Super Unleaded

DUTR

Ultrasonic wrote: »

It presumably has the same meaning as it does in my Skoda, which relates to exhaust gases. I guess it is triggered by a Lambda sensor reading? I'd be interested in what any mechanics thought about this...

My mate works for a company like the AA, and has all the gizmo's he attached a device in the com port which could even trigger individual injectors, what he told me and he seems to be correct, is that the system detects a fault and illuminates the bulb, if the fault is cleared the light remains on until the ignition is cycled 7 times, but that doesn't mean cycling the ignition there and then, the other spooky thing is that when he connected this laptop, it pulls a whole host of data from the car, average speed temp etc over a period of time.

Ultrasonic

I was wondering what 'fault' the different fuel caused to be detected in the first place. That the engine appears to be running too lean perhaps?

alastairq

But we do have this same discussion every few months

OOOOOOh...maybe because...there might be something 'new' out there, that not everyone is aware of?

Or, someone 'new' has the same old query..and after doing a 'search', has only come up with sensible answers from 10 years ago?

Old-hat information and knowledge [especially involving a forum] will be cyclical, as new faces come & go?


With regards to warning lights?

My ludditious view is, the more computers control our very lives, the more they find 'wrong' with everything?

Bring back the good ol' days, when the only warning lights that a driver needed were, oil pressure and ignition?

Life was so much simpler then?

DUTR

alastairq wrote: »

OOOOOOh...maybe because...there might be something 'new' out there, that not everyone is aware of?

Or, someone 'new' has the same old query..and after doing a 'search', has only come up with sensible answers from 10 years ago?

Old-hat information and knowledge [especially involving a forum] will be cyclical, as new faces come & go?


With regards to warning lights?

My ludditious view is, the more computers control our very lives, the more they find 'wrong' with everything?

Bring back the good ol' days, when the only warning lights that a driver needed were, oil pressure and ignition?

Life was so much simpler then?

It's been years since I studied electronics, but there is was/is concepts called feedback and resonance and gain.
Similar will occur for other sectors of engineering.
At resonance strange things can happen and it can occur that you get something for nothing (now as you now this is not practically possible, but you can strive towards that point and get lots for little.)
This is one of the reasons some cars can quote very high MPG, this is probably achievable but in a very small window of driving condition. I know when the VW TSI engines arrived they were noted to use only very low sulphur fuels. ???? I thought, but some cars or engines are not available in every world market, anyways rushing back, great achievements can be had from the modern engine, but it requires crucial management. Think back when the Capri 2.8 injection arrived, just under 10 seconds 0-60 and that was a 'miracle' at the time, now cars with engines half the capacity would run rings around it and return a greater MPG.

Ultrasonic

I'll keep this brief so this thread doesn't go wildly off-topic.

DUTR wrote: »

At resonance strange things can happen and it can occur that you get something for nothing...

I don't think there is reason to believe anything of the sort is happening here. It sounds to me like a change in exhaust gases is being correctly detected.

DUTR

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I'll keep this brief so this thread doesn't go wildly off-topic.


I don't think there is reason to believe anything of the sort is happening here. It sounds to me like a change in exhaust gases is being correctly detected.

Yes, but what I meant in response to the earlier poster, is why there are so many added electronics and mechanics on a car.

Ultrasonic

DUTR wrote: »

Yes, but what I meant in response to the earlier poster, is why there are so many added electronics and mechanics on a car.

You mentioned above that a modern car would give better mpg than your old Capri. One reason would be feedback from sensors to the ECU to adjust the flow of fuel into the engine I would have thought? Modern electronics on cars are obviously irritating when they go wrong, but I don't think they're universally a bad thing.

DUTR

Ultrasonic wrote: »

You mentioned above that a modern car would give better mpg than your old Capri. One reason would be feedback from sensors to the ECU to adjust the flow of fuel into the engine I would have thought? Modern electronics on cars are obviously irritating when they go wrong, but I don't think they're universally a bad thing.

heh heh let's get one thing straight, I have never owned a Capri :rotfl:
I just mentioned Capri 2.8 injection as these were like a landmark in vehicle achievment, 0-60 8.2secs, 21mpg top speed 127mph
some modern 1.4 cars and 1.6 will match that performance but return nearly 3 times the mpg.

Ultrasonic

DUTR wrote: »

heh heh let's get one thing straight, I have never owned a Capri :rotfl:

My mistake .

alastairq

I just mentioned Capri 2.8 injection as these were like a landmark in vehicle achievment, 0-60 8.2secs, 21mpg top speed 127mph

Oh..please.....landmark?

The Capri was simply a simple product, aimed at a specific market....mechanically using whatever was available to Ford at the time.

Not knocking Capris as such .....it's just that they were a market response....hardly cutting-edge technology.