[alfa] Zat Tensioner Vs. Hydraulic in non-hydraulic mode

[Brad Anesi <brad.anesi@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is mostly a question for Joe, but I figured I'd throw it out there for
all to comment on.  Like Joe, I've reverted back to running the "old"
hydraulic tensioner but in a fixed, non-hydraulic fashion.  I've been
running this way for years now without issue.  When I first made the change,
I was told it basically made the tensioner function like the Zat one.  I
took it at face value and readily admit I didn't give it much thought.  I
had just witnessed a 500-mile race engine destroyed by an equally new
mechanical tensioner failure, and I was very interested in deploying an
alternative solution.

Joe now points out with some conviction that running the hydraulic tensioner
in non-hydraulic mode as we do is a much better solution than the Zat
tensioner.  I'm happy to hear that, but I'm not sure I fully understand why.
Mind you, I've never seen the Zat tensioner.  I imagine with both of them in
front of me, it would be a self explanatory, or a 30 second conversation at
best.  Given that's not a reality, I'd be interested to hear in greater
detail why this is.

Signed, 

Curious George :)
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided