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
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... > Jeff Strickland > wrote: >> >>And, to clear up an important detail, I thought my CAT was clogged. My >>fuel >>mileage went into the dumper and the power fell off even more. I had every >>indication of a motor that could not breathe, and I suspected the CAT as >>the >>problem. It turn out the muffler has dozens of baffles and stuff inside, >>and >>something came apart and blocked the passages that the exhaust goes >>through. >> >>The CAT that failed the encounter with a hammer was having a connection >>problem, the clamps would not hold because there was not enough bite, I >>sought to enlarge the hole so the pipes would fit together deeper. The >>plan >>was a good one, the execution was bad. Oh well ... >> >>So, my position is that the CAT is very robust, and not a likely failure >>item. If the sensor reports a failure of the CAT, my money is on the >>sensor >>first, and the CAT second. > > Okay, we have a problem here. There are basically two kinds of converter > problems. First of all we have problems that actually block the exhaust > line, which are the kind you're talking about. And those problems, as you > note, are pretty rare. > > But there are other converter failures, where the converter no longer is > effective at reducing emissions. If you have an older car and you live in > a state that doesn't do emissions testing, you'll never know when these > failures happen. And sadly, they happen all the time. > > If you have a newer car with a second O2 sensor on the output of the > converter, and the converter fails, you'll get an error message saying > that the converter has failed. And if you are in a state with emissions > testing, you'll be told you didn't pass the test. > > You'll find if you look that the average lifespan of a converter is > somewhat > short of 100,000 miles, but that they mostly fail in such a way that you > aren't noticing. > --scott > It is my humble opinion that this type of problem -- loss of effectiveness -- is rare. I would suggest that a CAT should last the life of the car for the vast majority of owners. Yes, the CAT might fail, but I suggest that the first thing to fail will be the sensor. The sensor is a relatively fragile device that lives in a hostile environment. The sensor will fail before the CAT. I've not heard of a lifespan for a CAT. I drove a '94 BMW until it read 225,000 miles and was hit by another driver. I have a current '94 BMW with over 130,000 miles and the CAT is strong. My daughter has an '00 BMW that is quickly approaching 150,000 miles and the CAT works good. I have a '97 F150 with 110,000 miles and no problems with the CAT. Every car I own has more miles than you suggested as the life of the CAT. Nobody in my family has ever bought a CAT, and the only CAT I've bought was to replace the one that I badly deformed while trying to correct an unrelated exhaust system problem. I'm not sure there is a stated life for a CAT, and I seem to recall reading that they want the CAT to be a life item for the car that it is installed in. As far as I know, the only thing that can happen, short of physical damage -- the seams opening, that sort of thing -- is that the operator can feed the vehicle's fuel supply some kind of product that is not good. I don't know what not to feed a CAT, other than leaded gasoline, which I don't even know where one could buy that anymore. I suppose there's a possibility that aviation gas might be leaded -- but I don't know one way or the other -- and it could be put into a car. My advice is that if one gets a Failed CAT Code from the OBDII system, test and replace the sensor before suspecting the CAT itself as a failure item. The OBD II system has a sensor that looks specifically at the CAT, but the actual failure item is the sensor itself, and the OBD II system has not got a means of checking and evaluating the sensors themselves. Any code that involves a sensor in the exhaust stream is likely to be caused by the sensor itself, not the hardware that the sensor is looking at. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
Jeff Strickland > wrote:
> >It is my humble opinion that this type of problem -- loss of >effectiveness -- is rare. I would suggest that a CAT should last the life of >the car for the vast majority of owners. Yes, the CAT might fail, but I >suggest that the first thing to fail will be the sensor. Could be, but how would you know? >I've not heard of a lifespan for a CAT. I drove a '94 BMW until it read >225,000 miles and was hit by another driver. I have a current '94 BMW with >over 130,000 miles and the CAT is strong. My daughter has an '00 BMW that is >quickly approaching 150,000 miles and the CAT works good. I have a '97 F150 >with 110,000 miles and no problems with the CAT. How do you know any of the converters are good? Are you in a place where you are getting annual emissions testing? >Every car I own has more >miles than you suggested as the life of the CAT. Nobody in my family has >ever bought a CAT, and the only CAT I've bought was to replace the one that >I badly deformed while trying to correct an unrelated exhaust system >problem. I'm sure this is the case, but that's not to say you weren't driving the car with a completely ineffective converter for hundreds of thousands of miles. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... > Jeff Strickland > wrote: >> >>It is my humble opinion that this type of problem -- loss of >>effectiveness -- is rare. I would suggest that a CAT should last the life >>of >>the car for the vast majority of owners. Yes, the CAT might fail, but I >>suggest that the first thing to fail will be the sensor. > > Could be, but how would you know? > Check the sensor. >>I've not heard of a lifespan for a CAT. I drove a '94 BMW until it read >>225,000 miles and was hit by another driver. I have a current '94 BMW with >>over 130,000 miles and the CAT is strong. My daughter has an '00 BMW that >>is >>quickly approaching 150,000 miles and the CAT works good. I have a '97 >>F150 >>with 110,000 miles and no problems with the CAT. > > How do you know any of the converters are good? Are you in a place where > you are getting annual emissions testing? > Yes. >>Every car I own has more >>miles than you suggested as the life of the CAT. Nobody in my family has >>ever bought a CAT, and the only CAT I've bought was to replace the one >>that >>I badly deformed while trying to correct an unrelated exhaust system >>problem. > > I'm sure this is the case, but that's not to say you weren't driving the > car with a completely ineffective converter for hundreds of thousands of > miles. Except I would fail smog check long before I drove thousands of miles, not to mention tens, or hundreds of thousands. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:50:53 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote: > >"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... >> Jeff Strickland > wrote: >>> >>>And, to clear up an important detail, I thought my CAT was clogged. My >>>fuel >>>mileage went into the dumper and the power fell off even more. I had every >>>indication of a motor that could not breathe, and I suspected the CAT as >>>the >>>problem. It turn out the muffler has dozens of baffles and stuff inside, >>>and >>>something came apart and blocked the passages that the exhaust goes >>>through. >>> >>>The CAT that failed the encounter with a hammer was having a connection >>>problem, the clamps would not hold because there was not enough bite, I >>>sought to enlarge the hole so the pipes would fit together deeper. The >>>plan >>>was a good one, the execution was bad. Oh well ... >>> >>>So, my position is that the CAT is very robust, and not a likely failure >>>item. If the sensor reports a failure of the CAT, my money is on the >>>sensor >>>first, and the CAT second. >> >> Okay, we have a problem here. There are basically two kinds of converter >> problems. First of all we have problems that actually block the exhaust >> line, which are the kind you're talking about. And those problems, as you >> note, are pretty rare. >> >> But there are other converter failures, where the converter no longer is >> effective at reducing emissions. If you have an older car and you live in >> a state that doesn't do emissions testing, you'll never know when these >> failures happen. And sadly, they happen all the time. >> >> If you have a newer car with a second O2 sensor on the output of the >> converter, and the converter fails, you'll get an error message saying >> that the converter has failed. And if you are in a state with emissions >> testing, you'll be told you didn't pass the test. >> >> You'll find if you look that the average lifespan of a converter is >> somewhat >> short of 100,000 miles, but that they mostly fail in such a way that you >> aren't noticing. >> --scott >> > > > >It is my humble opinion that this type of problem -- loss of >effectiveness -- is rare. I would suggest that a CAT should last the life of >the car for the vast majority of owners. Yes, the CAT might fail, but I >suggest that the first thing to fail will be the sensor. > >The sensor is a relatively fragile device that lives in a hostile >environment. The sensor will fail before the CAT. > >I've not heard of a lifespan for a CAT. I drove a '94 BMW until it read >225,000 miles and was hit by another driver. I have a current '94 BMW with >over 130,000 miles and the CAT is strong. My daughter has an '00 BMW that is >quickly approaching 150,000 miles and the CAT works good. I have a '97 F150 >with 110,000 miles and no problems with the CAT. Every car I own has more >miles than you suggested as the life of the CAT. Nobody in my family has >ever bought a CAT, and the only CAT I've bought was to replace the one that >I badly deformed while trying to correct an unrelated exhaust system >problem. > >I'm not sure there is a stated life for a CAT, and I seem to recall reading >that they want the CAT to be a life item for the car that it is installed >in. As far as I know, the only thing that can happen, short of physical >damage -- the seams opening, that sort of thing -- is that the operator can >feed the vehicle's fuel supply some kind of product that is not good. I >don't know what not to feed a CAT, other than leaded gasoline, which I don't >even know where one could buy that anymore. I suppose there's a possibility >that aviation gas might be leaded -- but I don't know one way or the >other -- and it could be put into a car. > >My advice is that if one gets a Failed CAT Code from the OBDII system, test >and replace the sensor before suspecting the CAT itself as a failure item. > >The OBD II system has a sensor that looks specifically at the CAT, but the >actual failure item is the sensor itself, and the OBD II system has not got >a means of checking and evaluating the sensors themselves. Any code that >involves a sensor in the exhaust stream is likely to be caused by the sensor >itself, not the hardware that the sensor is looking at. > > > > > > I would suggest that you don;t know what you are talking about. The sensor that monitors the catalyst is just a second o2 sensor. If the second sensor tracks the first sensor, the converter is not functioning. It's that simple. It is possible, but not likely, that the conveerter could fail in such a way that the sensor would not pick up the failure, but extremely unlikely that the sensor would indicate a bad cat if it was functioning properly. Both sensors would need to fail, and in such a way that they did not cause an O2 sensor failure code, in order for this to occurr. EXTREMELY unlikely, when you actually know how they work. When I say it is POSSIBLE the cat could fail and not be caught by the sensors, it is because the oxidation catalyst uses up oxygen, and the reduction catalyst frees up oxygen, but generally not the same amount each way. The front O2 sensor oscilates with the O2 concentration of the exhaust gas. When the exhaust is lean, the oxidation catalyst works making co into co2 and burning off unburned hydrocarbons.- so the second sensor does not track. When the exhaust is rich the reduction catalyst works,removing O2 from NOX, making nitrogen and O2. The O2 is generally stored by the cat to feed the oxidation catalyst, so the O2 concentration of the exhaust remains more or less constant at the back sensor. Multiple mode failures in the converter could, concievably, occur which would provide a relatively constant O2 level at the rear sensor without fully treating the HC, CO and NOX. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:50:53 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > > wrote: > >> >>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... >>> Jeff Strickland > wrote: >>>> >>>>And, to clear up an important detail, I thought my CAT was clogged. My >>>>fuel >>>>mileage went into the dumper and the power fell off even more. I had >>>>every >>>>indication of a motor that could not breathe, and I suspected the CAT as >>>>the >>>>problem. It turn out the muffler has dozens of baffles and stuff inside, >>>>and >>>>something came apart and blocked the passages that the exhaust goes >>>>through. >>>> >>>>The CAT that failed the encounter with a hammer was having a connection >>>>problem, the clamps would not hold because there was not enough bite, I >>>>sought to enlarge the hole so the pipes would fit together deeper. The >>>>plan >>>>was a good one, the execution was bad. Oh well ... >>>> >>>>So, my position is that the CAT is very robust, and not a likely failure >>>>item. If the sensor reports a failure of the CAT, my money is on the >>>>sensor >>>>first, and the CAT second. >>> >>> Okay, we have a problem here. There are basically two kinds of >>> converter >>> problems. First of all we have problems that actually block the exhaust >>> line, which are the kind you're talking about. And those problems, as >>> you >>> note, are pretty rare. >>> >>> But there are other converter failures, where the converter no longer is >>> effective at reducing emissions. If you have an older car and you live >>> in >>> a state that doesn't do emissions testing, you'll never know when these >>> failures happen. And sadly, they happen all the time. >>> >>> If you have a newer car with a second O2 sensor on the output of the >>> converter, and the converter fails, you'll get an error message saying >>> that the converter has failed. And if you are in a state with emissions >>> testing, you'll be told you didn't pass the test. >>> >>> You'll find if you look that the average lifespan of a converter is >>> somewhat >>> short of 100,000 miles, but that they mostly fail in such a way that you >>> aren't noticing. >>> --scott >>> >> >> >> >>It is my humble opinion that this type of problem -- loss of >>effectiveness -- is rare. I would suggest that a CAT should last the life >>of >>the car for the vast majority of owners. Yes, the CAT might fail, but I >>suggest that the first thing to fail will be the sensor. >> >>The sensor is a relatively fragile device that lives in a hostile >>environment. The sensor will fail before the CAT. >> >>I've not heard of a lifespan for a CAT. I drove a '94 BMW until it read >>225,000 miles and was hit by another driver. I have a current '94 BMW with >>over 130,000 miles and the CAT is strong. My daughter has an '00 BMW that >>is >>quickly approaching 150,000 miles and the CAT works good. I have a '97 >>F150 >>with 110,000 miles and no problems with the CAT. Every car I own has more >>miles than you suggested as the life of the CAT. Nobody in my family has >>ever bought a CAT, and the only CAT I've bought was to replace the one >>that >>I badly deformed while trying to correct an unrelated exhaust system >>problem. >> >>I'm not sure there is a stated life for a CAT, and I seem to recall >>reading >>that they want the CAT to be a life item for the car that it is installed >>in. As far as I know, the only thing that can happen, short of physical >>damage -- the seams opening, that sort of thing -- is that the operator >>can >>feed the vehicle's fuel supply some kind of