Anyone with an 89 300ZX know what the Vs are for the dizzy's optical sensor:

on the 1' signal?
And on the 120' signal?

they are both 5v

@evildky, Thanks! A professional with a high-end scanner (snap-on I think??) walked through the menus for me (no access to a 300ZX) and the scanner said battery V. Didn't think that was correct.

The optic's are made by mitsubishi and are all basically the same, VG, L28ET, KA, CA, SR, RB, different trigger wheels and different housings but the same optic's and same signals.

@evildky, That is OUTSTANDING information!

Had looked at (at least) a dozen cars (in the junkyards) (completely disassembling each dizzy and checking and testing), including non-Nissans (various Subarus, Mercurys, et al - the other makes that used the same optical modules), trying to sort it out. You summed it in 1 sentence! What you said so well is exactly what my research showed. I would note, though, that in a couple of instances there "were" different Vs: while most were 5Vs, Nissan's E16i SM states 2.0-2.7 Vs for the 1', and Nissan's GA16i SM states 2.3-2.7 for the 1'. Thus, why I wanted to know if the 300ZXs and other Nissans (i.e., their ECUs) used the same or possibly other/different Vs.

Do you happen to know or can you confirm the 93 Quest Vs (1' and 120')?
And what about the '92 Pathfinder Vs?

Incidentally, the same high end professional shop scanner that showed the 300ZXs Vs to be battery V "did" correctly show 95 HB pickup I-4 Vs at 5 (5-0 and 0-5, 180' and 1', respectively).

Finally, do you know WHY they changed from 3-diode-pairing optical modules down to 2-diode-pairing modules? Like from RSB-03 to RSB-06 and RSB-07?

And, are RSB-07's fully interchangeable for RSB-06's - with the exact same signal results "expected" by the RSB-06 ECUs?

And, are 2-diode-pairing RSB-07's fully interchangeable for 3-diode-pairing RSB-03's - with the exact same signal results "expected" by the RSB-03 ECUs?

And, would 3-diode-pairing modules fully interchange where 2-diode-pairing modules were used - with the same signal results "expected" by the ECUs??

Thanks!