Just found my gremlin on the E-420 VACCUME LEAKS!!

[clarkz71]

He does? Is there any claimed advantage besides the increased adaptation range? I thought that was hardware related, not software...

No, it's strictly for the code 19 problem. It ay be a MB part, as I recall it came with some MB paperwork

That was 4 or 5 years ago, so I can't recall.

 

[clarkz71]

Here it is





http://k6jrf.com/MB_S500.html#DTC-19

 

[gsxr]

Here it is

http://k6jrf.com/MB_S500.html#DTC-19

Interesting. Based on his results, it does appear the EPROM update is what modifies the adaptation limits, not the hardware. I have never been affected by this so I never looked into it. My cars generally stay within 5%, a couple can get near 10%, but that still leaves a good margin for the 16% limits. The local atmospheric conditions must be pretty unique for the cars which need this "upgrade". It also should not automatically be assumed that the code 19 means the car needs the upgrade in the first place. It could also be an indicator of a different problem (bad O2, bad MAF, bad FPR, major intake leak, etc) causing the mixture to hit the adaptation limits. Those items should be checked FIRST, before throwing a band-aid fix in the form of making the CEL come on later. Interesting that he never mentions using a digital scanner to check the actual values of affected cars, post-uprade.

On a related note, the item right below on that page is pure, 100% false information. I'm disappointed he would claim any chip provides a 10% power gain. And that he'd take people's money for it. Wonder if it's just a copy of the ubiquitous eBay chip...

 

[clarkz71]

All models affected, some are less sensitive then others, note no affected VIN range on the bulletin

Just 94-95 124.034 and the 140.043 listed

 

[Klink]

The misinformation circulating out there on the DM "code 19 issue" that prompted the LH ecu change is truly astounding. For starters, it only applies to 4.2 L engines and even then only those cars fitted with the DM. The fix was in the EEPROM. It affected only whether or not the LH sent an error message to DM on the CAN bus. Unless they lied to us, no other parameter was changed. I'll talk more about this later if anyone cares, but it really doesn't apply to anybody's car we're talking about.

And indeed, if you truly have this issue on a 4.2 that this would properly be the fix for (and that's going to be rarer than unicorn poop at this point in history) there is a bloody simple and dirt cheap remedy for it that actually corrects the adaptation error at the source.

Later! I'm going to be gone the rest of the day. Have a happy!

 

[clarkz71]

The misinformation circulating out there on the DM "code 19 issue" that prompted the LH ecu change is truly astounding.
For starters, it only applies to 4.2 L engines and even then only those cars fitted with the DM. The fix was in the EEPROM. It affected only whether or not the LH sent an error message to DM on the CAN bus. Unless they lied to us, no other parameter was changed. I'll talk more about this later if anyone cares, but it really doesn't apply to anybody's car we're talking about. And indeed, if you truly have this issue on a 4.2 that this would properly be the fix for (and that's going to be rarer than unicorn poop at this point in history) there is a blood simple and dirt cheap remedy for it that actually corrects the adaptation error at the source.

Later! I'm going to be gone the rest of the day. Have a happy!

Klink, buddy

The thread title is "Just found my gremlin on the E-420 VACUUM LEAK!!!"
And my service information I posted clearly says 124.034 & 140.043

Who posted misinformation ???

I think you took the "Evelyn Wood speed reading course" back in the day
Your skipping over key words in the posts

 

[gsxr]

Yep, that was it! Interesting that the TSB specifically indicates only the 4.2L engine was affected, yet Jim's page lists 5.0L models as well...

 

[gsxr]

Who posted misinformation ???

I think he was referring to Jim's page.

 

[clarkz71]

Yep, that was it! Interesting that the TSB specifically indicates only the 4.2L engine was affected, yet Jim's page lists 5.0L models as well...

I think he was referring to Jim's page.

Tread lightly here, that's Eric's mentor.........

 

[Klink]

Klink, buddy

The thread title is "Just found my gremlin on the E-420 VACUUM LEAK!!!"
And my service information I posted clearly says 124.034 & 140.043

Who posted misinformation ???

I think you took the "Evelyn Wood speed reading course" back in the day
Your skipping over key words in the posts

Yep, that was it! Interesting that the TSB specifically indicates only the 4.2L engine was affected, yet Jim's page lists 5.0L models as well...

I think he was referring to Jim's page.

Actually, I found out I was in the class for the "Evelyn Woodhead" reading system too late to get my money back!

Didn't mean to rile you're there, Clark! Do notice that I thanked your post!

Dave has it absolutely correct. I was referring to misinformation propagated by others all over the place, generally not among us, and in particular that link posted earlier.

Interestingly enough, I was typing that post in a time period before yours was on the screen, so I had not even seen it yet! So indeed, my "misinformation" comment was in no way relating to anything you had posted.

 

[400Eric]

Tread lightly here, that's Eric's mentor.........

Taken as a whole, there is some really helpful stuff on his site. It's a valuable resource!

 

[emerydc8]

I bought this chip years ago for my 1993 400E but never got around to installing it. For anyone interested, attached is the paperwork that was sent with the chip. It is interesting that the Service Information Bulletin only mentions the 4.2L--not the 5.0L engine, but the attached paperwork, and Jim's post, seem to imply that it will fix a 5.0L of the dreaded DTC 19.

 

[gsxr]

Any 5.0L cars which used the chip he provided ended up with 4.2L fuel curves.

 

[gerryvz]

Some of Jim F's stuff has been interesting over the years. But other stuff he's done has either proven to be marginal, or just plain incorrect.

His EEPROMs have been a prime example. He should have changed his web site description on these years ago -- it's just plain false advertising, and he provides no concrete information to back up his statements of improved performance.

And not to sound 589ish here, but $90 for a CoolHarness? For what, less than $10 worth of parts and 30 minutes of assembly if that?

 

[gsxr]

His EEPROMs have been a prime example. He should have changed his web site description on these years ago -- it's just plain false advertising, and he provides no concrete information to back up his statements of improved performance.

I never realized he was selling those, until I saw the page today. I agree, this is seriously uncool.

And not to sound 589ish here, but $90 for a CoolHarness? For what, less than $10 worth of parts and 30 minutes of assembly if that?

It's a good product for those who want/need it, and I guess pricing is "what the market will bear". Can't fault a guy for making a buck, but assuming those prices are still current, it does seem kinda high.

 

[400Eric]

You two also need to remember that he is decent enough to show us all how to create our own "Cool Harness". That pretty much negates the high price he charges for the thing.