product that is not good. I >>don't know what not to feed a CAT, other than leaded gasoline, which I >>don't >>even know where one could buy that anymore. I suppose there's a >>possibility >>that aviation gas might be leaded -- but I don't know one way or the >>other -- and it could be put into a car. >> >>My advice is that if one gets a Failed CAT Code from the OBDII system, >>test >>and replace the sensor before suspecting the CAT itself as a failure item. >> >>The OBD II system has a sensor that looks specifically at the CAT, but the >>actual failure item is the sensor itself, and the OBD II system has not >>got >>a means of checking and evaluating the sensors themselves. Any code that >>involves a sensor in the exhaust stream is likely to be caused by the >>sensor >>itself, not the hardware that the sensor is looking at. >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would suggest that you don;t know what you are talking about. The > sensor that monitors the catalyst is just a second o2 sensor. If the > second sensor tracks the first sensor, the converter is not > functioning. It's that simple. It is possible, but not likely, that > the conveerter could fail in such a way that the sensor would not pick > up the failure, but extremely unlikely that the sensor would indicate > a bad cat if it was functioning properly. Both sensors would need to > fail, and in such a way that they did not cause an O2 sensor failure > code, in order for this to occurr. EXTREMELY unlikely, when you > actually know how they work. > > When I say it is POSSIBLE the cat could fail and not be caught by the > sensors, it is because the oxidation catalyst uses up oxygen, and the > reduction catalyst frees up oxygen, but generally not the same amount > each way. I know what the sensors monitor. What I said was that there is no sensor to monitor the sensors. The sensors send false data, particularly in the case of the O2 sensors _because_ the environment that these sensors operate in is very hostile. Given the specific code being discussed, P0420, all I'm saying is that the sensor is more likely a failure item than the CAT. I'm not looking at a CAT failure that is not reported, I'm looking at a reported CAT failure that does not really exist. We HAVE a code. It specifically points to the after-CAT sensor because the code that is generated can never happen from an upstream sensor. We have a false report of an very costly item failing. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
> wrote in message ... > wrote: > >>>I have 2000 Mazda Protege ES with sensor >>>before and after cat >> Remove what? >> On a 2000 you need both sensors and the cat. > > > remove the cat Why do you want to remove the cat? -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message ... > ><snipped> I'm not looking at a CAT failure that is not reported, I'm >looking at a reported CAT failure that does not really exist. > > We HAVE a code. It specifically points to the after-CAT sensor because the > code that is generated can never happen from an upstream sensor. > > We have a false report of an very costly item failing. That's my story, > and I'm sticking to it. > > We've been through this before. Your premise that the code that is generated can never happen from an upstream sensor is incorrect. P0420 is generated IF the signal from sensor #2 (post-cat) looks like the signal from sensor #1 (upstream sensor). When the system is warmed up, the signal from S1 oscillates, and on an oscilloscope, looks something like a square wave because the oxygen content in the exhaust gas is oscillating. After the exhaust passes through the cat, the O2 content in the gas is evened out so that the signal that S2 puts out has less variance in amplitude (height of the wave) and frequency (number of waves per minute) and so the signal from S2 looks different from the signal from S1. If the cat is bad, or if you took the cat out of the system and replaced it with a piece of pipe, the O2 content doesn't get evened out and so the signal from S2 looks like the signal from S1. IOW, the signal from S2 looks dead if the cat is working and looks lively when the cat is not working. If the ECU sees a lively signal, that means the cat isn't working and it sets P0420. If you get P0420, it is a good idea to check the sensors because it is easy to check, they generally have a shorter life than a cat, a sensor is cheaper than a cat, and a bad S1 can cause premature cat failure, but the cat should also be changed because the likelihood of a false P0420 is almost nil. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors
"Ray O" > wrote:
>>>>I have 2000 Mazda Protege ES with sensor >>>>before and after cat >>> Remove what? >>> On a 2000 you need both sensors and the cat. >> >> >> remove the cat > >Why do you want to remove the cat? Cause I don't have the money to replace it |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P0420 and bad oxygen sensors | [email protected] | Technology | 30 | March 20th 09 04:16 PM |
oxygen sensors | [email protected] | Technology | 1 | November 16th 07 07:30 AM |
96 SL Oxygen Sensors | tromboneguy | Saturn | 5 | December 27th 06 06:39 PM |
P0420 - Catalytic Converter and 02 Sensors - Honda Accord | [email protected] | Honda | 15 | October 7th 06 08:53 AM |
AWA [DEMAND] O2 SENSORS/OXYGEN SENSORS | [email protected] | General | 0 | December 19th 05 05:11 AM |