See, BigJoe and DaveBen, that's EXACTLY why I think we are talking about apples and oranges!
I doubt that I am as experienced as you, but I might be just as old as you, so don't go playing the AARP card on me now, ok?
'Cause I get their bulletin too. "Sitting is the new cancer" is on the front page of this month's issue, so I'll try and be more brief!
It seems as if you both are equating the Big 3's "normal, L, R" type gauges to any and all remotely processed guage systems. Maybe you aren't, but when the only example you use is that of an auto manufacturer's guages... lame gauges that I completely agree might as well just be idiot lights... as a reason to avoid remotely processed and reported guage systems... it doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison.
Now, I'm new here, and I don't want to ruffle feathers or be so bold. But if I sat in silence with my own opinion, I would never have the opportunity to learn from you, and have my opinion changed. That is the purpose of a forum... to discuss. And I hold zero value to my opinion, and high value to learning something new. It is through this prism that I raise the question.
If the aftermarket guage manufacturers goal is to report accurately in real time, then does it matter if the sender and or thermocouple and or pressure diaphram sends the data to a box rather than a guage housing? Either way, the data gathered from the item measured still has to be converted to needle movement for us to see it. Whether that conversion takes place behind the dial face, or in a black box doesn't seem to matter, as long as the creator of the guage system intends to report the data accurately and in real time.
We have all, through our own experience with cars since the '60s, ascertained that the automobile manufacturers do not necessarily intend for us to have accurate data in real time... to keep warranty claims down from customers concerns about operational spikes. I get that. I learned that 40 years ago.
But what I've also learned more recently, say within the last 20 years, is due to stringent Federal and State emission laws, there is a lot of interdependent engine sensor data that has to be EXTREMELY accurate to the PCM in order for the engine system to perform as mandated. Not "normal low high" but exacting and precise values measured in nanosecond intervals and resolved to tenths and hundredths.
So when considering aftermarket guages for our Superduties, it seems to make sense to bear this capability in mind. Would one dismiss as inaccurate the data stream that the multitude of sensors supply the PCM to operate the engine, just because the data that is supplied to the OEM guage cluster is damped and averaged? I don't think so. The PCM needs to see accurate realtime data. The customer (in the OEM's business model) doesn't.
But the business model of an aftermarket guage company that supports racing and towing and other severe use scenarios is different. They know their "motor head" customers want "real time data in order to compensate accordingly." They supply that data with "a needle, on a scale" podded in a "rack" of guages that can be read at a glance. That's apples. That's what we all want. There is no argument there.
Oranges is when the issue of what the Big 3 do with their factory guages is brought up. That is NOT what the aftermarket guage systems discussed in this thread appear to be doing at all, regardless of how the needles on their dial faced scales are moved.
It just seemed that a distinction between fruit needed to be made, and if I didn't step up to do it, I'd never have the opportunity to have you point out to me what I still don't understand. I hope that makes sense?
I doubt that I am as experienced as you, but I might be just as old as you, so don't go playing the AARP card on me now, ok?
'Cause I get their bulletin too. "Sitting is the new cancer" is on the front page of this month's issue, so I'll try and be more brief!It seems as if you both are equating the Big 3's "normal, L, R" type gauges to any and all remotely processed guage systems. Maybe you aren't, but when the only example you use is that of an auto manufacturer's guages... lame gauges that I completely agree might as well just be idiot lights... as a reason to avoid remotely processed and reported guage systems... it doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison.
Now, I'm new here, and I don't want to ruffle feathers or be so bold. But if I sat in silence with my own opinion, I would never have the opportunity to learn from you, and have my opinion changed. That is the purpose of a forum... to discuss. And I hold zero value to my opinion, and high value to learning something new. It is through this prism that I raise the question.
If the aftermarket guage manufacturers goal is to report accurately in real time, then does it matter if the sender and or thermocouple and or pressure diaphram sends the data to a box rather than a guage housing? Either way, the data gathered from the item measured still has to be converted to needle movement for us to see it. Whether that conversion takes place behind the dial face, or in a black box doesn't seem to matter, as long as the creator of the guage system intends to report the data accurately and in real time.
We have all, through our own experience with cars since the '60s, ascertained that the automobile manufacturers do not necessarily intend for us to have accurate data in real time... to keep warranty claims down from customers concerns about operational spikes. I get that. I learned that 40 years ago.
But what I've also learned more recently, say within the last 20 years, is due to stringent Federal and State emission laws, there is a lot of interdependent engine sensor data that has to be EXTREMELY accurate to the PCM in order for the engine system to perform as mandated. Not "normal low high" but exacting and precise values measured in nanosecond intervals and resolved to tenths and hundredths.
So when considering aftermarket guages for our Superduties, it seems to make sense to bear this capability in mind. Would one dismiss as inaccurate the data stream that the multitude of sensors supply the PCM to operate the engine, just because the data that is supplied to the OEM guage cluster is damped and averaged? I don't think so. The PCM needs to see accurate realtime data. The customer (in the OEM's business model) doesn't.
But the business model of an aftermarket guage company that supports racing and towing and other severe use scenarios is different. They know their "motor head" customers want "real time data in order to compensate accordingly." They supply that data with "a needle, on a scale" podded in a "rack" of guages that can be read at a glance. That's apples. That's what we all want. There is no argument there.
Oranges is when the issue of what the Big 3 do with their factory guages is brought up. That is NOT what the aftermarket guage systems discussed in this thread appear to be doing at all, regardless of how the needles on their dial faced scales are moved.
It just seemed that a distinction between fruit needed to be made, and if I didn't step up to do it, I'd never have the opportunity to have you point out to me what I still don't understand. I hope that makes sense?
Last edited:
