Autometer Gauges off, big time!!!

Wow, I never realized how inaccurate my Autometer gauges were.
I took them out of my TSI the other day, to swap them into the AWD; and noticed that the vac/boost gauge was sitting a little low in the float block.
I work at a gauge warehouse, and I'm the calibration tech. So I brought them to work with me. This morning, I put them on the test bench. Here's the numbers I came up with.

Environmental Conditions:
Temperature: 73.9°F
Relative Humidity: 42%
Barometric Pressure: 30.028 inHg

Gauge Reading..... Calibration Bench (standard)
-20.................... -19.882
-10.................... -9.878
0........................ 0
10...................... 13.5117
20...................... 25.1447
30...................... 36.032
20...................... 24.949
10...................... 13.468
0........................ 0
-10.................... -9.87
-20.................... -19.97

I was boosting 16.5 psi according to the gauge. On the calibration bench, that turned out to be approximately 22 lbs. With a Walbro 255 and 450's, that could have toasted my motor...

I was unaware of how inaccurate these gauges were, anyone know which gauges are the most accurate? (at least a 2A according to NIST, even a 1A if I had to).

Looking at the build quality of the autometer, it looks to be a grade B (2-3-2%). That's not going to give me enough peace of mind when trying to set boost (without a logger/DSMLink).

Edit: An interesting article I found since posting this: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=1008
(Written in 2001)

Wow, I never realized how inaccurate my Autometer gauges were.
I took them out of my TSI the other day, to swap them into the AWD; and noticed that the vac/boost gauge was sitting a little low in the float block.
I work at a gauge warehouse, and I'm the calibration tech. So I brought them to work with me. This morning, I put them on the test bench. Here's the numbers I came up with.

Environmental Conditions:
Temperature: 73.9°F
Relative Humidity: 42%
Barometric Pressure: 30.028 inHg

Gauge Reading..... Calibration Bench (standard)
-20.................... -19.882
-10.................... -9.878
0........................ 0
10...................... 13.5117
20...................... 25.1447
30...................... 36.032
20...................... 24.949
10...................... 13.468
0........................ 0
-10.................... -9.87
-20.................... -19.97

I was boosting 16.5 psi according to the gauge. On the calibration bench, that turned out to be approximately 22 lbs. With a Walbro 255 and 450's, that could have toasted my motor...

I was unaware of how inaccurate these gauges were, anyone know which gauges are the most accurate? (at least a 2A according to NIST, even a 1A if I had to).

Looking at the build quality of the autometer, it looks to be a grade B (2-3-2%). That's not going to give me enough peace of mind when trying to set boost (without a logger/DSMLink).

Edit: An interesting article I found since posting this: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=1008
(Written in 2001)

DAH!!!! Are you serious?

I'm guessing by your comment, everything you use for calibration is NIST tracable from an ISO accredited source?

If that's the case, I need to get a new freakin' gauge.

DAH!!!! Are you serious?

I'm guessing by your comment, everything you use for calibration is NIST tracable from an ISO accredited source?

If that's the case, I need to get a new freakin' gauge.

Yes, I run a $35,000 Beamex Calibration bench. Running the MC5P (calibrated on 4/23/07) using the PM20C module (calibrated on 4/23/07), both of which were calibrated by Beamex, and our organization is pending ISO 17025 accreditation. We are moving into a new building and are waiting to finish the application process (so we don't have to pay again).

The standards are traceable to NIST. I wrote Autometer a friendly little message, and am awaiting their reply. I will post when I get a reply and let you know what's going on. From what I've been reading, there were a few problems with the segment gear disengaging from the pinion. Most if not all of the problem cases have been repaired, though my gauges were manufactured in '04 (out of 2yr warrantee period). So, I doubt they do anything for my case, I just wish to make sure that everyone else will be taken care of in this situation. I will be testing my gauges before installing any new ones in my car.

and our organization is pending ISO 17025 accreditation.

Who are you using for your accreditation, we use A2LA? Are you in charge of the ISO accreditation? If so, and you need any help, let me know. I'm also the QM at my lab and got us ISO 17025 years ago. I'm in the process of getting our new lab in Indiania their accreditation right now.

