I know you think this is all normal stuff because you deal with it with these but changing and updating software is exactly what makes these things a mess waiting to happen.
Planned obsolescence through computer programming first showed up in cars in the early 90's with BMW's . BMW actually wrote in time bombs that would create issues in the cars that would make them more expensive to fix then replace. Any car company that so tweeks the software that it has to be updated after the car is delivered is a car I dont want anything to do with.
So if you know so much about these and have so much confidence in them answer this. Stoichiometric ratios have not changed so why does the software need to be changed to improve idle smoothness and what not?
It all sounds like they trucks were not done right to begin with and that faults in the sooftware are really what is being updated.
And you think these things are abnormal because you don't deal with them.
Ever since cars have been invented, carburetors and ignition systems have needed adjustment. Sometimes during dealer prepk, and certainly throughout the life of the vehicle. How is this any different than software updates?
There's only ONE difference: YOU know how to work on the older stuff, so for you, it's no big deal. However, the vast majority of people today don't even know how to check their own tire pressure. Do you think they know how to adjust a carb or timing? Not a chance. So whether fuel and timing adjustments are made by turning screws, or electronics, what difference does it make? Both have to be done at a shop. But, you're just a typical old guy who's having trouble adjusting to new things, so you vilify it.
That being said, the ONLY problem with the modern electronics is the fact that it is usually proprietary. I see this as a big problem and have spoken out about it. However, at least OBDII allows us to diagnose most problems with the engine system. The government just needs to ammend the law to bring body control functions into the same realm of generic error coding.
The fact that you think stoiciometric ratios don't change shows how little you know of the facts. 14.7:1 is a vast oversimplification of the situation. 14.7:1 is the MASS ratio of fuel to air, and based on a laboratory grade fuel. Yet fuel is delivered on a volume basis. It's subject to changes in density, as well as composition of the fuel. The stoichiometric blend of 10% methanol fuel is NOT 14.7:1. You also have to adjust for production differences in fuel injectors, MAF calibrations, etc. The modern electronic engine controls do an incredible job of balancing all of these factors automatically, with ZERO input from the owner throughout the vehicle's life, with the exception of sensor faults, which a $100 code reader will tell you.
You must also understand how modern pollution control strategies greatly complicate matters. It's easy to make an engine run acceptably by setting it a little rich, and it all takes care of itself. That is not an option anymore. Combustion settings to achieve maximum power, maximum economy, and minimum emissions are all competing. The modern engine walks a fine line that a carbureted engine never could.
This discussion goes directly to your assertion that there is something *wrong* with these from the factory. There is not. The factory would have tuned them to meet the emissions requirements, and done the best they could on the other two factors. However, with more research and data from the field, power and economy improvements could be made while not trading off emissions.
If a software update is done to further improve idle, or shift feel when the old settings already gave performance FAR better than ANY carburetted engine could ever achieve, please explain to me how that's a fault?
