วีดีโอ

Glad it helped!

The thing is, on some cars, it doesn't affect fuel trims at all. Here's why, it's not the exhaust gas that changes the fuel trims. Exhaust gas doesn't have appreciable amounts of o2 in it, so it doesn't change the o2 sensor reading on some cars. If the egr system is capable of flowing enough volume, relative to the cylinder charge volume at a given rpm, it will dilute the charge enough to cause a misfire. It's the extra 02 from the unburned charge that makes the effect happen. However, if you do a web search, most reputable sources simply say that egr flow will not affect fuel trims on a maf engine. It depends on displacement, maximum egr flow, intake design etc..... The bottom line is, you can not rule out unwanted egr flow, as the cause of a fuel trim issue on a maf system, without testing it by some other means. If your smoke test comes back good, but it still looks like a vacuum leak on the trims, you better look close at that egr.

No problem, hope it helps some people!

@@tradito Technicians analyze fuel trim data when trying to get a direction to start more pinpoint type testing. Some literature on the subject has (erroneously) led people to believe that (on all maf systems) egr flow has no effect on fuel trims. This proves otherwise. It may help prevent many technicians from making a mistake due to misinformation that is sometimes presented as fact.

@@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC thanks. so deleting the egr can have effect on fuel consumption?

The point is, when analyzing fuel trim data for drivability problem, a defective egr system cannot be ruled out simply because it's on a maf engine.

Removing the fuse stops the faulty module from running the battery dead. After you recharge the dead battery, you can start the car.

Hi, I can give you a few pointers. You could choose to go after the paracitic draw (battery going dead), or the cluster being inoperative, they may or may not be related, but you have to start somewhere. I would start with the cluster. Make sure the cluster is malfunctioning while you run each test. Start with a code scan from a good scanner, see if you can enter the instrument cluster data, you'll likely find it isn't communicating. If it's the only module not communicating, verify power, grounds, and communication wires with an oscilloscope, at the module. If you have multiple modules not communicating, you'll need to figure out what network they are on, and diagnose it ( there are plenty of good videos on TH-cam, including some of my own to guide you). Above all, keep an open mind, and follow the data! Hope you find it!

I have a 2019 same exact thing happened after jumping off had to check the terminal fuse and unhook neg side of the battery for 1 minute

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks! I can't say I've ever seen this exact failure either. I really enjoyed this one, it was definitely out of the ordinary.

Glad it helped! Thanks!

Thanks for your business! I enjoyed this diag, it was somewhat unusual in the way it failed, and I enjoyed tracking it down.

​@@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC I'll be sure that the exhaust leak is not as bad next time 😅😅😅

Glad it helped!

Hope that gets you back on the road!

Out of respect for my customers privacy, I never disclose the cost of past jobs. You can get a general idea of the cost of the repair (at a dealership) from a web search. I was able to save my customer substantial money off the dealership cost. Thanks for your interest, feel free to call me if you would like an estimate!

Thanks! Sorry to hear you closed your shop. I was checking out your channel, and I was a heavy equipment mechanic years ago myself. If you're ever in the neighborhood with time to kill, give me a buzz, I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

Glad it helped

Thanks!

I'm most concerned with the fact that a manufacturer can call anything they want a security function, and that businesses only will be allowed to perform them (preventing individuals from working on their own cars.) What about car lots, and fleet shops, they can't work on their own cars without insuring themselves against damaging their own cars?! It's just a ridiculous power grab.

The car manufacturers are most definitely collaborating with nastf on this (their own site clearly states that what procedures are a security function will be determined by the manufacturers). Currently you may be able to do many functions through sps, but we'll see what is allowed once this takes affect (you'll note that most everyone is accessing sps via an aftermarket j2534). As for the insurance, it will prevent owners from servicing their own cars (nastf also requires proof of ownership of a buisness tax ID numbers etc.) FYI my information indicates that Autel is already on board with this, we will have to wait and see what companies do not choose to comply. What about gm's global a vehicles? They currently seem to consider any module with a vin programmed into it (on a network) to be a security protected against rewriting a used module. Will they require a nastf login to replace any module now? According to nastf it's up to them now. That's too much power for the manufacturers, and robbing car owners of their right to repair what they own. I don't have a problem with preventing felons from having access to program keys, if our justice system functions properly (right now that's a discussion all to itself for everyone to judge on their own). Personally, I think we ought to hold the criminals stealing cars to strict justice, and not punish the car and shop owners by making it more difficult (and expensive) to repair their cars. Scanners don't steal cars, people steal cars.

@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC The program is between the aftermarket scantools and nastf. I haven't seen anything about changes between oem software and nastf. Just the voluntary program with aftermarket scantools. I mean, they didn't send me any emails about changes with oem software and nastf. If cheverolet wanted to use nastf for security functions, they would have already done so with the newest security they actually made it easier if you use their own software and not aftermarket. And Ford made it impossible to do anything new security with aftermarket software until they find a way to hack it again. The global a bs is just to force people to buy new modules. I don't think it's for security, just a cash grab. Even the mdi2 is made by bosch. So, the j2534 devices are already aftermarket. I don't think they care about that, but they definitely care about selling new modules and making money off sps2. There exclusively using nastf for keycodes and other oems are using it for keycodes and security functions. But the key making software on aftermarket scanners is reverse engineered. To have nastf support them scanners and make it okay to use would be a spit in their face. Right now, 2023 vehicles are being done by everyone through sps2 without nastf and 2023 Ford with fdrs with nastf. If they wanted aftermarket scantools to do these cars. I don't think they would make these security changes. Gm is keeping their own records on who makes keys on what cars. Why would they change that? They make money off the job, and they got a record of who did it. If anything, I'd say they would push it. Nobody likes their software bootlegged, and now their own security partners are teaming up with the aftermarket bootleged key programmers. Yea, it's good for theif but not good for there own sales of there own software. Just my thought. I personally would be upset if I were them. But it doesn't matter whether the stuff is getting server based. Eventually, doing an american car will be like making a key for a euro car. You will he changing eeprom data unless you're using oem tools. I agree autel is probably on board, but there are not idiots. All they gotta do is put their software on another brand they have done that 2 times already. They will have their cake and eat it too. Hello otofix im1 and auro im600🤣

We"ll just have to wait to see what each manufacturer decides to give access to, and what scanner manufacturers get onboard. The oems are definitely in this though, check out the website for yourself. It's the oems way to start to get control of what's happening with the aftermarket tools. They want to get all the major aftermarket scan tool manufacturers onboard, then the oems can change their requirements to whatever they want. You might want to see who nastf is, their board of directors has people from toyota, gm, opis (drew technoligies) etc... www.aftermarketmatters.com/mechanical-repair/nastf-election-results-for-2023-board-of-directors/

@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC I support nastf and have a vsp. I'm just saying when they sent us all the email. They never mentioned oems changing anything on their end. Just between aftermarket scan tools and nastf. My beef is with the AM tools that do this because there being a secret about it, and it was never mentioned when purchasing these tools. I got 8 scanners. I only see autel doing it out of my 8, and autel makes up 2 of them.

We'll have to just disagree on that, I support car owners right to repair over nastf. None of this affects me in the least, I have a legitimate buisness, and can get a vsp any time I want to pay their fee. I just don't want people's rights taken away, even if it does drive more buisness to me. I don't want it that way. I want customers to come to be because they want to, not because they're forced to.

I agree, seems like a way around right to repair, and a way to promote planned obsolescence for the manufacturers.

Glad you liked it!

This cloning software will only do saab ecms, what kind of Dodge module are you tring to clone? Year/Make/Model/Module type.

The customer may want to do that at a later time, (they're known to cause ionization codes on some cars) but as of right now, they're not causing the issues the customer was trying to correct. His main complaint was going into limp mode from the (false) throttle position sensor codes, and reoccurring injector circuit fault codes. So far these codes have not returned since ecm replacement.

Thanks, I think the automotive industry should put much more emphasis on the importance of a thorough diagnosis.

I had a P15A0 on my 2012 Terrain and changed the mode switch it was sticking. Cleared code and t/drive 100 miles no code. Next day remote started and another 100mi drive and it came back with code again as pending with no ses light. I didn't check voltage as I thought it would be fixed. I bought as is recently no other codes came back (p0603). P0442 (permanent) could not clear. Any other ideas

Also changed battery for the p0603. Engine runs good with no lights on dashboard and everything works. Code reader with no engine data

​@@JimSchaut-it4lh that code alone just indicates a failure in the eco mode switch circuit. Since the switch you replaced didn't fix it, you'll need to do some diagnostics. It could be a broken wire, or the module itself may be bad.

Thanks for the reply Jess. Background on Terrain as I know it. Bought it at GMC dealer as is. Asked what's wrong with it and he said the exhaust was broken. Car Fax showed Engine replacement at 84k. Has a GM reman dating 6/22 so I bought it and it ran good and looks good with no warning lights, thought it was a good deal. Has 98k now. Had broken flex pipe (aftermarket) and noticed about 4 inches of movement going from rev to Dr. Had flex pipe replaced and they said engine mounts were ok. I figured that was that was the reason for sold as is because flanges missing they would have to replace the cat and exhaust system. This info may not have anything to do with the problem I'm dealing with now, just a FYI. I'm running out of space so I'll start a new thread soon

After exhaust repairs I went after the P0603 Keep memory alive code witch seems to be related to low voltage. Battery checked ok,replaced starter with new Ac Delco unit, relays and fuses. During testing of starting circuit found the terminal in the connector for the solenoid had lost its tension so I replaced the connector. During the repairs and testing I found extra ground wires, one from negative battery terminal to the engine block and frame to block so that tells me someone has been trying to fix this problem Pryor and gave up. (Sold as is). Got it wormed up and road test ok. 2 minutes later crank to start and 1 click and no crank, key off and then cranks and starts. Ses and security lights on P15A0. Replaced eco switch and t/c switch also was sticking, popped top of switch off, pulled sliding part out (gross) and released base with pocket screwdriver. Terminals looked clean so I popped in new GM switches. Put larger battery from my p/up and road test for 2 days 300ml. Next day drove 10ml stopped at store and damit click no crank then crank and start P15A0 again. I can't figure out how these two problems can be related. Does the eco mode have its own module or is it in the BCM, I can't pull bcm codes and need schematics. I hate electrical problems!! Would the key/fob. Ign switch, immobilizer have any like problems