Just finished up their preliminary audit last week and I'm flying out to do the formal audit beginning of June. Let me know if you need some help. :)

http://www.dascosales.com/ISO17025.jpg

Perry Johnson; and no, I'm not in charge. My co-worker is, but I work pretty closely with him. I might ask for some input if we get stuck. So far, Johnson has been pretty helpful in telling us what we need, that and a lot of research.

We've already had a few audits, and I believe everything was in order upon last audit. We were just waiting to get into our new building (being completely redone) before we get it finished up.


So far, Autometer hasn't responded.


Edit: For more information on the calibration bench I'm using, go here (http://www.beamex.com/products/mc5p_specifications.html)
The Modules I run are: MC5P (control module), PM B, PM400MC, PM2C, PM20C, PM60, PM250, ET, EXT1000(XPM1000).

I also have a POC4, but am not currently using it. I have a few hand pumps around here as well: air(vacuum, 300psi), hydraulic (10000psi; for use with the EXT1000).

I also have a wika pump here.(PCS-H 1000)

I don't know if you know, but they updated the ISO standard sometime at the end of 2005. It's now 17025:2005 so you will need to add a couple sections to you QAM. There were also section name changes along with additional policies that need to be implemented.

The title for section 4.2 has been changed to Management System, 4.10 was added called "Improvement", which threw off the numbering for sections 4.11 thru 4.15.

A2LA also amended their Traceabliity addendum and added additional requirements for Proficiency Testing (PT1 & PT2). The addendum and PT requirements are specific to A2LA, but the company you are using might have something similar.

Here is my baby:

http://www.a2la.org/scopepdf/0518-01.pdf

I just got the EDXRF added last year as a new technology. Nothing like crunching a ton of SPC data to validate the methods. Damn, I hate uncertainty budgets. :)

I don't know if you know, but they updated the ISO standard sometime at the end of 2005. It's now 17025:2005 so you will need to add a couple sections to you QAM. There were also section name changes along with additional policies that need to be implemented.

The title for section 4.2 has been changed to Management System, 4.10 was added called "Improvement", which threw off the numbering for sections 4.11 thru 4.15.

A2LA also amended their Traceabliity addendum and added additional requirements for Proficiency Testing (PT1 & PT2). The addendum and PT requirements are specific to A2LA, but the company you are using might have something similar.

Here is my baby:

http://www.a2la.org/scopepdf/0518-01.pdf

I just got the EDXRF added last year as a new technology. Nothing like crunching a ton of SPC data to validate the methods. Damn, I hate uncertainty budgets. :)

Ya know, I actually hadn't really thought about it. I had seen mention of ISO 17025:2005 on a few websites, but it never really clicked that the standards could have been updated. That link of appending accreditation is pretty old, IIRC. I think we got it about 2 yr ago (when I started working here).

I looked over our QAM here at work, and we still have the old one. I'll make a mention of it to Alan (co-worker in charge of ISO). Most of what I've been concerned with is my ISO forms (we have special forms here that we have to use to follow proper procedure, and some were in definite need of updating). I still don't know how to use all 20 forms we have.:frown:

Luckily any deviations from standard procedures are outlined in our QAM, so I don't have to document each occurence, unless it is a special deviation. Right now, I am manually documenting calibration results and logging them by hand. We are waiting for Beamex to sell us the Calibration report customization software.

^The bench is really setup to be run in a major plant, and not for a calibration company/lab. With a few tweaks on the reports, everything will be dandy.

I'm not sure about PJLA, Alan would know more about their procedures and requirements.

I just do the Calibrations (CD4's, traceable to NIST= 5000+ in 2 yr)

I didn't want to post this in the last post, because it was kind of a completely different subject.

Autometer informed me that the accuracy of their gauges should be no greater than 2%fs (full scale). (My opinion here)I would in fact, hold them to a Grade A (2-1-2%).

The guy from Autometer gave me an address to send the gauge to, as well as instructions to send the gauge, and some details on the gauge's problem.

I intend on sending the gauge in to see what they say.

(The e-mail I originally sent them was short, it said [basically] I wanted to know the accuracy rating, I felt that mine was out. Later, I sent them a detailed message [after thinking about it] and told them who I was and what I did, and wanted to know how to resolve the problem [being nice, but noting that I saw that other people had similar problems].)