Trivial observation about cars and ECMs

[Len Sabatine]

     It must be interesting to track the failures of  returned dead players.
     I would agree the "New"  GM replacement # are much improved,
     especially in the area of the PCB retention in the cases to prevent
     the board from heat cycle bending and shorting.
     Usually when we see an E-PCM with a paint job and poor driveability
     a scan confirms a trip to the trash pile.
     Len

> > Hold on here!
> >
>
>I agree with Shannen, I also work for GM. Also in GM's Hall of Shame is the
>1227730. Some may be replaced without cause but I doubt very many. On a real
>hot day, we would usually get 2-3 tow ins from ECM failure under warrenty.
>The rest were usually shorted multeks, cause of lots of driver failure.
>  In the early days of the 1227730 and 1227727 you were lucky if you got a
>gm reman that worked out of the box. You could replace one for a hard code
>42 and end up with a 15 and a 21. Try the next ECM (right out of the box)
>and get a hard code 43 . The new remans (also new number) are extremely
>reliable. A rep for GM once told me they sold the old boards to the
>aftermaket rebuilders and redesigned several ECM's giving them  new part
>numbers. The new numbers seem to be very reliable. Underhood PCM's also seem
>to be extremely reliable. Percentage of failure, don't know. I only see the
>broken ones. Wouldn't even consider an aftermarket ECM, GM won't even take
>them for a core. Which ECM are we talking about?  MY  $.02
>
>
>John
>
> >
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
>in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org