Genuine Shop Manuals Standard Equipment on All Cars

No, his regulator is in the ECU. And either his ECU does indeedhave
problems, or it's not seeing the same voltage as everything else...
are there any codes stored?

 

More idiocy from Mike Gray, who, because he is incapable of understanding
"complicated" modern cars, disparages them.

The 1992 Caravan does NOT use an alternator with an internal regulator.

 

The information on how to fix it without replacing the ECM has been posted
in this group *numerous* times over the last five years. I know because
I've posted it. The idiocy you spew in this group makes me disinclined to
help you by posting it again. I guess you'll just have to dig through
googlegroups (if you're capable -- that's going to require the use of a
scary, complex, y'know, COMPUTER) and find it yourself.

 

Add three more to that list.
86 Jimmy S15. 276,000km. Rusty, but no computer trouble.
90 Beretta GT. 210,000km. On transmission #2, but computer #1 (and
digital dash #1.) The wife has owned the Beretta since 94 and about 100k.
01 Trans Am. O2 sensor failure, and I've cooked the clutch. And with
nitrous it's a low 12 second car. No computer problems here either.

I'd actually be willing to bet that the PCM/ECM probably has a failure
rate of less than 1% in 10 years, which is way better than any
alternator, battery, water pump, or starter can probably claim.

Ray

 

You are getting better. Now ALL has become a VERY SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER.
You still have a long way to go to get to VERY FEW.


Matt

 

I would guess that at least 95% of 4+ year old cars have no computer
problems. Sensor problems are another issue, but the ECUs are quite
reliable. And you said computer several times so it is obvious you are
talking about the ECU/ECM.


Matt

 

mike gray opined in news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Umm... geez.. wonder how you would know that? And how you might go about
FIXING that....
If you know that fact, then you have a good idea what the problem is.

Which sets the level of credibility for this entire thread of reasoning.

 

1. Unwad panties.

2. Read for context.

Sensible designs have an external (replaceable and, preferably,
adjustable) reg. The 92 caravan does not. It's in the ECU.

It's not a question of complication, it's a question of saving a couple
bucks in manufacturing costs by incorporating a more failure prone
component into a less failure prone component. That's bad design, even
at my abhorrent level of understanding.

 

Obvious to you, perhaps. To me, a computer without i/o is like a gear
without teeth.

 

Then it's a jolly good thing automotive computers have i/o.

 

You can easily fix your faulty voltage regulation without replacing the
ECU.

Yeah, gee, imagine, you only got 13 measly years out of the voltage
regulator. What dreck.

Not.

 

If the engine has MECHANICAL parts worn out of spec, then "all the
signals" may not be in spec but the computer is perfect. If one or more
sensors is DOA then "all the signals" may not be in spec, but the
computer may be perfect. If there are bad ground connections or broken
wires, then "all the signals may not be in spec, but the computer,
engine, and sensors may be perfect.

Then there's that 1 in a hundred (or thousand? 500? 10,000?) car that
actually does have a bad computer.

 

Uh, no. It may be like a gearbox in neutral, but its not like a gear
without teeth.

 

Best shot is to fix whatever is REALLY wrong (loose connections, bad
ground connection at computer or computer harness, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc. You're a LONG way from proving that the ECU is at fault.

And if it does turn out that the voltage regulator section of the ECU is
bad but everything else is OK, then you can always bypass it and install
a post-1972 Chrysler electronic regulator (stanalone unit) in its place.
Works for any alternator (Ford, GM, Nippondingbat, you name it) with
two field inputs (non-grounded) and a single battery output.

 

86: Owner is an idiot

 

So when you said "faulty computer systems" you meant "a fault
somewhere in some system either feeding or fed by the computer, but
quite possibly not directly related to the computer itself in any way
shape or form?" And later when you said "Fortunately for most folks,
the ECU can deliver all sorts of bogus data with impunity" you didn't
actually mean the ECU?

 

Having the voltage regulator internal to the SBEC is not done to
save costs, it is done to facilitate precise charging voltage
according to temperature.

So far, nothing you've posted gives me reason to believe that the
over charging condition is the fault of the voltage regulator.
All it would take for that thing to over charge is a worn down
field brush that is grounding out. No voltage regulator,
internal -or- external would be capable of compensating for that.

 

Personally in all the people I know I have never heard of someone having a
faulty computer.

 

It happens, it's just not a common thing....... except in the older GM cars.
Bob

 

Obvious to anyone who knows anything about computers. Even including
all of the sensors, your initial claim that every car older than 4 years
is still a pile of horse excrement, however, certainly the totality of
sensors plus computer is less reliable than the computer alone, but not
nearly as bad as you assert.


Matt