check engine light on in 97 wrangler YJ with error code reading 72
01-19-2007, 01:10 AM
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
>
>
>
>
>
<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?
>
>
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:10 AM
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
>
>
>
>
>
<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?
>
>
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:10 AM
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
>
>
>
>
>
<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?
>
>
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:25 AM
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
>
<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.
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:25 AM
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
>
<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.
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:25 AM
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
>
<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.
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 01:25 AM
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
>
<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.
>
>
>
01-19-2007, 11:39 AM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
01-19-2007, 11:39 AM
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
01-19-2007, 11:39 AM
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.