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?
I read this reply, adn frankly even though I dissagree with some bits and pieces, I can really appreciate where you're coming from adn your assertions are fairly correct.
My one real big exception here that I take to your responce is that yes, while there is a certain "cultural" (my words not yours) phenomenon where in people tend to view mechanical problems as fix-able and electronic problems as hopeless DEFINATELY creates a problem, I would argue that, on average, it is easier to hobble together a simple mechanical fix to limp home on while a fried circuit board could spell certain doom. Again, you do make a completely great point that alot of these issues come from proprietary design and a lack of knowledge, but in reality while YOU may not view electrical problems as an issue... you have not been on some of the "jaunts" I have been and honestly from the sound of things I wish you were mate
To be fair, I also think that people tend to down-play mechanical failures and as a trwend jump all over electrical faults for some of the reasons you listed and in general a "fear of the unknown"... but again, in reality, is it any easier to fashion a piston rod out of nothing but scrap metal and get a motor running??? THat doesn't sound too easy to me (maybe Tim Hardey but...) the only flaw I can see in my own argument is the totality of an electrical failure compared to a mechanical one. What I mean is there is alot riding on a ver small computer in some instances and the overall total control IT has over a certain vehicle dictates how vital it is. You can limo home on 3 cylinders but if the computer is toast it wont even let you get to that point...
Either way, sir I respect your scientific analyasis and what you're pointed out mate.
my answer:
The single most important thing your frind should know about an LR3???
That he
should buy any number of other vehicles... Even other Rovers, just, IMO, not the LR3 sorry to say...
Yes there are some here that are well
re-built (or re-engineered as it were), trail tested and are definatly neat trucks... they however are the exception, not the rule.
If your friend doesn't intend to use it as a "trail 4wd" (read: a second vehicle that he/she can afford to have down for any length of time) they still have issues and
if the PO
did use it off-road then the chances of these issues rearing their ugly heads is further increased.
I feel like what ever comapny owned Rover at the inception of the LR3 spent more oney on the exterior/interior design team (and I AM a fan of the looks of the trucks) then they did the engineering team. It's clear they wanted an all-new truck to take over for the aging Discovery, but what they came up with was such a departure from the Discovery that those who bought one expecting it to be an updated, advanced, and most of all durable truck we're just blown away at it's massivly underbuilt chasis. I may not be the biggest Rover fan in terms of engineering/durability from the get go, but the LR3 is even among Rovers, a troublesome rig. They look real neat, espescialy when duded up in the fashion that we all tend to gravitate towards, but realy the underpinnings just don't live up to where the Discovery II left off.
Unfortunatly the car/truck world, at least in N.America is like this across the board. As the motors get more and more powerful and the trucks we all love grow up, they all seem to get built a little less burly or "bush tough". Even my darling Toyota has started to skimp on it's trucks here in N. America and it's showing because they're just not as tough as the old trucks that Toyota built it's name off... But you know what, it's not stoping people from buying them because to some degree people just buy name brands because of previous love, good experience, image, all sorts of things. Unfortunatly we in N.America by and large are espescialy guilty of this last one in particular and therefore don't get what we very "overly informed" or "niche" group of consumers want wich is simple Diesel drivetrains, solid axles, lockers and no electronics (well at least that's what I want...) the rest of the world does, but we as a consumer group want coddled comfort, lowerr NVH numbers even at the cost of lessened durability and capability etc...
It's an unfortunate truth but the American consumer asn a statistic has led to what we have now...
Cheers and sorry for the long post...
Dave
I was going to edit my horible typing..but ya know what, I have a messed up index finger and I'm typing on a lap top on a table next to me so I think you get my general giest
Oh and Musky man and RLEfabre... you're both right to some degree, we just need BOTH of you with os when a truck goes down. Ron can fix the electrics and Musky can fab us new parts... best of both worlds eh
:
