That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant.
What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.”
I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly.
So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself.
A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like:
- new vs historical
- active vs stored
- repeated vs one-time
- duration of the event
- whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom
- whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc.
- whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions
So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority.
For example:
Misfire event:
Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs.
Oil-pressure event:
Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison.
Communication event:
Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated.
Voltage/reset event:
Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first.
That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system.
I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom.
For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be:
- which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first
- whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition
- whether fuel trims were already moving
- whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time
- whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL
On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version.
OBD is much easier for the average owner:
- easier install
- easier removal
- inside the cabin
- easier phone connection
- easier data download
- easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner
OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters.
The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product.
Maybe the split is:
- OBD/DLC version for most consumers
- ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get
- shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful
So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem.
Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality.
Not “here are 50 parameters.”
More like:
“Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.”
or
“Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.”
or
“Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.”
That is a much better way to think about the report.
It was all part of the tiny bit of fuel savings it goes towards what was mandated by the government. Much like cylinder deactivation. That was relaxed by the recent administration. All that doesn’t help the individual buyer. But as a whole helps the manufacturer to try to reach the previous ridiculous past mileage per gallon mandate. So yes it was mandated and added cost to the vehicle.
You do realize that auto stop/start...was never mandated by the fed...right?
EPA Says It's 'Killing' Stop-Start, and Here's What Automakers Have to Say
"Start‑stop technology has never been federally mandated, and the EPA’s recent action removes regulatory incentives associated with it rather than prohibiting its use."
just logged my best MPG for one leg this am - drove home from the Denver Airport, 45 min drive - all freeway, lots of traffic so speeds were limited and some stop and go, got 17.7 for the ~30 mile trip.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.