Date:         Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:17:29 -0500
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: ECU relocation / new 1.9 harnesses
Comments: To: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com>
In-Reply-To:  <000a01c83c78$97fb73c0$6401a8c0@TOSHIBALAP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

They likely did it just because it's cheaper/easier than making it
weatherproof(take GM for instance, it certainly isn't because it can't
be done well, or is emphatically a better practice).  Number one rule
in tier 1 auto manufacturing, wisdom passed to me and on to you, if
there is no obvious overwhelming reason why, the answer is usually
money. If it still doesn't make sense, it's just a matter of
re-evaluating the direction, flow, and path of the money. Cynical?
Yeah. True? I think so. The only times it seems this doesn't occur are
usually regarded as mistakes later on.. but sometimes not.

Jim Akiba



On 12/11/07, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> 2.1 engine in 86.  They didn't do it to use up more wire;  they did it
> because it's an improvement.
> Scott
> www.turbovans.com