re I sure do not want to increase any chance to cause the Passat to break down."

am I reading this right ? the poster might not take his Passat to Yosemite Park because doing so might cause it to break down ? ...... like more than normal local driving would ? all I can say to that is, what is the point of having a car if you feel that you might cause it to break down if you drive it up a few hills and to say, 6,000 feet altitude ( what is the pass at the east entrance in altitude anyway .........7K at the highest I think , by Tuolumne meadows- that pass, the one that goes to the town Lee Vining . ) .

also ..........I don't know everything at all about ecu's in cars. but I do know one thing from reading trade magazines.............comparing the ECU that's in our vanagons, with those in year 2000 something cars. If you go buy a new computer for a very new type car - it's not ready to operate the engine the way it comes out of the box. It has to be flashed by a dealer, or someone with the right equipment. Our ecu's of course, are 'complete' the way they are - no flashing or reprogramming. How nice.

from what I read, it's not even that uncommon for modern cars to need to be reflahsed or reprogrammed by car dealers to get them to work right. On some .......it's even a standard update kind of thing, as fixes for glitches get developed. by the manufacturer/ Thank goodness our vanagons have nothing like that in them !

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kao" <dtkao0205@YAHOO.COM> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 5:26 PM Subject: Re: vanagon difficulty

David,

I did not mean to start a long thread like this. Your thoughts are quite interesting and probably valid mostly.

I am not aware that ECU firmware is available from the manufacturers especially to the general public. Maybe to dealers then leaked out to the public domain. Some techies may grab them reverse engineering it then hack the code to boost performance at possibly the cost of less desired emission. I personally have no desire to reprogram my ECU. It is a bit of risk. As you mentioned if something happened in the middle of reflashing the EEProm it will yield a totally dead ECU. If the flash chip is on a socket then it's half dead. Just take it out to reprogram it on a programing device then put it back in. If the chip is soldered in (not likely though) then it would be very difficult to replace. You will end up buying a new ECU.

The dealer cited that there was a recall to reprogram the ECU firmware if the check engine light comes on with a code that I don't remember right now which points to defective catalytic converters. I am sure if my Passat wasn't under warranty (Federal mandate warranty) they would probably not reprogram it to save cost for me. They would probably charge $3k to replace those CAT then proceed with an ECU reprogram without telling me. Can't really blame them. They need such profit to survive I believe.

To drive a Vanagon to Yosemite one will really experience full throttle driving on every longer climb of hills. There are more than a dozen of such climbing. It's really not too much for a Vanagon. But for people who are not confident about Vanagon's abilities it may cause some concerns. I could drive my Passat to Yosemite (day trips not camping) but I almost always drove my Vanagon. I don't worry about wearing out the Vanagon. I sure do not want to increase any chance to cause the Passat to break down.

David

--- On Mon, 9/7/09, David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET> wrote:

> From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET> > Subject: Re: vanagon difficulty > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM > Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 2:06 PM > Hi David -- > At 04:21 AM 9/7/2009, David Kao wrote: > >Comparing to a 2001 Passat that I currently own in my > opinion the Passat > >is a far more difficult vehicle to own despite that it > is only 8 years > >old. The first time when the check engine light came on > I could never > >solve it myself. Eventually it was fixed by a dealer > under warranty > >by reprogramming the ECU. That's something I will never > be able to do > >myself. That was almost 5 years ago. It just got a smog > check yesterday > >and it passed thanks god. > > I think this sort of thing is a huge problem. > Reprogramming the ECU > itself is trivial if you have access to the gear, which > undoubtedly > could cost considerably to enormously less than whatever > the dealer > uses, depending how fancy/volume-oriented they get. > Any modern > computer will reflash it's own BIOS if you simply download > the file > from the maker's website and say "please do." > Computer makers have > found that this is a useful and simple answer as various > obscure > issues are uncovered with the hardware, since otherwise if > you ran > into one you'd simply toss the thing , swear and buy a > different > brand. You'd Really Rather Not have a power failure in the > middle of > the procedure, of course, since it's working on its own > guts and > won't run again if you do. > > Something PC-based (overkill, but you have one!) would > amount to a > chunk of software and a cable, and how fancy it was would > depend > entirely on the software + car maker proprietary > data. All you'd > need would be to watch the tech bulletins and for the maker > to > release the code on a website. Depending on how > vehicle-specific a > problem was you might even just routinely keep the thing up > to date > and never worry. [A subsidiary issue is the truly > astounding number > of things running on code in truly modern cars -- well over > 100 in > some I believe. No idea how many are > reflashable. And just > wait. 48-volt or higher system voltage and One Big > Wire (power and > data both) in the car (impractical at lower voltages) are > yelling and > screaming at the door. But we won't worry about that > just yet.] > > But the car maker has powerful incentives to keep this > Pandora in the > box, and little-to-no motive to change except at > gunpoint. Keeping > the dealers happy is one, and that fight has been going on > as long as > there have been cars, I bet. The (US) government has > them at > gunpoint to not totally screw the independent shops, but > owners don't > have a big lobby in Congress. Also as things stand > now, as soon as > the code got out in the open the question of who is > licensing what to > who, who pays for upgrades etc is a potential > nightmare. Don't be > surprised if there's an End User License Agreement next > time you buy a car. > > But whether they've realized it yet or not, the big deal > is > liability. If this stuff isn't considered Critical > Life Support code > (and hardware) yet, it will be soon as things become even > more > integrated. The day is (potentially) quite near when > an ECU bug > *could* cause very interesting effects all over the car and > a faulty > taillight module could cause abrupt catastrophic system > failure > (probably not kill the vehicle, but kill its operation > right then and > there). The throttle on my brother's 36-foot > Freightliner chassis is > "fly by wire" so at the very least it depends on system > voltage even > though the diesel will keep going fine. These things > can be planned > against and will be, but not necessarily before they > happen; and the > economic incentive to both keep the equipment simple and > not muddy > the waters legally is strong. To get the new software > you might have > to sign in blood to accept total liability for random > operation or > abrupt simultaneous failure of lights, wipers, steering and > brake > assist, handling control, traction control, engine > control, > transmission control except for Park and mechanical > overspeed and > sudden-reverse protection; and ABS. And oh yes, your > airbags might > deploy before your stout vessel actually crashes. > Would you > sign? Some yes, some no, and some of the nos or > certainly their > relatives would try to weasel afterwards. That > Continental-Tire > liability case that was described on here some months ago > was to my > mind definitely a bad verdict in terms of who was really > responsible > for the accident. > > Anyway, the Makers really don't want your hands on their > code. > > >me $3k to replace both catalytic converters. > > Social and regulatory cost...plus ADP. > > > > >kept my Vanagon for 25 years. The only answer to this > is there is no > >such a thing as Vanagon difficulty for the 25 years > passed. My total > >cost of owning it for 25 years excluding oil and gas is > less than $1k > >per year. So to me there is really no such a thing as > Vanagon difficulty. > > My sister paid UKP3000 to a Scottish dealer in 1991 to > have > transmission and clutch replaced (~85k) on D-P just before > I got > her. 091-1 3-4 slider failure. The clutch was > from driving the > thing 40 miles through hilly Scottish town centres -- in > 4th. Seemed > like a good idea at the time. > > My local dealer replaced (good folks, incidentally) > replaced R&P > maybe 30K later, another user-aggravated failure. > > >I remember been warned by someone that the wasser boxer > engine is > >so unreliable that a trip to Yosemite will break it. > > That's just silly. Not that you couldn't get one into > that condition > maybe, but <shrug>. These are modern vehicles > in my terms, sold in > reasonable numbers all over the world. In the '80s the > most > repair-intensive vehicle in the country was the > Omni/Horizon, though > the total repair cost was less than you'd think. The > only reliable > thing on it was the paint. Literally, they had great > paint. But -- > I won't go into the litany completely. Have you ever > heard of an > engine that would wear the suspension ears off the > carburetor float > in under 100k miles? Or routinely *break* alternator > mounts (early > ones anyway, they had less trouble after they changed from > a Rabbit > to a Renault block). '78 Horizon is your man. > Comfortable, kinda > cute, and great paint. Huge interior-plastic > shrinkage problem (how > many split steering wheels have you seen, on a 6-7 year > old > car?). Negative damping on the steering, so you > definitely didn't > want to give the steering a pull and let go (this is why CU > rated the > early ones Unacceptable, and they fixed it eventually) and > kinda > twitchy feeling even over longitudinal highway > strips. But go to > Yosemite in it? Why not? > > > Well, In the past > >several years I have driven my Vanagon to Yosemite > something like 5 times > >a year. I am totally confident that the engine is in > fact incredibly > >rugged and reliable. > > Given particularly that it's a fairly small motor pushing a > big > heavy-duty vehicle around I think it does pretty well > overall, and > tends to "fail soft" rather than just drop you in the > cacky. The > cooling system is intolerant because it's aluminum, > Subaru's the same > way. I think that having most of the system external > to the engine > is a definite reliability, even though (and maybe partly > because) the > VW hoses are of incredibly high quality. Definitely > compounded by > German vs American expectations about a) actually knowing > the > maintenance schedule and b) keeping it rigidly. And > what we're all > dealing with now is vehicles that have been owned under > American > conditions. I bet there isn't one in the country that > has had every > scheduled maintenance performed fully, correctly, and on > time. I > wouldn't be at all shocked if there isn't one that has > absolutely had > its brake fluid changed every two years. > > Yours, > Other David >