If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Glendon" > wrote in message news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@aut oforumz.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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ... > > True, but you can't economically produce gasoline that is 100% free of > contamination. Eve trace levels add up over time. That was my point. > You seemed to be implying that unless something goes amiss with the > engine, a catcon will last indefinitely. That simply isn't true. > I was making a statement based on what I assumed the mileage was, and yes I implied that the OP's catcon shouldn't have failed. But that was based on an assumed mileage which I felt reasonable. Unfortunately that is the danger of reasonable assumptions, they are often wrong. Sigh. In reality the OP's putting 25k miles a year on this van - quite a different issue. > > >>>catcons fail because the fuel mixture going into them is wrong. Too > > > > rich > > > >>>and they get sooted > >>>up. Too lean and they overheat and burn up. Without finding the reason > >>>that this > >>>catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order. > > > They fail for other reasons also, that was my point. > Well, I don't really consider an age-triggered failure to be an unexpected maintainence expense. Anything that doesen't die prematurely due to defect or other outside influence is going to naturally fail at the end of it's service life. You can hardly expect otherwise. Ted |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... > > "Glendon" > wrote in message > news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@aut oforumz.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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
maxpower wrote:
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Glendon" > wrote in message >>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@a utoforumz.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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ... > maxpower wrote: > > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Glendon" > wrote in message > >>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@a utoforumz.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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Don't buy Dodge | justme | Dodge | 10 | July 13th 05 06:40 AM |
Interesting failure mode. | [email protected] | Audi | 8 | April 8th 05 06:55 PM |
Replace catalytic converter? | Matthew | Technology | 12 | March 4th 05 05:53 PM |
Catalytic Failure | Glenn Morton | VW water cooled | 1 | November 5th 04 09:30 PM |
Catalytic Convertor Lambda Probe | Ian Gaskell | Audi | 0 | May 21st 04 05:14 PM |