Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Apparently is a really big whoop.
"Dave’s sensor problem required fiddling around in the tractor’s highly proprietary computer system".
Take away the digital rights management so you can use your Harbor Freight scan tool and you're back in business. The Copyright Office is working on that (IP Watchdog).
The latest secret free trade agreement is trying to hammer that again. (Daily Dot)
Nothing DRMs like a Deere.
I think that's part of the Stabilitrak issue. Something goes hooey and the Stablilitrak light goes off. That's not enough info - it shouldn't be that difficult to hook up your code reader and find out exactly what system has gone hooey. Some coding, maybe more or better sensors, and you're there. You shouldn't need a tech with 30 years of training and experience to run a flow chart to narrow down what system is broken. The gizmo should get you to that place so you can verify the issue and know the right part to bang on.
That's getting closer to reality, any failure in any one (or more) of the sub-systems results in the Stabilitrak system shutting down. The diagnostic for that particular event requires accessing all of the modules to see which ones have a code(s) and what the codes are and then a diagnostic routine can be started. What doesn't happen at that level is the following of some flow chart. If someone has to follow a flow chart or "Trouble Tree" to diagnose a problem that means they don't know how something works. Flow charts all have one fatal flaw, they only work while the problem is occurring. The problem cannot be random or intermittent, it has to be a hard failure or else the flow chart will either mislead the person or end up with the problem not found.
As far as some machine (software) telling someone what is wrong that is always going to be limited to predictable failures and then only if the failure doesn't result in a loss of communication to the affected system. But even then someone has to manually verify why the computer thinks that it does. (How does it know)
It could be a number of things that are expensive so no one really knows? In order to "fix" the issue that everyone is having with Service stabilitrak, service traction control, loss of power, traction control off etc. we need to 1) drain and clean gas tank, 2) change fuel filters 3) clean injectors 4) reset computer 5) clean the throttle body and 6) replace throttle body. Did I forget anything? I have yet to read a post that has solved the issue permanently.
GM knows there is a massive problem that has spanned years and has not found a solution to their poorly engineered stabilitrak. I will never buy GM again.
bad brake positioning sensor
bad steering wheel sensor
front wheel speed sensor (wiring short)
D to L shifter issue
cam position sensor
debris in the the magnetic encoder rings
Name a car company that had multiple computers on the car that communicated with each other in 1984.
Name a car company that had touch screen climate and radio control, and actually included the full scan tool right in the infrastructure in 1986.
I could go on and on but the answer is GM. They weren't behind other manufacturers, they were more than a decade ahead of most of them. There were some other companies getting into fuel injection in the 80's and computer controls but the data and bi-directional support capability was missing. Most didn't use a "Check Engine" light simply because they saw the publics perception of the computer turning on the light as a negative instead of recognizing the implementation of it as ground breaking advancement in technology.
As has been shown, while everyone who owns these cars complains when the system detects a fault and shuts down, that is really just a representation of the limits of the technology at this point in time. Other manufacturers are not immune from similar failures, it really is more of a numbers game. They don't sell as many cars so right off the top would have fewer repairs. BTW it's important to point out that engine control issues such as the throttle body control failures result in the loss of power reports. Some failures only shut down the ABS and the traction control system with no loss of power. There are lots of people running around under that condition that are ignoring the vehicle condition until a failure of a system that causes the loss of power report occurs and only then do they have the car attended to.
As far as how "horribly wrong" things are going do you realize how few failures really occur today as compared to just ten, twenty, to thirty or more years ago? There is a remarkable reduction in the number of failures all the way across the board, and that's on top of how little maintenance is required today.
Just a few years ago when Toyota was dealing with the alleged unintended acceleration complaints there were calls for lock-out systems that would prevent run-away acceleration. Most of the reports seen here reflect exactly the results of such technology being added to the system. If the computer isn't certain what it is being commanded to do or capable of outputting a command, then the correct result requires the system to shut down. Can that happen at a very unfortunate time, sadly that of course can happen, but its never going to be the "right time" for any failure to occur now is it?
All that is impossible now. When ghosts start appearing in your new car's multiplexed networks, you probably won't see it for a week once it goes in for repairs....IF it ever gets fixed that is. So the new car owner's choice will be....what? in another ten years. "Either you will have 150,000 miles of trouble free driving...OR...something will go wrong and after months of struggle, we recommend you just trade it in".
A car shouldn't be shut down by the ECM unless it's a dire emergency.
Meanwhile:
Take a job that starts out customer pay. Lets imagine they allow for one hour of diagnostic time. The car is diagnosed and the repair sold at regular customer pay time. Lets allow two hours for the repair for a total of three hours. If any part of the repair then get's "good-willed" for any reason the tech then gets paid .3 for the diagnostics and usually about half for the repair, so the job that should have paid the tech three hours, now pays about 1.3 hours. It only takes a few times of that happening and people get trained to NOT do the work correctly and that's the real reason for the majority of the recurring complaints. Docking someone's pay is a punishment only in the techs case they are essentially getting punished for nothing of their own doing even when they did the job correctly.
GM isn't alone with shutting down AWD and traction control systems with certain failures. Ford, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler, and many of the Europeans all have their own variations to this same theme.
As for labor rates, it costs what it costs. If it takes a shop 8 hours of diligent work to fix a car they have to charge 8 hours. Sure, they can "discount" for time say reading up on technical matters related to the issue (the point being they shouldn't be paid to study on the customer's dime), and they shouldn't charge for a part that didn't solve the problem, but if it takes $800 in labor to fix this dreadful nuisance, then so be it. The complaint is with GM, not the poor repair shop who did the job right.
The majority of diagnostics is 75% research and preparation and 25% actual testing. The whole idea of "We can't pay you to learn how to work on someone's car" is simply another way that someone moves the finish line to somewhere that is convenient for their own perspective. Even then when the dust settles and the answer is in hand, everyone tends to respond with something that comes across as "That was so simple, you should have found it much faster". Just like that crank sensor issue on that Jeep, they aren't all as simple as what some dare to believe.
Just picture yourself trying to run a shop with the approach you just suggested and Steve was your prospective customer who has never met you and has no idea if you really know how to change a light bulb. So Steve calls around and finds someone else who really doesn't know how to change a lamp and that person quotes a low price (or free) for what appears to be the same thing to Steve. Now in order to get a car into your shop you have to find ways to cut your pricing even if it is below what it cost you to even try to open the doors. Do this for decades and lets see where you stand.
And then we have this. "Also if a technician doesn't know diddley about a particular problem, he shouldn't take on the job."
Do you realize that this really applies to people who read a description of a symptom and try to guess what is wrong? They shouldn't be doing it.
Three out of five things that I do today are something I have never seen before. It's been that way for more than twenty years. Even when a problem appears to be something that someone has seen before, it should never be assumed that it is. With a solid diagnostic routine, experience, and a disciplined professional approach even the most mind numbing problems can be solved. To draw a line in the sand as the above quote suggests, nobody would ever learn anything new and the techniques such as that CKP diagnostic on that Jeep would have never been created.
Some of the most successfully shops I know are quite expensive. They would charge double what Midas charges. But they get the job done right the first time, and you get the best parts, prompt personal service, a clean car.
Today I brought it into my dealer and they looked and see that there is a throttle body replacement covered by GM based on the problem occurring. This is 100% covered including the inspection (since they confirmed it was covered). Unfortunately I need to get my struts done so that is 800 bucks. Next the tires. Always something on this beast.
under my extended warranty they replaced a bunch of power steering components.
On the bright side, it is a repeatable condition and that makes it much easier to find. It does have to be diagnosed while it is acting up.
I'm not even sure what that MEANS...where is this "carbon" and where is it building up, and what does that have to do with ignition misfire when cold and not when warm?
(scratching head....)
I bet you spoke to a service writer and not a tech.
Now for the fun part, why can this cause a misfire. The MAF sensor measures all of the air entering the engine (hopefully, VBG). The computer takes that measurement and calculates the injector on time and commands the injector to pulse and deliver the fuel. Remember, the injector is in the cylinder, so the fuel is definitely going to get into the cylinder. Meanwhile, if you have a cylinder that has a restricted intake valve and port due to carbon build-up that can potentially reduce how much air gets into that cylinder. What you end up with is a cylinder that can be too rich to burn correctly and that results a misfire.
BTW, reference the KIA oil change thread. That is why the fuel and induction system cleaning services are recommended at specific intervals, or at the very least if Top Tier fuel isn't being used Hyundai/Kia both require the addition of extra fuel cleaner additive when performing an oil change.
It really doesn't matter if you can feel one or not, if the criteria are met by what the PCM interprets as a misfire it will log the event(s) and then depending on what percentage of events occur in the 200 rpm counters, and the 1000 rpm counters one might or might not generate a misfire code and a check engine light.
So the question stands, from the PCM's point of view exactly what is a misfire? Keep in mind that in order to make the customer happy with their car (which means keep the check engine light out) you have to make the PCM happy.
I suppose excess carbon could inspire some pre-ignition, also possibly interpreted by the PCM as a mis-fire, but this would require a hot engine, not a cold one.