|
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:05:10 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:l9i0r25jnn68gvl1b940fdlkuelml6jh4f@4ax.com.. . >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:01:19 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com ... >>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:03:42 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >>>> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:567mq2lcmmf2td23fj2mo0bsfndgffg805@4ax.c om... >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:41:18 -0600, "DougW" >>>>>> <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>bspear78 wrote: >>>>>>>> I have a check engine light on, and the code is reading a 12 and a >>>>>>>> 72. >>>>>>>> I know what the 12 means, but could not find any explanation for a >>>>>>>> reading of 72. Anyone know what this means? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>72 Catalyst efficiency below required level. (Same as code 64) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This means one of two things. >>>>>>>1) your catalytic converter is plugging/cracking/failing >>>>>>>2) the O2 sensor behind the cat is failing >>>>>> >>>>>> If the downstream O2 was failing you'd get a downstream O2 fault, not >>>>>> a cat efficiency fault. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure that is true in an OBD I car. The CAT is not a likely >>>>>source >>>>>of >>>>>problems, and my money is on the after-CAT sensor going bad. >>>> >>>> An OBD I jeep wouldn't even have a downstream O2 sensor. You just lost >>>> your money. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am pretty sure that the downstream sensor can give an error that says >>>>>the >>>>>CAT is failing. This can happen because the system doesn't know that the >>>>>sensor is bad, it only knows that the input from the sensor is not >>>>>correct. >>>>>The sensor can fail in a mode that makes the system say that the CAT is >>>>>not >>>>>working when the reality is that the sensor itself has taken a bye. >>>> >>>> Wrong. A failed downstream sensor will not set a cat efficiency fault. >>>> In fact, the poorer the downstream sensor functions, the less likely a >>>> cat fault would result. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >>>> >>>> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >>>> made it. >>>> >>> >>>Well, then we're all chasing our shadows. Because, an OBD II car won't >>>have >>>a Code 72 ... >> >> Oh really? Please tell us how you came to that conclusion. >> > >Which conclusion? Your conclusion that an OBD II 1997 Jeep wouldn't flash a code 72. > >OBD II specs say that the code will be something like P0440, where there is >an alpha digit followed by 4 numeric digits. 72 does not fit the spec. 1997 Jeeps don't flash OBD II codes. They flash 2 digit numbers using the check engine light. If you scan one with an OBD II scanner, you will, however, get an OBD II code. > >Would you like the link to the OBD II spec? That won't be necessary. Please keep impressing us with your lack of OBD II and 1997 Jeep knowledge? > > > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:05:10 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:l9i0r25jnn68gvl1b940fdlkuelml6jh4f@4ax.com.. . >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:01:19 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com ... >>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:03:42 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >>>> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:567mq2lcmmf2td23fj2mo0bsfndgffg805@4ax.c om... >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:41:18 -0600, "DougW" >>>>>> <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>bspear78 wrote: >>>>>>>> I have a check engine light on, and the code is reading a 12 and a >>>>>>>> 72. >>>>>>>> I know what the 12 means, but could not find any explanation for a >>>>>>>> reading of 72. Anyone know what this means? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>72 Catalyst efficiency below required level. (Same as code 64) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This means one of two things. >>>>>>>1) your catalytic converter is plugging/cracking/failing >>>>>>>2) the O2 sensor behind the cat is failing >>>>>> >>>>>> If the downstream O2 was failing you'd get a downstream O2 fault, not >>>>>> a cat efficiency fault. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure that is true in an OBD I car. The CAT is not a likely >>>>>source >>>>>of >>>>>problems, and my money is on the after-CAT sensor going bad. >>>> >>>> An OBD I jeep wouldn't even have a downstream O2 sensor. You just lost >>>> your money. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am pretty sure that the downstream sensor can give an error that says >>>>>the >>>>>CAT is failing. This can happen because the system doesn't know that the >>>>>sensor is bad, it only knows that the input from the sensor is not >>>>>correct. >>>>>The sensor can fail in a mode that makes the system say that the CAT is >>>>>not >>>>>working when the reality is that the sensor itself has taken a bye. >>>> >>>> Wrong. A failed downstream sensor will not set a cat efficiency fault. >>>> In fact, the poorer the downstream sensor functions, the less likely a >>>> cat fault would result. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >>>> >>>> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >>>> made it. >>>> >>> >>>Well, then we're all chasing our shadows. Because, an OBD II car won't >>>have >>>a Code 72 ... >> >> Oh really? Please tell us how you came to that conclusion. >> > >Which conclusion? Your conclusion that an OBD II 1997 Jeep wouldn't flash a code 72. > >OBD II specs say that the code will be something like P0440, where there is >an alpha digit followed by 4 numeric digits. 72 does not fit the spec. 1997 Jeeps don't flash OBD II codes. They flash 2 digit numbers using the check engine light. If you scan one with an OBD II scanner, you will, however, get an OBD II code. > >Would you like the link to the OBD II spec? That won't be necessary. Please keep impressing us with your lack of OBD II and 1997 Jeep knowledge? > > > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:05:10 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:l9i0r25jnn68gvl1b940fdlkuelml6jh4f@4ax.com.. . >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:01:19 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com ... >>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:03:42 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" >>>> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:567mq2lcmmf2td23fj2mo0bsfndgffg805@4ax.c om... >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:41:18 -0600, "DougW" >>>>>> <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>bspear78 wrote: >>>>>>>> I have a check engine light on, and the code is reading a 12 and a >>>>>>>> 72. >>>>>>>> I know what the 12 means, but could not find any explanation for a >>>>>>>> reading of 72. Anyone know what this means? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>72 Catalyst efficiency below required level. (Same as code 64) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This means one of two things. >>>>>>>1) your catalytic converter is plugging/cracking/failing >>>>>>>2) the O2 sensor behind the cat is failing >>>>>> >>>>>> If the downstream O2 was failing you'd get a downstream O2 fault, not >>>>>> a cat efficiency fault. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure that is true in an OBD I car. The CAT is not a likely >>>>>source >>>>>of >>>>>problems, and my money is on the after-CAT sensor going bad. >>>> >>>> An OBD I jeep wouldn't even have a downstream O2 sensor. You just lost >>>> your money. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am pretty sure that the downstream sensor can give an error that says >>>>>the >>>>>CAT is failing. This can happen because the system doesn't know that the >>>>>sensor is bad, it only knows that the input from the sensor is not >>>>>correct. >>>>>The sensor can fail in a mode that makes the system say that the CAT is >>>>>not >>>>>working when the reality is that the sensor itself has taken a bye. >>>> >>>> Wrong. A failed downstream sensor will not set a cat efficiency fault. >>>> In fact, the poorer the downstream sensor functions, the less likely a >>>> cat fault would result. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >>>> >>>> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >>>> made it. >>>> >>> >>>Well, then we're all chasing our shadows. Because, an OBD II car won't >>>have >>>a Code 72 ... >> >> Oh really? Please tell us how you came to that conclusion. >> > >Which conclusion? Your conclusion that an OBD II 1997 Jeep wouldn't flash a code 72. > >OBD II specs say that the code will be something like P0440, where there is >an alpha digit followed by 4 numeric digits. 72 does not fit the spec. 1997 Jeeps don't flash OBD II codes. They flash 2 digit numbers using the check engine light. If you scan one with an OBD II scanner, you will, however, get an OBD II code. > >Would you like the link to the OBD II spec? That won't be necessary. Please keep impressing us with your lack of OBD II and 1997 Jeep knowledge? > > > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:14:00 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com.. . >> >>> >>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >> >> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >> made it. >> > > >Why are you dinging on me because the OP said he had a '97 YJ with OBD I? The OP never mentioned OBD anything. YOU assumed OBD I because he mistakenly called his 97 Wrangler a 'YJ', even though the trouble code indicated a cat efficiency problem. Cat converters weren't even monitored for efficiency until OBD II was mandated. See my other post regarding the difference between a flash code and an OBD II code. > >I pointed out that the YJ was a TJ in '97, and in '97 they used OBD II. > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:14:00 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com.. . >> >>> >>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >> >> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >> made it. >> > > >Why are you dinging on me because the OP said he had a '97 YJ with OBD I? The OP never mentioned OBD anything. YOU assumed OBD I because he mistakenly called his 97 Wrangler a 'YJ', even though the trouble code indicated a cat efficiency problem. Cat converters weren't