Forester ECU won't re-learn idle ....

[pedro]

Did a battery change on the SG Forester (07/MY07) last Tuesday. Apart
from losing the expected radio presets and unexpected trip meter
values, the ECU of course does a reset. This requires re-learning the
idle settings.

After the ECU reset but prior to re-learn, as you approach a stop
(clutch in) the idle drops down to 350 or so and then the engine
stalls, although very occasionally it just dips down there and returns
to the normal 750. Just "driving it" doesn't improve the idle
behaviour one bit.

There is a widely documented procedure for facilitating this re-learn.
However, after following it religiously four times now, the idle/stall
behaviour persists. ScanGauge shows no codes (current or stored) and
running FreeSSM software on the laptop shows nothing out of the
ordinary except the rpm.

Yes, we know that throttle body gunking can cause similar issues but
the idle behaviour was mint before the battery replacement, so you
would have to believe in coincidence to attribute it to that -
although a TB cleanup is our next port of call if we can't get this
sorted.

Anyone else been through this caper?

[Jason James]

The only place I would recommend, is a Subaru forum. A lot of forums have doubtfull info on them, but you can usually get an idea if you use their search function, and do lots of research..

I have an idea to connect a current limited 12v supply to act as a back up while removing/replace the battery.

Jason

[D Walford]

Haven't changed the battery on ours (MY10) yet but have had idle
problems in the past which have been rectified by the dealer during a
service.
Never had a stalling problem, usually the other way around in that it
revs too high and takes a while to go down to a normal idle.
Do you use the Subaru fuel additive and does the "upper cylinder clean"
get done, they seem to make a difference although if it was idling ok
prior to the battery change it makes no sense to not continue doing the
same after a reset.

--
Daryl

[Jeßus]

ozfoz.com. Pedro should get the solution there, lots of knowledgeable
people there.

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:14 +1000, D Walford
<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>Do you use the Subaru fuel additive

The what? I've never heard of it...

[D Walford]

They put one in the tank and supply another to be put in the tank mid
way between services, normally I would just call it snake oil but there
is a noticeable difference after using it.

--
Daryl

[Xeno]

You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.

--

Xeno

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Since U can Circumnavigate NZ in an hour....Why cant U sort this??????
UH HUH. Just annuda dweeb ..
>


--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

[Xeno]

On 7/04/2014 11:00 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:14:45 +1000, Xeno <xeno...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
>> attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
>> know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
>> should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.
>

> But don't turn the ignition off, it has to be at accessory.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
Oops, yes, I forgot that.

--

Xeno

[Jason James]

On >

> > The only place I would recommend, is a Subaru forum. A lot of forums have doubtfull info on them, but you can usually get an idea if you use their search function, and do lots of research..
>
> >
>
> > I have an idea to connect a current limited 12v supply to act as a back up while removing/replace the battery.
>
> >
>
> > Jason
>
> >
>
> You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
>
> attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
>
> know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
>
> should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.

Great idea, using the cig-socket...

Jason

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:57:23 +1000, D Walford

<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>On 07/04/2014 6:49 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:14 +1000, D Walford
>> <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you use the Subaru fuel additive
>>
>> The what? I've never heard of it...
>>
>They put one in the tank and supply another to be put in the tank mid
>way between services, normally I would just call it snake oil but there
>is a noticeable difference after using it.

Interesting, I'll have to look into it. Is yours a turbo model?

[D Walford]

No, just a 2010 X, 2.5lt manual.
Its done about 100,000km and has always been serviced by the dealer, it
will be replaced by the end of the year.

--
Daryl

[John_H]

http://www.subaru.com.au/parts/catalogue/fuel-system-carbon-maintenance

Note that "Subaru Fuel Additive" is meant be used in conjunction with
"Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner", with the latter being part of the
service schedule that comes with every Subaru (assuming you've got all
your original handbooks).

You could however do much the same thing by fitting a Hiclone, and at
least you'd stand get your money back if you weren't convinced it
worked (and I never cease to be amazed at the number of folk who think
they can tell the difference). ;-)

The Upper Engine Cleaner is very similar to Seafoam, which has been
around since the 1930's with the main difference being that Seafoam
also doubles as a fuel additive whereas the marketing geniuses at
Subaru have worked out they can sell gullible owners an extra can by
having their dealers do the engine treatment thing (which isn't a
pretty sight to see).

The MSDS's (material safety data sheets) for both products ought be
available online if you wanted to check out the ingredients (oil,
white spirit and isopropyl alcohol).

I haven't bothered to check out the fuel additive MSDS but more than
likely it's a very close relative of any number of proprietary
"injector cleaners".

--
John H

[pedro]

Been there for several days without joy :-(

[pedro]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:00:23 +0400, Paul Saccani
<sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:14:45 +1000, Xeno <xeno...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>

>>You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
>>attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
>>know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
>>should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.
>

>But don't turn the ignition off, it has to be at accessory.

At Accessory there are relays that are powered. Don't think the 9V
battery will hold up for long.

In the past I have used a 12V SLA with a series diode for
memory-keeping duty, jumpered in to an unswitched B+.

[pedro]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:14 +1000, D Walford
<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:

Different issue, usually different causes.

>Do you use the Subaru fuel additive and does the "upper cylinder clean"
>get done, they seem to make a difference

This thing was over-serviced (original delivering Subi dealer) before
I purchased it late last year. Has done less than 1000km since xmas.

>although if it was idling ok
>prior to the battery change it makes no sense to not continue doing the
>same after a reset.

That's the bit that gets me. Apart from the need to re-learn, it
should be back where it was. Instead it has gone from wow to shite.
We've monitored a heap of parameters with FreeSSM and none appear
different from the lad's 07XS except the TPS % open fairly accurately
reflects the rev dips we are seeing.

We stepped the idle up by 200revs yesterday with FreeSSM. Today I did
a 35km round-trip and it stalled 5 times, the rest I was able to catch
it. PITA when you're trying to do a right turn across two oncoming
lanes and it dies as you're trying to 2-1 shift at a crawling speed,
leaving you stranded in the oncoming lane with no go and no P/S.

One possibility is a sensor that is on the way out - i.e. giving
consistent but flawed data to the ECU. If that had been there before
I bought it, it could potentially have been masked by a (volatile)
tweak of a number of settings using SSM. Now would a dealer do that?

[pedro]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:16:09 +1000, jonz <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote:

> Since U can Circumnavigate NZ in an hour....Why cant U sort this??????
>UH HUH. Just annuda dweeb ..

Why are you stil here?

[Xeno]

On 8/04/2014 5:39 PM, pedro wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:00:23 +0400, Paul Saccani
> <sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:14:45 +1000, Xeno <xeno...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
>>> attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
>>> know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
>>> should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.
>>
>> But don't turn the ignition off, it has to be at accessory.
>
> At Accessory there are relays that are powered. Don't think the 9V
> battery will hold up for long.

You could clip it to the (car) battery leads. That would get around that
problem. I have an accessory socket with clips for just such purposes.

>
> In the past I have used a 12V SLA with a series diode for
> memory-keeping duty, jumpered in to an unswitched B+.
>

--

Xeno

[Jason James]

From your terminology [B+] I see you are a radio buff. Tech, engineer or Ham ?

Jason

[Jeßus]

Bugger. Usually somebody there knows something, it's been extremely
useful to me over the years.

[Jason James]

> >In the past I have used a 12V SLA with a series diode for
>
> >memory-keeping duty, jumpered in to an unswitched B+.
>
>
>

> That'll do it too. But what won't do anything is a cigar lighter
>
> battery with the ignition off.

To true,..a few cars had power to the cig-lighter all the time [irrespective of key position, and, in or out]

Jason

[Xeno]

Yes, all the old ones had separate fused power connections and were live
all the time. That was until they became an OEM accessory.

--

Xeno

[pedro]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:30:13 +0400, Paul Saccani
<sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:39:27 +0800, pedro <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:00:23 +0400, Paul Saccani
>><sac...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:14:45 +1000, Xeno <xeno...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You can get a battery adapter to plug into the accessory socket. Just
>>>>attach a 9V dry cell battery to it and your settings are retained. Don't
>>>>know how long the 9V battery will last but if everything is turned off,
>>>>should be OK for battery changes and quick mechanical repairs.
>>>
>>>But don't turn the ignition off, it has to be at accessory.
>>
>>At Accessory there are relays that are powered. Don't think the 9V
>>battery will hold up for long.
>

>It does the trick, nonetheless.

Powering an automotive relay. you'd want to work like greased
lightning ...

>>In the past I have used a 12V SLA with a series diode for
>>memory-keeping duty, jumpered in to an unswitched B+.
>

>That'll do it too. But what won't do anything is a cigar lighter
>battery with the ignition off.

Of course.

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/04/2014 11:18 AM, pedro wrote:

> After the ECU reset but prior to re-learn, as you approach a stop
> (clutch in) the idle drops down to 350 or so and then the engine
> stalls, although very occasionally it just dips down there and returns
> to the normal 750. Just "driving it" doesn't improve the idle
> behaviour one bit.
>

Maybe it thinks it has re-learnt, but has got the wrong idea.

That's highly speculative, of course, and whether it could be true
depends on the details of the ECU programming.

Still, is there anything to lose by disconnecting the battery again, and
redoing the entire relearning process?

Sylvia.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <bqf8lk...@mid.individual.net>, xeno...@optusnet.com.au says...

When we bought the '07 used Imprezza a few years back the battery was stuffed
so changed that and the old one was probably causing or at least contributing to
stalling at low rpm, also idle was rough so swapped out the original plugs for
iridium. Running it on 98 RON petrol too. Maybe his just has bad plugs, shit
fuel etc. Basics first. The ECU as I'm aware does not reset when you replace the
battery in these AFAIK.

