GW> GM>> Which is a useful indication that the alternator is putting out
GW> GM>> current -- on most cars, about the only indication.

GW> RJT> I'm used to vehicles with ammeters...   Most of the old mopar
GW> RJT> stuff I've been driving for years has had them in there.  Except
GW> RJT> this last one,  which for some dumb reason has a voltmeter,
GW> RJT> instead.  Why they started doing that is beyond me

GW>Cost! :-(. A supressed zero voltmeter is cheap and easy to wire, just
GW>a wire from somewhere just after the ignition switched point. An
GW>ammeter has the extra cost (probably more then the cost of the meter)
GW>of a high capacity shunt in the main feed to/from the battery (which
GW>means the starter _has_ to have a totally separate feed) and two wires
GW>from the shunt to the meter itself which have to be isolated from the
GW>rest of the vehicle wiring. A voltmeter keeps those who know very
GW>little happy, but in reality for an auto is more-or-less useless. All
GW>it tells you is if the alternator is regulating, not the useful bit of
GW>information, how much charge the battery is taking.

Not quite true. When the ign sw is first turned on (without trying to
start nor any other draw), the voltage reading is very indicative.
Further, if the voltage reading is somewhat low while driving it
indicates A: the battery was very low OR B: the alternator is not putting
out as it should.

Agreed, an ammeter is best but not totally needed.

Jay


---
 þ OLXWin 1.00a þ When it comes to being the worst, he's the best!