Longshot and Cody, it's my understanding that the two PCMs are indeed, one for the transmission and one for the engine. It may work out cheaper in the long run for the consumer, since you shouldn't have to replace both if one goes. But, I'm guessing that each is now more complicated which translates into being able to do more. I'm sure it's in response to getting better fuel efficiency. So, each may be more expensive to replace.
However, we all know that solid state devices tend to work forever once you get past the "burn-in" period as long as you don't do something stupid that "fries" them. Here's where I get nervous about jump starting again, and, I really want to be sure the engine of the "jumping" vehicle is off (no matter which one is doing it), when the ignition is turned ON in the "dead" vehicle.
Cody - you lead me right into what I think is wrong with the way Engineering is taught now. It's all theory. Hardly anyone gets their "hands dirty" any more. I suspect the tech schools are doing much the same - if a testing instrument says it's bad, replace the component.
At Georgia Tech, way back before I was even a student, the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department, "Uncle" Sy Coon, was quoted as saying to his students, "Boys, the man who cannot look through the cylinder walls of an engine and 'see' the pistons moving up and down isn't fit to be an Engineer." I think that comment still applies.
- Jack
|
Wed, May 12th, 2010, 06:12 PM
Threaded Mode