Captain Obvious

I don't think there's any way you would ever be able to consume 35 GPH. I don't think fuel pump capacity is the problem. Note that I'm not ruling out fuel starvation, but if there is starvation, I don't think it's because the pump is only rated for 35 GPH.

Haha!!

No, that's not a good sign. I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

Yeah, I'm hoping for some interesting forensic discovery... I'm just hoping it's not too gruesome. Any possibility that you starved something for lube with the oil pan changes you made?

Oh. Nevermind. I was confused by semantics and picturing you taking measurements somewhere else. (I'm a dirty skunk? I'm a dirty skunk?) Seems really odd that it would be both of those W/R wires though, doesn't it? Both ends disconnected, and they both still measure hard to ground?

Well I know you know this, but don't get hung up too much on "continuity to ground". Some things will appear to be shorted to ground, but are working as they should be. Like the headlights... If you are measuring continuity to ground through the headlight wire, it's not a problem. It's supposed to do that, and unless you have a good meter, you won't be able to tell the difference between a cold filament and a dead short.

My 77 had the carbon can removed before I got it, so I can't look for any of that restriction. Which tube is it in? 1) The tube that leads from the tank to the can 2) The tube that leads from the can to the intake manifold 3) The control line tube to the throttle body and distributor I believe my old 260 had a restriction between the can and the intake manifold.

I'm thinking the check valve on the CARB system is a smaller check valve with a lower cracking pressure than the one on the gas cap. But since the CARB system is under vacuum when the engine is running, they can't use that smaller check valve when driving. They still need the other one on the gas cap to break any potential vacuum in the tank as fuel is removed to run the engine. Again, just reverse engineering speculation.

Oh, and BTW, I think there are three W/R at C-5. One to the ignition switch, one to the headlights, and one to the ammeter. I hate the 260 wiring diagram...

Not sure, but my guess would be that they didn't want the system to continuously circulate. Think about this scenario... Car is sitting overnight with a half tank of gas and everything is cold. Then in the hot Arizona sun, the car heats up to 140 degrees at mid-afternoon and the vapor in the gas tank expands and cracks the check valve and pushes some vapor up into the carbon can. Then that night after the sun goes down, the car cools off to 60 degrees at 2:00AM and the vapor in the tank contracts and draws a vacuum on the tank. If the only way to reduce the vacuum is through the gas cap, then it will essentially form a one way path. Every day it will push into the carbon can, and every night it will suck in past the gas cap. Eventually, your tank will be empty, and your carbon can will be saturated. I wasn't there when they designed it, but my theory is that they didn't want that to happen. So they put in another way for air to get back into the tank to reduce that vacuum, and by pulling it back through the carbon can, they can put those vapors back into the tank where they belong. Essentially exhale and inhale through the same tube instead of inhaling through one and exhaling through a different one. Haha!! Far fetched maybe, but that's all I got?

What he said.

Wow. That really stinks! Here's to hoping it wasn't really something that serious.

Patcon, is there something specific I should repost? I do still have all the pics local.

That little black gizmo is what they call the check valve, and it's not as simple as it looks. In one direction, it is supposed to pass vapor easily, and in the other direction, it is supposed to pass vapors as well, just not as easily. Here's a couple snippets from the FSM showing the details: Here's where it is on the car (Number 8): Here's where it is on the evap system schematic (number 17): And here's how you are supposed to test it. Note that they didn't include this little tidbit until the 78 version of the FSM. In the EC (Emissions Control) section:

Thanks guys!

Looks great. But as far looking cleaner on your after picture, methinks you cheated a little. You also removed all the EGR components, removed the A/C kick-up FICD, and fixed your half 77 half 78 crankcase venting tubing and AAR lines. Can't quite tell in the pic, but maybe you also removed the cold start valve? Yes... The "after" pic is cleaner. Seriously though, I'm thinking I may do the fuel rail thing too. Site, Have you got the link to your fuel rail thread? I just don't feel like searching for it, and you probably have it in front of you.

Absolutely!

Haha!! Yeah, I stumbled across that video a couple days ago looking for something else. Don't even remember what I was looking for, but that one came up for some reason. Yes, Paul is the Seth Rogan one. I know everyone's tastes are different, but that one really had some laugh out loud moments for me. I hope it does for you too. Rotten tomatoes says "Paul is arguably the best science fiction comedy since Galaxy Quest." (Have you seen Galaxy Quest?) So you really want some difficulties putting your top list together? Here's some more of my favorites: Aliens Airplane Escape From New York Spaceballs And honorable mentions... Top Secret, Life Of Brian, Real Genius, Princess Bride, and the first Matrix. Seems l like stupid humor and science fiction..... Not much of a surprise there.

Agreed! Excellent! So was there a noticeable difference before and after the caster change? I know you have been hunting a couple gremlins. Did this take care of one of them?

Love your top four, and (not surprisingly) they are on my list as well. My list is pretty much Mel Brooks, Zucker and Zucker, and Monty Python with a couple original cast Saturday Night Live cast stuff mixed in to keep things honest (Like Caddyshack and Animal House). Here's a relatively recent release that might even make my list... Paul. I didn't see it when if first came out because the previews looked like a complete waste of time. But I watched it recently it's really good. Multiple levels good.

That movie is in my all time top ten. Maybe even top five. I hope they get whatever they deserve.

Thanks Mark. I'll take a look. I've read a bunch of stuff on the subject, but I'm not sure that one made my radar.

Here's to hoping it's smooth and stable sailing!

Units difficulties occur even where the demons dwell:

My vote? Type 1.