Help with GM diagnostic codes
Sandy A. Nicolaysen
problem.
The truck is a '91 GMC 3500 which occasionally goes into fits with
backfiring and loss of power to the point of having to pull off the
road. The check engine light comes on indicating a problem.
Disconnecting one battery cable for a couple minutes temporarily cures
the problem. I used the paper clip in diagnostic connector means for
getting the error code by counting the number of check engine light
flashes to get the error number, but I have no idea what the error
code translates to real explaination. I suspect crank position
sensor, but I'm not sure.
Does anyone have the "error code to description" table?
Thanks. - Sandy
Seeusa99
I can help you but i'm not going to type the whole table out, please tell
me which code (or codes) are stored. You should see for instance a code 12
you'll see: flash (a pause) flashflash = 12 (first set is for first
digit and then a pause and then second digit), this will repeat three times and
then you will see the next code (if no other codes are stored, the 12 code will
keep showing up as long as your jumper is in place, it is a normal code and
just indicates that you are in diagnostic mode). I you have had the battery
disconnected for longer than 10 seconds all codes are wiped out. Also ...be
extra carefull with that jumper, if you short the wrong pins you could smoke
some expensive parts.
E-mail me with the current trouble code and i'll let you know what you
have wrong.
Chris
Sandy A. Nicolaysen
was able to find a bad MAP sensor using the diagnostic code. Saved me
a lot of time and money.
Folks, this is a "keeper".
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most frustrating part of any automotive "fix" is finding
the problem. That clunking noise can generally be narrowed down to a
couple of components, but unfortunately, with the increased complexity
of new cars, underhood work for most of us is limited to checking
fluids and replacing filters and plugs. If that dreaded "Check
Engine" light comes on, it's a sure sign that big bills and a visit to
Mr Goodwrench are soon to follow.
Believe it or not, your 1982 to present GM car has a self-diagnostic
system that can lead you to the root of the problem, be it anything
from a bad oxygen sensor in the exhaust to a defunct electronic
control module (ECM). What's more, you don't even have to open the
hood and the only tool necessary is a small 16-guage jumper wire. The
only skill needed is the ability to count the flashes from the "Check
Engine" light.
On all 1982 to present GM cars there is a Diagnostic Circuit Check
plug above the driver's footwell on the bottom side of the dashboard.
Removal of the cover will expose 12 holes which are made for insertion
of the dealership plug. For our test, with the ignition turned to the
"on" position, the jumper wire is used to short across the Test
Terminal to the Ground Terminal.
<text version of picture here>
^ dash
|
X X X X O O ---> right
X X X X X X
|
v floor
Use the "O" connections for your jumper as mis-placed connection may
fry expensive electronics.
<end text version>
Here's where you car begins to confess. Stored in the ECM are all of
the "trouble codes" witnessed by the system. A trouble code refers to
problems detected by the computer. By activating the self-diagnostic
mode, all of the trouble codes will be flashed out by the "Check
Engine" warning lamp (later models cars say "Service Engine Soon" as
many drivers were pulling over and calling the tow truck as soon as
the "Check Engine" light came on). In a sort of GM Morse code, the
light will give long and short flashes. The long flashes represent
10, 20, 30, 40, or 50, flashing one, two, three, four, or five lights.
The short flashes represent 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Therefore, one long
flash followed by two short flashes would be 12. Code 12 means the
system is operating perfectly. The code 12 will come on three times
in succession if no trouble codes are stored in memory.
It should be noted that even intermittent failures and those that
might have been fixed in the past are still stored in the ECM memory.
The key is to trace the codes. One way to trace the problem is to
erase the ECM memory by removing the positive battery cable for one
minute. By driving the car again, the ECM memory will pick up the
trouble spots for you diagnosis. But caution should be noted here;
when you erase the memory, any past history is gone. Although you may
be spotting the most current malady, other more intermittent problems
will also be missing, making dealership diagnosis more difficult.
Further diagnosis can be done by testing the power at each sensor.
All of the sensors run on five volts, except for the oxygen sensor
which generates its own voltage. Using a digital multmeter and an
engine service manual, further specifics can be discerned.
ERROR CODES:
12 - OK
13 - Oxygen sensor circuit
14 - Coolant sensor on low-voltage side
15 - Coolant sensor on high-voltage side
21 - Throttle position sensor on high-voltage side
22 - Throttle position sensor on low-voltage side
23 - MAT sensor on high voltage side
24 - Vehicle speed sensor
25 - MAT sensor on low-voltage side
31 - Turbo wastegate solenoid
32 - Barometric pressure sensor / EGR
33 - MAP sensor on high-voltage side
34 - MAP sensor on low-voltage side
41 - Cylinder select mode
42 - Electronic spark timing
43 - Electronic spark control
44 - Lean exhaust indication
45 - Rich exhaust indication
51 - Check PROM Unit
52 - Check CALPAC unit
53 - Fuel injection over-voltage
54 - Fuel pump low-voltage
55 - Check ECM
---------------------------------------------------------
Just goes to show you, you CAN get good information in this newsgroup.
It's a shame all the bickering keeps people like Herb from posting,
but I frankly don't blame him. My point is that we may be missing
valuable information simply because lurkers and newbies are reluctant
to enter the flame wars that occur here, what, every week?
Anyway, Thank you, Herb for your information and drop me a note if you
come through Princeton NJ. There's a steak dinner waiting for you.
Kindest Regards, - Sandy
Jim Webster
you a free booklet and "key" to use as a jumper. The booklet had all the
codes in it. I believe they also have a set for Fords.
Jim
Sandy A. Nicolaysen <sand...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:drif7s0lfmm3gd0sr...@4ax.com...
Steve Wolf
> > system that can lead you to the root of the problem, be it anything
Really? I was told by Chevy that this is not the case for my 97 Winnie.
Anyone verify that the check engine flashes on **ALL** models?
Herb
> Thanks Chris for the offer and thanks Herb in Canada for the info. I
> was able to find a bad MAP sensor using the diagnostic code. Saved me
> a lot of time and money.
Sandy, thanks for putting this article on the newsgroup. I scanned it form
an auto magazine but I didn't know how it would turn out after sending it
to the group and that's why I e-mailed it to you.
You are right. I don't get involved in flame wars. To me they are a waste
of time and band space. If somebody has an argument with somebody else why
don't they do it using e-mail and don't bother the rest of the group.
Generally, I read the other posts and when I have something to say I'll say
it and when I can help I will do this too.
Hey, thanks for that steak dinner offer. I just might take you up on it.
That gives me a good reason to visit that part of your country. ;-)
--
Regards,
Herb
her...@sympatico.ca
hugh
on my '96 GMC Sierra. Earlier OBD units could give codes by the method
shown. I did it on my '91 Sonoma. I may be wrong but, you might do some
very expensive damage to your computer if it is an OBD III.
Hugh
Steve Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Believe it or not, your 1982 to present GM car has a self-diagnostic
> > > system that can lead you to the root of the problem, be it anything
>
Steve Wolf
(under $1,000) to allow an owner to access the information. Who do we
blame? Chevy? Detroit in general? It seems like there is **NO** way for a
consumer to access the data.
hugh <hug...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:3878C934...@dreamscape.com...
Sandy A. Nicolaysen
dealers CD and made my own interface cable to hook into my laptop
computer. Sure, you and I have access to computers (otherwise, how
did you post your message?). Unfortunately this is not an option to
the majority of vehicle owners out there.
I guess we can hope for someone to come up with a diagnostic tool we
all can use, without costing a fortune. Not likely though.
Regards, - Sandy
Sue and Mark
They cost about $130 for one automaker (GM or Ford or Chrysler). You can
spend $400 for one that supports all vehicles. I had the same concerns, as
my '96 will eventually start flashing codes and I don't want to be forced to
go to the dealer. In 1997, code readers were available, but like you said
they were quite expensive. Not any more.
As for who to blame, it's the Fed's. They were the ones who wanted a more
extensive emissions warranty and diagnostic method. I guess in the end it is
probably goodness, but it does drive up the prices of cars, the cost of
repairs, and they'll never be satisfied since OBD III is on the way.
Mark
Renton, WA
Steve Wolf
Sue and Mark <suem...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:kSAe4.1471$Gp4....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> As for who to blame, it's the Fed's. They were the ones who wanted a more
Setting up a computer program to read the codes would be trivial and not
really affected by anyone in the government. I'm not following that.
Is the latest OBD stuff in the public domain? If so, where? Can anyone
report that that on any vehicle manufactured after 1996 the OBD output is
such that any OBD device works? Can I take an OBD device from a Chevy and
use it on a Ford? Why not? It is simply a matter of not having a database
of problems to cross to the resultant codes?
Something is choking off the manufacture of a cheap device. What's causing
it?
GBinNC
<sw...@wolfelectric.com> wrote:
>Setting up a computer program to read the codes would be trivial and not
>really affected by anyone in the government. I'm not following that.
>
>Something is choking off the manufacture of a cheap device. What's causing
>it?
The profit motive, of course.
GB in NC
[For e-mail, remove the last two letters from "yahoooo."]
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
<suem...@gte.net> wrote:
> All of my local auto parts stores have code readers for OBD II vehicles.
> They cost about $130 for one automaker (GM or Ford or Chrysler). You can
> spend $400 for one that supports all vehicles. I had the same concerns, as
> my '96 will eventually start flashing codes and I don't want to be forced to
> go to the dealer. In 1997, code readers were available, but like you said
> they were quite expensive. Not any more.
>
> As for who to blame, it's the Fed's. They were the ones who wanted a more
> extensive emissions warranty and diagnostic method. I guess in the end it
> is probably goodness, but it does drive up the prices of cars, the cost of
> repairs, and they'll never be satisfied since OBD III is on the way.
Actually, per a friend the owns a repair shop, it's the repair shops
that wanted the unified reader system, rather then have to buy one for
GM, one for Ford, one for Toyota, one for......
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@amsat.org
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/rv
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
Steve Wolf
GBinNC <GBi...@yahoooo.com> wrote in message
news:387b5330...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 03:16:31 -0500, "Steve Wolf"
> <sw...@wolfelectric.com> wrote:
> >Something is choking off the manufacture of a cheap device. What's
causing
> >it?
> The profit motive, of course.
No, there's a heck of a profit to be made by selling a cheap reader to us.
The profit motive would work to make a company provide a tester. There's an
entity that is controlling a database copyright or something as dopey.
Anyone?
wi...@epix.net
<sw...@wolfelectric.com> writes:
> No, there's a heck of a profit to be made by selling a cheap reader
>to us. The profit motive would work to make a company provide a
>tester.
Perhaps Doctor ("as a physician") Osborn can diagnose the problem!
Certainly he must have Factual Automotive Research Studies, Electrical
(FARSE) on how to read the diagnostic codes!!
8-)
Will KD3XR
Sue and Mark
>
>Sue and Mark <suem...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:kSAe4.1471$Gp4....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>> As for who to blame, it's the Fed's. They were the ones who wanted a more
>
>really affected by anyone in the government. I'm not following that.
>
>report that that on any vehicle manufactured after 1996 the OBD output is
>such that any OBD device works? Can I take an OBD device from a Chevy and
>use it on a Ford? Why not? It is simply a matter of not having a database
>of problems to cross to the resultant codes?
>
Sorry, I came in late and may not have the full context of your original
question. The Fed's mandated a list of things which had to be detectable.
The list is rather long, so using the flashing light approach of the first
OBD systems is not very practical. The government did not (as far as i know)
mandate how you would access the codes (i.e. interface and protocols), or
create a master common code list. This gave the automakers freedom to do it
how they wanted, but as you've discovered, they all did it different.
Very early on (ca. 1997) there was software and a cable you could buy for
your PC which would access the codes. This doesn't seem to have nearly the
demand as a separate code reader device (either manufacturer specific or
cross platform), so it wasn't all that cheap ($300 I recall for just GM).
There is a lot of work in writing all the variants of serial protocol, code
encoding, database, etc in order to make this for every car. I heard that
the GM system was real similar to RS232, but not really RS232, and it had a
weird baud rate. Why they did this I don't know. A DB9 or DB25 connector
with a normal serial stream would have been trivial to do, but they didn't.
>Something is choking off the manufacture of a cheap device. What's causing
>it?
Not enough do it yourselfers. Give it time -- the single manufacturer code
readers are in the $100 neighborhood. In a few years, they may be quite a
bit less. I wouldn't expect a DIY to buy the multi-vehicle reader though, as
they cost more and most people don't have more than 2 vehicles from
different manufacturers.
Mark
Renton, WA
Vince Wirth
<sw...@wolfelectric.com> wrote:
>No, there's a heck of a profit to be made by selling a cheap reader to us.
>The profit motive would work to make a company provide a tester. There's an
>entity that is controlling a database copyright or something as dopey.
>Anyone?
Steve,
Let me try. First, to have a cheap reader, you need to produce it in
volume. I suspect that the volume don't exist. There are few people
like us who want to know, much less understand, What's under the hood.
Second you need to understand what that reader is telling you. I
suspect that, because of not knowing the control algorithms in the
vehicle software, most people would not know what to do with the
information and fix whatever problem there was.
Let me give you an example;
I have a 94 Saturn that I drag behind the MH. Last summer it started
to run hot and sluggish. The Gas milage went down to 17 MPG. Now I'm
65 and have been playing with cars for 50 of those years. After a
weekend of trial and error, I admitted defeat and went to the dealer -
first time in 40 years - My manhood was smashed.
It turns out that the Saturn has two water temp sensors. One feeds
it's information to the dash gauge. The other feeds the computer.
The computer uses that information to do the following;
1. Turn on and off the cooling fan.
2. control the mixture of the fuel injection system - richer when cold
and all that.
3. change the transmission shift points. -longer in low when cold
4. Other things taht I'm not aware of.
The sensor was telling the computer that the engine was 30 + degrees
colder that in really was. So;
No fan on = hotter engine
rich mixture = poor mpg.
slow shift= sluggish engine.
What I think I'm trying to say is that the day of the back yard
mechanic is gone. Because of not knowing how and why the
vehicle computer does what it does, it's impossible for the average
person to figure out what's happening much less fix.
You can now buy code readers, but not cheap, that work with a PC and
sofisticated software, programmed for the vehicle under test.
The "OLD" days have passed. But think of it this way Steve, What if
someone 30 years ago said that someday a Ford would cost $25,000??
For that 25K you get a vehicle that has reliability that was never
imagined in those days. ( Remember points and condensers?)
wi...@epix.net
<vince...@earthlink.net> writes:
> What I think I'm trying to say is that the day of the back yard
> mechanic is gone. Because of not knowing how and why the
> vehicle computer does what it does, it's impossible for the average
> person to figure out what's happening much less fix.
>
> You can now buy code readers, but not cheap, that work with a PC and
> sofisticated software, programmed for the vehicle under test.
>
> The "OLD" days have passed. But think of it this way Steve, What if
> someone 30 years ago said that someday a Ford would cost $25,000??
>
> For that 25K you get a vehicle that has reliability that was never
> imagined in those days. ( Remember points and condensers?)
Vince & I sometimes disagree, sometimes not... this is one time we are
in agreement. Some of you older guys in yer 2nd or 3rd childhood who
think you can hotrod that V10 Ford by bolting on some aftermarket
stuff that you THOUGHT worked back in the days when you impressed the
girls in the drive-in by getting rubber in 2nd gear. . . grow up.
Unless you are smarter than Neon John (and nobody is!) you can't make
a lot of positive difference in performance by fiddling with stuff you
don't really understand. And back when you (me too) THOUGHT you knew
what you were doing, how did it work out? Spun bearings, burnt
valves, broken clutches, trannies, axles, etc, ad nauseum. I once
ripped the RING GEAR loose from the carrier in a Ford rear end showing
off! And if you are bone honest, some of you did worse. Give it up.
I STILL think it is a good idea to keep up as much as possible, making
sure the bozo with the fancy diagnostic gadget isn't playing parts-
changer-for-fun-and-profit with you -- but don't expect to do a lot of
serious troubleshooting on your own.
Will KD3XR
bill horne
>
>
> I STILL think it is a good idea to keep up as much as possible, making
> sure the bozo with the fancy diagnostic gadget isn't playing parts-
> changer-for-fun-and-profit with you -- but don't expect to do a lot of
> serious troubleshooting on your own.
>
> Will KD3XR
I do, too, and I try to keep up, but I'm a victim of a double whammy -
my brain has gotten simpler while cars have gotten more complicated.
Nevertheless, I still buy official service manuals, and occasionally
open the hood. Fortunately, hoods don't have to be opened near as often
as they did in decades past.
But the service manual is another story. The one for the 83 PU was
basically a how-to book. The two for the 96 PU are nearly
incomprehensible on many subjects, but are still helpful.
However, I'd still like to see a cheap code reader for newer vehicles.
If the thing should tell me the whufflemixit sensor is bad, then I'll
wade into the manual to see if can find it and replace it.
As an example of sorts, I posted a while back about the annoying delay
before engine braking kicked in. I finally found the culprit with the
aid of the manual. Unfortunately, the sensor responsible is also used by
the computer for some other things, too, but at least I know, and can
make an informed decision about its disconnection.
