Singularly unilluminating
I’ve been kvetching about the Malfunction Indicator Light — sometimes called the “Check Engine Light” — for quite some time now. In fact, I once devoted an entire Vent to the accursed thing:
[T]he warning system is designed to give the motorist as little information as possible: you get a light on the dash, with two levels of severity — either it’s blinking or it’s not — and nothing more. The idea, of course, is that you’ll take the vehicle to a Qualified Service Technician, who will then plug in the appropriate black box, decipher what’s stored in the car’s computer, and make the judgment call. After all, mere drivers can’t be expected to know how these things work.
And as a shade-tree mechanic, I’m somewhere on the poor-to-fair continuum. I admit it. But I always resent the sort of thinking that says that people need to be protected from information. What would it cost to get a five-character readout on the dash that shows the actual code involved? Six, seven dollars? It’s a thirty-thousand-dollar car, fercrissake. At least I’d have some idea whether I’m facing a $100 repair or a $1000 repair, a matter of great interest when I don’t have $1000 to spare, which I don’t.
Jalopnik’s Jason Torchinsky attacks from the same angle, though much more forcefully:
You’d have to guess, either ignoring it and hoping it’s nothing, or taking it to a shop and hoping you’ll be able to pay for whatever the repair turns out to be, a repair performed by a for-profit enterprise based on information you as an owner have never seen. Making valuable information about a person’s own property inaccessible only enables uninformed judgment and the possibility of fraud.
Says Torchinsky, if they can mandate stuff like tire-pressure sensors, they can damned well mandate something like this:
[W]e need a federal mandate that bans the generic “check engine” light in new cars and instead requires, on dash, OBD-II codes and a basic description. The only rational reasons it hasn’t happened yet range from a best-case scenario of simple manufacturer desire to build as cheaply as possible, to an actual deliberate campaign of forced ignorance in order to keep dealer network profit streams. Neither of those reasons — or any in between them — are valid or acceptable.
There’s also a petition, though I really don’t expect anything to come of it, Congress being obsessed for the moment with their new Copyright Police Kit. Any hell that doesn’t immediately swallow up Lamar Smith (R-Disney) isn’t worthy of the name.
McGehee »
18 January 2012 · 8:38 am
Hell tasted him and spat him out, saying, “I say he’s spinach, and I say the me with it.”
fillyjonk »
18 January 2012 · 9:26 am
As someone who’s cancelled jaunts “out” because the damnable light went on, and I freaked out, took it to the mechanic, and found it was nothing, I’d also appreciate more information, even if it’s just of the “you can wait a few days on this” or “stop the car now to avoid massive engine damage” variety.
I’m smart enough to figure out the blinky light code when something goes wrong with my furnace; I’m sure I’m smart enough to decode a dash light. (I suppose the problem is that there are people who AREN’T, and part of it is the auto manufacturers are afraid of being sued by people not bright enough to interpret a warning signal but smart enough to engage a trial lawyer…)
Jess »
18 January 2012 · 12:33 pm
I can buy a desktop computer for a few hundred bucks. This computer has over a thousand times the processing power that’s required for the Space Shuttle. Considering processing is this cheap, you’d think they’d put something in a car that would tell you what was wrong, how to find it and tap dance on Tuesdays. Since they don’t, I can only suspect deception and treachery.
Ric Locke »
18 January 2012 · 12:40 pm
I had a car, a Buick Reatta (!), which had a CRT multifunction display that could show the trouble codes. Otherwise it was a piece of c*p extraordinary even for GM.
On most cars, there’s a “secret handshake” of some kind that will cause it to display the OBD-II codes by flashing the light — turn the ignition ON and OFF without starting the car three times, then tap the brake pedal while rubbing your stomach and patting your head, or some such thing. Most of the chain auto parts stores (AutoZone, O’Reilly’s) will read the codes for you without requiring that you get the car fixed, and simple code readers with and without the capability to reset the light can be had for under $50. I agree that the car should have the display, but there are ways.
As for SOPA/PIPA and related insolence, I have thought for years that we need a Constitutional amendment to say that the f*ing mouse is f*ing forever. The lawmice would then stay in their holes, and copyright issues would be much easier to deal with.
Regards,
Ric
JohnSauler »
18 January 2012 · 12:43 pm
Being an owner of a Dodge I am happy with the Chrysler. They gave me the ability to retrieve an error code with a couple of flicks of the key and a tap on the brake. The resulting show is all the icons lighting up and the guages dancing. The end result the ODB II code. It is magical.
CGHill »
18 January 2012 · 1:08 pm
I once toyed with the idea of buying Nissan’s actual CONSULT tool, which someone was offering on eBay, until it dawned on me that I’d never be able to get some of the software it requires.
unimpressed »
18 January 2012 · 2:34 pm
Apparently, using an Ethernet port for access to the car’s computer is too simple a concept.
Ric Locke »
18 January 2012 · 4:35 pm
Not too simple. Too flimsy.
If the network starts dropping packets, your browser slows down and won’t stream YouTube, and you curse.
If those packets are timing the function of the antilock brakes, maybe you die.
Automotive networks are an order of magnitude more robust than anything used on the desktop. They have to be.
Regards,
Ric
Jeffro »
18 January 2012 · 6:33 pm
I’ve come soooo close to buying a code reader.
All newer trucks have some sort of procedure to bring up a trouble code when the check engine light comes on. Still have to call it in to either the engine manufacturer’s shop or the truck body’s shop – they might all have the same motor, but far different wiring harnesses and controls.
Of course, the last time I had a trouble code, International and Caterpillar claimed it was each other’s code and didn’t know what it was. I put it in my phone’s browser and it came up as an IH problem, which, as it turned out, it was.
And Ric is correct – robustness beats latest tech in the diagnostic business every time. Panasonic Toughbooks are the preferred laptops.
McGehee »
18 January 2012 · 7:49 pm
I’m pretty sure the proposition wasn’t to use IP to control the car’s internal systems — merely to monitor them.
Lynn »
18 January 2012 · 9:20 pm
Advice for the check engine light from actual dealer mechanics… er, pardon me… technicians:
For the F150: Disconnect and reconnect the battery cables.
For the Subaru: Make sure the gas cap is properly tightened.
So I don’t know what the deal is with the F150 but but couldn’t Subaru have installed a Check Gas Cap light?
CGHill »
18 January 2012 · 9:32 pm
Perhaps Subaru is acknowledging that the most common cause of the Damnable Light is, as Nissan puts it in the service material, “a very large leak (fuel filler cap fell off etc.) in EVAP system between the fuel tank and EVAP canister purge volume control solenoid valve.” (P0455)
The disconnect-the-battery maneuver is very popular among people who need to get their cars inspected the next morning, hoping the problem that caused the light in the first place doesn’t rematerialize on the way to the inspection station.
McGehee »
19 January 2012 · 8:46 am
When I bought my truck eight years ago (a Ford) the CE light was on. The manual said to try fiddling with the gas cap a certain way to see if that made it go out. It didn’t. I ended up having to have it serviced before it would pass the pre-registration emissions check.
(At the time I thought that was an awful lot of hassle, but that was the same truck for which the Georgia DMV tried to make me get signed and notarized affidavits from not one but two previous owners because I made the mistake of recording the correct odometer reading on the new title application.)
unimpressed »
19 January 2012 · 7:58 pm
Ric, I said -nothing- about using Ethernet to control the vehicle. Had you read what I wrote (and only what I wrote), you might not have applied your own spin to my suggestion.
CGHill »
19 January 2012 · 8:15 pm
Me, I simply assumed everyone had read this.
Ric Locke »
20 January 2012 · 7:00 am
Unimpressed — the problem is scale. Automobile manufacturing is a matter of saving a penny here and a nickel there, which adds up quickly when you’re making a million of the things.
OBD is mandated by law, so it has to be included. Adding an Ethernet port would mean an interface chip, a connector, and an IP stack. That would cost a quarter or so, maybe as much as fifty cents, per car — which is a quarter of a million dollars, which could otherwise hire two engineers or one UAW drone with pension. If they simply add the software for diagnostics to the standard bus they can save that expenditure, so that’s what they do.
Converting the whole car to Ethernet is possible, of course, but the whole point of CAN and the other standard on-car networks is that they’re robust enough at minimal expense. There are ways to make Ethernet/IP stand up to abuse, but they’re all ‘way more expensive than single-wire signaling at modest rates.
Regards,
Ric