u too can measure leakdown in volts

LMFAO WTF is a "proplems"???

:-)

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

For gross out of range pressure problems. Hell, you don't need a gauge to speculate that pressure is low under load. It's real apparent your not all that good. Show how a lean mixture will not show up on a ignition scope pattern. Show how an over rich will not show up.

Slowing down? Come on "collage boy" show your "advanced training".

What's the matter? Bin Laden says; back off your over your head? Pick a battle you can win?

lmfao lmfao how do you scope a 4.6 with coil over plugs lmfao hurc ast

With a scope "collage boy".

Right off the top of my head, I can think of three ways *I* could do it;

Optional (since I don't own it yet)

Also, since a 4.6 with COP would be an OBD2 spec vehicle, rich or lean can be very easily determined by observing the post cat O2 sensor voltages.

Also #2, rich or lean can be determined very easily with a 4 or 5 gas exhaust analyzer (lambda calculation).

Listen up Bozo; the shortcomings you possess are not necessarily applied to the rest of the world (obviously).

Gezzz, spoil the fun why don't ya!

Oooops... ...sorry! ;-)

Ford offers one that works with the WDS. Unfortunately we can only compare two cylinders at a time with the adapter. In the Ford COP systems, the PCM has direct control over each coil and MA Ford believes that reading primary waveform is not required and that all we really need to know is if primary current is being switched. (Primary wave form may look like a mirror of secondary but because of the difference in winding ratio, it is atually showing some very different information). Anyway, there is much to be learned from a real time scope sweep which is an uninterrupted trace of volts over time. Digital scopes have limitations because of their "scan rates"..... the information is read then processed then displayed in a continuous rotation allowing many small (very small) gaps in the information. Still, the most important information is still there.... ionization voltage, spark line voltage and spark duration.

BTW, the Ford method wants us to concentrate on 3 key readings plus (if we feel a requirement) the coil "stress" test..... basically an insulation test. Personally, I don't like this particular test since it can lead to premature coil failure if performed incorrectly.

If we see low ionization voltage and long duration, rich mixtures could be one of the causes but it is by no means the only possiblility.... the scope is but one tool in our aresnal.

When the GM Quad 4 was first introduced (wasted spark, almost a COP system), to hook our scopes up to it, we would unbolt the the top cover and lay it on it's back on top of the motor. We would install plug wires between the coil towers and the plugs...... if a wire came off during testing, those things could pack a real solid punch.

Jim, I understand completely what your saying. It's a shame really that there are many avenues available, yet the OEMs choose but a few. Sample rate of digital scopes depends pretty much on which particular scope one chooses. The UEI/Snap-On 7100/LS2000 have a very high sample rate, as does the Pico Scope for laptops. I have yet to have problems related to sample rate with any of the scopes that I own. Primary current is another item that the OEMs choose to ignore, knowing the current characteristics of (say) a Ford DIS or COP with multi-strike lends itself very nicely to spotting coil problems by viewing primary current on a lab scope for those times that it's -not- coolant dripping on #4 on a 5.4 .

Curious, have you spent much time using the PDS/VCM stuff yet?

Agreed.

Agreed again.

Ahh... You worked at a GM dealership at one time? The sad thing is, the Quad 4 is still around, it didn't die as fast of a death as it should have. I was always amazed by the old Magnavox coils that Buick used, those things could arc half the way across the engine compartment if you open circuited them.

Bottom line, if Bozo wants to try and find leaking injectors with a fuel pressure gauge, more power to him, I will stick to the methods that really -do- work up to and including a pressure transducer attached to the fuel rail where the pressure pulses for each individual injector are displayed over time. Makes ol' Bozo's methods seem absolutely prehistoric.

He's also free to grunt out his three and four word sentences and prove to the world what a moron he is, since it is rather entertaining.

Fords choice of tools has always been marginal. But by tapping into the coils fuse with a low current probe ( all the coils share a common fuse ) you can now see all eight. If you know what cylinder is the suspect cylinder you can easily just use a low current probe on that one coil. That can be done with a stand alone inexpensive oscilloscope ( anywhere from 350. to 500. U.S. dollars new refurbished can be had for less ) no need to buy a very expensive designed for automotive use scan tool ( just the scan tool for and average cost of 1000. U.S dollars, then add the extras to use it as a scope ) Even though one can argue about the differences in looking the primary side or the secondary side of a coil the overall information is the same if one knows what they are looking at.

One tool but a very good and important one.

To expand on this a little further, using a current probe on a Ford DIS or COP with multi-strike spark, one can actually determine whether the spark line was ever actually established inside the cylinder. Imagine, an E-350 with a V-10 and all you do to hook up is a fused jumper wire at the fuse box. Fast, easy and accurate.

But it's not "high tech"! That will just not do!

It's not?

Most consider using a basic lab scope as low tech, lab scopes have been around for how long? If it's not the latest greatest software driven with all kinds of specialized adapters that cost in the thousands it's just not high tech.

so tell me what is the leakdown rate in volts lmfao

hurc ast

We have only recently upgraded one of our NGS tools to NGS+ (this uses the VCM). There appear to be some problems with the early ones including temperature display.... the readout says it's in F but the number is obviously in C. The main reason we upgraded was simply to gain the CAN protocol ability - the NGS+ still lacks the functionality of the WDS.

The Canadian Techs message board has lot's of guys talking about the PDS/VCM combo but I haven't really persued the threads..... I keep checking for the wireless VCM/laptop stuff they've been talking about but haven't seen anything yet. If our SM will purchase another VCM, I would be willing to purchase a PDS. Though the WDS is as slow as the second coming, it's still my choice for many of the problems I encounter. There is a scope built into my alignment rack - an ancient Bear PACE100 but it suffers with a slow scan rate and it's not real user friendly.

Other than that I have used the old Sun blue box Interrogator and the Sun MEA.... both were stupendously expensive when new and probably more at home in a museum, these days. The poor scan rates on these account for my current view of digital information. (Kinda like the $500 SnapOn timing light that can't handle multistrike ignition but my buddies $60 cheapo can).

For several years, Ford didn't worry about ignition system diagnosis in regards to coil/wire/plug performance and have only returned to KV diagnostics in the past few years (remember this is in regards to 'accepted' warranty diagnostics).

Every time I do a NMT course, I can only shake my head in wonder. We're finally getting a solid handle on the 6.0 PSD and now they are talking about a replacement as early as 07 model year The last displacement numbers I heard was 6.8L but with twin turbos and pilot injection (that nifty little feature that made them idle quiet) will be back.Since these will be even more complicaed, I expect SLTs will be slashed again.

I agree on the Quad4..... for a while I had enough of those apart waiting for new heads that I forgot which box went with which car.

Most of the work arounds we come up with in the field are hardly high tech.... though the thought processes to arrive at the solution certainly can be. One tool I use more than ever, lately, is an old headlight with two leads with alligator clips. The PC/ED instructs us to use a DMM to perform tests where the DMM is an inappropriate tool overlooking the need to load the circuit to get a true idea of it's condition.

I'm sure we can all agree that selecting an appropriate test method to get accurate results is more important than doing a "pretty" looking test. If we fix the concern in a timely fashion without shotgunning parts, we've done our jobs.