I only bought my I Pod yesterday so was keen to test in car

the accessory to transmit to an FM channel of yr head unit was a dud - too much interference etc

so I simply bought a Radio Shack AV changeover switch box so I can select either head unit or I Pod to go to the various amplifiers [I simply take an RCA signal from head unit so dont use the internal amps]

the quality is good - I was surprised by MP3 quality, but we are not looking at audiophile type performance in a car which is the worst acoustic environment possible plus 60 DBA plus external noise

so that means I can explore the I Pod possibilities ie thousands of songs and the ability to make songlists which grabs any song from any album in a list so you can pre program a continuous prog for a trip to WalleyWorld or whatever

also when you stop the car the I Pod remembers where you were in the prog

so head unit is relegated to radio - but Pod also has radio so I must compare quality tomorrow

hey my old 1976 volvo may not have puter controlled fuel injection but it sure is big on digital audio

My first test drive [my once a week 2 hour trip from Cairns to the Daintree to spend a few days "in the jungle"] proved fantastic with the I Pod and the sub woof was woofin as good as before with CD

also in the jungle on my quad bike it similarly plugs straight into my IBE [thats In Bike Entertainment] portal

so I can sit on the bike with fishing rod in the sea and listen to radio or music without needing to lug a whole lot of CDs with me

:D LG - Life's Good :D

And ALL this, coming from a guy who'd complained that 'puters' are the real ones at fault with modern cars...

:haha:

Chill, doc... Chiiillll....

:)

dont recall "complaining" about puters [ie microprocessors] in cars, especially as puters virtually ARE my life

what I was saying I guess was there must be perfect integration between the mechanical engineers and the electronic engineers or the old thing of "rubbish in rubbish out" applies

and I think the amount of posts here re puter control problems of fuel inject etc [even after only 2 years on the road] versus mechanical control sadly bears that out :grin:

I remember back in 1982 at a trade show I was highlighting the brand new DDC [direct digital control] system by Carrier/UTC and the Honeywell camp came over for a look and told me best to stay with KISS [keep it simple stupid] ie stick with Honeywell pneumatics for another 30 years.

well history says the digital DID take over by 10 years later but similarly with a very steep learning curve

but main issue in both automotive and air con industries as I was saying gets down to the grass roots of the ability of the mechanic usually in a remote location when the puter [or a minor sensor even] DOES give trouble and the car stops

and it is ironic that our very first major problem was in a place called Damansara from memory in KL where 3 weeks after we got our new puter controlling the building and saving like 500 grand pa in electricity, a mechanic came in to clean the filters and unplugged the puter to make a cup of tea - and total disaster and international incriminations ensued

:haha:

But that's HUMAN error, doc!

yep you are understanding - computers are totally dumb and rely on humans to not only GIVE them intelligence [via algorithms] but KEEP them repeating them there algorithms

in auto industry the actual GIVING happens in ideal circumstances by expert engineers in expensive labs so that part should be OK and also once firmware is up and going in production models it would be rare that puter itself would cause problem

the potential problems are normally that the more expansive the control strategies the more sensors will be hanging off the puter and the more scope for just one sensor failing and the whole car stops

even worse is people doing modifications themselves without the design and test facilities of that billion dollar factory