Anyway to disable the tire pressure monitor system on a 2007 ford escape?
flathead
Jeff
Do you like driving around with tires with low air pressure?
Jeff
C. E. White
"flathead" <dilber...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3h5sn3pms6jeakvau...@4ax.com...
>
Why would you want to?
Ed
David Geesaman
positives when the tires get warm on the highway.
Dave
Jim Warman
speed input for tire pressure computations.... this was NOT a good system.
Later years/models used valve stem mounted transponders... much better but
still not "great".
Since TPMS is federally mandated in the US, these systems use a rim mounted
sensor... a very good system if the tire shops realize that demounting a
tire incorrectly can destroy a sensor.
Judging from the number of low tires we can see on our daily commute to
work, TPMS is long overdue.
Ed... Some people will install an alternative wheel/tire combination that
may desire lower than manufacturer tire pressures - or, for some unknown
reason, decide they want to run their tires at lower than recommended
pressures.... On current model Fords, the low limit of the tire pressure
tolerance cannot be adjusted in programming. I understand Fords reluctance
to allow this since the liability could be astounding.
Every time the manufacturers try to improve convenience and safety, someone,
somewhere will complain. These people would have us riding around in cars
powered by magneto sparked, flat head, updraft carbbed "flivvers".... but
that would only give them other stuff to complain about...
For the original poster... disabling the system is, in the US, against the
law.... period. While the system is not yet officially mandated in Canada,
any government vehicle inspections I perform include the disclaimer that "if
there is a factory installed device...." this includes a catalytic converter
(though Alberta has no current anti-tampering laws), any supplemental
restraint systems, lighting, seatbelts... the list goes on.... "... they
must be functional". What this means... even though we have no federal or
provincial mandate currently in place regarding TPMS.... if it is equipped
with this feature, it MUST be functional.
flathead
Yeah, I hear what your saying. I did have a tire that was low. The
TPMS light came on alerting me to this. I filled the tire back up and
checked the other ones. The light won't go off now. I just wish they
had a easy way to reset it. Thanks!
Ed White
> Yeah, I hear what your saying. I did have a tire that was low. The
> TPMS light came on alerting me to this. I filled the tire back up and
> checked the other ones. The light won't go off now. I just wish they
> had a easy way to reset it. Thanks!
The light should reset automatically. Did you check the spare? Some vehicles
have 5 sensors (my SO's RAV4), some 4 (my Frontier). Both me and the SO have
had the lights come on, in my case one of the four rooad wheels was low, for
her it was the spare. For both of us, inflating the tires to the proper
pressure turned the light out.
Ed
Jim Warman
at at least 30 kph to turn the light out. To conserve the "lifetime"
batteries, the transponders go to "sleep" after very short periods of
inactivity.
flathead
Thanks for the feedback. Will check the spare and drive it a while :)
flathead
Follow up. The spare tire was about 10 psi low.Filled to 60lbs. Put
30lbs. in all the way around while the tires were cold. Drove a couple
hundred yards down the block and the light went off. thanks again for
the help :)
leor...@gmail.com
TPMS is a major scam due to a number of reasons. The most obvious is
related to pressure fluctuations due to temprerature changes. And not
only between seasons but between day and night. If you happen to leave
in a state like Colorado, the difference between day and night can
easily exceed 50 degrees. This means that if you set pressure to 32
psi for 30F, @ 80 your tires may simply explode. Adjusting pressure
for something in the middle, let's say 50, will trigger the light in
morning. The second - long term - spam aspect is that today's sensors
have built-in batteries which means that they should last about 5
years. If your tire gets stolen, you end up paying $300+ to a friendly
crook dealer because the sensor needs to be re-programmed to
communicate with the on-board computer. Replacing all 5 sensors will
run about $1,500, and this cost is not taken into consideratio when
manufacturers evaluate "cost of ownership".
Don't tell me it's not technically possible to make sensors that run
forever and compensate for temperature fluctuations because IT IS
POSSIBLE but in the current form, it is a MAJOR scam. Why do they use
system that obviously is not ready for user-frienfly utilization?
Simple: each sensor is an active transmitter with its own unique id,
and it makes it real easy to monitor your whereabouts.
Welcome to the New World Order kgb could've only dreamt of!
leor...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:53:50 GMT, "Jim Warman"
>
And when the tires get hot, and pressure jumps 30-50%... what then?
C. E. White
<leor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ee4fcc0-6862-492a...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
Huh? 30 to 50% - NO WAY. Dry air is close to an ideal gas, so we can
use the ideal gas law as a decent approximation of what occurs as the
air heats up.
PV=nRT
V, n, and R are constants (Yes V is a constant, the volume of a tire
changes very little because of changes in pressure)
so
P1/T1 = P2/T2 and P2=P1*T2/T1
T must be in an absolute scale (Rankine or Kelvin)
70 degrees F = 530 degrees Rankine
Assume P1 is 35 psi
Assume T2 is 130 degrees F = 590 degrees Rankine
P2 = P1*T2/T1 = 35*590/510 = 40.5 psi
40.5 psi = 16% increase and this is extreme, tires rarely get as hot
as 130 degrees F unless you are racing on a hot day. A more normal
increase would be 10% or less.
Ed
C. E. White
<leor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9794d-b794-4b0a...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> TPMS is a major scam due to a number of reasons. The most obvious is
> related to pressure fluctuations due to temprerature changes. And
> not
> only between seasons but between day and night. If you happen to
> leave
> in a state like Colorado, the difference between day and night can
> easily exceed 50 degrees. This means that if you set pressure to 32
> psi for 30F, @ 80 your tires may simply explode.
You are wildly over estimating the change in pressure due to a change
in temperature. See my other post in this thread for details.
Assume night time temperature is 30 degrees F. This is 490 degrees
Rankine (absolute tempearture scale). Assume daytime high is 80
degrees F. This is 540 degrees Rankine. Assmue the pressure at 30
degrees F is 32 psi. The pressure at 80 degrees F will be:
P2 = 540*32/490 = 35.3 psi . The tires are not going to explode at
this pressure.
Ed
leor...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <leoru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you had that system on whatever you happen to drive, you's be just
as annoyed by the ligh constantly coming on as I am. But there is an
option - actually I'd prefer that option for myself if it were
possible - talk to dealership service people, and ask how many cars
come in every day because the TPMS warning light is on.
leor...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <leoru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Honestly, I didn't do the math. My review was based on personal
experience of having the darn warning light always blinking because
some moron stole my spare tire (with the sensor) AND it comes - and
stays - on sometimes a few times a day following temperature
fluctuations and changes in travel speed. Trust me it's annoying! But
it's even more annoying when some idiot tells me "no, you can't
disable the system because it's a safety item, and - therefore - is
illegal". Holding me a hostage of their stupid (yet certainly
profitable) games - that's what should be illegal.
Jeff
> On Jan 30, 12:07 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com>
> wrote:
>> <leoru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eaf9794d-b794-4b0a...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> TPMS is a major scam due to a number of reasons. The most obvious is
>>> related to pressure fluctuations due to temprerature changes. And
>>> not
>>> only between seasons but between day and night. If you happen to
>>> leave
>>> in a state like Colorado, the difference between day and night can
>>> easily exceed 50 degrees. This means that if you set pressure to 32
>>> psi for 30F, @ 80 your tires may simply explode.
>> You are wildly over estimating the change in pressure due to a change
>> in temperature. See my other post in this thread for details.
>>
>> Assume night time temperature is 30 degrees F. This is 490 degrees
>> Rankine (absolute tempearture scale). Assume daytime high is 80
>> degrees F. This is 540 degrees Rankine. Assmue the pressure at 30
>> degrees F is 32 psi. The pressure at 80 degrees F will be:
>>
>> P2 = 540*32/490 = 35.3 psi . The tires are not going to explode at
>> this pressure.
You left out one thing: the tire pressure when the gage reads 32 psi is
actually 47 psi. The gage reads the difference between the pressure in
the tire and the atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure is about
15 psi, when the gage reads 32, the pressure is 32 + 15 = 47.
So the pressure at 80 F would be about 36.5, still not enough to blow
the tire.
Jeff
C. E. White
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lwZoj.213$xE.204@trnddc01...
As far as the stress on the tire is concerned, it is gauge pressure
that matters - unless you are taking it into outer space. It you drive
from sea level to Denver, the apparent gauge pressure would increase
by 2 psi or so, but I don't think this puts you in any danger.
Ed
leor...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure. One of the reason for ford exploder rollovers have been
determined as ford's recommendation to keep tire pressure @ 29 psi to
offset suspension defects. This drop of about 3 psi - apparently - was
enough for tires to explode and contributed to quite a few deaths. I
inderstand that 29 is LESS than 32 but temperature in tires with low
pressure tends to increase more than in those properly inflated.
leor...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, it's not enough to just blow the tire but if you are
driving @ 75 mph (legal speed in many states), increased initial
pressure will be added to that created by yet another temperature jump
caused by friction. Again, remember exploder escapade? But even if you
don't get killed, the temperature fluctuations still cause annoying
light to come on. For that I don't need calculations to claim.
C. E. White
<leor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ca81c90-dbb8-44ba...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure. One of the reason for ford exploder rollovers have been
> determined as ford's recommendation to keep tire pressure @ 29 psi
> to
> offset suspension defects. This drop of about 3 psi - apparently -
> was
> enough for tires to explode and contributed to quite a few deaths. I
> inderstand that 29 is LESS than 32 but temperature in tires with low
> pressure tends to increase more than in those properly inflated.
It is incorrect to say that the suspension of the Explorers from the
mid to late 90s was defective. Ford decided on the lower pressure (26
not 29) to reduce steering response so that it would be harder for a
driver to get the vehicle sideways when making violent maneuvers. As
been pointed out many times before, 26 PSI was well above the minimum
pressure needed to adequately support the weight of a fully loaded
Explorer. According to the load versus inflation pressure tables for
the tires installed on an Explorer from the era that supposedly had a
problem, 22 psi was adequate to support a fully loaded Explorer.
Firestone never actually claimed that 26 psi was too low, they
actually claimed that a higher pressure would provide a greater safety
margin. In fact this was total BS. Firestone made crappy ties and
when things went bad, they tried to blame Ford and/or Explorer Owners
(for not adequately monitoring tire pressure). I am willing to agree
that Ford deserves some of the blame for trusting Firestone to build
anything better than crap. Just remember these facts:
- In 1996 50% of the Explorer sold had Goodyear Tires, and there was
no history of those tires failing at an unusual rate, despite having
the same pressure recommendation.
- Other contemporary SUVs had similar size tires with similar
pressure recommendation and they did not experience high tire failure
rates.
-There is no history of problems with tires on Explorers since the
defective Firestones were replaced
- 4 Door Explorers in the range that were supposedly prone to
rollover, had the second lowest rollover death rate of any mid sized
SUV. Only the Jeep Grand Cherokee was better. 4 door Toyota 4Runners
from the mid to late 90s had a rollover death rate 4 times that of 4
door Explorers.
Ed
leor...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <leoru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If "to support weight" means not hitting rims, 22 psi is sufficient.
As far as explorer being not defective - suspension- or otherwise - I
respectfully disagree. It's always been an unbeleivable piece of junk
all around. See, I've been doing automotive inspections for extended
warranty companies for about 20 years, and what I've seen in the
field... you don't want to know. Just to illustrate my point:
http://www.anti-lemon.com/brokenknuckle.html.
Up until late 90's, ford had a nasty little defect - among others -
the right lower control arm rear bushing had a tendency to deteriorate
due to close proximity to the catalytic converter. Apparently, even
ford finally realized that it was a problem and started installing a
shield. But it was a typical "ford solution", and didn't fix a thing
until they eventually re-designed the entire suspension. Excessive
play in that bushing was at least a contributing factor in ford-
related fatalities.
Now, I'm the last one to say that firestone tires are worth talking
about not to mention buying BUT 1. goodyear is unlikely any better and
2. the same tires on other vehicles caused no known accidents or other
concerns. The latter fact tells me that whatever was at fault, it
wasn't tires.
C. E. White
From: <leor...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.ford
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Anyway to disable the tire pressure monitor system on a
2007 ford escape?
> If "to support weight" means not hitting rims, 22 psi is sufficient.
No, I mean that a P235R15 tire inflated to 22 pis is rated to safetly
support the load of a fully laoded Explorer. There are industry
standards for P metric tires. All tires of a given size and type
should meet the minimum industry standards no matter how they are
constructed. The "evil" tires installed on Explorers were P235/75-15
S105 Tires. The industry standard load inflation table for this tire
size follows:
Cold Inf.
Pressure Load
20 1543
23 1653
26 1753
29 1852
32 1940
35 2028
For use on "light trucks" the laodvalues for P series tires are
derated by 10%. So at 26 psi, the tires on an Explorer should have
been suitable to support a load of 1,578 lbs. This is a tire industry
standard, not a Ford standard, or a Firestone standard. A P235/75-15
Tire inflated to 26 psi is rated to carry 1,578 lbs at it's maximum
rated speed when mounted on a light truck. Since the Explorers used
"S" rated tires, the maximum safe speed is 112 mph. Explorers are
limited to 105 mph top speed by the vehicle's PCM.
> As far as explorer being not defective - suspension- or otherwise -
> I
> respectfully disagree. It's always been an unbeleivable piece of
> junk
> all around. See, I've been doing automotive inspections for extended
> warranty companies for about 20 years, and what I've seen in the
> field... you don't want to know. Just to illustrate my point:
> http://www.anti-lemon.com/brokenknuckle.html.
I've seen vehicles from all sort of manufacturers with the wheels
tucked in like the one in the picture. I just saw a Generation 1
Tundra last week on the side of the road with the wheel tucked in. The
Tundra probably was the victim of a ball joint failure. The picture
you posted is highly unusual, I don't think it is a "typical" failure.
I would suspect the vehicle had been in a prior accident or that the
upright had been damaged in some way.
> Up until late 90's, ford had a nasty little defect - among others -
> the right lower control arm rear bushing had a tendency to
> deteriorate
> due to close proximity to the catalytic converter. Apparently, even
> ford finally realized that it was a problem and started installing a
> shield. But it was a typical "ford solution", and didn't fix a thing
> until they eventually re-designed the entire suspension. Excessive
> play in that bushing was at least a contributing factor in ford-
> related fatalities.
Actually the Explorer's front suspension was completely redesigned in
the mid-90s (1995), not the late 90s. The strut bushing you are
whining about went away when the twin I beam front suspension was
eliminated in 1995.
> Now, I'm the last one to say that firestone tires are worth talking
> about not to mention buying BUT 1. goodyear is unlikely any better
> and
> 2. the same tires on other vehicles caused no known accidents or
> other
> concerns. The latter fact tells me that whatever was at fault, it
> wasn't tires.
How can you say that? Explorers that came with Goodyear tires from the
factory had no unusal problems with tire failures. And since the
defective Firestones tires have been replaced, you never hear of any
problems with Explorers and tire tread separations. Even back before
the Firestone tire recall, Explorers did not have a particularly high
driver death rate due to rollovers. The driver death rate due to
vehicle rollover for the following 1994 -1997 CARS was higher than for
1994 -1997 4 door 4 wheel drive Explorers -
Chevrolet Lumina
Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Mitsubishi Galant
Pontiac Grand Am
Chevrolet Cavalier
Hyundai Sonata
Pontiac Sunfire
Dodge Neon
Kia Sephia
Hyundai Accent
Geo Metro
Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Mazda MX-6
Dodge Avenger
Oldsmobile Achieva
Acura Integra
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Ford Probe
Toyota Tercel
Hyundai Accent
Ford Mustang
Pontiac Firebird (sedan and convertible)
Chevrolet Camaro (sedan and convertible) <--Actually Camaros of this
vintage had one of the worst roll over death rates for any vehicle
So, if you are claiming that mid to late 90's Explorers were prone to
roll over because of a poorly designed suspension, what can you say
about all these CARS?
Ed
leor...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
First, I was not talking about strut bushing but rather lower (right)
control arm bushing. I did imply, however, that it takes ford to
ignore a known defect for decades. Another example of a ford fast-
reacting genius is 3.8 head gaskets. That defect was ONE OF THE
reasons for high rollover rate. Low tire pressure was another one. Low
explorer owners' IQ is quite likely the third reason. Not too good
tires might have contributed as well.
Second, I didn't say that exlorers had the above suspension defect
from early 90's. I said from beginning of production up until they re-
designed the suspension in the late 90's. OK, mid 90's.
Third, rollover death rate and rollover rate are not quite the same
thing. A mustang or firebird - especially covertible - is more likely
to kill an idiot who had bought them in the first place than an SUV,
even ford SUV.
But even rollover rate is not a pure indication of suspension quality.
You are what you drive, and this means that let's say an individual
who drives a camaro could be more likely to drive wrecklessly than the
one who drives a Lexus. In official stability testing, the worst ever
was Isuzu Trooper also sold as Acura... don't remember model name.
BTW, rollover also can be caused by an impact, not necessarily JUST
driving. I can see how a geo metro could go belly up after being hit
by an explorer... as a result of a "normal" explorer rollover.
The broken knuckle case I mentioned was not typical, and I never
claimed it was but I've never seen a Honda or Toyota in that or
similar condition regardless of age or mileage. I have, however, seen,
a chrysler masterpiece that lost its second ball joint at less than
600 miles. If interested, there are pictures of that thing on our site
http://www.anti-lemon.com.
Jeff
<...>
> First, I was not talking about strut bushing but rather lower (right)
> control arm bushing. I did imply, however, that it takes ford to
> ignore a known defect for decades. Another example of a ford fast-
> reacting genius is 3.8 head gaskets. That defect was ONE OF THE
> reasons for high rollover rate.
Please explain how bad head gaskets cause rollovers.
Jeff
leor...@gmail.com
Why are you, ford falks, can't read (or comprehend) the entire
sentence:
"Another example of a ford fast-reacting genius is 3.8 head
gaskets."???
In any case, this was an example of ford's dedication to keep a
minimal feedback from the outside life. To be more specific, it was a
suble attempt to say that there is nothing ford is not capable of
doing... except the right thing such as accepting responsibility and
admitting its screw-ups. Making cars is not even discussed.
Hope it helps.
Jeff
The words "that defect" is supposed to refer to what is immediately
before it, which, in this case was head gaskets.
You just weren't clear enough. No big deal.
Jeff