Another simple thing is the damned daytime running lights which, with
the aid of electrical diagrams in the manual, I was able to disable with
minimum difficulty and zero side effects to anything else. And another
thing the manual helped with was a way to get the cargo light to come on
with the interior lights off. My next small project is to disable the
interior light turnoff delay.
This 96 Chevy has been the most troublefree vehicle I've ever owned, but
I'd like to be at least half ready when it does glitch - particularly if
it happens in a National Forest CG - or god forbid, on a lonely road in
the decadent and dangerous cesspool of New Mexico (joke, dammit.).
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
John Irwin
see them so they can't bother you and they certainly aren't bright enough to
bother anyone else. Just as an airliner turns on its landing lights when in
traffic areas, moving lights attract notice.
bill horne <who...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us> wrote in message
news:387BB2AE...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us...
> snip
> Another simple thing is the damned daytime running lights which, with
> the aid of electrical diagrams in the manual, I was able to disable with
> minimum difficulty and zero side effects to anything else.
> snip
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
<suem...@gte.net> wrote:
> Very early on (ca. 1997) there was software and a cable you could buy for
> your PC which would access the codes. This doesn't seem to have nearly
> the
> demand as a separate code reader device (either manufacturer specific or
> cross platform), so it wasn't all that cheap ($300 I recall for just GM).
Mark, I suggest you do some research. I have seen multi-brand code
readers (OBD-II) under $200
hugh
try to flash my lights when it's safe to pull back. I would like to
flash my lights at the dumbo coming at me, in the rain, who doesn't have
his lights (required by law in New York) or for any other reasons I
might have. Besides, if all vehicles have lights on, won't a lot of us
semi-brain-dead souls block them out<g>.
Hugh
hugh
is this only true with the OBD-I
Hugh
John Irwin
the intensity of daytime running lights and flashing the lights (which
lights up both high and low beams simultaneously). I even get a good flash
running with my low beams on. Pull up in front of a garage door and check
it out.
If behavoral scientists are right, moving light sources are not blocked out
and help gauge distances.
hugh <hug...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:387BF4B0...@dreamscape.com...
John Irwin
bill horne <who...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us> wrote in message
news:387C38D5...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us...
> GBinNC wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:39:45 -0600, "John Irwin" <ir...@texas.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights?
> No need to wonder. My primary reason is because I want to.
> Second, I don't particularly like my mechanical and electronic things
doing stuff
> without my permission, and over which I have no control. I get enough of
> that with my wife and teenage son.
>
> DRLs are nothing more than the low beams,
I don't know about your particular vehicle (whatever
>
> Now. Do you think a service manual is a goood thing to have? Or not? Or
> maybe it's more relevant and beneficient to mankind to discuss the extra
> o in my good?
>
Yes, I buy service manuals. No, I don't use them to disable safety
features.
> --
> bill
GBinNC
wrote:
>Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights? You can't
>see them so they can't bother you and they certainly aren't bright enough to
>bother anyone else. Just as an airliner turns on its landing lights when in
>traffic areas, moving lights attract notice.
John, I wondered about this too. I'm in favor of any feature that
would make it easier for other drivers to see me, whether day or
night. In fact, I may buy an aftermarket switch that turns my lights
on automatically.
Reminds me of a guy I overheard bitching about the requirement (when
it was first mandated) that headlights be switched on when driving in
the rain. He said, "They don't help me see one damned bit better."
Missed the point completely.
bro...@escape.ca
>
> Actually, per a friend the owns a repair shop, it's the repair shops
> that wanted the unified reader system, rather then have to buy one for
> GM, one for Ford, one for Toyota, one for......
>
And I bet that all the auto manufacturers were all just too happy to comply with
the repair shops request to have a unified reader. Sure!
Myron
bill horne
No need to wonder. My primary reason is because I want to. Second, I
don't particularly like my mechanical and electronic things doing stuff
without my permission, and over which I have no control. I get enough of
that with my wife and teenage son.
DRLs are nothing more than the low beams, and if I want the damned
things on, I'm perfectly capable of turning them on. What I don't like
is not being able to turn them off if I want. Apparently, unlike some
others, I'm perfectly capable of managing my lighting requirements
without help from a device that gives me no options.
Should DRLs become mandatory, I'll reverse my mod. Meanwhile, I'll do as
I damned well please.
I sometimes have cause to be lights off, engine running at night (and
why that's so is none of your business), and turning them off with the
emergency brake was also annoying.
Anyhow, I posted it purely as an example of the potential usefulness of
a service manual, not as a procedure that the rest of the world should
follow. I had no idea it would start another stupid Morality Play. Do
you also have a problem with my cargo light modification? What the hell
is the matter with some of you people anyway? Are you just normal
Democrats who are sure that you know exactly what's best for everyone
else, or do you just have nothing else worthwhile to do?
Hey! I'll tell you what. If I ever drive through NC, I'll turn them on
at the border so you can see me should you be in the vicinity - but if
you need them to see cars in the daytime, maybe you should consider
driving only at night. Nearly everybody has their lights on at night.
And hey again. Let me know whenever you'll be coming through GA, and
I'll turn them on while you're incountry. How's that for compromise and
selfless consideration of your apparently poor daytime vision?
Now. Do you think a service manual is a goood thing to have? Or not? Or
maybe it's more relevant and beneficient to mankind to discuss the extra
o in my good?
--
Lon VanOstran
Safari flashes *nothing* when the dimmer is flashed. I must first make sure my
headlights are on, then I can flash from bright to dim. That makes it nearly
impossible to flash in a trucker unless I want to drive with my tail lights lit
which makes me *much* more likely to be rear-ended since drivers behind me are
*less* apt to see my brake lights. If I turn the lights on every time I want to
flash someone in, then the entire line of drivers behind me will hit their
brakes thinking I have hit mine.
Bottom line: GM daytime running lights are a danger to everyone on the road.
wi...@epix.net
<ir...@texas.net> writes:
> Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights?
Because I want to.
Because I choose to be able to flash the lights for what I think are
good and sufficient reasons. Like someone else wrote, I don't like
having someone else decide when my lights oughta be on.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
<ir...@texas.net> writes:
> Yes, I buy service manuals. No, I don't use them to disable safety
> features.
John, I am aware that some people consider DTR's (daytime running
lights) to be a "safety feature". Others consider air bags in the
same light. Fact is not all of us agree. I happen to think air bags
are not even a tiny fraction as beneficial as the safety nazis would
have us believe, and DTR's even less so. Fortunately the lights don't
usually CAUSE fatalities!
Under some lighting conditions, lights are a clear aid to highway
safety - at other times they add nothing and interfere.
I don't want to demonize your POV, but SOME people like you seem
willing to accept as a "safety feature" virtually anything that's
advertised that way. Like the interlock that kept Bob Evans from
driving his truck out from under a burning trailer!
Big Brother does NOT always know best!
Will KD3XR
Fred in AZ
individual who rants on endlessly about folks who drive 102" rigs???
Fred in AZ
GBinNC
<who...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:39:45 -0600, "John Irwin" <ir...@texas.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights? You can't
>> >see them so they can't bother you and they certainly aren't bright enough to
>> >bother anyone else. Just as an airliner turns on its landing lights when in
>> >traffic areas, moving lights attract notice.
>Then GBinNC wrote:
>>
>> John, I wondered about this too.
>Then "bill horne" came back in:
>
>No need to wonder. My primary reason is because I want to. Second, I
>don't particularly like my mechanical and electronic things doing stuff
>without my permission, and over which I have no control. I get enough of
>that with my wife and teenage son.
(Ahh, no wonder you're in a bad mood this morning. <g>)
>DRLs are nothing more than the low beams
Question (not argument): Aren't they low beams at about 70% of full
intensity? At least on some vehicles? For some reason, I have this
impression...
>I sometimes have cause to be lights off, engine running at night (and
>why that's so is none of your business), and turning them off with the
>emergency brake was also annoying.
Well, here again we just have a different style. If I were parked with
"lights off, engine running at night" I'd have my emergency
("parking") brake on anyway. (Why is none of your business.) Or did
you mean DRIVING at night with your lights off? (Lights off in
darkness, lights on in daylight -- I like that. <g>)
>Anyhow, I posted it purely as an example of the potential usefulness of
>a service manual, not as a procedure that the rest of the world should
>follow. I had no idea it would start another stupid Morality Play.
Who said anything about morality? You just said something that aroused
my curiosity, that's all. Damn, I wasn't even arguing with you.
>Hey! I'll tell you what. If I ever drive through NC, I'll turn them on
>at the border so you can see me should you be in the vicinity - but if
>you need them to see cars in the daytime, maybe you should consider
>driving only at night. Nearly everybody has their lights on at night.
>And hey again. Let me know whenever you'll be coming through GA, and
>I'll turn them on while you're incountry. How's that for compromise and
>selfless consideration of your apparently poor daytime vision?
I accept your kind offer, Bill. I'll have my wife watch for you from
the passenger seat, since I can't see well enough from the driver's
seat. <g>
Kathy and Erich Coiner
Will's point of view here and with 102 inch wide rigs.
His view with wide rigs is that the law says they can be illegal in some
jurisdictions and you should consider that fact before you purchase one. He
also says in effect " obey the law even bad ones, but work to change them"
Here he says that DTR are not the safety feature they are puffed up to be
and he does not like them. I see nothing in here where he is advocating the
violation of any laws.
After further review, I retract my initial sentence.
Erich
Fred in AZ wrote in message <387ca12...@news.earthlink.net>...
Darrell Lortz
dark, I neglected to turn on my lights for awhile, thinking that they
were on.
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> <ir...@texas.net> writes:
>
>> Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights?
>
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
(Darrell Lortz) wrote:
> When I first got my new GM, I was driving at dusk. When it became
> dark, I neglected to turn on my lights for awhile, thinking that they
> were on.
A very common problem
John Irwin
such feature has up and down sides. .
Granted, the air bag can be mighty mean character, but I have personally
been at 5 high-speed collisions within seconds, all at the same
intersection, and witnessed what they can do. The corner in question is
adjacent to the Lady Bird Wildflower Center (where I'm a docent), so that
there is a constant traffic of folks unfamiliar with the area. It is a
stopsigned 4-lane street crossing a divided 4-lane expressway with limited
sight distances in both directions and where 70 to 80 is a common speed
range. I have seen enough hits and near misses there that I hit that corner
at a maximum of about 50 mph. All the cars and pickups involved had air
bags. In every instance, both vehicles were obviously totaled. In every
instance but one, the occupants were out walking around by the time I pulled
over. The one exception was a hispanic man who had his seat back partially
reclined and was not wearing a seat belt. He had submarined under the air
bag and his broken legs looked like pretzels.
As far as running lights, back in the 60's when I was flying C-123s for the
Air Force, we were taught to turn on the beacon and landing lights whenever
in a high traffic area, day or night. Even in bright daylight, the specs
of light immediately located other traffic. This is especially important
when there is a lot of background clutter. My Dakota doesn't have the
running lights (only Canada models do) but I would choose them willingly if
offered.
<wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:NEWTNews.94769...@epix.net...
>
> <ir...@texas.net> writes:
>
> > Yes, I buy service manuals. No, I don't use them to disable safety
> > features.
>
> John, I am aware that some people consider DTR's (daytime running
> lights) to be a "safety feature". Others consider air bags in the
> same light. Fact is not all of us agree. I happen to think air bags
> are not even a tiny fraction as beneficial as the safety nazis would
> have us believe, and DTR's even less so. Fortunately the lights don't
> usually CAUSE fatalities!
Usually? Give me a case where they could cause fatalities.
>
> Under some lighting conditions, lights are a clear aid to highway
> safety - at other times they add nothing and interfere.
>
In some cases, they might add nothing. I can't concieve how a
half-intensity light interferes in any way. The running lights put the 12v
low-beam filaments in series so that intensity is a fraction of normal low
beams.
> I don't want to demonize your POV, but SOME people like you seem
> willing to accept as a "safety feature" virtually anything that's
> advertised that way. Like the interlock that kept Bob Evans from
> driving his truck out from under a burning trailer!
I like that "Some people like you ..." bit. Typical Will. That interlock
interfeded in a very unusual situation. You or I do not have a database to
decide whether that feature is good or bad overall. Just like the cargo
light mentioned by a prior poster. The reason it operates only when
interior lights are on is because showing a white light to the rear when in
motion is both dangerous and illegal. That poster may never forget he has
the light on. And, then again, maybe he will forget sometime.
The only interlock I ever felt compelled to disable was the interlock that
kept my old BMW 2000 (yes, 2000, not 2002) from starting unless the driver's
seat belt was fastened. I disabled that after the interlock failed to
release half the time. Didn't make any difference because I always wear
belts anyway except on the dirt road between mailbox and house.
>
> Big Brother does NOT always know best!
Neither does Will. neither do I. You remind me a bit of a step-daughter
from a prior marriage who will not wear seat belts because she survived a
rollover while not wearing them. Of course, she bears a really nasty scar
across her forehead that may very well have been prevented by the belts.
Who knows?
>
> Will KD3XR
>
Cheyenne
"Lon VanOstran" <RV...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:387c5be4$0$14...@news.voyager.net...
> That makes it nearly
> impossible to flash in a trucker unless I want to
drive with my tail lights lit.
I read recently that the American Trucking Association recommends AGAINST
flashing to signify safe 'return-to-lane' passing. I see some truckers
flashing their lights and some who do not.
> Bottom line: GM daytime running lights are a danger to everyone on the
road.
How many thousands of dollars have you spent to come to this conclusion?
Most likely GM spent hundreds of thousands in their research of this matter
and still more hundreds of thousands in the engineering and manufacturing of
the DRLs.
Ralph Noack
thinking they are totally safe. I wonder how many more are hurt
because of this false security than if no safety equipment was used.
I have no problems with extra lights, air bags, seat belts or even a
helmet, if some other driver doesn't think he can travel 10 mph
faster because he is safe.
Ralph Noack - How much better drivers would we be if there were no
brakes? Won't work! Well a 7 ton house boat doesn't have any brakes.
<wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:NEWTNews.94774...@epix.net...
(something Shipped)
> And that, my argumentive fellow-contributor, is in fact the point.
> There is a reasonable level of conformity that's necessary in a
> civilized society, but the definition of "reasonable" is what we
argue
> about! I tried to get across the idea that SOME of the so-called
> "safety measures" are UNreasonable to some of us for good and
> sufficient reasons.
>
> As a former safety engineer, I have had it up to here with mostly
> well-intentioned bozos who use "safety" to justify ridiculous
> intrusions into our lives. Knee-jerk liberals (frustrated
emperors)
> want to control every aspect of our lives, often in the name of
> "safety" -- and they are dead wrong as often as they are right. I
> don't propose to try to get YOU to change your views, so much as
I'd
> like to make sure you understand that those who don't happen to
share
> them may be every bit as intelligent, safety-conscious, and
> "reasonable" as you believe you are. And if you think Big Brother
> is always right (and you obviously don't) you'd have to explain
some
> of the biggest blunders in history!
>
> Will KD3XR
>
>
John Irwin
had some close calls, but good reflexes and good equipment always saved my
butt. Like the time I found myself, at high speed, sharing a narrow bridge
with a front loader.
As an old fart, those reflexes aren't what they used to be. I drive a lot
slower now and pay a lot more attention to other drivers. I seldom tow over
65 and that only on the best roads. Even the equipment of another driver
can be a clue as to what they might or might not do. A black stepside
pickup, for instance, generally spells pure testosterone here in Texas.
I live in Texas, the macho capital of the world where many consider it sissy
to turn your lights on at dusk or in the rain. I've become very adept at
spotting a black, unlighted pickup, 30 miles over the limit, at 6am, on a
blacktop road, in my rear-view mirror.
So far, my accident record consist of being rear ended 3 times, twice at
stoplights and once while waiting for traffic in a left turn lane. The
safety items being discussed are things I believe in because I have
personally observed that they work at least the great majority of the time.
Every such item is a balance good against harm; IMHO running lights and air
bags are solidly on the good side of the equation.
.
Ralph Noack <rno...@itol.com> wrote in message
news:85jo5s$cku$1...@news.inc.net...
wi...@epix.net
John Irwin <ir...@texas.net> who often disagrees, writes an
impassioned defense of air bags and DTR's but adds:
> The only interlock I ever felt compelled to disable was the
>interlock that kept my old BMW 2000 (yes, 2000, not 2002) from
>starting unless the driver's seat belt was fastened.
John, it is probably that you and I would NOT agree on many issues,
but on one crucial one, we do seem to agree. I wrote, in an
inadequate attempt to summarize my POV:
>> Big Brother does NOT always know best!
And you say:
> Neither does Will. neither do I.
And that, my argumentive fellow-contributor, is in fact the point.
GBinNC
bill horne
<Lotta snipping done.>
> My Dakota doesn't have the
> running lights (only Canada models do) but I would choose them willingly if
> offered.
>
> In some cases, they might add nothing. I can't concieve how a
> half-intensity light interferes in any way. The running lights put the 12v
> low-beam filaments in series so that intensity is a fraction of normal low
> beams.
I don't know about yours, but my DRL power circuit contains nothing but
a relay and 2 diodes in series. I know this because the bible tells me
so. The low beam voltage is 13.08 (measured) and the voltage in DRL mode
is 11.99. That means DRLs have about 92% of the low beam voltage. I have
know idea what that equates to in lumens or candlepower, and don't
really care. I can tell you that when I switch low beams on, the lights
on a white wall brighten only slightly.
So I back out of the garage at about 2:15 this morning, and shine the
field, and switch back and forth. The visually detectable difference is
even slighter. Barely dectable, in fact. Then I walk out into the field
and look back at the DRLs and try to remember the brightness level. Walk
back and switch to lows and go back into the field to look. Can't tell
the difference. I do it a few more times and still can't tell the
difference.
From doing all that crap at oh dark thirty, I conclude that it is not a
'fraction' by which they are dimmed, but a 'fraction' by which they
differ - and a damned small fraction at that.
> Just like the cargo
> light mentioned by a prior poster. The reason it operates only when
> interior lights are on is because showing a white light to the rear when in
> motion is both dangerous and illegal. That poster may never forget he has
> the light on. And, then again, maybe he will forget sometime.
That poster was my very own self. You're right I might forget sometime,
but I haven't yet, and probably won't. Even with a bad memory, it's hard
not to notice at night that it's on. Also, I have an extended cab. From
the front seat with the interior light on, the reflections of the
interior on the back glass make it difficult to see into the bed.
Even if I were to concede that it's dangerous to run down the road in
the daytime with my cargo light on - and I don't - and someone thinks
it's absolutely necessary that I be advised somehow when it's on, I
would much prefer a small indicator light in or near the switch to tell
me it's on.
But it doesn't matter. I've fixed it, and it's going to stay fixed.
Now the kicker. If it will ameliorate your indignation, you'll be happy
to know that I eventually put a camper top on the bed, and the light now
illuminates absolutely nothing of value, and it cannot be seen from the
rear, and can barely be seen from the sides at night.
I suppose I could inadvertantly turn it on while thrashing about the cab
looking for my gun to shoot the assault raccoon that's stealing crumbs
from my campsite in a desolate wilderness and forget to turn it off and
run my battery down in the middle of nowhere and be in a hell of a mess.
But that's my decision and my problem, isn't it?
> The only interlock I ever felt compelled to disable was the interlock that
> kept my old BMW 2000 (yes, 2000, not 2002) from starting unless the driver's
> seat belt was fastened. I disabled that after the interlock failed to
> release half the time. Didn't make any difference because I always wear
> belts anyway except on the dirt road between mailbox and house.
> >
> > Big Brother does NOT always know best!
That's a damned fact, but I find your tampering with a safety feature a
totally unconscionable act. What if you forgot and left the keys in it,
and a little girl carrying a kitten got in it and drove off with belt
unfastened? Very thoughtless of you. You should be ashamed.
Oh yeah, I've also disabled the deadman handle on my power mower, and
the seat switch on my riding mower. I used to have a chain saw that had
a grip switch that locked the throttle trigger unless you gripped it
just right. I disabled that, too. On my previous truck, I put a switch
on the dash to Normal, Disengage, or 15-sec delay the torque converter
clutch. Pulling a TT, the damned thing could never decide whether it
wanted to be engaged or not, so I lifted the responsibility from its
damned weak little mind and made the decisions for it. I'm so immoral
that I've even turned of the power saving feature off on my monitor. I
discovered, quite by accident, that I actually knew when I wanted it on,
and when I wanted it off, so I bit the bullet, and took personal
control.
Oh, almost forgot. Awhile back, the draft fan in my home furnace failed,
and I bypassed the sail switch until I could get a fan. Isn't that
something? For three days we lived in unbelievable danger of CO
poisoning, never knowing from one minute to the next whether we would
doze off forever, or live to eat one more ham sandwich.
Oh, one more thing. You'll love this. We lived in base housing in
Tucson, and it had a swamp cooler (not a power sucking AC, mind you - a
swamp cooler). One day the Air Police - yes, not civil engineers, the
Real Live Air PO..leece - came knocking at the door and said they had to
put a sign on the wall over the thermostat in the dining room - I say,
the Dining Room - saying not to set it below something or other temp.
You want to know what I did when they left? I'll tell you anyway. I took
some deep breaths, told my wife to leave the room so that she wouldn't
be a accomplice, concentrated all my fortitude, polished my self-image,
and...YES! You guessed it. I removed that obnoxious sign from the wall.
Permanently.
I'm really a bad, bad, boy, huh? Sometimes I just disgust myself. But I
always get over it.
> Neither does Will. neither do I. You remind me a bit of a step-daughter
> from a prior marriage who will not wear seat belts because she survived a
> rollover while not wearing them. Of course, she bears a really nasty scar
> across her forehead that may very well have been prevented by the belts.
> Who knows?
Not me. But I do know it's her decision to make.
I wear my seat belt most of the time, but if it beeped at me when I
didn't snap it (it doesn't, but a previous vehicle did), I would disable
the damned beeper. In a heartbeat.
I'm a meeeeean motorscooter, man. I was in the AF, too. We were so mean,
we had a soft drink machine with beer in it in the crew debriefing room.
Those Spectre gunners were ingenious suckers.
bill horne
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 03:18:29 -0500, bill horne
> <who...@mail.dodge.public.lib.ga.us> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:39:45 -0600, "John Irwin" <ir...@texas.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights? You can't
> >> >see them so they can't bother you and they certainly aren't bright enough to
> >> >bother anyone else. Just as an airliner turns on its landing lights when in
> >> >traffic areas, moving lights attract notice.
>
> >Then GBinNC wrote:
> >>
> >> John, I wondered about this too.
> intensity? At least on some vehicles? For some reason, I have this
> impression...
