DIY diagnostics
Discussion
I have a 59 Chevrolet
OK, its a 59 PLATE Chevrolet.......or rather a Daewoo in drag....
A Chevrolet Epica 2.0ltr Vcdi turbodiesel, a GM-VM engine, and i cant decide what DIY diagnostic reader is worth buying, for my Mondeo Mk3 Tdci i had F-super (£17) that did the lot. but for this Daewoo/Holden/Chevvy/GM it looks like theres nothing under £2000 to do the same job
I have a recurring main airbag light and on researching it seem these cars are prone to it especially given my cars a taxi on a school rune and i have to slide the passenger front seat right forward and back twice a day, last time i just reached under the passenger seat and waggled the leads and it went off, the lads got a Cruze and that had identical problems
cheers
OK, its a 59 PLATE Chevrolet.......or rather a Daewoo in drag....
A Chevrolet Epica 2.0ltr Vcdi turbodiesel, a GM-VM engine, and i cant decide what DIY diagnostic reader is worth buying, for my Mondeo Mk3 Tdci i had F-super (£17) that did the lot. but for this Daewoo/Holden/Chevvy/GM it looks like theres nothing under £2000 to do the same job
I have a recurring main airbag light and on researching it seem these cars are prone to it especially given my cars a taxi on a school rune and i have to slide the passenger front seat right forward and back twice a day, last time i just reached under the passenger seat and waggled the leads and it went off, the lads got a Cruze and that had identical problems
cheers
I wouldn't solder those, solder connections hate vibration. Screw terminal blocks will give a better connection for longer. Unplug the battery before doing anything.
I've only ever seen this once, root cause in my (non-expert!) opinion was the factory were seriously stingey with the wire lengths. Wasn't really sure how best to fix. An extension piece could have worked, but sourcing the connectors is hard when you don't know what they're called in the RS catalogue!
I've only ever seen this once, root cause in my (non-expert!) opinion was the factory were seriously stingey with the wire lengths. Wasn't really sure how best to fix. An extension piece could have worked, but sourcing the connectors is hard when you don't know what they're called in the RS catalogue!
ShaunTheSheep said:
I wouldn't solder those, solder connections hate vibration. Screw terminal blocks will give a better connection for longer.
What utter poppy-cock!So you are trying to tell me that a solder connection is less reliable than a couple of bits of 'chocolate block'?
I don't think so!
http://www.gendan.co.uk/product_MD701.html
give these guys a ring and ask about the coverage, you will probably be able to get in to the system with one of the manufacturers
give these guys a ring and ask about the coverage, you will probably be able to get in to the system with one of the manufacturers
andyiley said:
So you are trying to tell me that a solder connection is less reliable than a couple of bits of 'chocolate block'?
Yeah :nod:Crimp is generally best all round - NOT the crappy wee crimper things you get at halfords, i'm talking about a proper gas tight crimp made with a ratcheting hand crimp tool which results in a cold weld join of the metals. These joins when done correctly introduce such little resistance my bench DMM can't spot the resistance difference compared with a length of wire. They don't mind vibration or heat within reason.
Screw terminals suffer in so much as they don't like vibration too much and they oxidise over the course of a few years leading to relatively high resistance joins. Generally though Joe punter will make the best connection with these, especially if they clean before making the connection.
Solder vs. everything is a long standing holy war and it mostly comes down to the quality (read: price) of the solder and flux used, there's also a fair amount comes down to the skill of the solderer but not as much as you'd expect. I've seen students produce better solder joints when using good quality flux (& solder) than 40+ year experienced guys using chinese solder with only the flux in the solder wire.
In terms of the proposed solder solution, it's not going to be a good one - screw terminals will last longer. The heatshrink should be the dual wall kind with the weatherproofing grease inside for this application (cars are humid inside...)
Upatdawn
Do not cut the plugs off the leads under the seat, should you ever have an accident and suffer a bad injury due to seat belt tensioner or airbag failure there is a very good chance insurance companies will not pay out on a compensation claim should bad workmanship be involved in the above failure
The best thing you can do is locate the seat belt tensioner plug and socket and disconnect / reconnect them several times, all being well the fault will be cured. Should you continue to have problems you must replace the terminals in the plug and socket
I hope this helps
Do not cut the plugs off the leads under the seat, should you ever have an accident and suffer a bad injury due to seat belt tensioner or airbag failure there is a very good chance insurance companies will not pay out on a compensation claim should bad workmanship be involved in the above failure
The best thing you can do is locate the seat belt tensioner plug and socket and disconnect / reconnect them several times, all being well the fault will be cured. Should you continue to have problems you must replace the terminals in the plug and socket
I hope this helps
ShaunTheSheep said:
Yeah :nod:
Screw terminals suffer in so much as they don't like vibration too much and they oxidise over the course of a few years leading to relatively high resistance joins. Generally though Joe punter will make the best connection with these, especially if they clean before making the connection.
I am sorry but I will 100% disagree with this, all you have to do is to over-tighten them as most "Joe punters" will do & the wire is virtually cut, at least several of the cores will be & then the joint is inherrantly weak AND higher resistance.Screw terminals suffer in so much as they don't like vibration too much and they oxidise over the course of a few years leading to relatively high resistance joins. Generally though Joe punter will make the best connection with these, especially if they clean before making the connection.
DH3, read this and go again:
Paul Graham said:
How to Disagree
March 2008
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
March 2008
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
Anybody got the old "well that escalated quickly" meme with Ron burgundy? ðŸ˜
As much as everyone wants to win the old internet argument your not answering the ops question, whoever there are some very good points.
Generally as already pointed out gendan is a good source for diagnostic kit, however it's not cheap and Chevy seem to have quite a tight rein on the market.
As much as everyone wants to win the old internet argument your not answering the ops question, whoever there are some very good points.
Generally as already pointed out gendan is a good source for diagnostic kit, however it's not cheap and Chevy seem to have quite a tight rein on the market.
andyiley said:
OK, so I come in at DH6, and your point is?
I gave you benefit of the doubt when you were rude to me. I tried to engage with you. You've not questioned me on the obvious (where's my proof) etc etc but i interpret you (rightly or wrongly) as intellectually dishonest.Ahhmm ooot.
Quote
What utter poppy-cock!
So you are trying to tell me that a solder connection is less reliable than a couple of bits of 'chocolate block'?
It is well known that in vibration situations soldered joints fail earlier than crimped. The solders heat brittles the copper wire which breaks at the point it goes in the solder block.
A good friend of mine who is a very experienced senior control systems engineer for Fords told me crimping is better.
The choc block is less than the proper crimps but better than solder
That said if I did solder I would support the joint with double heat shrink with a plastic support between first and second layer
What utter poppy-cock!
So you are trying to tell me that a solder connection is less reliable than a couple of bits of 'chocolate block'?
It is well known that in vibration situations soldered joints fail earlier than crimped. The solders heat brittles the copper wire which breaks at the point it goes in the solder block.
A good friend of mine who is a very experienced senior control systems engineer for Fords told me crimping is better.
The choc block is less than the proper crimps but better than solder
That said if I did solder I would support the joint with double heat shrink with a plastic support between first and second layer
Heat shrink crimps are about as good as it gets for automotive repairs in my view -
g~~60_12.JPG)
Have all the advantages suggested above for resistance to vibration and the heat shrink adheres to the wire insulation to avoid hinging and corrosion.
Would strongly recommend proper crimping pliers with these, cost less than a tenner on ebay and good enough for DIY or occasional trade use -
A gas soldering iron should come with a hot air head perfect for heat shrink and again basic version available for a tenner -
MFIcZBNzJ0BSTnQWQ1Sg~~60_12.JPG)
Have all the advantages suggested above for resistance to vibration and the heat shrink adheres to the wire insulation to avoid hinging and corrosion.
Would strongly recommend proper crimping pliers with these, cost less than a tenner on ebay and good enough for DIY or occasional trade use -
A gas soldering iron should come with a hot air head perfect for heat shrink and again basic version available for a tenner -
ShaunTheSheep said:
andyiley said:
OK, so I come in at DH6, and your point is?
I gave you benefit of the doubt when you were rude to me. I tried to engage with you. You've not questioned me on the obvious (where's my proof) etc etc but i interpret you (rightly or wrongly) as intellectually dishonest.Ahhmm ooot.
You say you gave me the benefit of doubt when I was rude to you, when was I rude to you?
I didn't feel the need to "question you on the obvious" I simply disagreed with your "central point" that you believe choc block is better than soldering & stated my reasoning for this disagreement as is described in your quote point DH6.
Not quite sure what you mean by intellectually dishonest either?
OK guys, FFS!......stop it PLEASE.....lol
Ive given up on the idea of DIY diagnostics (till I can afford a Ford again)
the airbag problem will be down to taking the seat out and suck+see
the 1 guy i spoke to said "unplug connections, bend contacts A BIT and replug in"
or the main dealer will welcome me with open arms of course
Ive given up on the idea of DIY diagnostics (till I can afford a Ford again)
the airbag problem will be down to taking the seat out and suck+see
the 1 guy i spoke to said "unplug connections, bend contacts A BIT and replug in"
or the main dealer will welcome me with open arms of course
I'd say the problem isn't anything to do with the connector anyway - it will be the wire that has broken because of the constant movement of the seat.
Repair-wise there are a few options, but if you keep moving the seat you will eventually have the problem recur.
You need to look under the seat to see at which end of the connector the loom 'moves' when you slide the seat - these will be the wires that are fractured.
They may have fractured right at the connctor or a few iches away.
Solder, crimp or whatever suits, a *new* section of wire (of the correct gauge)in place of the broken section. you can get extra flexible wire which may be a better option if you are keeping the car for a while.
Regarding the diagnostics, the only 'standard' diagnostics will be related to emission control. Anything else is a bonus, but will be manufacturer specific.
Best bet will be finding an enthusiats website.
Repair-wise there are a few options, but if you keep moving the seat you will eventually have the problem recur.
You need to look under the seat to see at which end of the connector the loom 'moves' when you slide the seat - these will be the wires that are fractured.
They may have fractured right at the connctor or a few iches away.
Solder, crimp or whatever suits, a *new* section of wire (of the correct gauge)in place of the broken section. you can get extra flexible wire which may be a better option if you are keeping the car for a while.
Regarding the diagnostics, the only 'standard' diagnostics will be related to emission control. Anything else is a bonus, but will be manufacturer specific.
Best bet will be finding an enthusiats website.
Gassing Station | Home Mechanics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff