View Single Post
Rob 930 Rob 930 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 659
I have a counterpoint on bulkhead connectors, if you're still wavering. I chose not to use one -- I went with a one-piece harness for several reasons. The bulkhead connectors require a whole host of connections that take time and have the potential to fail. Also, having a single connector requires that all the wires be in very close proximity at that location, which raises issues of RF interference between, say, ignition wires and the crank sensor. And for my taste, the location of the connector on the bulkhead wall was not where I wanted my harness to connect -- it's right in the middle of the back seat area. I chose to run my one-piece harness through a hole in the center of the footwell, and route it along the underside of the tub above the transmission, and into the engine compartment near the crossmember (with no hole needed there).

But the main reason I chose to go with a one-piece harness was that I felt having a two-piece version didn't provide any real advantage. Engine pulls are rare. As it is now, I have to unhook about 14 sensor wires (instead of 1) from the EFI harness when I pull the engine. But they're all very easy to get to and it probably takes me about 90 extra seconds in a 2.5 hour job. And if I'm pulling the engine to do any sort of significant work to it, the two-piece harness would still have to be removed from the engine. Regardless of which EFI harness you choose, there's still the original engine harness from the car (for the alternator and various sending units) that needs to be undone, so you'll still be unhooking individual wires no matter which way you go. In all, I felt the benefits didn't outweigh the costs.

Rob
Old 01-20-2010, 11:38 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #16 (permalink)