even monitored for efficiency until OBD II was mandated. See my other post regarding the difference between a flash code and an OBD II code. > >I pointed out that the YJ was a TJ in '97, and in '97 they used OBD II. > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:14:00 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com.. . >> >>> >>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >> >> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >> made it. >> > > >Why are you dinging on me because the OP said he had a '97 YJ with OBD I? The OP never mentioned OBD anything. YOU assumed OBD I because he mistakenly called his 97 Wrangler a 'YJ', even though the trouble code indicated a cat efficiency problem. Cat converters weren't even monitored for efficiency until OBD II was mandated. See my other post regarding the difference between a flash code and an OBD II code. > >I pointed out that the YJ was a TJ in '97, and in '97 they used OBD II. > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:14:00 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >news:nigrq2h2vlm58ducoftq5of5rvi6khcsp9@4ax.com.. . >> >>> >>>Having said all of that, the OP says he has a 97 YJ. In the 97, it was >>>called a TJ, and in 97, the codes are OBD II. >> >> A 1997 vehicle would be OBD II, no matter what it was called, or who >> made it. >> > > >Why are you dinging on me because the OP said he had a '97 YJ with OBD I? The OP never mentioned OBD anything. YOU assumed OBD I because he mistakenly called his 97 Wrangler a 'YJ', even though the trouble code indicated a cat efficiency problem. Cat converters weren't even monitored for efficiency until OBD II was mandated. See my other post regarding the difference between a flash code and an OBD II code. > >I pointed out that the YJ was a TJ in '97, and in '97 they used OBD II. > > > |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message news:tjn0r2thspsahs0fe62phd596o42jcrkag@4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:11:08 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>news:51j0r2lejqa7apj35s5jhrni154b3c4vq0@4ax.com. .. >>> >>> >>> >>> You're both leaping to conclusions without even having a clue as to >>> how the PCM determines the cat converter's efficiency. >>> >> >>I'm not leaping to anything. If you would like to tell us how ti works, go >>ahead. but, my guess is that it will boil down nicely to, "what comes out >>of >>the CAT is not correct relative to what went in." >> >>If what goes into the CAT is not correct, then there is a code that >>specifies this condition. What comes out might not be correct, but if what >>wen it was not correct first, that is the code to fix. If there is no code >>addressing the condition of what goes into the CAT, but there is one that >>addresses what comes out, I'll put my money on the sensor as the first and >>foremost most likely suspect. >> >> >> > > And you would be wrong again. So, explain where I am wrong. |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message news:tjn0r2thspsahs0fe62phd596o42jcrkag@4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:11:08 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>news:51j0r2lejqa7apj35s5jhrni154b3c4vq0@4ax.com. .. >>> >>> >>> >>> You're both leaping to conclusions without even having a clue as to >>> how the PCM determines the cat converter's efficiency. >>> >> >>I'm not leaping to anything. If you would like to tell us how ti works, go >>ahead. but, my guess is that it will boil down nicely to, "what comes out >>of >>the CAT is not correct relative to what went in." >> >>If what goes into the CAT is not correct, then there is a code that >>specifies this condition. What comes out might not be correct, but if what >>wen it was not correct first, that is the code to fix. If there is no code >>addressing the condition of what goes into the CAT, but there is one that >>addresses what comes out, I'll put my money on the sensor as the first and >>foremost most likely suspect. >> >> >> > > And you would be wrong again. So, explain where I am wrong. |
Re: check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message news:tjn0r2thspsahs0fe62phd596o42jcrkag@4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:11:08 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >>"bllsht" <nospam@dot.net> wrote in message >>news:51j0r2lejqa7apj35s5jhrni154b3c4vq0@4ax.com. .. >>> >>> >>> >>> You're both leaping to conclusions without even having a clue as to >>> how the PCM determines the cat converter's efficiency. >>> >> >>I'm not leaping to anything. If you would like to tell us how ti works, go >>ahead. but, my guess is that it will boil down nicely to, "what comes out >>of >>the CAT is not correct relative to what went in." >> >>If what goes into the CAT is not correct, then there is a code that >>specifies this condition. What comes out might not be correct, but if what >>wen it was not correct first, that is the code to fix. If there is no code >>addressing the condition of what goes into the CAT, but there is one that >>addresses what comes out, I'll put my money on the sensor as the first and >>foremost most likely suspect. >> >> >> > > And you would be wrong again. So, explain where I am wrong. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands