New version of Scantool software with system adaptation feature
07-12-2006, 10:57 AM
#17
Instructor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More feedback:- Adaption still fails with longer time out even though up to temp & throttle closed. Seems to work fine if engine already running.
Pete '92 964 RS
Pete '92 964 RS
07-12-2006, 12:38 PM
#20
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh...
I believe that the adaptation is actually working and completing but the software may just not be reporting it properly. Have you looked at the Actual Values screen in the new version? I've added a new entry that shows the adaptation value. A non-adapted car will show a value of 128 (80h).
Anybody else tried this feature yet?
-doug
I believe that the adaptation is actually working and completing but the software may just not be reporting it properly. Have you looked at the Actual Values screen in the new version? I've added a new entry that shows the adaptation value. A non-adapted car will show a value of 128 (80h).
Anybody else tried this feature yet?
-doug
07-12-2006, 02:51 PM
#23
From the 928 Forum:
"I would be prepared to work with the people from the 964 group if they are interested."
- John Speake -
www.jdsporsche.com
Your product is essentially "there", but those guys with their "egos" and DIY natures
AND inverted value systems, i.e. time has no value, may be the main obstacles.
What they have now works, but is rather "Mickey Mouse" and is prone to possibly
damage ECUs if not built and connected properly.
Why "re-invent the wheel", when the Spanner exists?
"I would be prepared to work with the people from the 964 group if they are interested."
- John Speake -
www.jdsporsche.com
Your product is essentially "there", but those guys with their "egos" and DIY natures
AND inverted value systems, i.e. time has no value, may be the main obstacles.
What they have now works, but is rather "Mickey Mouse" and is prone to possibly
damage ECUs if not built and connected properly.
Why "re-invent the wheel", when the Spanner exists?
Last edited by Lorenfb; 07-12-2006 at 03:51 PM.
07-12-2006, 02:58 PM
#24
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Doug,
I've run it a bunch of times. After the first run the # changed to 130, then the oil thermostat stuck closed.... and for half a second I tried to understand how the adaptation could cause this....... then realized it couldn't. I've since replaced the thermostat insert, and run the adaption so the number is 134 or so......... If I use my imagination, I think the car actually starts better since the adaptation..... possible?
I've run it a bunch of times. After the first run the # changed to 130, then the oil thermostat stuck closed.... and for half a second I tried to understand how the adaptation could cause this....... then realized it couldn't. I've since replaced the thermostat insert, and run the adaption so the number is 134 or so......... If I use my imagination, I think the car actually starts better since the adaptation..... possible?
07-12-2006, 03:00 PM
#25
Drifting
That's rather harsh Loren, and most unnecessary, it certainly doesn't help anyone posting coments like this.
People may want the spanner, but it doesn't perform some of the functions that C4 owners require, and yes I've enquired and helped John with MY car. It also costs more than a £20 circuit board....
To be honest if you haven't got anything useful to say, why not say nothing?
Kevin.
People may want the spanner, but it doesn't perform some of the functions that C4 owners require, and yes I've enquired and helped John with MY car. It also costs more than a £20 circuit board....
To be honest if you haven't got anything useful to say, why not say nothing?
Kevin.
07-12-2006, 03:54 PM
#27
"That's rather harsh Loren, and most unnecessary, it certainly doesn't help anyone posting coments like this."
No, it's an attempt to help those that don't want to waste time ("Have a Life")
AND don't have the knowledge or expertise to build their own scanner.
Hopefully, everyone will benefit a from mutual interaction.
No, it's an attempt to help those that don't want to waste time ("Have a Life")
AND don't have the knowledge or expertise to build their own scanner.
Hopefully, everyone will benefit a from mutual interaction.
07-12-2006, 05:49 PM
#29
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eric,
Sounds reasonable. The default adaptation value is 128. A higher value after adaptation means that the IAC valve needed to be opened more to allow additional bypass air to achieve the desired idle speed--if that makes any sense. Additional bypass air could improve startup?
-doug
Sounds reasonable. The default adaptation value is 128. A higher value after adaptation means that the IAC valve needed to be opened more to allow additional bypass air to achieve the desired idle speed--if that makes any sense. Additional bypass air could improve startup?
-doug
Originally Posted by Eric Kessel
Doug,
I've run it a bunch of times. After the first run the # changed to 130, then the oil thermostat stuck closed.... and for half a second I tried to understand how the adaptation could cause this....... then realized it couldn't. I've since replaced the thermostat insert, and run the adaption so the number is 134 or so......... If I use my imagination, I think the car actually starts better since the adaptation..... possible?
I've run it a bunch of times. After the first run the # changed to 130, then the oil thermostat stuck closed.... and for half a second I tried to understand how the adaptation could cause this....... then realized it couldn't. I've since replaced the thermostat insert, and run the adaption so the number is 134 or so......... If I use my imagination, I think the car actually starts better since the adaptation..... possible?
07-13-2006, 02:05 AM
#30
"Actually it was/is the other way around." - Jason -
Not really. The Spanner was 1st with all the essentails but lacked the very limited
964 diagnostics which John Speake could have easily "pulled" from the 964 EPROM.
John Speake's unit updated with the limited 964 diagnostics provided by Porsche/Bosch,
would be more than adequate for the needs of the majority of the 964 owners,
i.e. determine the fault codes & reset 'em, the other features, e.g. adaptation have
limited utility (the DME does self-adaptation) for most. The very limited real time
data of the 964 diagnostics is basically a "waste".
I have a Bosch Hammer, an iScan2000 (very expensive Spanner), & the PST2
and rarely if ever use the Hammer (too slow). For 964 problems, the iScan2000
is the best, e.g. fault codes & resetting air bag lights. I find using a laptop as a scanner
a real "pain" and only use the PST2 for major problems with 993s/996s, e.g. setting
the OBDII readiness states.
That's why John's unit's form factor & simplicity are ideal (plus no XP boot time) for many.
I even use an HP PDA with Bluetooth for ODBII data analysis versus my XP Windows laptop.
Nothing I like better than balancing/holding a laptop or finding a spot to place it,
and notwithstanding worrying about when it'll "die".
Bottom line: The software app wriiten & posted for 964 diagnostics is GREAT and
compliments to all, but to integrate that with John Speake's unit would be even better.
Not really. The Spanner was 1st with all the essentails but lacked the very limited
964 diagnostics which John Speake could have easily "pulled" from the 964 EPROM.
John Speake's unit updated with the limited 964 diagnostics provided by Porsche/Bosch,
would be more than adequate for the needs of the majority of the 964 owners,
i.e. determine the fault codes & reset 'em, the other features, e.g. adaptation have
limited utility (the DME does self-adaptation) for most. The very limited real time
data of the 964 diagnostics is basically a "waste".
I have a Bosch Hammer, an iScan2000 (very expensive Spanner), & the PST2
and rarely if ever use the Hammer (too slow). For 964 problems, the iScan2000
is the best, e.g. fault codes & resetting air bag lights. I find using a laptop as a scanner
a real "pain" and only use the PST2 for major problems with 993s/996s, e.g. setting
the OBDII readiness states.
That's why John's unit's form factor & simplicity are ideal (plus no XP boot time) for many.
I even use an HP PDA with Bluetooth for ODBII data analysis versus my XP Windows laptop.
Nothing I like better than balancing/holding a laptop or finding a spot to place it,
and notwithstanding worrying about when it'll "die".
Bottom line: The software app wriiten & posted for 964 diagnostics is GREAT and
compliments to all, but to integrate that with John Speake's unit would be even better.
Last edited by Lorenfb; 08-13-2006 at 12:44 PM.