Anyway ours runs fine now, so fuck you all :)

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <53432e7b$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
dwal...@internode.on.net says...

Got $5 here if you want to sell it.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <p9a6k9d4katgmake3...@4ax.com>, john...@inbox.com
says...

Mr Walford (cupcake) is probably too lousy to run 98 RON.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <dla7k9913g5se2bia...@4ax.com>, m...@privacy.net says...

The dirty talk and the poor spelink.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <19dcd72d-9abc-4b39...@googlegroups.com>,
h6tg...@outlook.com says...

What's he supposed to call it, the positive terminal where electrons migrate to
for religious gatherings on a Thursday?

[D Walford]

It wouldn't work too well in my car, its a diesel:-)


--
Daryl

[Albm&ctd]

In article <53453c51$0$29891$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
dwal...@internode.on.net says...

eeew

[pedro]

It's not radio-specific terminology, but I answer to the last two of
those.

[pedro]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:24:49 +1000, Albm&ctd
<alb_mand...@connexus.net.au> wrote:

>When we bought the '07 used Imprezza a few years back the battery was stuffed
>so changed that and the old one was probably causing or at least contributing to
>stalling at low rpm, also idle was rough so swapped out the original plugs for
>iridium. Running it on 98 RON petrol too. Maybe his just has bad plugs, shit
>fuel etc. Basics first. The ECU as I'm aware does not reset when you replace the
>battery in these AFAIK.

It does.

>Anyway ours runs fine now, so fuck you all :)

There you go.

[pedro]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:03:56 +1000, Sylvia Else
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>On 7/04/2014 11:18 AM, pedro wrote:
>
>> After the ECU reset but prior to re-learn, as you approach a stop
>> (clutch in) the idle drops down to 350 or so and then the engine
>> stalls, although very occasionally it just dips down there and returns
>> to the normal 750. Just "driving it" doesn't improve the idle
>> behaviour one bit.
>>
>
>Maybe it thinks it has re-learnt, but has got the wrong idea.

Well that's most likely the situation. It certainly can be seen to do
the periodic step up/down on the revs during the learn/warmup "curve"
so it IS trying to learn and when the documented sequence is
terminated the steps are no longer evident.

>That's highly speculative, of course, and whether it could be true
>depends on the details of the ECU programming.
>
>Still, is there anything to lose by disconnecting the battery again, and
>redoing the entire relearning process?

Time and hair. The relearn starts with a cold engine.

[Jason James]

On W> >

>
> > From your terminology [B+] I see you are a radio buff. Tech, engineer or Ham ?
>
> >
>
> > Jason
>
> >
>
> What's he supposed to call it, the positive terminal where electrons migrate to
>
> for religious gatherings on a Thursday?

It's a throw back to early "battery" operated valve circuits, you tool,..Al. IE A = heaters B = plate supply C = bias

Jason

[Jason James]

> What's he supposed to call it, the positive terminal where electrons migrate to
>
> for religious gatherings on a Thursday?

For your education Al>> Yes they did make valves which could operate directly off 12volts, no oscillator to jack-up the B+ required. Personally, I use "rail" volts to indicate B+.

Automobile amplifiers[edit]
Valve radios and amplifiers were used in automobiles until they were displaced by transistorized radios. Transistors had the major advantage of working off the voltage provided by a car battery. Early radios required a power unit to convert the battery voltage to a value high enough for the valves. Later radios used special valves that were designed to operate directly from a 12 volt supply.[2] These later radios were hybrid designs which used transistors only for the audio output stages because a 12 volt power amplifier valve was not practical. For this and other applications, transistors are smaller, cheaper, more durable, use less power, run cooler, and do not need to warm up.

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/04/2014 11:41 PM, pedro wrote:

>
> Time and hair. The relearn starts with a cold engine.
>

Still, if that's what it takes :(

Sylvia.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Jeez Al, look what U gone an' did. ;)

>


--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

[jonz]

On 4/9/2014 9:41 PM, Albm&ctd wrote:
> In article <dla7k9913g5se2bia...@4ax.com>, m...@privacy.net says...
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:16:09 +1000, jonz <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote:
>>
>>> Since U can Circumnavigate NZ in an hour....Why cant U sort this??????
>>> UH HUH. Just annuda dweeb ..
>>
>> Why are you stil here?
>>
> The dirty talk and the poor spelink.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
thassit..
>
> Al

[Jason James]

Aye,..I the first. B+ is a reference to the higher voltage B battery used in wholly batery-operated radios, for the plate or anode supply..with the cathode heater battery called A and control-grid bias battery C ?

Jason

[Jason James]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:35:30 PM UTC+10, Toby wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:44:17 -0700 (PDT), Jason James blathered on in:

> Haven't owned a car wireless that was worth a cracker since the last
>
> hybrid one I owned.
>
> While the manufacturers no-doubt took the opportunity to save squillions
>
> on the wirless's by using transistors etc, they went at least ten steps
>
> too far, used shite versions of the componentry, and they've never
>
> looked back. (Trick was to use good stuff for the bits what made nouise
>
> through the tiny speakers and stuff the rest - the thing wurks - don't
>
> it?)
>
> Mainly because people such as Moi could never quite figure out which
>
> mongrels to strangle. Slowly.
>
> I hasten to add that Astor - whoever they really were, but probably tied
>
> up in some way with AWA - did produce some interesting radios in the
>
> late 60's that were at least as good as the last of the Hybrids - but
>
> that sure as shit didn't last. Mainly because people like Moi couldn't
>
> figure out which mongrels to cuddle. Slowly:-)
>
>
>
> As for FM - what a crock of shit that is. Transmit shitloads of power
>
> and hope for the best. Or course radios to receive that band were
>
> already crippled when it arrived.

Can't agree wholly with what you've said Tobe...Little to none atmospheric noise, and pre/de-emphasis plus stereo, plus a greater dynamic range makes it chalk and cheese comparing AM with FM. But you're right about power, line of sight dictates the need for this.

At Mt Canobolas in Orange NSW, I was able to pick up JJJ from MTCN way up near Walgett. It may have been some freak prop, as I only checked it once.

As far as A/G/A went at our MTCN site, we could establish 4/4 comms to aircraft at 30,000 ft around Pooncarie and Eildon weir.


> The less said about digital radio AKA DABbleinshit+ the better. Complete
>
> and utter fraud - at both ends of the transaction.
>
>
>
> FWIW I really don't give a shit that GovCo want's to sell the FM Band
>
> along with the VHF TV band to use in "chipping" every man jack of us.
>
> I'll call the mongrels out loud and long at every opportunity I get.
>
> As you'd expect:-)


Of course :-)

Jason

[Albm&ctd]

In article <li52v7$fgo$2...@dont-email.me>, Du...@why.i.bother says...

> On 4/10/2014 8:44 AM, Jason James wrote:
> >
> >> What's he supposed to call it, the positive terminal where
> >> electrons migrate to
> >>
> >> for religious gatherings on a Thursday?
> >
> > For your education Al>> Yes they did make valves which could operate
> > directly off 12volts, no oscillator to jack-up the B+ required.
> > Personally, I use "rail" volts to indicate B+.
> >
> > Automobile amplifiers[edit] Valve radios and amplifiers were used in
> > automobiles until they were displaced by transistorized radios.
> > Transistors had the major advantage of working off the voltage
> > provided by a car battery. Early radios required a power unit to
> > convert the battery voltage to a value high enough for the valves.
> > Later radios used special valves that were designed to operate
> > directly from a 12 volt supply.[2] These later radios were hybrid
> > designs which used transistors only for the audio output stages
> > because a 12 volt power amplifier valve was not practical. For this
> > and other applications, transistors are smaller, cheaper, more
> > durable, use less power, run cooler, and do not need to warm up.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Jeez Al, look what U gone an' did. ;)
>

He must be sitting on one of those old 6 Volt vibrators :)
AFAIK they didn't know electrons moved from negative to positive until the
invention of the electron microscope, um don't take that as fact, just what i
heard (without looking it up on Grogle).

[Albm&ctd]

In article <lcoqych4...@news.eternal-september.org>, m...@privacy.net says...

> hasten to add that Astor
>

It's an Astor, that's the problem.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <f4jak95oi8cugio6t...@4ax.com>, m...@privacy.net says...

It's my regular greeting at Christmas and hey it's getting near Easter where
they kill off Jesus again... those bastards.

[John_H]

Albm&ctd wrote:
>
>AFAIK they didn't know electrons moved from negative to positive until the
>invention of the electron microscope, um don't take that as fact, just what i
>heard (without looking it up on Grogle).

No idea who originally worked it out but it's essential to
understanding the operation of thermionic valves, for which De Forest
comes to mind (not to be confused with the Forester). :)

--
John H

[pedro]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:18:28 +0800, pedro <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Did a battery change on the SG Forester (07/MY07) last Tuesday. Apart
>from losing the expected radio presets and unexpected trip meter
>values, the ECU of course does a reset. This requires re-learning the
>idle settings.
>

>After the ECU reset but prior to re-learn, as you approach a stop
>(clutch in) the idle drops down to 350 or so and then the engine
>stalls, although very occasionally it just dips down there and returns
>to the normal 750. Just "driving it" doesn't improve the idle
>behaviour one bit.
>

>There is a widely documented procedure for facilitating this re-learn.
>However, after following it religiously four times now, the idle/stall
>behaviour persists. ScanGauge shows no codes (current or stored) and
>running FreeSSM software on the laptop shows nothing out of the
>ordinary except the rpm.
>
>Yes, we know that throttle body gunking can cause similar issues but
>the idle behaviour was mint before the battery replacement, so you
>would have to believe in coincidence to attribute it to that -
>although a TB cleanup is our next port of call if we can't get this
>sorted.

UPDATE: So there IS such a thing as coincidence.

Took it to S-Technic and asked Doug how long it would take for a
throttle body clean. "1/2 hour tops, you want us to do it now?" So
into it he went, Subi UEC first and after a few minutes with what I
presume was carb cleaner. He started it up and blew the cobwebs out,
took off the revs we'd added, and a road test demonstrated that it was
now idling pretty much on the money.

That was Tuesday. Didn't want to jinx it by posting the update until
I'd had it on the road for some time. Still going well.

Kudos to S-Technic for fitting it into their always busy day. It's
rare to get a WYW (while-you-wait) these days at any business worth
going to.

[D Walford]

Possibly the ECU had made corrections for the dirty throttle body which
were lost after the reset?

>
> That was Tuesday. Didn't want to jinx it by posting the update until
> I'd had it on the road for some time. Still going well.
>
> Kudos to S-Technic for fitting it into their always busy day. It's
> rare to get a WYW (while-you-wait) these days at any business worth
> going to.
>

You can still find good service but its getting more difficult.

--
Daryl

[pedro]

Dunno. It *should* still be able to relearn what
speed/opening/pulse-length combo gives the target speed, and get there
without undershoot. If the butterfly were sticky then that would
potentially explain undershoot..

>> That was Tuesday. Didn't want to jinx it by posting the update until
>> I'd had it on the road for some time. Still going well.
>>
>> Kudos to S-Technic for fitting it into their always busy day. It's
>> rare to get a WYW (while-you-wait) these days at any business worth
>> going to.
>>
>You can still find good service but its getting more difficult.

So true.

[Jeßus]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:59:16 +1000, D Walford
<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>On 08/04/2014 7:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:57:23 +1000, D Walford
>> <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/04/2014 6:49 PM, Jeßus wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:14 +1000, D Walford
>>>> <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you use the Subaru fuel additive
>>>>
>>>> The what? I've never heard of it...
>>>>

>>> They put one in the tank and supply another to be put in the tank mid
>>> way between services, normally I would just call it snake oil but there
>>> is a noticeable difference after using it.
>>
>> Interesting, I'll have to look into it. Is yours a turbo model?
>>
>No, just a 2010 X, 2.5lt manual.
>Its done about 100,000km and has always been serviced by the dealer, it
>will be replaced by the end of the year.

What with?

[Jeßus]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:38:48 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:

>Jeßus wrote:
>>On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:14 +1000, D Walford
>><dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you use the Subaru fuel additive
>>
>>The what? I've never heard of it...
>

>http://www.subaru.com.au/parts/catalogue/fuel-system-carbon-maintenance
>
>Note that "Subaru Fuel Additive" is meant be used in conjunction with
>"Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner", with the latter being part of the
>service schedule that comes with every Subaru (assuming you've got all
>your original handbooks).
>
>You could however do much the same thing by fitting a Hiclone, and at
>least you'd stand get your money back if you weren't convinced it
>worked (and I never cease to be amazed at the number of folk who think
>they can tell the difference). ;-)
>
>The Upper Engine Cleaner is very similar to Seafoam, which has been
>around since the 1930's with the main difference being that Seafoam
>also doubles as a fuel additive whereas the marketing geniuses at
>Subaru have worked out they can sell gullible owners an extra can by
>having their dealers do the engine treatment thing (which isn't a
>pretty sight to see).
>
>The MSDS's (material safety data sheets) for both products ought be
>available online if you wanted to check out the ingredients (oil,
>white spirit and isopropyl alcohol).
>
>I haven't bothered to check out the fuel additive MSDS but more than
>likely it's a very close relative of any number of proprietary
>"injector cleaners".

Thanks for that. So one vote for it's good, and another for it's snake
oil :)

[D Walford]

Good question, still haven't decided but a WRX is high on the short list.
We will be looking at lots of cars towards the end of the year, I am
even thinking about a MB CLA, BMW I series or even an Audi but really
need to do a bit of research and have a few test drives.
Mates new Volvo is an amazing bit of gear but at $90k its out of our
price range so we might even look at a Volvo S40.
My heart says to go German but my head says to stay Japanese or even
Korean, there is so much to chose from it won't be an easy choice.

--
Daryl

[F Murtz]

"Jeßus" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
news:9vkgk9t3d8bbsjito...@4ax.com...

Has anyone ever tried snake oil, it bight be the bees knees.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Jeßus]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:54:38 +1000, D Walford

Well it seems you're in a terrible quandary there. I'll trade places
with you if you like ;)

Out of those you've mentioned, I do like the Audis, especially the
wagons. Good point about German/Japanese/Korean differences when it
comes to running costs though.

Incredibly (for me), I'm not all that mad on the current crop of
Subarus... they are becoming more and more like every other Jap car.
They used to be quite distinctive, and you knew a Subaru as soon as
you saw (and possibly heard) it. Not anymore.

[D Walford]

I go into carsales.com.au and just put in a price range between $45-50k
with no other details and the variety of vehicles that comes up is huge
but hopefully it will be fun checking them all out.

>
> Out of those you've mentioned, I do like the Audis, especially the
> wagons. Good point about German/Japanese/Korean differences when it
> comes to running costs though.

Running costs is definitely something to consider, much easier with many
makes having fixed price servicing these days.

>
> Incredibly (for me), I'm not all that mad on the current crop of
> Subarus... they are becoming more and more like every other Jap car.
> They used to be quite distinctive, and you knew a Subaru as soon as
> you saw (and possibly heard) it. Not anymore.
>

I know what you mean but I think its that the others are becoming more
like Subaru's:-)
If we do go Japanese a new WRX is the most likely contender mainly its
because its what my wife wants and it will be her car, the new model
comes in auto (CVT) so even that is a possibility, she was impressed
with the CVT in the loan Forester we had for a few days while our
gearbox was getting repaired although the $2K extra for the auto is a
turn off.

--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 12/04/2014 6:37 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:28:48 +1000, Toby <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Main Game IS running costs, but not the group of them you usually
>> have considered.
>>
>> A gent called the ABC motoring segment last Thursday night about some
>> problems he's had with a Mazda 3 Diesel.
>> Apparently an injector had shat itself, and that in turn had done the
>> same to the Cat Converter.
>> History is that he bought the thing when it was 12 months old, had it
>> service by the dealer - all the usual stuff you hear from people who
>> know fuck-all about how their cars work.
>>
>> Anyhow, the upshot of the matter is that he's been quoted $13,600 to fix
>> the little POS.
>> Pretty amazing amount of money right there and a pretty amazing
>> demonstration of where the manufacturers are with their disgusting
>> pillaging behaviour right about now.
>
> It's covered by statutory warranty, actually.
>
>> I hope the gent who made that call will come to some sort of 'deal' to
>> save a few bucks, though I have a plan for him in the longer term.
>> Just being helpful, as always.
>> He should collect every piece of paperwork associated with the matter,
>> AND the old parts, specifically the dead injector and the cat. He should
>> wrap that injector in the papers - yopu know, to bulk it up a tad.
>> He should then wait for the next federal politician to crap on about the
>> average "fleet age" of the vehicles in Australia.
>> He should seek out that fucker and where it goes alone in conditions of
>> poor lighting. Near the brothel habitually attended by that politician
>> would be a decent start.
>> He should then jam that wrapped injector fair up that politicians arse,
>> hammering it home with the cat converter.
>>
>> You have to remember it's the politicians who are the only people who
>> can do anything about matters relating to spare parts pricing.
>
> It is politicians who passed the law giving a ten year warranty of
> merchandisable quality on a car.
>
> That's the one that means that this car should be repaired under that
> warranty.
>

Correct, Tobes didn't say how old the car was or how many kms it had
done but it sounds like its outside of normal warranty although that
shouldn't mean that its the end of the story.
In the case of a diesel fuel injector I can imagine that the vehicle
manufacturer would argue that the injector failed due to "bad" fuel
which is of course bullshit but the owner is going to have a huge fight
on his hands if he has any chance of winning.

> I don' think that warrants the asinine treatment that you propose.

He has a point because even though the repairs should be covered the
manufacturer will most likely fight the owner in every way possible to
avoid paying up, they would rather spend considerably more than the cost
of the repairs defending a claim than be seen to just paying up and I
wouldn't expect much help from Govt agencies like Consumer Affairs.



--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 12/04/2014 8:18 PM, Toby wrote:

> Incidentally, that stat warranty applies to all sorts of stuff, under
> purchase price $40000, except for trucks trailers etc .
> I find it difficult to believe that the caller to the radio station had
> bought a 12 month old machine for business use, but stranger things have
> happened.


Did the caller say how old the car was and how many kms it had done?
If it was only 12mths old why did he say why they rejected the warranty
claim?



--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 12/04/2014 10:02 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

>
>>> That's the one that means that this car should be repaired under that
>>> warranty.
>>

>> And the cost of the court case will be...ummm, $13,600+.
>
> What court case? And why, if you feel a court case is needed for this
> remedy, do you think one wouldn't be needed for your remedy?

How else is the owner going to proceed if the dealer and manufacturer
refuses to honour the warranty?
The owner should be able to get help from his state consumer affairs
dept but they aren't known for being all that helpful.
>
> This remedy includes compensation damages and losses, so any court
> costs would be included in the remedy.

>
>>> I don' think that warrants the asinine treatment that you propose.

>> Sure does, because neither the dealer nor the manufacturers have
>> offered one red cent.
>
> That doesn't warrant the asinine treatment that you propose. Take a
> breath and do some thinking.
>
>> Pretty obviously they are aware of their responsibilities in this regard
>> and did squat to confirm that.
>
> Nothing in the evidence tendered suggests that. You making an
> assumption is not the same thing as something being obvious.

>
>> Incidentally, that stat warranty applies to all sorts of stuff, under
>> purchase price $40000, except for trucks trailers etc .
>

> Clearly, as usual, you have gone off on one of your characteristic
> rants without bothering to check the facts.
>
> There is no dollar limit for business vehicles and trailers used to
> transport goods. There is no dollar limit for goods and services of
> a type normally bought for personal or household use (eg, a Mazda 3
> sedan).
>
> There is a $40,000 limit on some items of a business nature.
>
> So, before you foaming at the mouth about an issue, do take the time
> to find out what you are talking about.

>
>> I find it difficult to believe that the caller to the radio station had
>> bought a 12 month old machine for business use, but stranger things have
>> happened.

>> I don't think the Mazda 3 diesel cost more than 40,000, so the Dealer
>> had every right to tell their customer, first owner or not, that the
>> matter was settled 'already' and got about the work.
>> The dealer didn't do that. From what I heard, nothing was on offer -
>> just pay up and we'll fix it, sort of thing.
>> Natch if that customer had been treated properly in terms of the
>> Consumer Guarantee, the call to the radio station to bitch about the
>> matter would never have occurred
>
> It is a new law. There hasn't been a test case on those kind of
> circumstances yet and dealers haven't had their attention focused on
> it yet.

New law?
I worked in the warranty dept at Ford back in the early 80's and laws
about "merchandisable quality" existed back then so what's different now?

--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 12/04/2014 11:28 PM, Toby wrote:

>> Absolutely crackers.
> Again, reasonable.
> there's an operators manual and a rudimentary tool-kit supplied with
> most every vehicle sold. No harm including information about warranty
> that's national legislation just like the ADR's.
> Remember, conforming to the ADR's is compulsory. So Consumer guarantee
> in terms of telling the customer about it is no biggie for the
> manufacturers.
>

I agree but even if they did include it in owners manuals the
information will mostly sit in car glove boxes unread, very few people
seem to read owners manuals.




--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 4:15 PM, Toby wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:22:29 +1000, D Walford blathered on in:

> But it would be a damm good start and go a long way towards the
> manufacturers NOT exhibiting sour grapes on the matter.
> So far, the absence of material on the matter indicates the
> manufacturers aren't willing to co-operate in any way shape or form
> until they're forced to do so.
>
I have heard that a new law was enacted early this year which covers
what Paul was talking about so maybe its a bit early for dealers and
manufacturers to get their heads around it.
Might take a few cases of them being dragged over hot coals kicking and
screaming before they realise that its a done deal and that they have no
choice other than to repair their faulty products.


--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 6:51 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:18:07 +1000, D Walford
> <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2014 10:02 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> That's the one that means that this car should be repaired under that
>>>>> warranty.
>>>>
>>>> And the cost of the court case will be...ummm, $13,600+.
>>>
>>> What court case? And why, if you feel a court case is needed for this
>>> remedy, do you think one wouldn't be needed for your remedy?
>>
>> How else is the owner going to proceed if the dealer and manufacturer
>> refuses to honour the warranty?
>> The owner should be able to get help from his state consumer affairs
>> dept but they aren't known for being all that helpful.
>

> It doesn't really address the question, why would it be any different
> than Toby's proposed remedy, which also costs the consumer more if
> they get it?
>
Ramming the broken part up the arse of a politician is the same as
taking legal action?

--
Daryl

[jonz]

On 4/13/2014 7:18 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:50:44 +1000, Toby <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Yup - but the point is that initially at least, the expense will be
>> borne by the complainant.
>
> It hasn't been the case so far. In all the cases that have happened,
> the state funded it. HP got fined 22 million for their warranty
> practices, for instance.
>
>> And then the complainant will need to spend yet more treasure in a civil
>> damages case to get re-imbursed for costs, hoping all the while for a
>> judge that hasn't been bought and paid for by the Big end of town.
>
> No, they won't. It's part of the liability that arises, damages are
> included.
>
> I did already tell you that. Why not go off full cocked, eh?
>
>> Good luck there:-)
>> The Cost/Losses Paul's blathering on about are not legal costs.
>
> I see. So the fact that legal costs have formed part of the damages
> judgment in every single judgment under this legislation is not the
> kind of thing that can enter your head? Also, that has been actual
> costs, not taxing.
>
> It isn't an issue of intelligence, you have that in abundance - there
> is just something terribly wrong with your reasoning ability,
> thankfully, it isn't a permanent feature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Meaning, "When U toe the line and agree with my blathering, Thou shalt
be saved".......
>
> And you still haven't explained how your remedy is any better in this
> regard.
>
> Too inconvenient?
>


--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 7:19 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:56:29 +1000, D Walford

> No, but Toby was complaining that laws hadn't been passed about spare
> parts costs - that is his proposed remedy.
>

Whatever laws exist about spare parts pricing hasn't stopped price gouging.
Fortunately our cars are relatively new so spending on spare parts over
and above normal servicing is almost non existent.
Back in the mid 80's I sold the Mazda van I owned and replaced it with a
Commodore and my spending on spare parts dropped to a fraction of what
it was, exhaust mounting rubber for the Holden cost $0.80, the Mazda s
near identical part was closer to $8.00 and costing 10 times more was
not unusual with most Mazda spares.

--
Daryl

[Jason James]

Wonder if the relevant Ombudsman could help here ?

They do a great job on cases of poor treatment
by insurance companies I found out. Excellent
work. They would at least give an explanation on
why they couldn't assist.

Jason

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 7:21 PM, Toby wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:56:29 +1000, D Walford blathered on in:

> ahem...Nope - it would be cheaper and into the bargain far more
> satisfying and less inconvenient for the complainant.
> The proposed remedy excludes lawyers, yet punishes the most obvious
> offenders.
> What could possibly go wrong there?
>
>
>
Lots of problems with that, you would first need to find a politician
that hasn't got his/her own head firmly jammed up there own arse causing
a lack of available space:-)

--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 7:01 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> The burden of proof of that lies with the manufacturer - and having
> proven that, it doesn't get them off the hook, because being able to
> cope with bad fuel without such a failure is an aspect of being of
> merchandisable quality.

Exactly but they will still argue and fight if they think they can get
away with it.

>
>>> I don' think that warrants the asinine treatment that you propose.
>>
>> He has a point because even though the repairs should be covered the
>> manufacturer will most likely fight the owner in every way possible to
>> avoid paying up, they would rather spend considerably more than the cost
>> of the repairs defending a claim than be seen to just paying up and I
>> wouldn't expect much help from Govt agencies like Consumer Affairs.
>

> I fail to see how committing violent crimes on *innocent* parties has
> any point at all.
>
Obviously it won't but very firm action will need to happen before any
car company realises that the game is up.
I remember back in my Ford days we had to tread carefully when we denied
a big warranty claim, if the customer put up a fight we referred it to
our legal department and it was up to them whether or not the claim was
fought or paid, in lots of cases we were advised to just pay up.
In the case of tractors the decision wasn't always about whether or not
we were right or wrong but whether it was good business to piss off a
good customer, loosing a couple of sales could end up being a lot more
costly than paying claims even when we though they were dubious.

--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 13/04/2014 9:22 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:14:13 +1000, D Walford
> <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> Obviously it won't but very firm action will need to happen before any
>> car company realises that the game is up.
>> I remember back in my Ford days we had to tread carefully when we denied
>> a big warranty claim, if the customer put up a fight we referred it to
>> our legal department and it was up to them whether or not the claim was
>> fought or paid, in lots of cases we were advised to just pay up.
>> In the case of tractors the decision wasn't always about whether or not
>> we were right or wrong but whether it was good business to piss off a
>> good customer, loosing a couple of sales could end up being a lot more
>> costly than paying claims even when we though they were dubious.
>

> The other thing is, someone is going to have to pay for all these
> liabilities. Ultimately, that will be the customer.


That's always the way it is, new car prices are relatively the cheapest
that I can remember and set to get even cheaper, even if they added a
couple of percent to the price to cover to cover the new liabilities I
doubt too many people would notice.
>
> At least a ten year limit exists. I don't know if you remember
> Daryl, but for quite a while it wasn't economic to make light
> aircraft, because the product liability insurance premium was more
> than half the purchase cost!
>
I remember big problems with Public Liability insurance but not
specifically in relation to light aircraft.

--
Daryl

[Albm&ctd]

In article <p62ek9pfmih51shr3...@4ax.com>, john...@inbox.com
says...
> De Forest
>
De Foliation, the thing he feared most.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

[Albm&ctd]

In article <62okk9d1jb3984m4p...@4ax.com>, sac...@pc.jaring.my
says...
> Yeah, it's pretty ripe, isn't it? We also a pay an awful lot more for
> cars in the first place too.
>
What you mean we white man? Me buy secondhand pinto off school ma'am that suck
poison from your dick.

Tonto

[bru...@topmail.co.nz]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 9:18:28 AM UTC+8, pedro wrote:
>
>
> Yes, we know that throttle body gunking can cause similar issues but
>
> the idle behaviour was mint before the battery replacement, so you
>
> would have to believe in coincidence to attribute it to that -
>
> although a TB cleanup is our next port of call if we can't get this
>
> sorted.

Another possibility is you have a stuffed exhaust oxygen sensor. How old
are they? The ECU would then be putting too much fuel into half or all the
cylinders.

[pedro]

If you saw my posts dated 11/4 you would see that the TB clean
restored normal operation.

The answer to your late question, though, is 7 years.