Bill,
Thats a good idea IMHO.

BTW I tried to rep MP and NO dice

 

What I would personally like to see is a way to get around the stupid useless switch altogether. I am thinking something like EFI live or similar to over ride the switch. This amazingly little part has caused more guys on here a lot of headache, of which I am first to whine about. It is a **** poor design to begin with. Yeah let's have not one , but two switches to tell the PCM when and how much to throttle. Aye yie yie. I would switch to a Cummins simply to get rid of the ridiculousness with the throttle assembly in the OBS trucks. Ok, sorry....rant over...carry on

 

that was a good rant, Byron!

I agree its stupid, but kind of necessary if you want to have a steady idle and don't want to have a very expensive, calibrated potentiometer for the TPS in every truck. it makes sense from an electrical control, PCM standpoint, but like anything electronic, is EXTREMELY frustrating when it doesn't work right - see my BARO sensor thread for my own personal electronics tail-chasing.

in other IVS news, the generous shot of silicone lubricant I gave my IVS 2 days ago may actually be doing something after all. it didn't seem to do much immediately, but I noticed that I didn't have any of my startup IVS sticking issues today. maybe it needed some time to work itself into the rubber/plastic/contacts. i'll keep an eye/foot on it and report back periodically...

 

I keep forgetting about that BARO, my dash is still out and I'll have to look for it.

 

Someone smarter than you decided it was needed since it is fly by wire . Wire it closed and take your chances .

If you use a cable with A tors , you will still have problems .

 

Smarter than me? Um, ok since you don't know me from Adam. I love how credit is given to a bunch of idiots who sit around a table and decide something for us. Yeah, they are smarter than me....gotcha.


On another note, there are plenty of vehicle that don't have two sensors that have to work in conjunction with each other just so the damn truck can go forward. That's smart? You are right...I'm just a hillbilly idiot. Let me know how you feel when you have your wife and child and have to idle home for many miles because one or both of the sensors take a ***** and the truck won't throttle.

 

yeah JP, I read that thread. I would not wish that on anyone1 You did a good job of tracking it down and finding the issue. I did the same with my issue, but I am afraid to clip and solder that one wire. It has been working here lately with me just clicking the IVS, but I am waiting until Jan to tackle it and get it fixed right. Time, money,school, xtra vehicle, etc....

I dunno, my last 3 trucks had other ways of getting the idle smooth/controlled/copasetic without the use of this sensor in conjunction with another sensor. It's my opinion, although a very frustrated one. I love my truck and know I'll get it fixed, but it's been ongoing for a awhile now.

 

The IVS is a part of the circuit as a safety. The only thing worse than having to have your wife and kids idle home because it failed is to have them get in an accident because it isn't there. Without the IVS there to shut off the signal from the TPS a failed TPS, a short in the wiring, or a stuck sensor means the truck has the potential to go wide open throttle without you touching the pedal. Me? I'll take my chances with the IVS in the circuit.

It would be like disabling the ABS because you're having an issue with that system. Is it absolutely necessary? Nope. Are there vehicles out there without it (ABS)? Yep. Should you override it just because it's giving you an issue? I don't think so. It's there to help the vehicle be safer for both you and the rest of the people on the road. I had my grandpa almost lose a leg because someone overrode a safety. Overrode the clutch safety switch on a truck and then sent it off to auction. My grandpa happened to be walking between that truck and another one when some joker reached in and hit the key. The truck started and the V hitch on the back of it pinned him between that truck and the one behind it. The rest of my family and I watched him go through surgeries and therapy to rehab it because someone else made the decision that the safety feature was more an inconvenience than it was a necessity. He walked with a severe limp and a leg brace for the rest of his life. When you disable a safety you're not only endangering yourself, but everyone else on the roadways. These trucks are, after all about 7,000 lbs of rolling steel missile...

Byron, I'm not busting your chops for overriding it, but don't go trying to convince me or anyone else that it's an unnecessary part of the truck. It is intended to be there as a safety to prevent the truck from running away if there is an issue with the TPS, a high idle setting, or the wiring. I for one, would rather have 2 sensors telling my truck to sit still than have one sensor tell it to go wide open. I'm not going to tell you that you have to have one, but counseling other people that it is unnecessary is not a good idea.

 

well said, nate. and sorry to hear about your grandpa. makes me think twice about putting in my clutch safety override switch. i'd like to be able to just reach in and start my truck to warn it up on cold days, rather than climbing all the way in. I think i'll deal with the inconvenience, though rather than risk hurting myself or someone else - maybe a kid playing the driveway or something...

and not to assume the intelligence of anyone on here, but I look at it as: if the risk assessment people at Ford decided the switch was a necessary part of the truck to avoid recalls and lawsuits, its probably good for me to keep it there to avoid similar lawsuits, should something go awry with my truck if I were to remove it.

clearly the Toyota engineers of the mid-2000's didn't think that such a device was necessary, and look what they got: run away cars and massive recalls.

now the fact that the part isn't available to us anymore complicates this issue, but I think we're on the right track of trying to find a suitable replacement...

FTE hasn't failed me yet, and I don't expect it to this time :-)

 

Were they direct injection diesels with no mechanical means of engine power control?

 

I agree Nate and well said, but my point is wondering why or if there is another "safety" means rather than a sensor that disables the entire rig when it goes bad. I was more just venting anyways.

We'll just agree to disagree. And Nate, I wasn't counseling anyone that it wasn't a good idea. I was giving my opinion on what I thought and there is big difference between that and trying to sway someone to my way of thinking. If I could get rid of this switch in the circuitry and find another way to make it failsafe, I would in a minute. That is all I was trying to say. I am not sure how I ended up the A-hole in this whole thing. I am giving a real world account of a frustrating problem that I have been unable to resolve. My account was not directed at anyone but calling me less than smart is ok? I was never disrespectful or condescending in any way. What gives?

And even if it did run away, and the chances are slim, there is a thing called "neutral" on any vehicle or tractor with a diesel that will keep loss of control from happening. Ask me how I know.

 

1998 Dodge Cummins, 2004 Dodge Cummins, 2005 GMC Dmax. Truth be told, I don't know how they operated with the throttle control. I never had an issue, so I never had to know I guess. My luck, probably the same.

 

I'm not calling you less than smart, and I don't think that was Rick's intent either. His point was just that the engineering department at Ford thought the switch should be in the circuit for a reason and they're paid to know why. Not that you're a dummy (though we love Rick for his way with words ), but that they deemed it to be necessary for a reason. And I'm there with you on the frustrated end of it. I've had the switch fail on me before it is infuriating. It was before I knew what I know now, and it was a work truck and not mine personally but I've been stranded before by a bad IVS.

And you and I both know to throw it in Neutral and turn the key off, but not everybody thinks that way. It was comical to me to hear about all those sorry Toyota drivers with their "runaway" cars. I just kept thinking to myself, you had time to burn up the brakes but not enough time to just turn off the key, lol? Some people don't think that way I guess.

 

I hear ya Nate. I know you were not saying that. I was referring to Rick. I normally don't care about that stuff, but I don't know him from anyone else here and have never had any input from him. This is already a frustrating issue to begin with. I'll get thicker skin.

Some people buy into the idea that just because engineers designed something, it must be better than what a layperson could come up with. I don't buy into that thinking anymore than I believe the President is always right and all of that idiocy. I was just trying to think outside the box and thought someone might know of a way to get around it, albeit safely. Anyways, it doesn't matter because it seems to be a done deal and I/we have to deal with it when it leaves us stranded.

Rick, nice to meet ya.

 

Thanks for the shout out Glenn!! Yeah, sounds like the BARO would be a good one to replace while the dash is out!