Dakota A/C problem

From : kapop

Q: to mike and tbone thanks for your help. what turned out to be the problem so the dark green/orange @ the coil/injectors is an input to the ecm it is a 12 volt feed wire coming from the shutdown relay. it powers the injectors coil and ecm. i was told it was an output. no. if i put power to that wire at the coil the injectors get power as well as the ecm and right over to the relay box on the left front fender. you need to find out why it has no power on its own. still no start. we have no injector pulse during crank with that wire manually powered up as well. you may have a wiring harness problem i would fix the no power from the auto shutdown relay first. the ecm originally called for crank sensor and cam sensor. both were changed. did the engine ever run at all if yes was it before or after the cam and crank sensors were replaced thanks again. isnt the fuel pump as well we do have fuel pump. no the fuel pump is powered by the fuel pump relay. both the fuel pump relay and auto shutdown relay are fed by the same fuse and activated by the ecm on a single wire. from what you are saying you have a bad auto shutdown relay or an open wire to the relay. shouldnt the injectors/coil have ignition voltage ignition voltage not sure what you mean by ignition voltage but the injectors and coil should both have 12 volts. these are powered by the auto shutdown relay. i really appreciate it. .

Replies:

From : ed m

miles wrote so red hat linux is closed then right based on an open system but has elements/applications that are closed. say what a better analogy would be a 100% clone of of sco unix thats legally available. it doesnt exist. why you didnt answer the question. by your definition of a closed system is red hat linux closed pardon me but i *completely* disagree that your open systems are superior as you state. they are prone to hacks and mods by would-be programmers. youd be hard pressed to convince any rational human that a miles open system is superior to anything greater than a tricycle. more prone to hacks and mods is that good or bad depends. in a enterprise environment say a financial institution your open platform is crazy. since nobody owns the technology there is no accountability and scarce expertise when goes belly up. being open allows innovation. i agree. but this should practiced in a development environment. a hacked and modd os in a commercial environment is suicide. it failed because it was based on a close platform competing against an open platform usb despite it being technically superior. i dont agree. it failed because usb beat firewire to the wider market. there were already hundreds of usb devices being sold by the time apple started marketing the benefits of firewire. by your own words you say that open systems are superior. that means superior performance and superior reliability. are you telling me that some machine you throw together with spare parts from your garage newegg.com and your local electronics store with one of the many flavors of non-commercial open linux is superior to a sun server running solaris or a mac quad core xeon running mac os x server craig c. .

From : kapop

tbone wrote i believe that i already said this although i called it flexability. however those same multiple sources almost always lead to partial incomaptabilities that slow things down. even in your other posts in this thread you make the claim that some system boards are better than other and some video cards just suck. these are the reasons that closed system are almost always faster because the developers of these systems have complete control over everything and can make rapid changes if required which is not possible with any open system. sorry tom but closed system manufactures do not move as rapid in development as open system manufactures. there is little benefit to the consumer. lets say when pcs first came out ibm bought exclusive rights to ms-dos and locked it into a closed system. what are you talking about hmm...you dont know much about how pcs started in the mainstream consumer market do you ibm created the first pc with which our current pcs are based. microsoft offered ibm exclusive rights to ms-dos. ibm turned them down thinking people would not buy anything other than a true ibm pc nor did they buy exclusive rights to the microcode the intel chips used in their pcs. the result was an open platform. anyone could produce an ibm pc clone. it was the clones that beat out the ibm. they offered features and speed that rivaled the ibm. some clones sold for a higher price than the true blue ibm. no way would we see computer hardware improve in speed and functionality had ibm been the only ones to produce the pc with exclusive rights to the os and cpus. pretty much exactly where it is today. the ibm pc version is where it is because of the huge amount of software written for it and that happened because in the beginning ibm had the reputation of making business machines and the money to mass produce them at an affordable cost and got the jump on apple. bull! ibm decided they were ibm and didnt need to worry about small companies cloning their pc. they were wrong and 3rd party hardware development took off fast. it never would have had ibm paid for exclusive rights. as you like to say business exists for the sole purpose of making money and where do you think that they are going to put their resources at a superior system with 10000 units and available sales or at a slower system with 500000 units on the market. apple led the market when the ibm pc came out. ibm itself didnt sell worth a damn and they were forced out of the market. it was the clones that took off in sales because of advancements in hardware that rivaled ibm. they could not have done that had ibm produced a closed system. and even with that the closed system mac remained far superior to it in speed and performance. two competing closed systems would have created the same innovation if sales were dependant on speed. superior in what regards benchmark speed tests most people dont have a use for the fastest pc at a particular application. there are far more other features that drive the consumer market than speed. the apple being closed cant offer what the massive number of independent developers of hardware can for an open system. funny many of the newer system boards offer fire wire support. perhaps you should take a look. some do but look at the numbers tom. no comparison. usb is on every pc built since usb 1 was released. firewire is on a select few. now look at hardware. how many manufactures produce firewire compatible products vs. usb no comparison and for one reason...apples closed system. but then again this example is invalid because now you are talking about a component not a complete system. its the same difference. propreitary hardware whether a component or system can not keep up with the development of open platform hardware. anywhere you look in time the closed system kicked the shit out of open systems of the same period in speed and performance and they did it for a reason. true to an extent. they came out faster and better but couldnt keep up. commorore is a classic example with their far superior amiga. it came out around the same time as the ibm pc. then there was atari and a host of other superior pcs. they died out. but the open platformed pcs took off and it had nothing to do with ibms big name...they died too. .

From : ed m

beryl wrote i disagree with miles about abit being lower end. theyre a small company that became famous for enthusiast boards. they have always been cheap low end boards sold along side the likes of other low end boards such as pc-chips. like them theyre also sold under a variety of brand labels. .