"General failure" warning lamp.

[747]

Tracker - 2020-11-27 1:22 PM

 

747 - 2020-11-27 9:52 AM

 

Now you can see why I don't drive a 'Sevel' vehicle. I have not done so since 2007 as they are nowt but trouble starting with Juddergate. It must be the engineering background in me. 8-)

I totally disagree! I have had quite a few Sevel vans over the years, mainly Peugeot, starting with Talbot Express in the 80's and they have always given me first class and reliable service over thousands of miles.

What few issues I have had have been cost effective and simple to fix, although infuriating at the time, but would I buy a latest model of any make with all the gizmos and electronics - not a chance.

Two words that still strike fear into mere mortals - Fiat and electrics!!

I have seen no evidence that anyone else's vans are broadly any better, although some of 'em cost a lot more?

No doubt I will now be told how wonderful some makes really are!!

You must have missed the 'post 2007' bit of my post. I have had Peugeot and Fiat based motorhomes of earlier marques that were relatively trouble free. It is the newer versions that I am not keen on.

[gdf]

Having just seen Brian's latest postings on this issue I believe my experience with our 67 reg van might point to which of his ideas fit.

 

The light came on when starting from cold - but not always - but never came on when the engine was restarted when hot. The oil level indicator regularly said the oil was low although the dip stick didn't. At the time there wa much talk on forums about the Euro 6 pre ad-blu engine 'drinking' oil along with statements from Fiat that you had to use the very expensive oil they recommended to keep warranty.

 

Someone on a Facebook forum said it was the oil level sensor but it was a troublesome thing to change.

 

The Fiat Professional dealer I use said immediately that it was the oil sensor but Fiat were not making it easy to get it repaired under warranty and that they would need the van for a couple of days to prove to Fiat that it was being started correctly, that the battery was fully charged and other things but in the end they would get the ok to change the oil level sensor which was a 'b' of a job.

 

It was changed under warranty - involved removal of the subframe to get to it.

 

When I collected it I met the mechanic who had done the job - he had done more than one and was regarded as the expert but was sick of them. He made what I now think was a very telling comment. The new part was a simply loop as someone described in an earlier post but every faulty part he had taken out was twisted a bit like a figure 8.

 

I now wonder if when the light stayed on the wire was touching where it crossed and giving the false reading. When the engine was hot the oil viscosity allowed the wire to move apart?

 

Have Fiat decided that the cheapest fix for them is to sell a software 'upgrade' that ignores the oil sensor?

 

Dave

[Derek Uzzell]

The same issue reported in August on the C&MC forum

 

https://www.caravanclub.co.uk/club-together/discussions/information-technical-tips-advice/motorhomes/ducato-oil-level-sensor/

 

(How not to stay on topic... :-( )

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-11-27 4:07 PM

I'd be interested if you see the message return on occasions in the future Brian.

I've just been and tested mine again. This time, first time through I got the display, second I didn't.

I've never really seen it as an issue since the last 'van was very similar in its (intermittent) behaviour).

Will do.

 

I'm not that bothered about its loss, if that is permanent, as I didn't trust it as accurate anyhow!

 

I was just niggled at the cost of rectifying Fiat's clever, but inevitably failure prone design.

 

When I first posted I'd discounted the oil level sensor as a possible cause, as it had only recently been serviced and I knew from the dip stick that the oil level was good. I was rather more concerned by the other possible causes: diesel filter sensor failure, oil pressure sensor failure, or water in the fuel filter, and their implications for remedy.

 

On further reflection, I'm even more convinced that the real cause was probably an over full sump. Two things.

 

First, I originally attributed the light staying on after a cold start, but going off after a subsequent warm start, to temperature on start up. What didn't cross my mind was that the subsequent starts had been on level, not sloping, ground. So, when the van had been parked nose down, and the light went off, I just assumed this was probably due to the (then) warmer weather. Seemed logical at the time. After all, parking on hills is fairly normal, so why should gradient cause a warning?!

 

Second, having seen the position of the sensor relative to that of the dip-stick, plus reading (what I could understand of :-)) the description of the way the sensor works, I suspect the resulting Voltage goes out range. Correct oil level = 125mV difference between first and second readings, min oil level = 445mV difference, so over full would seem to increase resistance beyond normal, to give a second reading below 1V which = sensor shorted (and presumably, but not stated) = turn on general warning light! :-D.

 

But, parking on any step hill would then be likely to result in oil rising above (or falling below) the sensor's calibrated limits, so I just wonder if the Hill Holder function (part of the Electronic Stability Control System) also feeds in to cancel out the sensor reading? I can't think of anything else that might register that the van is out of level. Such a system needs to know when to disregard the sensor signal, if for no other reason than Italy has plenty of steep hills which, in the absence of some such over-ride, would have the general failure, or low oil level, warning lights coming on all over the place. Finally, the gradient of our drive is just under hill-older range, so less than 5%. Gap in software logic?

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2020-11-27 1:22 PM

 

747 - 2020-11-27 9:52 AM

 

Now you can see why I don't drive a 'Sevel' vehicle. I have not done so since 2007 as they are nowt but trouble starting with Juddergate. It must be the engineering background in me. 8-)

I totally disagree! I have had quite a few Sevel vans over the years, mainly Peugeot, starting with Talbot Express in the 80's and they have always given me first class and reliable service over thousands of miles.

What few issues I have had have been cost effective and simple to fix, although infuriating at the time, but would I buy a latest model of any make with all the gizmos and electronics - not a chance.

Two words that still strike fear into mere mortals - Fiat and electrics!!

I have seen no evidence that anyone else's vans are broadly any better, although some of 'em cost a lot more?

No doubt I will now be told how wonderful some makes really are!!

Forgot to say. Hello Rich. How are you doing?

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-11-27 4:07 PM

I'd be interested if you see the message return on occasions in the future Brian.

I've just been and tested mine again. This time, first time through I got the display, second I didn't.

I've never really seen it as an issue since the last 'van was very similar in its (intermittent) behaviour).

Tried again this morning, and still no gauge! I'll await their response and see if I can get answers to what, exactly, the new software is expected to achieve. When one buys software, all one buys is a licence to use it, on the licensor's terms.

 

When one buys a vehicle, it seems the manufacturer assumes/retains rights of intervention that are not clear in scope. Whose van is this, that Fiat has a right to intervene but not to explain the basis for the intervention, or its consequences? Is the vehicle mine, or do unspecified parts of it remain the property of Fiat? If the latter, which parts? Just, as they say, askin'! :-)

[Brian Kirby]

Partial update. Van went into Fiat Professional garage on Wed 9 December on instruction from Fiat. Fiat had confirmed to me that they would liaise with the garage while the fault analysis progressed. I have had no direct feedback from Fiat.

 

Not fully clear on why, but the diagnostic tool they were using, which I assume is that used when they recalibrated the oil level sensor, could not be used due to a problem with their WiFi network. Result, "IT guy" summoned from their head office.

 

I phoned for progress over the next few days, and understand the network glitch was fixed and the dashboard gauge reinstated, but the general failure warning then came back on. This Thursday they had developed a further problem with the diagnostic tool, which they call a "micropod".

 

"IT guy" then re-called! They next advised that the micropod would not talk to the van (although, as the receptionist seems not to understand the details, I don't think he is more than vaguely aware of what won't actually work with which, or why)

 

One conversation with the service manager was more informative. He said they were going to try swapping the oil level control unit with that on one of their own vans, to see if "mine" was causing the problem. I do not know whether this hardware swap delivered a definite answer before the micropod problem arose. The van remains in the garage this weekend (after 12 days!) because they have to tidy up, but proposed on Friday that I remove it Monday 21, (so that it is not in their workshop over Christmas) and re-arrange any continuation after the Christmas.break.

 

I have discovered that the micropod plugs directly into the OBD port, and "talks" over WiFi to a laptop/tablet on which the diagnostic software is loaded. I do not know whether the micropod itself has any diagnostic capability, but assume not.

 

So, it seems there are various possible problems with either software or hardware, on either the van, the micropod, the laptop/tablet, or the WiFi network. The problem being that no-one yet seems to know which, or where, as each needs a different skill-set to resolve. I think it is probably time (past time? :-|) for someone from Fiat, with different hardware and proven software, to step in.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if, by repeatedly intervening in search of solutions, the garage technicians are now creating additional problems, rather than solving the initial problem that I described at the beginning of this string. Anyone got any suggestions/observations please?

[Robinhood]

The "micropod" is likely to be a bluetooth or WiFi OBD interface (with no embedded intelligence other than that supporting an OBD connection) talking to the laptop, where all the "intelligence" is (normally in a Fiat supplied software package if main dealer), via a bluetooth or WiFi connection.

 

It isn't uncommon to get configuration issues with such interfaces (at either end) that would stop any communication (and would require someone with a little basic knowledge to reconfigure. Of course, there might also be a physical hardware problem. On probabilities, the connection issue is more likely to be with the kit, rather than the 'van.

 

The concept is similar to that for MultiECUscan, where I use a USB wired connection to the laptop, but bluetooth/wireless is readily available (and avoids some of the physical constraints of the wired versions).

 

MultiECUscan is pretty powerful at diagnosis/basic reconfiguration, but, of course, doesn't have access to the various FIAT provided software updates, or indeed the ability to apply them.

 

I do wonder whether, in some way, (either via a fix or by other intervention) they "deleted" the oil level sensor from the configuration, thereby nullifying the fault, and restoring it has recreated the fault. (I'm making the assumption that, given it is documented as an option not always fitted, that reconfiguring to delete it would be possible).That would lead one to believe it might be a faulty sensor (not uncommon, I believe) and would resonate with the plan to do a swap-out.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-12-20 12:30 PM

1 The "micropod" is likely to be a bluetooth or WiFi OBD interface (with no embedded intelligence other than that supporting an OBD connection) talking to the laptop, where all the "intelligence" is (normally in a Fiat supplied software package if main dealer), via a bluetooth or WiFi connection.

2 It isn't uncommon to get configuration issues with such interfaces (at either end) that would stop any communication (and would require someone with a little basic knowledge to reconfigure. Of course, there might also be a physical hardware problem. On probabilities, the connection issue is more likely to be with the kit, rather than the 'van.

3 The concept is similar to that for MultiECUscan, where I use a USB wired connection to the laptop, but bluetooth/wireless is readily available (and avoids some of the physical constraints of the wired versions).

4 MultiECUscan is pretty powerful at diagnosis/basic reconfiguration, but, of course, doesn't have access to the various FIAT provided software updates, or indeed the ability to apply them.

5 I do wonder whether, in some way, (either via a fix or by other intervention) they "deleted" the oil level sensor from the configuration, thereby nullifying the fault, and restoring it has recreated the fault. (I'm making the assumption that, given it is documented as an option not always fitted, that reconfiguring to delete it would be possible).That would lead one to believe it might be a faulty sensor (not uncommon, I believe) and would resonate with the plan to do a swap-out.

Thanks Bob.

1 ..is what I had reasoned my way around to thinking.

2 Quite! It's a computer! Spanners no use! Garage mechanics, not computer technicians? :-)

3 That is logical.

4 My understanding is that this is all (rather expensive!) Fiat kit.

5 Something like that is what is bugging me, plus the time they've had the van, with the resulting multiple interventions, and not helped by their inability to recount what they've actually done!

[Deneb]

The micropod is what is known as a vehicle communications interface (VCI). It isn't a diagnostic tool, but simply the "plug" that is inserted into the OBD diagnostic socket in the vehicle, which acts as a translator between the vehicle and the diagnostic software installed on a computer terminal. Traditionally, these were hadwired devices connected to the terminal/computer by cable, but wireless devices are more commonly being used as they free the workshop from having to get vehicles within a specific distance of the terminal, as defined by the length of the connecting cable, or moving the terminals to the vehicles, with the consequent problems of cables running through the workshop, and associated risks.

 

I can't comment on the issues that the dealer claims, or the competence of the technicians trying to use the equipment, but I did find some information a couple of days ago, relating to the generic warning light issue. It is a few years old now, and I no longer have access to the system to search for updates, but it is a Technical Service Bulletin for the Fiat Ducato (BT017.16) relating to the generic warning light issue.