I posted in detail elswhere, but the bottom line line was that mine are
92% of full, and difference to the eyeball is barely noticeable.
> Well, here again we just have a different style. If I were parked with
> "lights off, engine running at night" I'd have my emergency
> ("parking") brake on anyway. (Why is none of your business.) Or did
> you mean DRIVING at night with your lights off?
I didn't mean that, but sometimes I do. Rarely on the hiway, though.
> (Lights off in
> darkness, lights on in daylight -- I like that. <g>)
> Who said anything about morality? You just said something that aroused
> my curiosity, that's all. Damn, I wasn't even arguing with you.
Sorry. I just hung it on to your post, because I equated your wonderment
with John's, "Why in the world would you disable the daytime running
lights?" I figured that would run on to eventually produce implications
of, "I do it this way, so everyone else should not be irresponsible, and
also do it my way". It's getting there.
>
> GB in NC
>
> [For e-mail, remove the last two letters from "yahoooo."]
--
Lon VanOstran
*opinion* that GM daytime running lights are a dange to everyone on the road. Is
that better?
mike...@netcom.com
: When I first got my new GM, I was driving at dusk. When it became
: dark, I neglected to turn on my lights for awhile, thinking that they
: were on.
My Buick turns on the lights automatically when it get's dark. (It has
separate DRLs.) So the times I've rented a Grand Am and the lights were
on, I didn't even think about it - not a second guess. I must have driven
for a week without tail lights or markers - twice! - on country roads in
Iowa. I didn't even realize it 'til this thread. I won't do that again.
Thanks!
The inconsistencies in DRL operation and configuration *does* make them a
hazard IMO.
: wi...@epix.net wrote:
:>
:> <ir...@texas.net> writes:
:>
:>> Why in the world would you disable the daytime running lights?
:>
:>Because I want to.
:>
:>Because I choose to be able to flash the lights for what I think are
:>good and sufficient reasons. Like someone else wrote, I don't like
:>having someone else decide when my lights oughta be on.
:>
:>Will KD3XR
:>
--
##############
Michael
John Irwin
> John Irwin wrote:
> snip
> Oh yeah, I've also disabled the deadman handle on my power mower, and
> the seat switch on my riding mower. I used to have a chain saw that had
> a grip switch that locked the throttle trigger unless you gripped it
> just right. I disabled that, too. On my previous truck, I put a switch
> on the dash to Normal, Disengage, or 15-sec delay the torque converter
> clutch. Pulling a TT, the damned thing could never decide whether it
> wanted to be engaged or not, so I lifted the responsibility from its
> damned weak little mind and made the decisions for it. I'm so immoral
> that I've even turned of the power saving feature off on my monitor. I
> discovered, quite by accident, that I actually knew when I wanted it on,
> and when I wanted it off, so I bit the bullet, and took personal
> control.
>
I was referring to cars only when I mentioned the belt interlock. You will
find the same things disabled on my power mowers except for the seat switch
on the rider. As received, I couldn't back up the rider with the blade
running; that didn't work in a yard full of trees and rocks. The seat
switch, I kept since I've come close to overturning a few times. What I'm
saying is that I don't let Big Brother dictate to me either. What I do is
try to evaluate each thing individually. What I see a reason for, I keep.
> I'm a meeeeean motorscooter, man. I was in the AF, too. We were so mean,
> we had a soft drink machine with beer in it in the crew debriefing room.
> Those Spectre gunners were ingenious suckers.
Reminds me of how we lined the entire ready room walls with beer cans in
Chambley, France in 1962. The frog janitor would wash them out for us and
one of the guys would hot glue them together in "tiles" of about 10 cans.
Then, we would tile the walls with them. very impressive.
G Sanders
>
>
> readers (OBD-II) under $200
>
Here's one place to start (although they're somewhat over the $200
price point).
They even have one for the Power Stroke!
I don't know any thing about it - I just stumbled across it a few
months ago and saved the URL.
--
Gary Sanders
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postm...@127.0.0.1
Steve Wolf
The $249 job might do the trick.
G Sanders <gsan...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:387EAC1C...@bigfoot.com...
> Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie wrote:
> > Mark, I suggest you do some research. I have seen multi-brand code
> > readers (OBD-II) under $200
> Here's one place to start (although they're somewhat over the $200
> price point).
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
<sw...@wolfelectric.com> wrote:
> Can GSanders find the one that's under $200? I've looked and not found
> one.
>
> The $249 job might do the trick.
Try $175 at JC Whitney, if they have one that cheap other places will
too
Steve Wolf
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote in
message news:rlindber-E918BF.07531914012000
> Try $175 at JC Whitney, if they have one that cheap other places will
Thanks Ralph. I had a ton of trouble getting a refund on a return at JCW,
though. Anyone have the JCW job and verify it works?
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
Lindberg & Ellen Winnie <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote:
> In article <4cMe4.1854$8X5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Sue and Mark"
> <suem...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Very early on (ca. 1997) there was software and a cable you could buy
> > for
> > your PC which would access the codes. This doesn't seem to have nearly
> > the
> > demand as a separate code reader device (either manufacturer specific
> > or
> > cross platform), so it wasn't all that cheap ($300 I recall for just
> > GM).
>
> Mark, I suggest you do some research. I have seen multi-brand code
> readers (OBD-II) under $200
Having done more research (a little on my own, a little from my car-nut
friends) shows that there are still software and cables, there are also
OBD-II to RSR232 converters out there. Besides multi-brand systems.
Also ODB-II started out as a SAE standard that was -ADOPTED- by the Fed
(and most other countries). See the ODBII.com site for an explanation of
the standard and how various firms have adopted it.
http://www.obd-2.com/
http://www.obdii.com/
http://www.bb-elec.com/sitemap.asp
http://www.autotap.com/
http://www.injectoclean.com/cjscan.htm