Re: quick poll - american cars
05-14-2009 | 02:56 AM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0svi0599tnoo7ttap2iaco7lc3p8i65ij9@4ax.com...
> On 12 May 2009 06:42:45 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can't think of anyplace that lets cars go 15K miles between oil
>>> changes, unless it's one of those arab countries where cars are much
>>> more expendable than they are here.
>>
>><shrug> Your lack of imagination is not my problem.
>>
>>Here in the UQ, 18k miles/two years is not unusual as a service interval
>>for recent cars, including for both current Saabs. Very few cars here
>>"die" because of worn out engines.
>
but being too expensive to repair as the engine burning so much oil it will
fail the MOT/annual emmissions check is different?
05-14-2009 | 08:16 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On May 13, 10:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:22:25 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Which is another peeve. "by the book" is totally inadequate for many
> >> cars, pretty much everyone qualifies as "severe service" but fleet
> >> administrators refuse to recognize that and won't pay for anything
> >> outside the "normal service" schedule. Kraut mfgrs. are at least honest
> >> about service requirements and as a result get dinged for high
> >> maintenance costs in comparison tests.
>
> > Sadly no longer the case... the German manufacturers are now going to
> > vastly abbreviated maintenance schedules too. Hell, BMW is now claiming
> > that their transmissions have a lifetime fill of fluid....
>
> What makes sense, and what manufacturers are doing more and more, is to
> have variable intervals based on the vehicle monitoring the type of
> driving that is being done, and environmental factors.
>
> What we've had for too long, is dealers and independent shops trying to
> convince every single driver that they fall into the "severe service"
> category, when in fact very few drivers actually qualify for the severe
> service maintenance schedule.
False. IME, if you read the manual and what qualifies you as a
"severe service" driver - you probably don't know a single driver who
isn't "severe service." They will bump you into "severe service" if
you do things like sit in stop and go traffic, take short trips, drive
when the ambient temp is over 90 degrees, etc.
Hell, I do all three of those on a regular basis.
nate
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:22:25 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Which is another peeve. "by the book" is totally inadequate for many
> >> cars, pretty much everyone qualifies as "severe service" but fleet
> >> administrators refuse to recognize that and won't pay for anything
> >> outside the "normal service" schedule. Kraut mfgrs. are at least honest
> >> about service requirements and as a result get dinged for high
> >> maintenance costs in comparison tests.
>
> > Sadly no longer the case... the German manufacturers are now going to
> > vastly abbreviated maintenance schedules too. Hell, BMW is now claiming
> > that their transmissions have a lifetime fill of fluid....
>
> What makes sense, and what manufacturers are doing more and more, is to
> have variable intervals based on the vehicle monitoring the type of
> driving that is being done, and environmental factors.
>
> What we've had for too long, is dealers and independent shops trying to
> convince every single driver that they fall into the "severe service"
> category, when in fact very few drivers actually qualify for the severe
> service maintenance schedule.
False. IME, if you read the manual and what qualifies you as a
"severe service" driver - you probably don't know a single driver who
isn't "severe service." They will bump you into "severe service" if
you do things like sit in stop and go traffic, take short trips, drive
when the ambient temp is over 90 degrees, etc.
Hell, I do all three of those on a regular basis.
nate
05-14-2009 | 09:46 AM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Vic Smith wrote:
> I have heard the apocryphal stories about Corollas going 200 miles
> with no oil.
Decades back my g/f had an Iranian lodger, here to dodge fighting in the Iran
- Iraq War as much as anything I reckon. He bought some Japanese car ( I
forget which now ) and commented that the oil light didn't go out. There was
a good reason for that, and it was a bust oil pressure switch. He put some
oil in it and it continued to run for ages.
> Always by those who know squat about cars.
> OTOH that Brit show - can't remember the name -
Top Gear.
> beat the out of a Toy pickup and couldn't kill it, so I don't entirely
> discount
> what you're saying.
They really tried hard to kill it.
Graham
05-14-2009 | 10:09 AM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>
>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>
>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
bad if they are merging at the time.
Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
finally gone out of range.
>Paying attention to the road, rather than constantly scanning the
>gauges, would probably be a good idea as well.
It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
I'm not saying idiot lights and alerts are a bad idea, but they supplant
gauges and don't replace them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>
>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>
>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
bad if they are merging at the time.
Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
finally gone out of range.
>Paying attention to the road, rather than constantly scanning the
>gauges, would probably be a good idea as well.
It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
I'm not saying idiot lights and alerts are a bad idea, but they supplant
gauges and don't replace them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
05-15-2009 | 04:31 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
> so if you lost the coolant ...
I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that did
anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant will
lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes, there's
an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
saying:
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
> so if you lost the coolant ...
I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that did
anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant will
lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes, there's
an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
05-15-2009 | 04:31 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
so if you lost the coolant ...
--
Cliff
>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
so if you lost the coolant ...
--
Cliff
05-15-2009 | 01:29 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:08 +0000, Adrian wrote:
> Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that did
> anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant will
> lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes, there's
> an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
light...
> Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that did
> anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant will
> lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes, there's
> an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
light...
05-15-2009 | 01:43 PM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Hachiroku ハチク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
>>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
> light...
You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
were saying:
>>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
> light...
You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
05-15-2009 | 01:49 PM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:43:18 +0000, Adrian wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
>>>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>>>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>
>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
>> light...
>
> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
You'll have to explain this one.
All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When the
case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might take a
little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the surrounding
metal and trip.
Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat from
the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
> Hachiroku ハチク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the
>>>>>alarm goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
>>>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>>>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>
>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp would
>> light...
>
> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
You'll have to explain this one.
All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When the
case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might take a
little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the surrounding
metal and trip.
Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat from
the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
05-15-2009 | 01:59 PM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Hachiroku ハチク <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
>>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp
>>> would light...
>> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
> You'll have to explain this one.
>
> All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When
> the case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might
> take a little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the
> surrounding metal and trip.
>
> Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
> coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat
> from the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
The sensor is designed to isolate the actual "sensing bit" (for want of a
better term) from the temperature of the metal it's mounted in, precisely
because it'll give a false reading and cause overly slow reaction to
changes in temperature. Think about how quickly the gauge reacts when the
cooling fan comes in. You think that huge heatsink of a block and/or head
reacts so quickly?
were saying:
>>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp
>>> would light...
>> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
> You'll have to explain this one.
>
> All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When
> the case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might
> take a little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the
> surrounding metal and trip.
>
> Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
> coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat
> from the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
The sensor is designed to isolate the actual "sensing bit" (for want of a
better term) from the temperature of the metal it's mounted in, precisely
because it'll give a false reading and cause overly slow reaction to
changes in temperature. Think about how quickly the gauge reacts when the
cooling fan comes in. You think that huge heatsink of a block and/or head
reacts so quickly?
05-15-2009 | 05:03 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>>
>>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>>
>>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
>
>Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
>alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
>bad if they are merging at the time.
My Saab has a doorbell like two tone chime that rings when the system
detects a flaw (low coolant, washer low, light failure, etc). It has
never, ever caused me to be startled in any way. There's also a small
light on the main instrument panel that alerts me to look at the
digital display (on the console and not in my line of view). It's nice
to have the audible alert so that when I'm concentrating on the road
that I know to glance to the digital display.
>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
>to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
>finally gone out of range.
While I strongly believe in gauges, a "act now you're at the danger
level" would be good for drivers that don't have a clue and never look
at gauges. Likewise, for those that have idiot lights only, at least
it reminds them to take a look.
>It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
>look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
I'm a gauge watching sort of guy - but sometimes your attention is
elsewhere when driving. The audible "take a peek as soon as you have a
second" alert is a good idea.
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>>
>>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>>
>>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
>
>Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
>alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
>bad if they are merging at the time.
My Saab has a doorbell like two tone chime that rings when the system
detects a flaw (low coolant, washer low, light failure, etc). It has
never, ever caused me to be startled in any way. There's also a small
light on the main instrument panel that alerts me to look at the
digital display (on the console and not in my line of view). It's nice
to have the audible alert so that when I'm concentrating on the road
that I know to glance to the digital display.
>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
>to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
>finally gone out of range.
While I strongly believe in gauges, a "act now you're at the danger
level" would be good for drivers that don't have a clue and never look
at gauges. Likewise, for those that have idiot lights only, at least
it reminds them to take a look.
>It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
>look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
I'm a gauge watching sort of guy - but sometimes your attention is
elsewhere when driving. The audible "take a peek as soon as you have a
second" alert is a good idea.
05-15-2009 | 07:23 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:
>On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>so if you lost the coolant ...
Depends on the car... some shoot up and some drop down abnormally low.
Either way, if you're watching the gauge for trends you can see something
wrong. Maybe not in time, but your chances are better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>
> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>so if you lost the coolant ...
Depends on the car... some shoot up and some drop down abnormally low.
Either way, if you're watching the gauge for trends you can see something
wrong. Maybe not in time, but your chances are better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
05-15-2009 | 11:12 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>> goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
> Depends on the car... some shoot up and some drop down abnormally low.
> Either way, if you're watching the gauge for trends you can see something
> wrong. Maybe not in time, but your chances are better.
And of course the computer could easily be programmed to watch the
temperatures and pressures for trends and sound an alert when an
abnormal trend occurs. It doesn't have to wait until the temperature or
pressure reaches a catastrophically high (or low) level.
> Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>> goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done.
>> IIRC Most of those engine temp sensors read coolant temp ....
>> so if you lost the coolant ...
>
> Depends on the car... some shoot up and some drop down abnormally low.
> Either way, if you're watching the gauge for trends you can see something
> wrong. Maybe not in time, but your chances are better.
And of course the computer could easily be programmed to watch the
temperatures and pressures for trends and sound an alert when an
abnormal trend occurs. It doesn't have to wait until the temperature or
pressure reaches a catastrophically high (or low) level.
05-16-2009 | 04:15 AM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On 15 May 2009 17:59:01 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>
>>>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>
>>>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp
>>>> would light...
>
>>> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
>
>> You'll have to explain this one.
>>
>> All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When
>> the case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might
>> take a little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the
>> surrounding metal and trip.
>>
>> Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
>> coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat
>> from the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
>
>The sensor is designed to isolate the actual "sensing bit" (for want of a
>better term) from the temperature of the metal it's mounted in, precisely
>because it'll give a false reading and cause overly slow reaction to
>changes in temperature. Think about how quickly the gauge reacts when the
>cooling fan comes in. You think that huge heatsink of a block and/or head
>reacts so quickly?
Plus it's cooled outside the engine & would see only gas on the inside,
not hot (high heat content) liquid.
--
Cliff
>Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>
>>>>> I've never come across a temp gauge sensor on a water-cooled car that
>>>>> did anything BUT read the coolant temp - and, yes, a loss of coolant
>>>>> will lead to the gauge diving (or the light not lighting). Sometimes,
>>>>> there's an oil temp gauge or light, too, but that's incredibly rare.
>
>>>> It's mounted in metal. Loss of coolant=HOT metal. I think the lamp
>>>> would light...
>
>>> You may well think that. You'd be wrong.
>
>> You'll have to explain this one.
>>
>> All it is is a thermal switch that trips at a preset temperature. When
>> the case heats up, the bi-metal heats up and trips the switch. It might
>> take a little longer, but my guess is it would heat up as fast as the
>> surrounding metal and trip.
>>
>> Now, I have older cars, and only the very bottom of the sensor contacts
>> coolant, in the top of the thermostat housing. It draws as much heat
>> from the thermostat cover as the coolant, I'd bet.
>
>The sensor is designed to isolate the actual "sensing bit" (for want of a
>better term) from the temperature of the metal it's mounted in, precisely
>because it'll give a false reading and cause overly slow reaction to
>changes in temperature. Think about how quickly the gauge reacts when the
>cooling fan comes in. You think that huge heatsink of a block and/or head
>reacts so quickly?
Plus it's cooled outside the engine & would see only gas on the inside,
not hot (high heat content) liquid.
--
Cliff
05-16-2009 | 04:18 AM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quick poll - american cars
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:03:51 -0400, me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>>>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>>>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>>>
>>>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>>>
>>>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>>>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>>>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
>>
>>Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
>>alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
>>bad if they are merging at the time.
>
>My Saab has a doorbell like two tone chime that rings when the system
>detects a flaw (low coolant, washer low, light failure, etc). It has
>never, ever caused me to be startled in any way. There's also a small
>light on the main instrument panel that alerts me to look at the
>digital display (on the console and not in my line of view). It's nice
>to have the audible alert so that when I'm concentrating on the road
>that I know to glance to the digital display.
>
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
>>to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
>>finally gone out of range.
>
>While I strongly believe in gauges, a "act now you're at the danger
>level" would be good for drivers that don't have a clue and never look
>at gauges. Likewise, for those that have idiot lights only, at least
>it reminds them to take a look.
>
>>It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
>>look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
>
>I'm a gauge watching sort of guy - but sometimes your attention is
>elsewhere when driving. The audible "take a peek as soon as you have a
>second" alert is a good idea.
>
I have a heads-up display too.
Very nice. Took about 5 seconds to get used to.
Anything else is now hard <g>.
--
Cliff
>On 14 May 2009 10:09:08 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Doing a once-over of all the gauges every minute or two is
>>>> a normal part of driving. Don't they still teach that in Driver's Ed?
>>>> Do they teach ANYTHING in Driver's Ed any more?
>>>
>>>The schools around here dropped driver's ed long ago.
>>>
>>>But the bottom line is that it would cost virtually nothing for the
>>>automakers to trigger an alarm when one of the sensors (oil,
>>>temperature, voltage went to a dangerous level.
>>
>>Two problems here. First of all, if you aren't very careful with your
>>alert design, you can wind up scaring the hell out of drivers. This is
>>bad if they are merging at the time.
>
>My Saab has a doorbell like two tone chime that rings when the system
>detects a flaw (low coolant, washer low, light failure, etc). It has
>never, ever caused me to be startled in any way. There's also a small
>light on the main instrument panel that alerts me to look at the
>digital display (on the console and not in my line of view). It's nice
>to have the audible alert so that when I'm concentrating on the road
>that I know to glance to the digital display.
>
>>Secondly, and more importantly, by the time the light comes on or the alarm
>>goes off, it's often too late and the damage is done. You want the driver
>>to see what's going on in the way of trends, not just know when things have
>>finally gone out of range.
>
>While I strongly believe in gauges, a "act now you're at the danger
>level" would be good for drivers that don't have a clue and never look
>at gauges. Likewise, for those that have idiot lights only, at least
>it reminds them to take a look.
>
>>It's part of the same process.... you do the sweep of the gauges, you
>>look in the rear view mirror, you go back to looking forward.
>
>I'm a gauge watching sort of guy - but sometimes your attention is
>elsewhere when driving. The audible "take a peek as soon as you have a
>second" alert is a good idea.
>
I have a heads-up display too.
Very nice. Took about 5 seconds to get used to.
Anything else is now hard <g>.
--
Cliff