 

As I mentioned previously, it states that the warning light may illuminate due to incorrect starting procedure (not waiting for the instrument cluster self-checks to complete before starting the engine, or stopping and restarting the engine several times in quick succession). What I hadn't realised though, was that when this occurs, the warning light is activated by an error code P250A-64 "Fault in oil sensor - signal not plausible",

 

In these circumstances, there is no fault with the oil sensor. It is simply that starting the engine before the vehicle communications networks have booted and completed their self checks can allow the engine ECU to receive a signal that is outside of its normal expected range.

 

I don't know, but in the circumstances it seems possible to me that any subsequent software update might simply have altered the ECU behaviour to either not communicate with the oil sensor until a certain delay time has elapsed, or to ignore an implausible signal for a similar period.

 

Which does make me wonder how many sensors might have been replaced for no reason, since if the diagnostic code logged is as indicated above, and it can be cleared in the workshop by several subsequent ignition on/off operations, the recommended fix was to educate the customer on the correct starting procedure for the vehicle!

 

Of course, there should be someone in each Fiat Professional dealership who is conversant with checking for the existence of technical bulletins as solutions for particular issues, but it does seem to me that the technicians often simply replace parts according to what the diagnostic codes are suggesting to them, without any actual fault finding, until they either fix the fault or not.

 

It may also be that the cause of your problem is different, or that the "fix" for the issue has changed since the bulletin I am referring to was issued, but I thought it worth mentioning, since the involvement of the oil sensor does seem significant.

[onecal]

Has anyone who has had the oil level sensor replaced recently, had any further issues without having a "software update" "recalibration or deleted"?

Regards to all

 

[Brian Kirby]

Right, further update! :-) But first, my thanks to all who have contributed above. My thanks also to Deneb for the explanation of micropods, and what they do/don't do. It's always helpful to understand what others are talking about. :-)

 

'Phone call (which my wife picked up) this morning from garage saying all now done and vehicle ready for pick-up. I then 'phoned Fiat Customer Services to see whether they had any detail on the cause, and the cure/s, of the problem/s. They had already spoken to the garage and had obtained the same message, and were aware of the problem with the mocropod. I was also advised that there would be no charge, and that Fiat and the garage had arrived at an agreement over costs. So that was good! :-D My contact also said she would phone back after we had got the van, to check whether any problems had arisen en-route.

 

I then 'phoned the garage and arranged to collect.

 

When I arrive I was simply handed the key and, when I asked about the cost, was told there was none. I queried the micropod problem, and was told that they could not communicate with the van, so they could not interrogate fault codes, but when they had started it this morning, it had started normally, with all dashboard lights extinguishing normally, and with the oil level indication appearing and then disappearing as normally expected. They could, therefore offer no explanation as to what had actually been the problem, or what had cured it.

 

So, into the van, and turn on ignition, and watch. All exactly as described. Started engine, and it settled down to normal tick-over. Dove the 17 miles home, on a mix of urban, and two lane and dual carriageway extra-urban roads, through persistent rain, gloom and low cloud, during which the wipers were going, the headlights used, the rear fog lights used, and the relevant speed limits "closely" observed, and it ran very well without hesitation or deviation (repetition being irrelevant! :-)). So, apparently solved.

 

My fiat contact phoned as promised to enquire how it had run and, in the light of my further information regarding the micropod still not "talking to the van", so that the garage were unclear as to what had been wrong or what had been the cure, said she would keep the case open for a few weeks so that I would have (Covid permitting) opportunity to drive it around to see whether the fault re-appeared. So, as things stand, no-one knows what went wrong, or why, or what (apparently) cured it!

 

My final comment is that the Fiat Customer Services lady I dealt with was an absolute delight to talk to. Fluent, informed, informative, and did exactly as she said she would. Well done Barnes Van Centre of Shoreham, and Fiat! Now all I have to do is prove the pudding! :-D

[onecal]

Thanks for the update Brian and I hope all now is OK, we all get through this Covid to happy motor homing times again soon.

I find it a little strange that they could offer no explanation as to what had actually been the problem, or what had cured it.

Again I would love to know if anyone out there who has had the oil level sensor replaced recently had any issues without having a "software update" or "recalibration or delete"

Regards to all

[Brian Kirby]

The problem, Brendan, is that without an interface between the van's computer system and the diagnostic computer system, they can't interrogate the van system to see whether there are remaining fault codes or, apparently, to see (I assume the date, or serial. code) of any installed software updates. It just seems to be that whatever they last changed or updated seems to have worked, but they can't confirm that.

 

In our case, the sensor was not identified as faulty, but somewhere between the sensor, its control unit, and the main control unit, something was giving a duff signal that caused the general failure warning light to stay on after the engine had been started.

 

Personally, based on the fact that the fault only arose when the van was parked pointing up on our drive, but never when parked level or pointing down, I think the real fault was that they slightly over-filled the sump when the van was serviced (checked with the dip-stick). Then, with the van pointing up, the slope would cause the sensor, which is apparently on the "downslope" side of the sump, to "see" an even higher oil level, that I assume was "out of range". But, when the van was pointing down, or level, the sensor would "see" a lower, "within range", oil level that would not trigger a response.

 

I assume this has arisen quite often before, causing Fiat to issue revised software to "recalibrate" the sensor (but which actually recalibrates how the signal from the sensor control unit is interpreted by the main control unit). Equally, of course, it is possible Fiat don't want the plebs to know this! :-D

[onecal]

Hi Brian,

Hopefully you will have no more issues with it , I have found the sensor and wiring to sensor + ECU pins to be very problematic. I think your last line hits the nail on the head, one would wonder why they don't? Delighted to also read "no charge incurred "

regards to all

Stay safe and happy motor homing

B

 

[Brian Kirby]

Thank you Brendan. I hope so too, and yes I was pleased I wasn't asked to pay for that lot - assuming Barnes had managed to keep tabs on the time they'd actually spent on it.

 

Now, here's the oddity. As above, when I collected the van to drive it home everything worked exactly as described in the manual. So, to begin the proof of the pudding, I decided we'd use it yesterday to deliver Christmas presents to our daughter. Turn on ignition, all lights go out - but no oil level indication! :-S Drive to daughter and park while delivering presents, return to van, turn on ignition, all lights go out plus oil level indication appears/disappears as manual. :-| OKeeyy! :-D

 

Went out to van this morning, turned on ignition but did not start, all lights out and no oil level indication. Ignition off, waited a bit, then ignition on again, and the same result.

 

So, question. Is it feasible that the oil level indication is sensitive to gradient? This would coincide with my previous experience. Van parked nose up, no oil level indication. Van parked level or nose down, indication appears. It would seem logical to cancel the oil level signal when on a gradient as, due to the position of the sensor at the rear of the sump, the steeper the hill, the more inaccurate the reading would become.

 

I had previously noted that the Hill Holder function, which requires a gradient greater than 5% to operate, does not function on the drive, but does on steeper inclines. Several posts above indicate that the dashboard indicator is a bit of a Will-o'-the wisp, so is it feasible that its appearance is governed by inclination, as I have hypothesised previously? The Hill Holder, to determine whether inclination is +/- 5%, must presumably have an inclinometer, so is this perhaps used to cancel the signal from the oil level sensor when gradients exceed 5%?

 

Any ideas?

[Robinhood]

...as I posted above, Brian, it is rather hit and miss on mine (though more hit than miss), and was on the previous 'van.

[onecal]

Brian did they at any point tell you the actually changed the sensor itself?

[Deneb]

It's certainly possible that the oil level indication could be suppressed due to the inclination of the vehicle, but whether Fiat implement that I have no idea.

 

My car does not have a physical dipstick. The "raw" oil level reading from the sensor is available at any time with diagnostic equipment, but if the conditions for presenting an "accurate" reading are not met (not parked on a level surface, too soon after stopping the engine, etc.) the ability to read the oil level through the instrument cluster is suppressed by the cluster module.

 

I enclosed the word accurate in quotation marks because the manufacturer, in their wisdom, decided that the driver only needs to be told that the oil level is either OK, too low or too high, whereas readings taken directly from the sensor are reported in 100ths of a millimetre.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-12-23 5:54 PM

...as I posted above, Brian, it is rather hit and miss on mine (though more hit than miss), and was on the previous 'van.

Yes, it was your post I had in mind. I don't rely on the dashboard indication, so it's absence doesn't bother me, but having the van in Barnes' workshop for 12 days while they and Fiat were trying to work out why it failed to appear after the sensor was re-calibrated (whatever that actually means), hadn't exactly restored my confidence in the vehicle - especially as the micropod was still unable to communicate with (I was told the van) on the day I collected it. They are assuming it is all working as it should, because it did so when parked on flat ground at their premises (I also suspect they were heartily glad to see the back of it!).

 

The manual is unequivocal that it will appear when the ignition key is advanced to the "MAR" position. So, being a simple minded lad, I therefore assume that is what should happen. :-) Yes, I know!! :-D

 

I was concerned, after the recalibration, that the absence of the dashboard indication might mean that the process had resulted in some other, unintended, "collateral" change to the software, possibly resulting in the van going into limp home mode, or in some other fault warnings inexplicably arising. So, I asked Fiat if they could explain its absence. Their response was to take the van back to Barnes, when they would liaise over the new fault. The further 12 days at Barnes was the result of that, with a still open question as to whether there are fault codes on the OBD that cannot be read because their micropod can't access the van.

 

At present, neither Fiat nor Barnes can tell me if the sensor output is somewhere suppressed when the van is out of level (as seems logical), or if so, how that is achieved. I was half hoping Nick Fisher (euroserv) might make one of his occasional visits to the forum and say if he knows, but he seems to have bowed out since he was made MMM technical editor. Simply put, I don't trust machines that have moods!

[Robinhood]

My experience of both vehicles and "professional" dealers leaves me somewhat underwhelmed, which is why (already having the requisite laptop) I invested in MultiECUscan.

 

It isn't perfect, but it is very useful, and actually quite simple to use.

 

Apropos this particular issue, it would be able to put your mind to rest on whether or not there were any outstanding stored codes (and clear them if necessary). Having just had a look, however, on my version, and unless I'm overlooking something, there is absolutely no mention of the oil level sensor anywhere (neither in being able to test the function, nor being able to "exercise" the associated dashboard lights), which puts it in a minority of things that can't be checked/tested. (This may well be due to its very transient nature of functioning under normal use, i.e. for a very short time after ignition on - the use of an OBD reader such as multiECUscan requires the ignition to already be on, and so that transient effect can't be measured).

 

(Incidentally, it isn't displaying now, and isn't throwing codes :-S )

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Bob. Fiat have said monitor how it goes, which also intrigued me. So I'll just take the van out more often than usual pro tem (assuming tier 4 permits! :-S) and see if anything shows up.

 

At least my Fiat contact is a sheer delight to talk to! If anything transpires I'll post some more - in case anyone else runs into a similar problem.

 

In the meantime, and in view of the date, a very Merry Christmas to all. :-D

[onecal]

You can back probe the pins with a good meter , This can prove if the sensor is working correctly or in fact getting correct voltages

Not difficult at all with the correct equipment

Merry Christmas and a safe New Year to all

B

 

[Robinhood]

Brian,

 

I went and tried again after my last post, and the display appeared.

 

Whilst it is far from conclusive (and I'm going to have to do a bit more testing) I'm not convinced that it hasn't got something to do with the "wake-up" I've already referred to.

 

It certainly appears that, if I enter the 'van, quickly insert the key, and turn to "Mar", the display fails to appear. On the other hand, if I enter the 'van, sit in the driver's seat, wait for the date/time etc. display on the dash (that appears when you open the door) to disappear, then turn the key to "Mar", it does appear.

 

A bit more testing to do on that, I think, and it's a bit cold for that here tonight, but I am going to check it out later.

[Brian Kirby]

onecal - 2020-12-24 3:21 PM

You can back probe the pins with a good meter , This can prove if the sensor is working correctly or in fact getting correct voltages

Not difficult at all with the correct equipment

Merry Christmas and a safe New Year to all

B

Brendan, thanks very much for this. I have the download of the similar document provided as above by Ray Cripps and kindly "forumised" by Keith, but is an earlier document aimed at the X250 Ducatos, whereas yours has been quite widely edited to resolve a few typos, a couple of which involve the use of "V" where it is clear from yours that "mV" was intended! Is it possible to have a link to the document itself please, or could you point me to a source? I note your attachment is .jpg and not .pdf so am wondering if the source document may not be downloadable?