Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-18-2010, 06:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
SteveInLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 369
Garage
Ravelco Saga

I post this information for those who may be considering the Ravelco anti-theft device. Not all installers are created equally. I recommend using an installer close to where you are and ask the installer if they follow the same installation procedures as California Ravelco. The regional installers are licensed by, but otherwise independent of the Ravelco company.

When my Powertrain Control Module failed in Death Valley, the Ford service department recommended that I have the Ravelco anti-theft device inspected to be sure it was not the cause. I live in Los Angeles, but I had the Ravelco installed while the van was at Quadvan in Portland, OR since there was some downtime before I could pick it up. I called the number for California Ravelco and learned that it would cost me $100 for the installer in my area to do the inspection. They said that if they found that the installation was not done correctly, they would bill the Portland installer. I had the inspection done.

What they discovered was the installation was done adequately and not improperly, but certain procedures that California Ravelco has were not followed such as soldering all wires instead of using butt connectors and using shielded conduit from the plug through to the firewall. Their recommendation was to have the Portland installer pay to have the installation redone. I hadn't heard anything for a couple weeks, but yesterday I was informed that the installation would be redone at no cost to me. The re-installation happened today and I am very pleased.

I know that this kind of device introduces an element of risk for the kind of failure I experienced, though Ravelco insists that the device could not have been the cause of my recent unpleasantness. My van lives on the street and knowing how easy it is to gain entry into these vans, I feel better with the Ravelco installed. I hope this information is helpful.

Steve in L.A.
__________________

__________________
2010 Red EB50 V10, Quadvan 4WD (El Guapo Rojo)
1978 VW Westfalia Champagne Edition (Pepe - gone, but not forgotten)
SteveInLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 11:47 PM   #2
Site Team
 
daveb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Turlock Ca
Posts: 9,892
Garage
Re: Ravelco Saga

So the failure remains a mystery Steve?
__________________

__________________
2006 Ford 6.0PSD EB-50/E-PH SMB 4X4 Rock Crawler Trailer

Sportsmobile 4X4 Adventures..........On and off road adventures
daveb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2010, 10:47 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
SteveInLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 369
Garage
Re: Ravelco Saga

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveb
So the failure remains a mystery Steve?
That is correct. I have a couple of theories, but no proof.
__________________
2010 Red EB50 V10, Quadvan 4WD (El Guapo Rojo)
1978 VW Westfalia Champagne Edition (Pepe - gone, but not forgotten)
SteveInLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2010, 12:08 PM   #4
Site Team
 
BroncoHauler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern New Mexico
Posts: 9,237
Re: Ravelco Saga

Glad mine was installed in California in that case. No problems that I'm aware of, knock on wood.
__________________
SMB-less as of 02/04/2012. Our savings account is richer, but our adventures are poorer.
BroncoHauler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2019, 07:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveInLA View Post
I post this information for those who may be considering the Ravelco anti-theft device. Not all installers are created equally. I recommend using an installer close to where you are and ask the installer if they follow the same installation procedures as California Ravelco. The regional installers are licensed by, but otherwise independent of the Ravelco company.

When my Powertrain Control Module failed in Death Valley, the Ford service department recommended that I have the Ravelco anti-theft device inspected to be sure it was not the cause. I live in Los Angeles, but I had the Ravelco installed while the van was at Quadvan in Portland, OR since there was some downtime before I could pick it up. I called the number for California Ravelco and learned that it would cost me $100 for the installer in my area to do the inspection. They said that if they found that the installation was not done correctly, they would bill the Portland installer. I had the inspection done.

What they discovered was the installation was done adequately and not improperly, but certain procedures that California Ravelco has were not followed such as soldering all wires instead of using butt connectors and using shielded conduit from the plug through to the firewall. Their recommendation was to have the Portland installer pay to have the installation redone. I hadn't heard anything for a couple weeks, but yesterday I was informed that the installation would be redone at no cost to me. The re-installation happened today and I am very pleased.

I know that this kind of device introduces an element of risk for the kind of failure I experienced, though Ravelco insists that the device could not have been the cause of my recent unpleasantness. My van lives on the street and knowing how easy it is to gain entry into these vans, I feel better with the Ravelco installed. I hope this information is helpful.

Steve in L.A.
Thanks for the info Steve (just found it now, 9 years later....)

It is my understanding that crimped butt connectors are fine for auto connections, as long as they have a shrink wrap over top.

was there shrink wrap over the (i assume crimped) butt connectors?

and... interesting about the "shielded conduit" I am pretty sure my local installer uses shielded conduit. I will find out.

j.
LosAngeles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2019, 10:20 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
arctictraveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,302
I don't see how the Revelco could contribute to the failure of the PCM. The Revelco is simply a device installed in series with several critical circuits like the starter and fuel pump wires. The key contains jumper wires between the pins that reconnects those interrupted circuits. If a butt splice should fail, the result would simply be a no start. I believe the conduit that was mentioned is the corrugated plastic split loom used to prevent chafing of the wires, again not likely to affect the PCM unless there was a dead short to ground with no fuse in line.
__________________

__________________
Arctic Traveller
KC6TNI
2001 GTRV
Advanced 4wd
Agile Ride improvement package
arctictraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Sportsmobile SIP or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×