Battery replacement help

   #21  

PetrolDave

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
4,428
Reaction score
4,422
Location
South Molton, UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=1423
I checked the resistance of both leads between each point all were ok ,
Resistance checks on leads that carry many amps isn't the best method - you need to know that the leads can carry LOTS of current without causing a voltage drop. An easy way is to use a high wattage bulb like a halogen headlamp bulb.
I have cleared the fault and started the car twice since the original scan and the fault frequency stayed at 62
Might be worth trying to clear the fault code now that the fault frequency isn't going up.
 
   #22  

chillout1983

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
103
Reaction score
9
Location
UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=162783
Hi thanks for your reply I will keep an eye on it and sort out something to load test the cables.
 
   #23  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
32,272
Reaction score
23,019
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I have checked the ground from Battery to the chassis I have also checked the positive to the bus bar on the fuse box in the engine compartment while doing this I checked the resistance of both leads between each point all were ok
No, I mean the connection between the virtual module 61 (which is in the same physical module as your 19 and 46) and the battery data module (which is at the negative lead of the battery) and shows up as a sub-system in 61.

I have cleared the fault and started the car twice since the original scan and the fault frequency stayed at 62
That's somewhat puzzling. What method did you use to clear this fault?

-Uwe-
 
   #24  

chillout1983

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
103
Reaction score
9
Location
UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=162783
Hi I just cleared the fault on module 61 on it's own I expected it to increase in frequency with every start as the system as would be under load,

Sorry Uwe I am a bit confused at what I need to check

One thing that confuses me is the date of fault on module 61 being in 2015
 
Last edited:
   #26  

chillout1983

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
103
Reaction score
9
Location
UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=162783
Hi Uwe

Thank you for reply the fault has returned with a date in 2015 however I have a new Fault Code for a data bus issue with a headlight with a realistic date , would it be sensible to replace the negative battery lead as it likely wont cost much ?

Thanks
Chillout
 
   #27  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
32,272
Reaction score
23,019
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
would it be sensible to replace the negative battery lead as it likely wont cost much ?
I doubt the problem is with the negative lead itself. If it were, this would manifest as slow (or no) cranking by the starter motor.

-Uwe-
 
   #28  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
4,192
Reaction score
4,724
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
@chillout1983: Extrapolating Uwe's numbers and if the date of first-record for the battery regulator can be believed, the fault was first logged on 2015.07.02 and since then it has re-occurred on 62 subsequent ignition cycles (let's ignore the possibility for multiple records within a single ignition cycle).

On a very rough calculation this means that the 62 occurrences happened over about 2,100 days - so the probability of occurrence is approximately once in every month (likelihood of happening on any day=3%)

So IMO, your observation ain't no surprise!! Maybe clear the DTC and keep a watch on re-occurrence-perhaps?

Don
 
   #29  

chillout1983

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
103
Reaction score
9
Location
UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=162783
Hi

It was an old scan I used as a reference for Battery replacement so the 62 occurrences were between December 2020 and February 2021 , I was thinking to replace the lead so it has a new sensor rather than the lead itself being faulty also I was thinking it's odd how the fault has re occurred since being cleared with a 2015 date however during that time a new headlight fault has occurred with a 2021 date the 2015 date is odd as it wasn't present before the battery replacement.

Thanks
Chillout
 
Last edited:
Top