- Messages
- 17,654
- Reaction score
- 9,905
- Location
- Somewhere between here and there
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
Sure, Simon! I'll take a schematic. What other reg uses that spring? I am unaware.
You're exactly right. Since both were used in the G250V, then logically there's no reason that 218 wouldn't be backward compatible.
I'm wracking my memory from the equipment seminars trying to remember what the reason for the switch was. It had something to do with clearance, or a coating, or friction. But it was for a different reg. Does the S620Ti use the 218? I can't find a schematic for that reg, though I thought I had one. Actually, I think it was the C350/360/370. That may be where the clearance issue came up...
My memory fails me.
Sent, also a Ti schematic, mine is a little old but uses .216.
Assuming it's backwards compatible and that the change was born out of "performance improvement" a .218 would be the better spring to use in all previous single point of adjustment .216 models. FTR the G260 uses a .216.
Tighter tolerances? super go fast coating?