Ravelco Saga

[SteveInLA]

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.

 

[daveb-SMB]

So the failure remains a mystery Steve?

 

[SteveInLA]

So the failure remains a mystery Steve?

That is correct. I have a couple of theories, but no proof.

 

[BroncoHauler-SMB]

Glad mine was installed in California in that case. No problems that I'm aware of, knock on wood.

 

[LosAngeles-ClassB]

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. :d5:

j.

 

[arctictraveller]

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.

 

[VanMiller]

I have had Revelco installed in by 2017 Chevy Express for six years. It was installed in Fremont. No problems at all.

 

[Big_ern_101]

Solder is not correct in an automotive or any other high vibration application. Its better than a walmart crimp with a pair of vice grips, but not as good a proper crimp and shrunk connection.

A hidden kill switch on the starter or fuel pump or ignition wires would be just as effective and cost dozens of dollars less.

 

[doublevan2]

Just my 2 cents -- I had a Ravelco installed back in 2021 right after buying my 2002 E350, and added window stickers "advertising" the presence of same - hoping stickers would deter any dastardly low lives from attempting the steal. "Somehow" I feel safer and "sometimes" can sleep at night !? I don't possess the "tech" knowledge or tools to do the "switch" thing myself. I'd probably turn the van into the worlds largest toaster.