Hard Start Ford Glow Plug System Tests (July 2006)

 

Basic O2 Sensor Tech Training (Counterman circa 2006)

 Not sure the date this was published in Counterman Magazine but probably in 2006.

Kenny@ggauto.repair

Foreign Service Toyota Evap Series (Motor 2006)

 This was a very comprehensive and useful series. It is old now but I'd hate to see it lost and Motor magazine has a great archive. Let's use it. 

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

You get some good tips and better understand the EVAP system. 

Kenny@GGAuto.Repair

 

Cabin Air Filters

 

What is the deal with trouble codes anyway?

 One of the most common falsehoods you'll hear concerning car repair is that trouble codes will tell you what is bad on your car. Just read the code and know what the problem is. There is no truth in that statement and, for some reason many people believe it anyway. I imagine it gets tossed out there most often by misleading ads from makers of code readers. I can tell you this, if a code reader would diagnose a car problem I wouldn't spend any time learning how systems work, how to test operation or definitely wouldn't spend so much money on testing equipment. 

If you were driving a car and noticed a problem that you felt should be checked out, you would bring the car in and describe what you are noticing. Coming in and saying something is looking like a problem on my car, with no more information, then I'd have a really hard time determining what you are seeing that you are worried about. A warning light coming on in your car is the equivalent of that. The light is just saying hey I noticed something. If it stopped there I would have an extremely hard time determining the problem. If you said I noticed a problem with the engine sometimes being hard to start, idling rough and black smoke, then I would know what sort of things to start checking to determine the problem. Trouble codes are the way the car tells you more about what it is seeing that looks like a problem. It is giving you a place to start testing to determine the problem. 

If I need more information from you about the problem, I ask for it. If I need more from the car computer, I use a scan tool to look a bit further. So, I ask for it. 

Let's walk through one. 2012 Ford Edge Limited 3.5 Because the Malfunction Indicator Light is on and because that just means there is a problem, I need codes. I don't need codes to tell me what is wrong, because they don't. But I do need codes to know what sort of concerns the computer has noticed. 

The car says, I have noticed the fuel mixture is rich at times on both engine banks. My job then becomes determining why the computer is seeing rich fuel mixture. I can ask questions with the scan tool and look for more data such as what conditions were present last time the problem was seen (freeze frame), if the problem is present at this time (scan data) and look for common causes (TSBs). So if I'm looking at a scan tool for a bit, it isn't because I am being told what the car needs, it is because I am using the stored data to get more information so that I can determine what is causing the problem. In this particular case, the Evaporative Emission Purge Valve was stuck open and drawing fuel vapors into the engine when it should not have been. The O2 sensors noticed the resulting rich fuel mix and set the rich codes. 

Testing the valve found the problem. Replacing the valve repaired it. 

Kenneth Hayes

G&G Auto Repair

Kenny@ggauto.repair

The Most Widely Believed Myth (motor age magazine circa 1996)

 I have saved this article for many years, but not the magazine issue so I'm not sure the exact month/year it was originally published. It rang so very true then and unfortunately even now. I've done my part over the years, trying to educate my customers about what diagnostics actually is and how it is accomplished but I will admit that I am outnumbered by the sheer amount of false information out there. Anyway, I'll reproduce the article here. .... Kenny

Motor Age

The Most Widely Believed Myth 

It is a widely believed myth. In fact, it may be the most widely believed myth in modern American society. It is a myth that is detrimental to the automotive repair industry in general and to its most skilled and experienced members in particular. Yet, despite this fact, it it actually believed by some members of this industry. It is the diagnostic machine myth - the belief that machines diagnose automotive faults.

Those of us who diagnose automotive faults for a living, whether said faults are of a mechanical, electrical or computerized nature - and all of these are subject to the belief that some machine exists which can diagnose them - know this to be a ridiculous belief. This is not to say that those pieces of test equipment which are commonly referred to as 'diagnostic machines' are not useful in the course of fault diagnosis. They are, in fact, necessary to the process in many instances. Regardless of this, however, these machines are simply tools to be utilized by highly skilled individuals, if an accurate diagnosis is to be made. The tracing of an automotive fault requires that a skilled individual determine where the fault lies, based on the results of tests made using 'diagnostic machines' and other pieces of test equipment. In addition, the specific machines to be used and the exact tests to be made must be decided upon by someone possessing the proper, high level of knowledge and skill.

Motorists not only find this myth easy to believe, but they are comfortable with it. In fact, most of them are far more comfortable with the belief that machines or, in some cases, on-board computers will tell repair personnel where faults lie than they are with entrusting a diagnostice task to automobile technicians, whom they find hard to envision as being highly knowledgeable and skilled.

Unfortunately, the myth lives on unchecked, despite the fact that it harms our industry by allowing motorists to believe that an automotive fault, or even a number of faults, can and should be diagnosed for a fixed, nominal fee. This thinking can make it virtually impossible to convince repair customers that several hours of testing time might be needed to diagnose faults in high-tech systems when extensive, hands-on tests are required. It also allows them to believe the greatest skill that we must possess is that of attaching the 'all-powerful' machine to their vehicle. 

