the same oil passages happily keeps a 400+hp Venturi engine healthy. I modify DeLoreans... I'm now offering a 2.5 turbo engine conversion, 4-pot and vented brakes all round. I've been installing door launchers, better speakers, upgrading suspension components, altering aligment specs, better radiators, better headlights, better fuel hoses, better angle drives, better door seals... but I don't do it because the car was crap to start with, simply that we can do better now. ...which is, in a nutshell, probably why I think carbs are a bit of a waste of time. That said, all power to those who want to go that route... just please don't keep presenting it as an "improvement". Martin </soapbox> www.delorean.co.uk ------------------------------------ To address comments privately to the moderating team, please address: moderators@xxxxxxxxxxx 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/dmcnewsYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dmcnews/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:dmcnews-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:dmcnews-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dmcnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/