Thread: 2009 Colorado Engine Problem

10-20 computers? Lol a newish rs6 has nearly 300.....

Originally Posted by Tussock

With 10-20 computers per vehicle, a computers service life is around 5 years and falling.

In theory based on the increasing computer content and the increasing rate of obselescence, a car won't last more than 5 years soon.

Be fair to say 10 year old vehicles have had 5 good years as "new" and 5 good years as second hand, after that they are like buying a second hand 1990s Audi.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

1. Given that the ECU and its associated sensors ("computers") are not dynamic components, they tend - unless one is referring to an over-engineered European marque - to be the most reliable components in a vehicle. I have never had to replace an ECU or sensor due to failure. The car I currently drive is 10 years old, no sensors have failed on it. The car before that would be 15 years old, no sensors failed on it either.

2. There is no "increasing computer content" - code content in an ECU is a constant. Newer cars receive newer processors - see "Moore's Law".

3. If you look around you'll find the majority of vehicles around were built before 2006 and still going well.

Originally Posted by Tommy

10-20 computers? Lol a newish rs6 has nearly 300.....

300 computers to do what?

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

300 computers to do what?

To tell you to put your seat belt on. Argh that really annoys the crap outta me!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

300 computers to do what?

Everything, and I mean everything. It's insane.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Everything, and I mean everything. It's insane.

But one computer can do all sorts of shit....I am literally retarded (wait till you meet me!) and used to program plcs to control all sorts of shit.

A sensor is not a computer (at least in my mind)

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

But one computer can do all sorts of shit....I am literally retarded (wait till you meet me!) and used to program plcs to control all sorts of shit.

A sensor is not a computer (at least in my mind)

Sensors consist of a microprocessor(s), so strictly speaking it is a computer. Sensor however would probably be the most appropriate term to use as they feed information to the ECU. And you can have sensors for every thing under the sun. Throttle position sensor, steering angle sensor, G sensor, ABS sensor etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Sensors consist of a microprocessor(s), so strictly speaking it is a computer. Sensor however would probably be the most appropriate term to use as they feed information to the ECU. And you can have sensors for every thing under the sun. Throttle position sensor, steering angle sensor, G sensor, ABS sensor etc etc etc.

Ah yes terminology, still hard pressed to call a sensor a computer tho I recon. But then I am a bit slow.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Ah yes terminology, still hard pressed to call a sensor a computer tho I recon. But then I am a bit slow.

Well, a computer is defined as:

"an electronic device which is capable of receiving information (data) in a particular form and of performing a sequence of operations in accordance with a predetermined but variable set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information or signals."

So it's not wrong to call them as such. Perhaps a general / anachronistic term. Semantics aside, I doubt anyone would not know what one was talking about if they used the word.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

But one computer can do all sorts of shit....I am literally retarded (wait till you meet me!) and used to program plcs to control all sorts of shit.

A sensor is not a computer (at least in my mind)

I can tell from here that you're a loooong way from retarded dude.

Originally Posted by Tommy

I can tell from here that you're a loooong way from retarded dude.

You are very flattering.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Well, a computer is defined as:

"an electronic device which is capable of receiving information (data) in a particular form and of performing a sequence of operations in accordance with a predetermined but variable set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information or signals."

So it's not wrong to call them as such. Perhaps a general / anachronistic term. Semantics aside, I doubt anyone would not know what one was talking about if they used the word.

so a switch then ?

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

You are very flattering.

You can spell flattering, and know the green crayons taste the best. Case closed.

Originally Posted by Tommy

You can spell flattering, and know the green crayons taste the best. Case closed.

Ha jokes on you the spell check is working again

But he got a hit on the green crayons eh.