After being told that the flywheels were the same, and hurriedly failing to look before installing the engine, I finally looked at the perforations on the two flywheels. They are similar in being encircled by punched out square holes with one exception. At the #1 TDC position the 92 has a solid place and the 97 a cutout. The picture is of the 97 on the left (taken through the access hole underneath) with the 92 on the right. (I can't get the 440x165 56 kb jpg to upload. Hints here needed or I'll email it to you.)

My electrical knowledge tells me that either way the alternating current generated by the passage of the metal past the sensor will stop when the alternations in the metal stop.

After a lot of cranking I finally got the computer to give me the code for bad signal from the sensor. Using test mode 2, I can't get a consistent response showing that the signal is getting through. I have viewed the signal on an oscilloscope at the sensor terminals (nice sine wave) and have checked for the correct resistance from the plug at the ECU (3-400 ohm). Moving the harness, even pretty radically out of position, won't break the circuit as measured at the ECU plug.

Could the difference in the flywheels be the problem? Does anyone know for sure? Does the 92 part supersede to the same number as the 97?

If I can't get some kind of firm response that they are the same, I'll pull the tranny next weekend and do the swap.

Can the ECU behave normally on the tests without being good? Can a bad timing module cause the ECU not to send an impulse to the power stage? (I get no pulse in pins 1,3 & 5 on the front power sate plug when cranking.)

I've been working on electronic fuel injection since 1973. (Remember the VW typ 3 and the Volvo 140 series with D-Jetronic?) I'm probably going to have to put this at the top of my list for hard to find problems.

Any help will get you much gratitude and for the person who solves this, a fabulous prize dragged from the back of my FI parts drawer. (Tired smile....)