Informal poll about tire pressure sensor - Isata 5

[CyberShanks]

Interesting read, figured I would just throw some commentary. On my 2010 Ram 2500 the thresholds are not programmable by either HPTuners or H&S Performance on the truck electronically, but it does have a factory light load setting for the rears which lowers them from 80 down to 45 I believe. My wife's 2012 Jeep can have thresholds altered via HPTuners and is a nice feature since we have higher load capacity tires on it that don't take as much psi to support the vehicle. My 2016 Challenger, once ECM has been decrypted is fully adjustable with HPTuners as well. All 3 of these vehicles will learn the new locations of tires post a rotation automatically, just takes ~5 minutes of drive time.


Jim

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by Mike946

Made the move on our rig today, won't drive it until Monday, when we drive to the dealership and are finally getting the rest of our solar plus hopefully some other issues delt with. The first picture is where it was and the second is where it is now. At least the holes are behind the drivers seat so we won't see them.Attachment 265011Attachment 265012

The 2 modules need to be separated as far as possible. As delivered by RAM the bigger one is about where you have yours and the smaller one is on the center of the cab. We no longer have that wall in the center onto which it could be attached, but you should move the smaller (antenna) as far away from the receiver as possible.

[Mike946]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

The 2 modules need to be separated as far as possible. As delivered by RAM the bigger one is about where you have yours and the smaller one is on the center of the cab. We no longer have that wall in the center onto which it could be attached, but you should move the smaller (antenna) as far away from the receiver as possible.

It did seem odd that there was that much wire between the 2. If the current setup won't work I will keep this in mind when repositioning.

[Mike946]

Originally Posted by Lvnthedream

Mike, that’s about how high I was able to move mine when that didn’t work. The post, I think #28 shoes it higher. Thank for giving this a shot. I’ll be interested in your outcome on Monday.

Well the drive today was 24 minutes not all continuous though and only at max 80 km/h. The drivers inside rear still was not reading. All others are. Will monitor on the way to Phoenix later this month, hopefully they all come around.

[vlamgat]

It took more than an hour for my missing reading to come in. After that it displayed and disappeared on and off for 1500 miles. Then I moved the antenna as far from the receiver and as high as possible. It's worked continuously ever since.

[AZCreeker]

I moved it as high as possible, had to trim a bit of the plastic cover flange. Rock solid since the move.

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by AZCreeker

I moved it as high as possible, had to trim a bit of the plastic cover flange. Rock solid since the move.

Thats where I have mine too but you still need to move the small/antenna module inside the cover as far away from the larger module as the wire will permit. This is how Ram install them. Dynamax put them both behind this cover which interferes with reception.

[bclemens]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

Thats where I have mine too but you still need to move the small/antenna module inside the cover as far away from the larger module as the wire will permit. This is how Ram install them. Dynamax put them both behind this cover which interferes with reception.

negative

We actually never installed the cover to start, still had reception issues. We only started installing the cover because customers said "for this amount of money we would expect this to have a more "finished look". Why would Dynamax just put this on there exposed and ugly. I am very disappointed"

So, I had our guys make up a cover. We have tried removing the cover as well and it is has not appeared to make a difference in our testing.

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by bclemens

negative

We actually never installed the cover to start, still had reception issues. We only started installing the cover because customers said "for this amount of money we would expect this to have a more "finished look". Why would Dynamax just put this on there exposed and ugly. I am very disappointed"

So, I had our guys make up a cover. We have tried removing the cover as well and it is has not appeared to make a difference in our testing.

Brian, its not the cover that is a problem. Its great! Its the positioning of both modules under that cover. While at your factory I had the chance to inspect the unmodified chassis' in the back lot. The ones with the rear cab wall still intact. The large module is mounted pretty well where we are now placing it so that the cable comes out of the B pillar horizontally. The small (antenna) module is mounted at the full extent of its cable in the center of the cab. There is even a dedicated hole for its plastic rivet.

So all I am saying is that for optimal reception, that small module needs to be removed from its proximity to the larger one under the "very nice finished look cover" and mounted as far away from it as the cable will allow and preferably as high as possible. We cannot get it as optimally positioned as the factory did because there is nothing in the center area onto which it can be mounted. So I positioned mine above the large module (retaining the cover) as far away as the cable will permit.

What I am unclear about at this point is whether either has a designated mounting config. The large module has some arrows on it but that does not say whether the arrows should point up or down. The small one has no markings and is mounted by the factory with the rivet on the lower edge. I have mine with the rivet on the upper edge because that gave me more distance.

I do know that antenna placement is crucial in most RF applications.

[bclemens]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

Brian, its not the cover that is a problem. Its great! Its the positioning of both modules under that cover. While at your factory I had the chance to inspect the unmodified chassis' in the back lot. The ones with the rear cab wall still intact. The large module is mounted pretty well where we are now placing it so that the cable comes out of the B pillar horizontally. The small (antenna) module is mounted at the full extent of its cable in the center of the cab. There is even a dedicated hole for its plastic rivet.

So all I am saying is that for optimal reception, that small module needs to be removed from its proximity to the larger one under the "very nice finished look cover" and mounted as far away from it as the cable will allow and preferably as high as possible. We cannot get it as optimally positioned as the factory did because there is nothing in the center area onto which it can be mounted. So I positioned mine above the large module (retaining the cover) as far away as the cable will permit.

What I am unclear about at this point is whether either has a designated mounting config. The large module has some arrows on it but that does not say whether the arrows should point up or down. The small one has no markings and is mounted by the factory with the rivet on the lower edge. I have mine with the rivet on the upper edge because that gave me more distance.

I do know that antenna placement is crucial in most RF applications.

Ah gotcha...


I'll go look at that again and see where they install the arrow.

As a side note, we also took a "flyer" at ordering future chassis with remote start. Some at Ram "thought" that it gets an "external antenna" with that option coming out of the module. We were willing to try anything.

[Larry-NC]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

Brian, its not the cover that is a problem. Its great! Its the positioning of both modules under that cover. While at your factory I had the chance to inspect the unmodified chassis' in the back lot. The ones with the rear cab wall still intact. The large module is mounted pretty well where we are now placing it so that the cable comes out of the B pillar horizontally. The small (antenna) module is mounted at the full extent of its cable in the center of the cab. There is even a dedicated hole for its plastic rivet.

So all I am saying is that for optimal reception, that small module needs to be removed from its proximity to the larger one under the "very nice finished look cover" and mounted as far away from it as the cable will allow and preferably as high as possible. We cannot get it as optimally positioned as the factory did because there is nothing in the center area onto which it can be mounted. So I positioned mine above the large module (retaining the cover) as far away as the cable will permit.

What I am unclear about at this point is whether either has a designated mounting config. The large module has some arrows on it but that does not say whether the arrows should point up or down. The small one has no markings and is mounted by the factory with the rivet on the lower edge. I have mine with the rivet on the upper edge because that gave me more distance.

I do know that antenna placement is crucial in most RF applications.

Starting to see why pictures are useful in understanding the experiments?

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by Larry-NC

Starting to see why pictures are useful in understanding the experiments?

Sure, never thought otherwise, only I do not have the skill or equipment to take useful shots.

Look at these. Worthless IMO. Leaning on the door against a 30 mph wind, trying to get the subject in black distinguishable against a black carpet in the context of a on going construction.

[AZCreeker]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

Thats where I have mine too but you still need to move the small/antenna module inside the cover as far away from the larger module as the wire will permit. This is how Ram install them. Dynamax put them both behind this cover which interferes with reception.

I did space the modules further apart than they had been mounted by DM. Might have helped because my connectivity is now 100% reliable.

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by AZCreeker

I did space the modules further apart than they had been mounted by DM. Might have helped because my connectivity is now 100% reliable.

Could easily have done. How did you mount your antenna component: with the writing the correct and readable side up, or upside down?

Look at picture 4 above - was your wiring connector on top or on the bottom? I think that makes a difference the way rabbit ear antenna rotation used to require.

[TrailWayz]

Originally Posted by bclemens

We actually never installed the cover to start, still had reception issues. We only started installing the cover because customers said "for this amount of money we would expect this to have a more "finished look". Why would Dynamax just put this on there exposed and ugly. I am very disappointed"

I was one of those that complained about the "eyesore" I considered the modules to be at the time. Words I now regret. Looking at a brand new empty coach, I thought it mattered. It does not. After loading the coach and spending time in it, it becomes visually insignificant. I'm glad you now have a cover for the new units but I apologize for whatever small role I played in the development. If I had the cover now, I would probably remove it. Just can't win.

[AZCreeker]

Originally Posted by vlamgat

Could easily have done. How did you mount your antenna component: with the writing the correct and readable side up, or upside down?

Look at picture 4 above - was your wiring connector on top or on the bottom? I think that makes a difference the way rabbit ear antenna rotation used to require.

Here is my placement cover off. I moved the two modules as far apart as would fit under the cover. Thought it might help if there was any mutual interference.

[bclemens]

OK, I took some pictures of them "placed"

I will say, that we have had some issues with the TPMS for raw chassis...so that is why we did not think the placement was really all that crucial. having said that, maybe that is the exception to the norm.

I also took some close ups so that you could see part numbers. Arrows definitely point DOWN when installed.

They are not mounted all that high. I think our best bet is to install the keyless receiver as close to center as possible, maybe as might as possible just to keep separation from the HUB. Might only be able to cover the hub...but I have an email into Dodge to confirm what part that the hub plays in all of this.

[bclemens]

PS. My Ram service rep says that the HUB (larger module) is the one that handles the TPMS.

[msusslin]

We just installed 6 new factory TPMS sensors and 6 new tires. It sure was a feat to get those from our local Ram Dealer as they could not install them in house. It took a bit convincing to just get the sensors, which they fortunately had in stock during a national shortage.
So far, after installation, the sensor worked right away as advertised and after a 50 mile drive did not cutout. They did before on most 50 mile trips.
We will report back in case they do.
At this point I will not move the sensor unit, as described by you all.

[vlamgat]

Originally Posted by bclemens

OK, I took some pictures of them "placed"

I will say, that we have had some issues with the TPMS for raw chassis...so that is why we did not think the placement was really all that crucial. having said that, maybe that is the exception to the norm.

I also took some close ups so that you could see part numbers. Arrows definitely point DOWN when installed.

They are not mounted all that high. I think our best bet is to install the keyless receiver as close to center as possible, maybe as might as possible just to keep separation from the HUB. Might only be able to cover the hub...but I have an email into Dodge to confirm what part that the hub plays in all of this.

Thanks for those. Noticeable the effort made to keep the hub and antenna separate IMO.