Camshaft and Crankshaft Sensors--I'M BACK

On 3 May 2007 08:03:23 -0700, powrwrap > wrote:

>> On May 3, 1:26 am, bllsht > wrote:
>
>> Just disconnect the damn thing and quit worrying about it.
>
>Sorry, I'm too analytical for that <g>
>

Analytical and anal are not the same thing.

> On May 4, 1:15 am, bllsht > wrote:

> Analytical and anal are not the same thing.

Interesting that anal is the root word for analytical though, is it
not? <g>

powrwrap wrote:

>>On May 3, 12:07 pm, Some O > wrote:
>
>
>>Obviously the knock sensor function is flawed and there is no fix.
>>Just use the correct fuel and you should be OK.
>
>
> It appears to be as you say. Now I'm wondering how long Chrysler has
> been putting useless parts on their engines? In other words, did they
> continue using this same knock sensor set-up for subsequent years?

No, newer ones are much better. Its not so much the sensor as the signal
processing that follows it to separate unrelated engine noises from real
detonation sounds. Newer signal processing, for example, eliminates
sounds that occur at crankshaft positions that couldn't possibly be due
to detonation. There's a lot more to it than that, but I don't know what
all else they do.