 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Focus / February 2007Ford Focus 1.8 zetec y reg
ive had my ford focus for six weeks now the problem is the battery light keeps coming on, it first came on after 3 days took it back to the garage where i bought it they charged the battery up checked the alternator and said they could not find any fault, picked it up and after 30 minutes the light came on again, took it back the garage but this time they changed a wire to the alternator and a fuse, got the car back had it for two weeks thought everything was ok and the light came on again, ive checked online myself to try and solve the problem and everything points to the alternator but the garage is adamant its not faulty and have no idea what to do next. the garage will change the car but they dont have another focus so i was wondering 1) change the alternator anyway 2) would fords be able to find the fault if i took it to them 3) any ideas as to what it could be. 4) get rid p.s not sure if this should happen but when i start the car if the heater is set to 0 should the air recirc light be on. if you need more info ill do my best to provide it. thanks in advance for any help Jon. > ive had my ford focus for six weeks now the problem is the battery > light keeps coming on, it first came on after 3 days took it back to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jon. just to let you know once the lights on if i continue to use the car the battery runs flat. >just to let you know once the lights on if i continue to use the car >the battery runs flat. That means that the battery is not being charged as it should, and the battery warning light should indeed come on. It sounds like a faulty alternator and/or the regulator.  SignatureTo email me directly, remove CLUTTER. > That means that the battery is not being charged as it should, and the > battery warning light should indeed come on. It sounds like a faulty > alternator and/or the regulator. Just for reference, the Focus doesn't have a charging regulator as such. Charge control is done within the ECU. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > > That means that the battery is not being charged as it should, and the > > battery warning light should indeed come on. It sounds like a faulty [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Remove prejudice to reply. the car was bought from a independent garage not a ford dealer. ive spoken to them again today and once again they are adamant its not the alternator but a fault elsewhere, the owner is away till next wednesday so im stuck with the car till then, if the problem is the ecu would it be worth me taking it to fords and have them run an engine diagnostic, can the ecu be repaired or would it need to be replaced is there anything else i could check myself. once again many thanks for your replies >> > That means that the battery is not being charged as it should, and the >> > battery warning light should indeed come on. It sounds like a faulty [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > once again many thanks for your replies I would suggest to the Independant garage that they firstly recheck the 3 thin wires at the alternator where they emerge from the loom- they often break internally, and then if that seems ok, have them have a Ford dealer put it on the diagnostic machine and see what output the ECU is instructing from the alternator. This will pin point where the problem lies. Otherwise, reject the car. Tim.. > >> > That means that the battery is not being charged as it should, and the > >> > battery warning light should indeed come on. It sounds like a faulty [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Tim.. cheers Tim for the advice, the 3 wires you mentioned have been replaced. when i was taking the car back to the independent dealer today the battery light went out then came back on again 3 times, in the past once it came on it usually stayed on so with this happening im even more convinced that it probably is a problem with the wiring or the ecu, its booked into fords tomorrow for a diagnostic, the guy i spoke to said that even if the light isnt on whilst they have it the computer on the car will have logged an error code, ill post again once i have the results and with a bit of luck which i could do with right now the problem will be identified or even fixed thanks once again to all those who have taken the time to reply, its very frustrating when you have problems like this. Jon > > "JonDoe" <jwc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Jon hi everyone had the diagnostic today and it turns out the pcm is knackered, when they say pcm do they mean the ecu, they quoted me £650 to replace it, £520 for the pcm and £105 labour so its going back to the garage tomorrow they never mentioned if it could be repaired so out of curiosity can they be, also can a pcm from another focus be fitted im gutted really because it a lovely car and its crazy to think what seems like a small fault could cost so much to fix. thanks everyone once again. > hi everyone had the diagnostic today and it turns out the pcm is > knackered, when they say pcm do they mean the ecu, they quoted me £650 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > im gutted really because it a lovely car and its crazy to think what > seems like a small fault could cost so much to fix. Welcome to the world of modern motoring, from what I read on various automotive newsgroups I'm now beginning to think that I should have bought a Toyota or a Honda. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6319595.stm> # > thanks everyone once again. > Welcome to the world of modern motoring, from what I read on various > automotive newsgroups I'm now beginning to think that I should have bought > a Toyota or a Honda. > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6319595.stm> Have you looked at parts prices for Japanese cars? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >> Welcome to the world of modern motoring, from what I read on various >> automotive newsgroups I'm now beginning to think that I should have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have you looked at parts prices for Japanese cars? Yes, but when taking into account what one reads about overall reliability.. and hears from owners at first hand (the proof being reflected in worldwide sales figures) then maybe the established European and US manufacturers should be taking a long hard look at themselves before it's too late. IMO the reason Ford sales (in Europe at least) have been so good, is because probably they've been the best of a bad bunch. > Chris >> Have you looked at parts prices for Japanese cars? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > IMO the reason Ford sales (in Europe at least) have been so good, is > because probably they've been the best of a bad bunch. I'm afraid I can't comment on the situation in the US. In 2002, Germany's TUV standards body carried out an extensive survey of the reliability of cars. This covered a large range of makes and models. The Focus came top for the least number of problems over a three year period. BMW, Toyota and Ford were the makes that had the least number of breakdowns in 2001 according to the German ADAC rescue service. A British warranty service provider lists Ford as having the 4th lowest repair costs in 2004. Another thing to consider is that because of the high cost of repairs of all types, many more older Japanese cars are scrapped earlier in their life. The statistics then make them seem more reliable on the basis that there are not so many older Japanese cars on the road. The idea that Ford are the best of a bad bunch might have been true in the 1980's; it's not so now! Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >>> Have you looked at parts prices for Japanese cars? >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The idea that Ford are the best of a bad bunch might have been true > in the 1980's; it's not so now! Problem is though Chris, when you do get problems whith a modern vehicle its now very unlikely to be fixed for 30 quid by your friendly neighbourhood or garage the AA man. I'm still a bit miffed about the fact that I had to get rid of my 17 year old diesel Astra, with almost 200,000 trouble-free miles on the clock (simply because 'er indoors wanted something younger) unfortunately no manufacturer over the last few years has produced what I would call a good straightforward basic diesel car, by which I mean one that doesn't cost a hundred quid for a replacement ignition key and where the nearest thing thing it gets to an ECU is the solenoid in the fuel line! > Chris >>>> Have you looked at parts prices for Japanese cars? >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > its now very unlikely to be fixed for 30 quid by your friendly > neighbourhood or garage the AA man. I was really only commenting on your statement that Ford have questionable reliability when compared to Japanese cars; this is demonstrably untrue. Faults with modern cars often tend to be sensor failures. These can usually be diagnosed by the AA patrol; they all have laptops with full diagnostic software. The replacement sensor might be a bit more than 30 quid of course... You have to accept that the reason things have changed has far more to do with meeting government imposed pollution targets than by any change the manufacturers would have made. Whether you think they are needed or not, (and this is not the place to discuss that), we have to arrange our motoring around them. Oh, and in well over 40 years of motoring all the neighbourhood garages I have tried have been distinctly unfriendly! > I'm still a bit miffed about the fact that I had to get rid of my 17 year > old diesel Astra, with almost 200,000 trouble-free miles on the clock [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hundred quid for a replacement ignition key and where the nearest thing > thing it gets to an ECU is the solenoid in the fuel line! Of course, a straightforward basic diesel that doesn't cause pollution can't be made. FWIW, I would rather take the risk of having to pay 100UKP for a replacement key if it means that my car was much less likely to be stolen. My excess is more than that! WRT your old Astra, your problem seems to be more marital than motoring :-) Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > You have to accept that the reason things have changed has far more > to do with meeting government imposed pollution targets than by any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course, a straightforward basic diesel that doesn't cause > pollution can't be made. The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus strongly advises against any more than a mixture of 5% bio - a huge ecological improvement then. :o) > Chris > The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, whilst > the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus strongly > advises against any more than a mixture of 5% bio - a huge ecological > improvement then. :o) The big problem with diesel pollution is particulate emission though, isn't it? AFAIK, biodiesel does not help. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AFAIK, biodiesel does not help. I thought it was supposed to be carbon neutral? > Chris >>> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >>> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I thought it was supposed to be carbon neutral? http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/ "The Main Environmental Advantage is that Biodiesel is carbon neutral, so using 100% Biodiesel in your vehicle means you are not adding to the global warming crisis. Biodiesel does not add any carbon because it utilises the amount of carbon which naturally circulates between the atmosphere and the biosphere (photosynthesis). Conventional fossil diesel however, does add to the overall level of carbon by extracting carbon deposited in the geosphere (mineral deposits) and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unlike any other available and easily accessible fuel at this time Biodiesel also has the potential of being 100% carbon neutral in its lifecycle too." >> Chris >>>> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >>>> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > available and easily accessible fuel at this time Biodiesel also has the > potential of being 100% carbon neutral in its lifecycle too." I think you are missing the point here. Note in my original post the term "particulate emission." Diesels produce two exhaust related problems. One is the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses. These contribute to global warming. Bio-diesel is said to be carbon neutral; there is apparently some disagreement about this but it is a widely held view. The second problem with diesels is that they emit particulate matter. These small particles have nothing to do with global warming, or the generation of greenhouse gasses. They have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to cause harm to humans, contributing to illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. Some scientific bodies believe the emitted particles are dangerously carcogenic. There is no evidence I can find that suggests bio-diesel reduces these particulate emissions. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >>> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >>> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I thought it was supposed to be carbon neutral? It is. What has that got to do with particulates? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >>>> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >>>> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It is. What has that got to do with particulates? Which can be taken care of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter> and anyway given the choice of particulates versus CO2 emissions, the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere to help prevent global warming, when did you last hear them mention particulates? So there you have it Chris, it looks the ideal solution is a good simple, indestructible diesel-engine, fitted with a particulate filter and burning bio-diesel :o) > Chris >>>>> The 17 year-old Astra would run quite happily on '100%' biodiesel, >>>>> whilst the handbook for my four and-a-half year-old -old Ford focus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > indestructible diesel-engine, fitted with a particulate filter and burning > bio-diesel :o) Did you read the Wikipedia article your link points to? In particular, section 5 which describes how a DPF regenerates? If so, perhaps you would care to explain how a "good, simple" diesel engine (presumably one without an ECU), would handle this? Of course, a disposable filter could be retro-fitted to an old engine; ITYWF the costs of this would soon persuade you to buy something newer! Where is your source for the statement that "the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere"? Or is this just supposition? There is already Europe-wide legislation in place limiting particulate matter: http://www.acidrain.org/pages/policy/sub6_9.asp Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > Did you read the Wikipedia article your link points to? In particular, > section 5 which describes how a DPF regenerates? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > engine; ITYWF the costs of this would soon persuade you to buy > something newer! Also in the same article Citroen and Peugeot have been using particulate filters as standard fit on their vehicles since 2000, so they are obviously a practical proposition, and talking of the extra expense, I seem to recall quite a few moans and groans on that account when catalytic converters were first made mandatory! > Where is your source for the statement that "the Government's number > one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the > atmosphere"? Or is this just supposition? There is already Europe-wide > legislation in place limiting particulate matter: You obviously don't possess a TV or radio then Chris, otherwise you would realise that hardly a day goes by without some government minister, expert or even Tony himself rattling on about CO2 emissions being a number one priority, by the same token when did you ever hear any of them ever mention particulates? However you are detracting from my original point, which was that a 17 yearold diesel engine will run quite happily on 100 % biodiesel, and yet a new vehicle is only capable of running with a five per cent mixture.. which with the very serious concerns there are about global-warming I happen to think is really quite scandalous. Presumably your argument is that this is a worthwhile trade-off in engine design, because modern engines don't emit as many particulates, which let's face it 'ever- increasing numbers' of fit and healthy people in their eighties and nineties in this country have been inhaling for decade's without apparent harm!.. where as a general and growing consensus of expert world opinion appears to indicate that by far the biggest threat of all of us is global warming. > http://www.acidrain.org/pages/policy/sub6_9.asp > > Chris >> Did you read the Wikipedia article your link points to? In particular, >> section 5 which describes how a DPF regenerates? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > seem to recall quite a few moans and groans on that account when catalytic > converters were first made mandatory! Have they been using *disposable* filters then? No, I didn't think so... Perhaps it would be helpful if you read *all* the words in my posts before replying? >> Where is your source for the statement that "the Government's number >> one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions into the >> atmosphere"? Or is this just supposition? There is already Europe-wide >> legislation in place limiting particulate matter: You haven't quoted your source of information that "the Government's number one objective is always the elimination of CO2 emissions", as opposed to your statement below that CO2 emissions are *a* number one objective. > You obviously don't possess a TV or radio then Chris, otherwise you would > realise that hardly a day goes by without some government minister, expert > or even Tony himself rattling on about CO2 emissions being a number one > priority, by the same token when did you ever hear any of them ever > mention particulates? I possess several TV's and radios. I also read quality daily newspapers. The health problems caused by the emission of particulates from diesel engines is frequently discussed, often by Ken Livingstone. Perhaps it is you that needs to modify the type of programme you watch if you wish to become better informed. > However you are detracting from my original point, which was that a 17 > yearold diesel engine will run quite happily on 100 % biodiesel, and yet a > new vehicle is only capable of running with a five per cent mixture.. > which with the very serious concerns there are about global-warming I > happen to think is really quite scandalous. But how many people running older diesels *do* use bio fuels? Because of its limited availability, how many actually could if they wanted to? Disregarding the bio diesel issue on the basis that only a very small percentage of vehicles are actually using it, the newer car will contribute to global warning *much* less than a 17 year old one! > Presumably your argument is that this is a worthwhile trade-off in engine > design, because modern engines don't emit as many particulates, which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of expert world opinion appears to indicate that by far the biggest threat > of all of us is global warming. Again, you seem ill-informed. Do some research on the alarming increase in the number of cases of people suffering from lung disease and asthma in city areas. Yes, global warming is a threat that needs, and is being, addressed. It doesn't directly bear on the health of people in the same way that particulate emission does however. Many of those "fit and healthy people in their eighties and nineties" were also cigarette smokers at some point in their lives. Your argument implies that smoking is not harmful. Do you believe that to be true? Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. > The statistics then make them seem more reliable on the basis that there > are not so many older Japanese cars on the road. That is *not* how statistics are calculated, statisticians are of course aware that there are less of one product on the road than another, which is why statistics that are calculated correctly aren't biased. >> The statistics then make them seem more reliable on the basis that there >> are not so many older Japanese cars on the road. > > That is *not* how statistics are calculated, statisticians are of course > aware that there are less of one product on the road than another, which > is why statistics that are calculated correctly aren't biased. My use of "statistics" was not intended to imply anything so formal. There is a common perception of Japanese car reliability that is unfounded for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that older Japanese cars get scrapped for relatively trivial reasons; they are uneconomic to repair at a much earlier age than others. This applies both to breakdown and accident repair. The information is on the 'net if you care to look. Some German car brands have sunk like a stone in the reliability charts in recent years, but that's for totally different reasons. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. modern motoring, from what I read on various >> automotive newsgroups I'm now beginning to think that I should have >> bought [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris They fail less regularly, and are usually much higher quality. The Japanese don't like crap manufacturing institutions, which is why sensible people buy Japanese. > They fail less regularly, Evidence? > and are usually much higher quality. The > Japanese don't like crap manufacturing institutions, which is why sensible > people buy Japanese. The Japanese just like to make a profit, same as anyone else. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. >> They fail less regularly, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Chris Reliability surveys, owners own experiences, and so on. With any car, you could argue the owners expectations really decide they're expectations and wants of their car, so in reality there's no 100% accurate way of measuring the data. But I'm sure we're still agreed that the majority of French cars are sh.t ;) > On 21 Feb, 13:46, "Tim.." <the.farm...@spam.btinternet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Jon hi everyone had the diagnostic today and it turns out the pcm is knackered, when they say pcm do they mean the ecu, they quoted me £650 to replace it, £520 for the pcm and £105 labour so its going back to the garage tomorrow they never mentioned if it could be repaired so out of curiosity can they be, also can a pcm from another focus be fitted im gutted really because it a lovely car and its crazy to think what seems like a small fault could cost so much to fix. ECU = PCM in Ford speak (they like to call it the Powertrain Control Module) This will be the first PCM failure on a Focus that I have ever experienced, infact pretty rare on a Ford anyhow! Yes, another PCM from a similar year 1.8 would work (must have the same breed of CDL controller as yours-there are two, and with/without a/c as per your car) Once fitted it would need training to the keys you have (2 must be present) and then flashed with the latest software version. Both these operations require a Ford dealer. £650 is not silly money at all for an ECU, if it were Jap, you can double that! A new PCM will also carry a 12month warranty, so if there are problems after Mr Ford would have to sort it out. Tim.. You could try asking on uk.rec.cars.maintenance a number of mechanics over there may give you additional ideas. No idea as to cost but .... http://www.the-ecu-doctor.co.uk/ hi everyone had the diagnostic today and it turns out the pcm is knackered, when they say pcm do they mean the ecu, they quoted me £650 to replace it, £520 for the pcm and £105 labour so its going back to the garage tomorrow they never mentioned if it could be repaired so out of curiosity can they be, also can a pcm from another focus be fitted im gutted really because it a lovely car and its crazy to think what seems like a small fault could cost so much to fix. thanks everyone once again. > You could try asking on uk.rec.cars.maintenance a number of mechanics > over there may give you additional ideas. > > No idea as to cost but .... http://www.the-ecu-doctor.co.uk/ They are pretty good value IIRC - my mate was very pleased with the service he got from them. > ive had my ford focus for six weeks now the problem is the battery > light keeps coming on, it first came on after 3 days took it back to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and everything points to the alternator but the garage is adamant its > not faulty and have no idea what to do next. If the fault was fixed for two weeks, it is more likely to be a wiring issue than an alternator fault. Was it an independent garage you got it from, rather than a Ford dealer? If so, ask the supplying garage if they will send it to a dealer for investigation. That may well work out cheaper for them than the cost of you keep taking it back. > the garage will change the car but they dont have another focus so i > was wondering [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > p.s not sure if this should happen but when i start the car if the > heater is set to 0 should the air recirc light be on. Yes. It's a feature, and one that I personally dislike! > if you need more info ill do my best to provide it. > > thanks in advance for any help > > Jon. Chris SignatureRemove prejudice to reply. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.