The diagnostic machine myth is a major factor in our industry's inability to gain motorists' respect because it allows them to mentally avoid giving us credit for the technical skills that we must possess in order to repair modern automobiles. Dispelling this myth is not something that can b accomplished by individual members of the repair industry. However, an organized effort by this industry's members and its many organizations could go a very long way toward correcting motorists' false perceptions of us and the work we do.

Kevin Carpenter owns Automotive Electronics Specialists in Sacramento, CA. He has specialized in driveability and electrical systems diagnosis for more than half of his 21 years in the automotive industry. Prior to opening his specialty shop, Kevin received an associate degree in Computer Electronics from Sacramento's American River College. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have an answer and the myth has just grown over the years. I guess I just keep doing my part and explain as I can. 

Kenny

Diagnostic Tech: 1998 Buick Century (originally published July 2008)

 Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Diagnostic Tech: '98 Buick Century 3.1

This particular Buick came in with a no-crank complaint. I found the battery to be discharged but after a charge the starter still would not engage. Everything seemed in working order with the key on. The lights all worked. I watched the headlights while turning the key to start and they stayed brightly lit. There was no starter noise, not even a solenoid click. A quick check of fuses with a test light found no problems. I suspected at this point that the car was getting no power to the starter solenoid from the ignition switch.

One of the fuses that tested good was the crank signal fuse. The crank signal fuse is powered from the ignition switch. Put the ignition switch in start position and power should be directed to the crank signal fuse. The power should go through the fuse to the PCM at pin 23 of the C2 (Clear) connector.

Since I had power at the fuse I knew the ignition switch was working. I didn't know if the power was reaching pin 23 of the C2 PCM connector but I also didn't know if I was getting power to the starter solenoid. I only suspected I was not. What I decided to do next, since the starter was very accessible, was to check for power at the solenoid. I clamped a jumper wire to the S terminal at the starter solenoid and the other end of the wire to a test light placed under the hood in a position I could see from inside the car. Since the test light did not indicate power when I turned the switch to start position I knew I had no power to the S terminal of the starter solenoid.

This starting system uses a crank relay. When the PCM sees the crank signal from the ignition switch on pin 23 of the C2 connector the PCM can close the crank relay by grounding pin 76 of the C2 connector. When closed, the crank relay allows the power from the 40 amp crank fuse in the underhood junction block to reach the transaxle range switch. When the range switch is in neutral or park position the power will pass through the switch to the S terminal of the starter solenoid.

This seemed like a good time to connect a scan tool to the car. With a scan tool I might see if there was a reason for the PCM to not engage the starter, such as a problem with the anti-theft system.

Well, there was a problem with communication. My scan tool would not communicate with the PCM. When I have that happen I try to make sure I've entered the vehicle information correctly. The information was correct so I tried to use the OBDII system to access the datastream instead of the GM system but still had no communication. It seemed like a good time to try a different scan tool. The second scan tool didn't help. I still had no communication. I checked for power and ground at the diagnostic connector. There should be battery power at pin 16 and ground at pin 4.

The power and ground were fine. A good class II data line communication can be easily seen with a graphing meter. The class II serial data is at pin 2. Sometimes there is a lot of communication, sometimes less. I had communication activity but I couldn't tell if any of that was from the PCM. There are several modules sharing the class II data bus.

What I could tell is that the bus was operating and there was communication on the line. What I wanted to know next is if I had a good bus at the PCM. The class II serial data line at the PCM is at pin 59 of the C1 (blue) connector. I used the graphing meter to check the data line at the PCM by backprobing pin 59 and I had a good bus. Next I cut the dark green wire feeding pin 59. That would mean that any activity I measured on the PCM side of the wire was coming from the PCM and any on the harness side was coming from another module. The harness side had a good signal. There was no signal from the PCM. I made a check of powers and grounds at the PCM connectors and pronounced this PCM dead.

I left the data wire cut and after connecting a new PCM I had a communication signal on the graphing meter coming from the PCM. I repaired the wire and reconnected the scan tool to look for communication. Success! I had a datastream on the scan tool. A peek at trouble codes gave me P1610 Loss of PZM/BCM Serial Data, P1626 Anti-theft System Fuel Enable Circuit and P1631 Theft System Password Incorrect. I guess the most worrisome part was the car still would not start. The starter would not engage. I suspected the P1610 was related to my having the open wire at the PCM connector and that the two Theft system codes could be handled with a password relearn. I cleared the codes from the PCM and used the following procedure to learn a new password.

Turn the key off, wait at least 30 seconds.

Turn the key to start, just as if you are starting the car, then release the key to run, just as if it had started.

The security light should either be flashing or on steady. Just let it do whichever it likes until it goes out completely. This can take as long as 30 minutes.

Once the security light goes out turn the key back to off and wait another 30 seconds.

Go back through the same procedure, turning the key to start, waiting for the light to go out again. You may have to repeat the entire process as much as a half-dozen times.

The first time you turn the key to crank and the car actually starts you are done.

On this car, the third time I hit crank it fired up. I had to go back into the PCM data to clear any codes that set during the procedure (P1630 and P1631) and then it was outta here!

Kenneth Hayes

AKA Deranger