Keith Browning Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Years ago I had a customer come for something I cant recall, but the check engine light was on. Car ran great, out of warranty and the light really didn't bother him at all because he fixed it himself. Put a piece of electrical tape on the cluster he did. Yep. That what he did! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff_E Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The electrical tape looks a whole lot more professional if you take apart the instrument cluster and slide it behind the graphics applique. And for the customers who actually notice the bulb failing to prove out, you can skip the tape altogether, and just transplant the bulbs ground circuit and T it into another modules MIL control. This is where Jim is supposed to chime in and call me a "Damned Wet Blanket." I keep trying to tell him that I'm just a moist towelette with pie in the sky dreams of someday becoming more than just the sum of my parts. He doesn't seem to understand though. It must be an Irish-Canadian thing. Ohhh I can't wait for the response to this hehehehe /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/popcorn.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warman Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Jeff... sorry to say all I'm going to do is long c@ck you guys.... Many years ago there was an evil running F150... Customer says "Don't spend money checking the computer shit.... that check engine light was on for two years before it started running bad...". How do you deal with this kind of logic? On public forums, it isn't uncommon to see "How do I turn out that light?".... If you tell them to fix the problem, you get "Yeahyeah... that's fine... but how do I turn out the light?". When I do any of my government mandated inspections, your method of teeing into another modules control circuit wont cut the mustard... I am directed to poll the ABS and SRS modules in order to catch this kind of stuff... You wont believe the equipment we need to be a part of these inspection programs... and our equipment is auditted each and every year for compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff_E Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Good morning Jim /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cover.gif Yeah, Those were a couple of things I ran across from people who obviously draw inspiration from the public forums. After several hours of having my ass handed to me, trying to figure out what was going on. I had to finally dig into the cluster and see for myself the grand hackery behind my suffering. Then it all made sense, and I NEVER FORGOT. It kind of makes me wish that people here had to get some kind of annual inspection to make sure everything is on the "up and up." It sure might have saved me the brain damage incurred from that mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LARRY BRUDZYNSKI Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Jeff, Jim let us down I just think this was his chance to get creative but didn't...Jim where are you??? Quote: This is where Jim is supposed to chime in and call me a "Damned Wet Blanket." I keep trying to tell him that I'm just a moist towelette with pie in the sky dreams of someday becoming more than just the sum of my parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warman Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'm still suffering through a week from hell... My Saturday to work too /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif I forgot to mention that there's been a broadcast message in the last week or so.... didn't have time to flip through the bulletin board at work (I print them off and hang them in the coffee room...) and I can't for the life of me remember what the number was.... The broadcast message did mention something like a $10,000 (or was it $5000) fine for anyone caught disabling the system.... I would "imagine" that this is a US federal thing.... Not sure what any penalty might be in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff_E Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 YOU'VE GOT A COFFEE ROOM. We're lucky to have indoor plumbing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rotz.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warman Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 With a fridge and a microwave... neener-neener-neener. Broadcast message 0581... fine is $6000 directed at the store - but somehow, a lot of this retribution comes to rest on the techs shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel351 Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 Yes, big-time illegal to disable the system. I contacted NHTSA to ask a few questions about it as well. Turns out that the "electrical tape over the light" trick constitutes a "disabling" of the system since you are hindering the systems ability to notify the driver of ANY change in condition via the indicator light. Makes sense to me, it just sucks. They didn't say, however that outright removal of the sensors constitues "disabling" since the system tells you that it can't see the sensors. System is still working just fine, it's just giving you a continuous memory error code. This is the only grey area that the aftermarket crowd is able to survive in these days. SEMA and many aftermarket companies are working with the manufacturers to remedy this situation by making the TPMS systems programmable according to the specs of the tires being put on the car/truck. They've already got all the mfg's on pretty much the same sensor frequencies and using extremely similar technologies as a whole. The jump to a universal/programmable TPMS system should be a small one. We'll see what happens! -Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Clayton Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Here is something of interest to watch out for with TPMS issues... Quote: 1206 - 2007-2008 VARIOUS VEHICLES - INTERMITTENT TPMS LIGHT WITH DTC'S B2872 AND B287A - CELL PHONE CHARGERS AND RF INTERFERENCE SOME 2007-2008 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH AN SPDJB MAY EXHIBIT AN INTERMITTENT TPMS LIGHT. DTC B2872 OR DTCS B2872/B287A MAY NOT IDENTIFY FAILED PARTS AND REPLACEMENT MAY LEAD TO REPEAT REPAIRS. SOME CELL PHONE CHARGERS CAN CREATE RF INTERFERENCE THAT DEGRADES TPMS PERFORMANCE. A DEVICE KNOWN TO CAUSE THE ISSUE IS A NAME BRAND CHARGER - MODEL MOTMINIVPC BUILT BEFORE 2007. TO IDENTIFY CHARGER, CHECK MODEL/SERIAL NUMBER ON THE PRODUCT TAG, THE 2 DIGIT YEAR FOLLOWS THE LETTERS "DC" - DC06XXXXXX. THIS ISSUE MAY BE CAUSED BY OTHER CHARGING DEVICES ALSO. ASK CUSTOMER TO PROVIDE THE CAR CELL PHONE CHARGER (OR SIMILAR DEVICE), ALONG WITH PHONE COMPLETELY DISCHARGED TO PERFORM A ROADTEST. IF DIAGNOSIS INDICATES CHARGER CAUSES INTERMITTENT TPMS LIGHT, ADVISE CUSTOMER TO OBTAIN A NEW CHARGER OR TO USE A DIFFERENT POWERPOINT LOCATION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.