interesting info i didn`t know -- just knew to avoid these cars because their trannys are notorious -- just curious, if positrak could be installed on them and if this would reduce the problem (assuming driver still does his best to eliminate spinning)
i heard the engines were good -- i know nothing about them but is the belt tensioner like the idler pulley in older motors -- to keep the fan cooling down the engine?
rach
Why, because God forbid he said you were wrong?
Because you can't.
LOL, yea, like in your fork lift clutch stories.
Pretty much what you have been doing in this entire thread. Well that and wild false accusations. .
IOW, more smoke and mirrors.
Perceived as what and by who Max? The only ones whining about either one of them are you and Budd, imagine that. I think that you should be more worried about how you are perceived by others before worrying about anyone else.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it any more true. THE BATTERY WAS LOAD TESTED, despite your constant denial of such!!!!
How is it going to magically get any better?
There are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 CCA tha the battery provided DURING the test but even if it were not if a 10A load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5V, it would not have enough power to start the car.
LOL, you need to work on that reading comprehention.
These conditions are only in your head.
Unless the drop was measured directly at the battery, and it wasn't, it is no indication of battery failure.
While age is a factor, it is the least important one unless it is really old, and this one wasn't.
Does this have to do with your fictitious cell voltage?
simaltaneously,
The battery WAS load tested as indicated by that odd CCA rating he gave.
But once is all that is needed to disprove your battery BS.
Who cares, once is all that is needed to eliminate the battery as the source of the problem.
It does no such thing, no matter how desperate you are that it does. All it shows is a significant voltage drop in the wiring. The fact that it happened only once simply proves you wrong on your constant voltage at any speed statement as the voltage had to be low enough that one time for it to cut out.
Just because you do the same thing over and over again doesn't mean that you are doing it right.
If that were true, then why are you here now?
Just because his troubleshooting doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it wrong. The fact that you do exactly the same thing over and over shows who really doesn't understand.
And your education is useful in your career for what purpose?
So what you are now saying is that a load test WAS done. I guess I wasn't so wrong about it being a good test to do. I saw that it had been done, but you all argued it wasn't necessary. Thats simply incorrect.
Thats what makes this even funnier... you "experts" are arguing that its not necessary, yet you'll sit and quote about it being done as though it was never a question as to whether it was a good idea.
No, the OP said that the load test was done and I don't recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea, only that it was not needed. The point is that it IS unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10A load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds, there would be no way the battery could start the engine.
That might be because it was done, even though you insisted that it be done again, denied that it was AND in this situation, it was unnecessary and no point that you have made so far showed that it was.
The point is, when the following facts are mentioned:
1) Inverter shuts down due to low voltage 2) Battery is 3 years old and is factory issue 3) voltage test immediately after being in charge mode is less than 13v (residual should be over 13v for a few moments at least) 4) load is small (under 10A as you keep repeating) yet voltage drops rapidly (a few seconds to drop under 11v) 5) port voltage starts out at over 12vLine drop is not a sudden thing. Load of under 10A is not a big load. Battery is reaching life expectancy for the brand. Battery doesn't hold a residual charge very well, but instead drops to nominal quickly.
Everything points to battery condition, while #1 also points to port design. Load test is cheap and easy, taking less than 2 minutes. It also eliminates the bulk of the problem indicators. It makes accurate testing of the port possible.
Fact is, all you "smart guys" wanted to look at was the inverter symptoms, when there were others mentioned that had an effect on the problem an could easily be checked in one easy step.
Which could be and is being caused by a voltage drop in the lines and / or socket.
Mine lasted over 6 and I have yet to have one not last at least 5.
This is not a new battery and I have yet to see your over 13V on a standard battery. While the POS voltage gauge in the truck says over 13V (engine not running), my $200 meter directly connected to the battery says different, around 12.6V. I wonder which one is more accurate.
Actually, I was incorrect, the voltage drops immediately according to the OP which completely indicates a wiring problem.
This is the part that get you in trouble Max because it indicates that you don't have a clue as to what a voltage drop is. If there is no load (and a good meter has a very high impedence and puts virtually no load on the circuit it is testing) then the voltage on the port has to be the same as the battery. It is this simple Max, no current draw, no voltage drop.
You have yet to provide anything to say this factory battery could ever be pushed up to 13V+ on its residual charge. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. It could be that the voltage drop in the lines drops the voltage at top residual level of that battery to just above the minimum requirements of the inverter and even a loss of 1/10 of a volt on its residual charge in 30 seconds (which is still pretty good) is enough to cause the inverter to alarm and shut down.
Only if you don't look at the big bicture Max. Read above.
The symptoms did not warrant a battery load test because like many have said and you continue to ignore, if the battery was so weak as to be the cause of this problem, it would not be able to start the vehicle and the OP stated many times, it started with NO problems.
Max,
Admittedly I've not followed the inverter thread . . .it didn't interest me, but...
1) As it should to protect electronics plugged in like laptops.2) If the battery has been given real world "normal" maintenance, it's on it's last legs.
3) Should be over 13 V and less than 14V4) Small load, fast V drop = low voltage reserve capacity . . .IOW, the battery is on it's last legs.
5) If port voltage drops rapidly under small load, battery is on it's last legs.So we're in agreement on this appears and the "experts" are overlooking the KISS factor.
Budd
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
Like I said, there are idiot engineers just like there are idiots without engineering degrees. Idiocy knows no boundaries, and the percentage of idiots in any given profession is pretty much the same as the percentage of idiots in the population at large.
That's the point. I didn't SEE anyone say "you don't know dick because you only have a high school education." Not once. However, I did see plenty of "OH, well of COURSE you'd think THAT... you're an ENGINEER."
Not all of the mechanics I've met are willing to admit that one of their ilk could screw up, or worse, admit that they screwed up.
Some are so full
Some are so full of their "working man" image and feel so superior to "ivory tower engineers" that there's no room for common sense and therefore they can't understand and accept correct technical explanations of something that they've cooked up an intuitive, but incorrect, explanation for.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the percentage of idiots in all walks of life is pretty constant. Get over the anti-engineer BS.
Good God, Max. I'm not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread, but my recollection of the assertions made is NOT what you said above. What was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car, (including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized) that the *FIRST* thing to do is probably *NOT* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. The FIRST thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop, under load, between the battery and the cigarette lighter. Whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not you're losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter!
You didn't say that. The idiot who started the anti-engineer tirade said that.
Actually, Budd, the "dream" was to give the computer full authority over shift rate and quality, plus a diagnostic capability. To do that necessitated clutch-to-clutch shifting and eliminated the ability to use overrunning clutches, which in turn made bands pretty useless.
And FWIW, although the old rear-drive A-904 and A-727 were far more rugged than any automatic transmission short of an Allison, do you know what their WEAKEST point is? Yep. The BANDS. More 727s get pulled for broken reverse or kickdown bands than any other part. Clutches are inherently stronger, although they are less efficient when released.
Not that I'm a great defender of the 41TE- its a classic example of management wanting to be able to crow about "worlds first computer-controlled transmission!" before the engineering was fully baked. But let's at least stay on the right page in the debate. The engineers didn't wake up and say, "Duh, I like clutches better than bands!" It was a compromise in one area to allow (what was hoped to be) an improvement in another area and facilitate computer control.
Did it? Bands can be released cleanly, and as shown in the 727-904 series, by using accumulators, like those in the 604/41TE, applied smoothly. The overunning sprag in the case is unneccessary as the L/R band can be applied, and is, when low range is selected. A valve body change and you eliminate the weak link (spun Sprag)
Really? I've seen more spun sprag clutches than bands broken. . .generally in 904's being neutral started.
I am offended you think I'm not on the right page, mister. I stated my beliefs and opinions on that transmission based on my experience. The trans sucks because it is over-engineered. Again, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is." which is what I see as having happened.
Bingo.
The only two problems I've ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge, and some don't like to look at the simple problems first.
More often than not, I'll stand by their work. In this case, all of our "resident engineers" got it wrong.
Whats even more amusing is that, as engineers, they don't have enough confidence in their comrades over at Chrysler to believe that an engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. I can hear the BS now, "well, thats what the fuse is for" etc etc etc. Terrific, if the fuse never blew, then they weren't drawing too much power from the circuit, and thus the voltage drop is due to something OTHER than the design of the vehicle. That leaves two things:
The inverter is pulling too much amperage, and the voltage drops as the fuse blows......
OR....
The battery isn't able to supply the circuit, and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows.
So while they think we don't like engineers, my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly.
Conclusion: Either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem (assumed to be wiring) and the need for a load test to check the battery
OR
Chryslers resident engineers were wrong, and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire.
SOMEWHERE in this mess, a bunch of engineers SCREWED UP, its either in design or diagnosis.
I don't know about you Budd, but I'll take the word of the Chrysler engineers over the word these self proclaimed experts on the systems in question.
Don't you think you've been insulting enough for one day?
FYI, I do know some very good engineers and they neither slam a person's educational levels nor lord their toilet paper over others like Bill and Matt.
Except that we're never done that. This is just another of your fabrications. I only posted my credentials AFTER you asked about them. Are you a born liar or has it taken you many years to develop your skill to this level.
Find even one post made by me or Bill that supports your assertion above. Just one. I'm sure you'll find as many as you found physics laws that supported your ludicrous claim about gear ratios having an inherent efficiency.
Matt
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.