15 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPoCOM or Durametric?
Leading reported evidence
Use reading the diagnostic software
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I guess it varies among countries and the modern platforms used for reading the diagnostic software under discussion.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
For me the Durametric has been brilliant in looking deeper into the engine (cam deviation etc), giving me peace of mind and diagnosing rough running issues.
Leading evidence: 'Use reading the diagnostic software' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run issues' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
For me the Durametric has been brilliant in looking deeper into the engine (cam deviation etc), giving me peace of mind and diagnosing rough running issues.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Here in Australia 15% of desktops are Macs, 53% of iPhones and 82% of tablets are iPads- all using an Apple OS.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Run issues
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
For me the Durametric has been brilliant in looking deeper into the engine (cam deviation etc), giving me peace of mind and diagnosing rough running issues.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
15 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
911uk: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T000231Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I can't find anything comparing PoCOM or Durametric Enthusiast.
I want to be able to read and clear codes, log MAF voltage and cam deviation, and seeing over-revs would be a bonus but not essential.
Has anyone got experience of both, or the limitations of either?
I have what I presume is a clone MK1 cable (plus a spare) and an early 3.X version of Durametric. It's great for reading the ECU and displaying live figures, but won't read any other module in the car.
Not sure if my 98 is too early for other modules or it's just my £50 cable and software, although Durametric 3.x should do up to 2008 cars.
I have the same, it only runs on XP I believe and I have an ancient old laptop in the garage for this purpose. As you say mine won't access other modules apart from the DME reliably either. Not sure if you can even but it any more, mine was a £15 Ebay punt about 6 years ago.
For me the Durametric has been brilliant in looking deeper into the engine (cam deviation etc), giving me peace of mind and diagnosing rough running issues. I saw the other cable advertised but didn't want to be disappointed so gave it a miss.
I guess it varies among countries and the modern platforms used for reading the diagnostic software under discussion. Here in Australia 15% of desktops are Macs, 53% of iPhones and 82% of tablets are iPads- all using an Apple OS. 2020 data show a similar distribution in the UK - overall about 46%.
Seems a market worth consideration. Thanks.
There doesn't seem to be much love for the PoCOM here, so think it's the durametric then. Going to be an expensive evening with that and wheel spacers
:thumbs:
I have had a couple of durametrics (standard and Pro)
On 996s it can have black spots on its ability to communicate with some modules depending on the year - my 99 996 cab could use about 3/4 of the modules while a 98 c4S seemed to have basically everything working. Generally the engine was not an issue but never tried the fan sorry.
997s have far better reliability connecting i have found.
The other tool i have use is the foxwell NT520 - as its more portable but far less functions. For me a durametric is worth the extra, as when you need it - you need it.
Mac's don't use IOS though.
Whilst Apple have a good share of smartphones and tablets, the MAC OS computers only make up a small minority worldwide. This makes many manufacturers not bother writing another version to cater for the few.
Every PC adheres to the same hardware design principals. Mac's are completely different by design and compatibility.
