just like i stated hmmmmm

Matt Whiting wrote:

> maxpower wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>maxpower wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Glendon" > wrote in message
> >>>>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed @autoforumz.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Without finding
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the reason
> >>>>>>that this
> >>>>>>catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ted
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The car has about 200k miles on it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The flashing dash light gives me
> >>>>>the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.troublecodes.net/
> >>>>
> >>>>There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
> >>>>might be interesting reading.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ted
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>There is no 72, try again, I would bet its 52 (02 sensor)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Actually, I'm pretty sure that 72 is the code that my 96 Grand Voyager
> >>flashed when the catcon went bad. The funny thing was, this code isn't
> >>even in the table of the FSM! However, when the dealer read it with the
> >>scan tool, it said the issue was catcon efficiency not being in spec.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> > Matt you could be right, I was told back in 96 that on the newer
> > vehicles cycling the key was not an acuate way of retreiving fault codes,
> > On the older vehicles 1994 earlier there was no such thing as a code 72
> >
> >
>
> The MIL light did flash out code 72, but my code table in the factory
> manual didn't go that high. I found 72 via a Google search and it said
> it was catalytic convertor efficiency and this agreed with the scan tool
> at the dealer so I figured it was correct. And since replacing the
> converter, the MIL hasn't reactivated.
>
> Matt