'01 Buick Le Sabre SES Light On

On 3/2/2014 4:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote:
>>
>> I understand the difference. When I say "code reader" I mean code reader, n=
>> ot a scanner. I'm not interested in a scanner. If a code reader has limited=
>> appeal for me, why the heck would I spend the money to get a glorified cod=
>> e reader? My old reader could give me info in real time too - big deal.
>
> Because, as I said earlier, the scanner is not a glorified code reader.
> They are two totally different tools, like a screwdriver is different
> than a drill press.
>
>> You do understand that I am not a professional mechanic, don't you? There's=
>> absolutely no reason for me to get a scanner. Get a scanner if you want, I=
>> think it'll make you feel like you're a real mechanic. :-)
>
> It doesn't matter if you're professional or not. There were a lot of things
> that you could see on your Plymouth Valiant and determine by mechanical
> position what their state was. Those things are gone today, and today you
> need the scanner to tell what the state of the machine is.
>
> In the case of the fuel system, feedback control means that not only can't
> you tell the state of the system by looking at it the way you could on that
> Valiant carb, but the system can be totally screwed up and the feedback loop
> compensating for the problem. And the system will keep compensating, until
> you run out of margin and then all of a sudden it doesn't.
>
> So the scan tool has become a basic, fundamental tool for doing any sort of
> diagnosis on modern cars. If you don't want to work on modern cars, that
> is fine. But unfortunately, if you're going to do even basic work on newer
> models, it's become necessary. Now, if you're not a professional mechanic
> there's no reason you can't just keep driving that Valiant, and that's fine
> too.
> --scott
>

My last few cars have had all alloy engines with technically advanced
engines i.e., variable valve timing, DHOC, 4 and 5 valves per cylinder,
turbocharged. Don't talk down to me. I have to wonder about mechanics
that need a scanner to diagnose a bad thermostat. Sounds like a bunch of
numbskulls to me. Sorry, if you're trying to sell me on scanners, I
ain't buying. Try some other sucker.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 3/2/2014 4:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> dsi1 > wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand the difference. When I say "code reader" I mean code
>>> reader, n=
>>> ot a scanner. I'm not interested in a scanner. If a code reader has
>>> limited=
>>> appeal for me, why the heck would I spend the money to get a
>>> glorified cod=
>>> e reader? My old reader could give me info in real time too - big deal.
>>
>> Because, as I said earlier, the scanner is not a glorified code reader.
>> They are two totally different tools, like a screwdriver is different
>> than a drill press.
>>
>>> You do understand that I am not a professional mechanic, don't you?
>>> There's=
>>> absolutely no reason for me to get a scanner. Get a scanner if you
>>> want, I=
>>> think it'll make you feel like you're a real mechanic. :-)
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you're professional or not. There were a lot of
>> things
>> that you could see on your Plymouth Valiant and determine by mechanical
>> position what their state was. Those things are gone today, and today
>> you
>> need the scanner to tell what the state of the machine is.
>>
>> In the case of the fuel system, feedback control means that not only
>> can't
>> you tell the state of the system by looking at it the way you could on
>> that
>> Valiant carb, but the system can be totally screwed up and the
>> feedback loop
>> compensating for the problem. And the system will keep compensating,
>> until
>> you run out of margin and then all of a sudden it doesn't.
>>
>> So the scan tool has become a basic, fundamental tool for doing any
>> sort of
>> diagnosis on modern cars. If you don't want to work on modern cars, that
>> is fine. But unfortunately, if you're going to do even basic work on
>> newer
>> models, it's become necessary. Now, if you're not a professional
>> mechanic
>> there's no reason you can't just keep driving that Valiant, and that's
>> fine
>> too.
>> --scott
>>
>
> My last few cars have had all alloy engines with technically advanced
> engines i.e., variable valve timing, DHOC, 4 and 5 valves per cylinder,
> turbocharged. Don't talk down to me. I have to wonder about mechanics
> that need a scanner to diagnose a bad thermostat. Sounds like a bunch of
> numbskulls to me. Sorry, if you're trying to sell me on scanners, I
> ain't buying. Try some other sucker.
>

No one cares if you get a scan tool, you are obviously too dumb to
understand why one is necessary on modern cars.

GW

On 3/2/2014 12:05 PM, Geoff Welsh wrote:
>
> No one cares if you get a scan tool, you are obviously too dumb to
> understand why one is necessary on modern cars.
>
> GW
>

You guys sure have a funny way of showing that you don't care. (-:

dsi1 > wrote in
:

>
> You're taking this personally. My remarks were not directed at you.


Oh, yes they were. From March 27th:
"I'm betting that you're one of those mechanics that answers the
question, 'Are you sure replacing the part will this fix the problem?'
with a shrug."

You've been quite insulting towards Steve W. Plus you've been making a fool
of yourself in public by refusing to admit that you've been wrong and he's
been right. Some of us shake our heads when we read your twisting-and-
turning.


--
Tegger

dsi1 > wrote in
:

> I have to wonder about
> mechanics that need a scanner to diagnose a bad thermostat.


No, the scanner was used to diagnose a P0128. Which turned out to be a bad
thermostat only once other factors were considered.


> Sounds like a bunch of numbskulls to me.


Another personal insult directed at Steve W.

You're very brave behind that anonymous keyboard.




--
Tegger

On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:00:42 AM UTC-10, Tegger wrote:
> dsi1 <dsi1> wrote in
>
> :
>
>
>
> >
>
> > You're taking this personally. My remarks were not directed at you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, yes they were. From March 27th:
>
> "I'm betting that you're one of those mechanics that answers the
>
> question, 'Are you sure replacing the part will this fix the problem?'
>
> with a shrug."
>
>
>
> You've been quite insulting towards Steve W. Plus you've been making a fool
>
> of yourself in public by refusing to admit that you've been wrong and he's
>
> been right. Some of us shake our heads when we read your twisting-and-
>
> turning.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tegger


Who are you, his flunky? I don't have the time to bicker with people that have nothing better to do. Feel free to talk about the supreme wonderfulness of scanners - just leave me out of it. Thanks! 👹

On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:07:44 AM UTC-10, Tegger wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote in
>
> :
>
>
>
> > I have to wonder about
>
> > mechanics that need a scanner to diagnose a bad thermostat.
>
>
>
>
>
> No, the scanner was used to diagnose a P0128. Which turned out to be a bad
>
> thermostat only once other factors were considered.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sounds like a bunch of numbskulls to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> Another personal insult directed at Steve W.
>
>
>
> You're very brave behind that anonymous keyboard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tegger

"Tegger?" Why not post your name and address since you're so brave and honest?