High Output Alternator Resolution Discussion

Alternators have been charging batteries without blowing them up long before computers were controlling them. The regulator automatically adjusts the alternator's output to match the electrical needs of the vehicle. The computer control is not there to control the alternator's charging, it's there to control when the alternator charges to maximize fuel efficiency. The only negative to shutting the computer's control of the alternator out will be to fuel efficiency, and even that will be minimal.
 
Telco said:
Alternators have been charging batteries without blowing them up long before computers were controlling them. The regulator automatically adjusts the alternator's output to match the electrical needs of the vehicle. The computer control is not there to control the alternator's charging, it's there to control when the alternator charges to maximize fuel efficiency. The only negative to shutting the computer's control of the alternator out will be to fuel efficiency, and even that will be minimal.
Click to expand...

You appear to be making the assumption that the PCM control only reduces alternator output and there is a fail-safe to prevent output over a set point internal to the alternator. Do you have the background knowledge for that to be a fact?
It'd be great if that was the case, but I'd assume the PCM has full control of the field strength and attempting to bypass entirely could lead to significant issues.
 
Do I know for certain exactly how Ford did things? No, because I don't have a Ford background, am not a Ford engineer and do not yet have a programmer for Ford products. What I do have is an extensive background in automotive maintenance and modifications. I also know how an alternator works, and know the purpose behind the OEM's use of computer controls on the alternator. Does Ford have some sort of failsafe? Don't know and don't care. What I do know is that if the computer is told to disregard the alternator, it will. If a standard alternator with a built-in regulator is used, it will correctly charge. It isn't any more complicated that that, unless you just want to make it more complicated.
 
Telco is absolutely correct! Need more electrical power find an automotive/marine electrical specialty shop like I did. Bring vehicle state requirement, they build a marine generator that fits in existing case, maximizing output. New belt was required. Marine electrical shops do this everyday for boaters!
 
Telco said:
If a standard alternator with a built-in regulator is used, it will correctly charge. It isn't any more complicated that that, unless you just want to make it more complicated.
Click to expand...

What if the PCM tells the voltage regulator on the alternator what specific voltage and load to output? Sure, the internal regulator is doing the actual work, but the PCM just might be telling it more than "turn on/turn off".

If you replace the alternator with a "standard alternator", and the PCM cannot be adequately de-programmed, what side effects will there be? Would it be just a perpetual CEL or will the PCM go into some kind of whacky fail-safe limp-mode because it can't detect or control the alternator?

I mean, it's nice to assume that how you have always experienced things will forever be how they are to be experienced. But I usually assume that everything has the ability to be an exception to the rule.

At some point it all boils down to just trying it and seeing what happens, but it would be nice to make a more educated guess that isn't based off of generalizations.

Here's an interesting summary of what PCM alternators are: http://blog.dcpowerinc.com/2011/09/09/how-pcm-controlled-alternators-work/
 
someone try unplugging one.. do you get a cel or code?
what about alternator related codes when someone has an alt die on them? i know people have had them die, what happened?
 
Nah, not going to be that hard. The difficult part will be the computer, and what may be done with it. If disconnecting the alternator causes a code to be set and SCT can't delete it, then discussing the matter with SCT would be the next step. They claim to be as user-friendly as EFI Live (which I found out when I sent a slam-o-gram about nonsupport to them when I thought I was emailing Yahoo about an email problem) so they should be willing to do so especially if it's pointed out to them that EFI Live will change their programming to accommodate a user request.

I do feel a bit stung on the comment that I expect everything to always stay the same. This is not true. I mean 20 years ago the suggestion that I drive a Ford product was fightin' words to me, today I drive a Ford product. :D I have even installed a Ford center console in my Chevy truck. Some things will always stay the same, like an internally regulated alternator will always make whatever power the regulator tells it to so long as the alternator is spun and the regulator isn't asking for power outside the alternator's capability. Some things don't, like alternators are now PCM controlled. None of that matters though. Perhaps in the future the alternator will be controlled completely by the PCM, but that is not the case we are dealing with now and I'd prefer to deal with the problem at hand and not problems that some future generation automobile may have. We'll go under that bridge when we get to it, as Teddy Kennedy used to say.

Unplugging the alternator will set codes for low voltage if nothing else. Installing an alternator that isn't computer controlled will likely set a code, but unless it puts the car into some kind of failsafe mode when it does it won't affect the car's operation other than to set a CEL. I can see Ford making a low voltage issue into a failsafe issue, but not an inability to control the alternator if the voltages are correct. If the computer can't control the alternator but the alternator is providing the correct voltage level then it should just be a CEL.
 
Can someone get Mr. Howie to chime in on this topic since may be able attempt to shed some light as well? I am at a point where for the good of the forum, would be willing to match $75 with 20 other willing members to find a donor gen 1 and make this a project(sticky). Anyone willing to be the owner of this project so we can find an answer or put it to bed once and for all?

If it cannot be resolved, we just accept it was worth the $75 each to put it bed once and for all.

Thoughts?
 
I'm with you Marc. Worst case scenario is I make a custom bracket (and offer it to members of course) for a second alternator to fit where the hydraulic cooling fan pump goes. This would require an upgrade to an electric cooling fan but that should be done anyway as the hydraulic cooling fan system is expensive to repair.

First I think I am going to just bite the bullet and order the Ohio Generator 180 amp alternator and hope that it works like they say it will. If not I will return it, buy a smaller (60-80 amp) one wire alternator, a second battery and make a secondary power system separate from the factory PCM controlled system. These seem to be the best two options so far unless Torrie can work something out with the SCT to allow any HO alternator to work. This seems to be more difficult that I previously thought.

Also on the Steve Meade designs link that FrankLS posted I saw that guy installed a Mechman (?) alternator and had no issues with it. I am going to research this further and try to get in contact with that guy and Mechman. But the 'honey-do' list comes first....Down to the new bathroom I go to texture the ceiling, paint the walls, epoxy the floor, install the sink and cabinet, install the toilet.....
 
Just let me know. I am all in on donating to buy a project vehicle.
 
Ok,

I read most of this thread, but not all, so if I missed something, I apologize.

Could an HO Gen 2 alternator be put on in place of a Gen 1? Then Torrie might be able to re-write code to tell the PCM to leave the alternator switched on at all times. This would allow the Gen 2 alt to internally regulate voltage, and function as alts did years ago. If the PCM doesn't like this, then maybe Torrie could re-write more code, telling the PCM to ignore this, and just monitor battery voltage. Then only throw a CEL or idiot light if the voltage goes out of spec. Just a thought.

---Mike---
 
The gen2 alterantors mount totally different than the gen1. Although I could fabricate a custom bracket to accept the gen2 in the gen 1....hmmmm
 
It probably won't communicate very well with the PCM as the language is different between generations.
 
From my limited understanding of vehicle electronics, the alternator does not communicate with the PCM. The PCM just monitors everything, and decides what to do, without the alternators permission, (shame on it). Kind of like why so many of us have ex-spouses. :D
 
Sorry, I can't help myself... I was despised,,, and then de-spoused!!!

rimshot.gif
 
04_Sport_LS said:
From my limited understanding of vehicle electronics, the alternator does not communicate with the PCM. The PCM just monitors everything, and decides what to do, without the alternators permission, (shame on it). Kind of like why so many of us have ex-spouses. :D
Click to expand...

But if the language is different, as it is, the pcm can't monitor the alternator.
 
Wow, this is still going on. The only thing that needs to be answered is this: can this Torrie fellow tell the computer to ignore the alternator? If yes, this is doable. Turn the alternator functions off in the computer. The only thing the computer needs to do is set the CEL for over/undervoltage conditions. Then install a regular alternator with a regulator (henceforth referred to as alt) as has been used without a computer since the late 1960's. The alt will provide 14V at all times when the engine is running, and current will be limited by engine RPM, then vehicle needs, then the alternator's maximum capable output, in that order. There's no question that converting to a standard alternator will work, the only issue is making the computer ignore the alternator and I see no reason why Torrie would not be able to do this since from the way you folks talk about him he's able to alter the SCT program to define what it will talk to.

Case in point - my 2000 Silverado came with a mechanical fan. I installed electric fans from a 2006 Silverado, wiring it in so the computer can control the power relays. The original program did not have an electric fan listed, so it ignored all electric fan commands. I then turned the fans on in the computer. Now that the computer knows the truck has electric fans, it will turn them on and off as needed.
 
What about the guys who don't want to go the entire programming route? Between the HO alternator, SCT, and tune, this is getting expensive. Is there a way we could emulate a alternator being attached to the ECM somehow? It seems like all it would be doing is looking for voltage and switching on or off. Might go mess around with the meter under the car tomorrow.
 
1. you gotta pay to play.

2. if you aren't gonna drop the coin for a big alt and supporting mods, why do you need one anyway? you probably won't be dropping coin on a big enough system to justify this.
 
I am no stranger to the "pay to play" mentality, all this does is set me back on my time frame. Electric fans on a Gen 1, two batteries, a JL 1000/1 and two JL 300/2 will eat a ton of power. I was just offering another possible (cheaper, simpler?) solution to this problem on our cars. But F me right?
 
Not FU, Ancillery. Building a faker circuit is never the way you want to go on this sort of thing if it can at all be avoided.

First, the execution of the circuit would require that you know exactly how the system works under all conditions so that you can fake out all conditions. This would likely require a custom circuit board that can receive a piggybacked signal from various sensors along with a program that makes a decision based on the sensor feedback so that it can send out the correct fake signal.

Second, such a feedback setup would likely mask any electrical problems until they became severe enough to affect the feedback circuit itself. Since the feedback circuit would draw so little power it would likely work with a battery too dead to run more than the radio, you'd not find out about an electrical problem until you were walking home.

Third, if you took the car into a shop to find out why some random system isn't working right and forgot about the system being on there, or didn't connect the possibility that the failure would be due to a low voltage condition, it would wind up costing a mint to fix. On a lot of problems one of the first things to be checked would be voltage, and most people would see the gauge moving correctly and see that the computer is reporting back that the electrical system is working perfectly when it wasn't. It wouldn't be until deep into the troubleshooting, after multiple unnecessary parts were replaced, that someone would start going back over the troubleshooting steps and thinking that perhaps the computer needs to be verified. When they see the computer reporting no electrical problems but test gear showing low voltage, they are going to assume that the computer is also fried.

If you build one yourself it'll take months of testing to get everything working correctly, and if you hire the work out the person you hire will want to be paid for those months of testing. Either way, it'll cost more than just getting the programming fixed and none of that will take into account the extra expense of false data causing repair problems for seemingly unrelated problems.
 
Ancillery said:
I am no stranger to the "pay to play" mentality, all this does is set me back on my time frame. Electric fans on a Gen 1, two batteries, a JL 1000/1 and two JL 300/2 will eat a ton of power. I was just offering another possible (cheaper, simpler?) solution to this problem on our cars. But F me right?
Click to expand...

not F-ing anyone.

just saying it ain't cheap, but you are already aware.

researching, designing, building, testing, troubleshooting, and implementing a faker circuit is gonna take time and money as well. and as far as i can tell, no one is quite sure what the pcm operating parameters are. whatever route you end up taking is gonna take a little while.
 
Update- Voltage adjustment sent from Torrie is a no go. He increased voltage to 16 and same issue. I was going to ask him to increase the low range but just lef
 
e since my old alt has been repaired and I just need to get the thing back on the road.

As far as "locking out" the PCM control, he had no answer for what I was asking and I doubt he'd investigate the issue.

So...this leaves someone to remove the pin from PCM to alt which I believe is the middle pin; however, Im not sure if this is correct based on the schematics posted on the first page, and I have the HO alt removed to investigate further. It looks like, as Hite has found, the Ohio gen alt or wrangler are the way to go...and for $395 for 180amp from a respectable company (though quality has gone down some according other forums) is not a bad deal. Hopefully Hite can get his hands on one soon to verify. For those who suggest building a circuit or dual alts, that's a lot more time, money and headache than a $395 HO alt that works.

And for those looking, stay away from National Quick Start. Customer service is horrid, it takes forever to get stuff and the alts for the LS dont work
 
I think I am going to order the Wrangler alternator soon and try it. Then, if that doesnt work, I will return it and order the Ohio Generator alternator and try that. I am ordering the cheaper alternator first to see if it will work and save other members some money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 170 (members: 0, guests: 170)
Back
Top