Back to Forum |
Post a Response |
FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold #
Posted by Dave Jackson on March 26, 2007, 11:06 am
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by martin young on March 26, 2007, 6:33 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by d jackson on March 26, 2007, 8:39 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Cheers
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by JASON MARTIN on March 26, 2007, 10:02 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by George on March 26, 2007, 10:26 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by dave jackson on March 27, 2007, 7:52 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Cheers
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Alan Kane on March 27, 2007, 9:07 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" If it was a genuine code for knock tolerance then it should clear KOEO so either the code description is wrong or there is a system fault. The first thing I would do is get another tool plugged in. A faulty knock sensor could cause a fault that would not clear, maybe the code description is wrong? HTH Alan
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by dave jackson on March 27, 2007, 10:01 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Thanks
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Darren Bamford on March 27, 2007, 7:38 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" I will help you on this but you will have to think a bit and work for the answer. What scan tool are you using to code the injectors. Do you understand the basic injector operation on modern TCDI / HDI. ??????? Do you understand sequatial injection and its meaning????????? Why as this engine got a Camshaft position sensor????
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Dave jackson on March 27, 2007, 10:33 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" "I will help you on this but you will have to think a bit and work for the answer." looks like my dinners in the dog again "What scan tool are you using to code the injectors." CDP Pro Do you understand the basic injector operation on modern TCDI / HDI. ??????? Both acronyms by the manufacturers for High Pressure Direct injection, although mines a TDCI. well i think so. Each injector is fired alternately to coincide with each cylinders intake stroke rather than simultaneously dumping fuel in all cylinders. Why as this engine got a Camshaft position sensor???? I would say it requires the cam sensor so to determine when each cylinder is in the intake phase. How did i do Many thanks guys
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by simon richards on March 27, 2007, 10:44 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Kevin Apps on March 27, 2007, 11:15 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Darren.
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Darren Bamford on March 28, 2007, 7:55 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Firstly I would say that The CDP Pro , Snap on ,AD Mtpro and ACR are all capable of carrying out injection correction coding if done correctly. Have IDS and have benchmarked some of the above tools and they have completed the task in hand. HDI and TDCI are all acronyms of COMMON RAIL Systems. Then have a high pressure pump that generates the fuel pressure. But only one pipe comes from the high pump to the common fuel rail. High Pressure Distributor type pumps, both Axial and radial have four pipes coming from the pump to the injections. These systems are still very high pressure and are also Direct injection. Axial pumps run around 800 Bar, radial pumps @1400 and common rail range from 1500 to 2000 bar. Therefore the injectors open only when the control pressure is reached and in the order determined by the distributor section of the pump. sequential injection : Basic answer would be the injection order is the same as the firing order. Why as this engine got a Camshaft position sensor: The cylinder reference sensor informs the injection ECU of the TDC point during compression of each cylinder. quote simply because you have not carried out the correct injection correction programming. There is now loads of clues from the above text to help you and guide you to were you are going wrong. I await your findings Darren............
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Terry Wood on March 28, 2007, 9:52 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" http://www.autodiagnos.com/ford_tdci_info.pdf HTH Terry
Link: http://www.autodiagnos.com/ford_tdci_info.pdf
|
Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by dave jacko on March 28, 2007, 5:41 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Darren thanks for the cryptic clues but as i believe i am coding these injectors correctly i could probably have spent all week trying to work them out. However, when programming with the CDP-Pro i have been made aware by the distributor Autocom Ltd that the firing order procedure of programing is to be ignored when using the Autocom tool. This is because those clever little swedes have taken care of this within the tools software. I have been told to program Cylinder 1 = injector code 1, Cylinder 2 = injector code 2 etc. Cheers
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Darren Bamford on March 28, 2007, 6:21 pm, in reply to "Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" Never mind its the way autodiagnos do it , its the same way as ford O/E tools do it that's IDS , PDS and WDS. I have not used Autocom , but it sounds to me that they may have got it wrong in there reverse engineering by trying to do it different from what the O/E tool is doing sorry for being cryptic, but I have always found that I learn more if a work for the answer and try and understand the problem ahead. Then the next problem seems to be easier to understand. "if you do not understand how it works how can you fix it"
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by dave jacko on March 28, 2007, 6:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" Darren are you absolutely sure that code P2339 WILL NOT ERASE before a re-code The said Mondeo will be back next week so i will re code in the firing order sequence and let you all know the outcome. Cheers
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Tony Sefton on March 28, 2007, 8:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" If the Coding is a procedure to compensate for a difference in injector Specifications. ( A Difference caused by tollerances in machining nozzles etc ) Then I cannot see how it can make any difference in what order the injectors are programmed as to whether the codes will erase or not. ?? ( Because the engine hasn't been started ). If the Code was coming back after a run, then I could understand how coding the injectors in the wrong sequence would cause the problem.
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Alan Kane on March 28, 2007, 8:45 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" That is why I was wondering about the description of the code or the ability of the tool to read it. Alan
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Darren Bamford on March 28, 2007, 8:56 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" There is two main issues here to Dave's post. The PCM and ICU have reached diagnostic decision that the Knock limits have exceed the upper limits. On this example cylinder 4. Once this DTC has been triggered the only way to erase this fault is to successful reprogram the correction factor for the injector in question. So until this is done it will log the fault with both KOEO and KOER. As you already know cylinder 4 does not mean injector 4 , in fact cylinder 4 would be injector 2. Now its seem that the Autocom have changed there programming procedure to take away the confusion. If Dave had IDS or AD Pro to hand I'm pretty so if he entered the code for injector 2 the light would stop flashing and the DTC would clear. Then after running the engine if there was a fault with injector 2 or cylinder 4 were it caused the knock limits to exceed to upper limits then it would log the code again.May be after a 100 mile road trip. Its not as most people think that it as lost the coding. Its has it states in the DTC the knock limits are at fault. Now due to type of system the TDCI is the most likely cause would be a injector problem. Ford have written the software that you must re-enter the injector data as your first diagnostic step. after this you then carry out the many other fuel system test's that can be done to try and find why the knock limits are so high. I hope that makes more sense and I'm not insulting your vast experience and intelligence. Thanks Darren.........
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Tony Sefton on March 28, 2007, 10:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" No. You aren't insulting me, and I don't know about my Vast knowledge, ( it's all a bit blurred most of the time ) That's why I like to ask if I am not sure, and try and get an explanation that sinks into my thick skull, How does the ecu know whether he has coded them in the right order or not. ?? Surely It just knows that he has entered some values that it recognises. ( right or wrong ). Then I would think that as you say after 100 miles or so, if he has done it wrongly. it will log a code. ?? Not cause the code not to erase in the first place. ?? Ahhh, is that the problem. ?? Has Dave only programmed cylinder 1 and 4 and not the other 2 ???, When he actually needs to recode injector no 2, that would explain it and that's actually what he put in his first post, if I had Read it right ) As I said earlier, I had started to Type a reply to Dave about injector Order, But I then changed my mind and deleted it as I thought it wasn't relevant, But it is if he has only entered the data for 2 injectors, then it is very relevant. ( I usually enter all injector codes whilst I am doing the job ), But as i now know that it is not actually doing anything, apart from allowing it to erase the code then i might just start entering one injector code as you have mentioned to me before. See it's good to Talk. Thanks. Tony.
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Darren Bamford on March 29, 2007, 7:50 am, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" he as only done cylinder 1 and 4 which equals injectors 1 and 3 This is what i think is going wrong with most garages general. Over the last 6 months every scan tool seems to offer the injector coding function on ford TDCI. every body and his dog as heard a story that they loose there coding and run poor. I'm not tarnishing everyone with the same brush but most garages i have found just re-enter the codes in cylinder order not firing order and yes it clears the code and the light stops flashing. but in fact the only one that has been correctly programmed is injector 1 / cylinder 1. Then the car comes back a month or so later with the same fault???????? but this time another cylinder or maybe two cylinders. Most at that stage bail out and out source the job , others change one injector or even all 4 and re-code then again in wrong order. This is why they believe it's the tool at fault when then book it into the ford dealers and use IDS and the problem goes away. This is not a pop or a dig at anyone on this post, its just what i come across and if it offends anybody , they some times the truth does hurt. Darren.................
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by dave jacko on March 29, 2007, 8:29 am, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" If entering the wrong code will not allow the code re set then fair enough it must be a programming error on my behalf. But Darren you are saying in the below quote that garages have entered the wrong code but managed to re-set the flashing light ???????? "I'm not tarnishing everyone with the same brush but most garages i have found just re-enter the codes in cylinder order not firing order and yes it clears the code and the light stops flashing" DJ
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Michael Whitworth on March 29, 2007, 8:50 am, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" As Darren says, The ECU dooesn't know its the wrong code, as long as a code(any 16 digit hexadecimal code) has been entered for the relevent injector, the lamp should exstinguish KOEO and will stay off untill system detects excessive knock on a particular injector/cylinder probably after 100 miles or so. Hope this helps Mike
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by Alan kane on March 29, 2007, 8:58 am, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" Working on the premise that darrens info on this is correct (and there is no reason to assume otherwise) then the DTC should have reset after the coding. Unless the coding procedure was wrong maybe??? Good post! Alan
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by michael mcdowell on March 29, 2007, 5:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this"
|
Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this
Posted by dave jacko on March 30, 2007, 8:06 am, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" it does'nt ask for it like the Autodiagnos instructions that seems to read Injector 4 (cyl 2) This is why i think i have coded correctly
|
re programmed in firing order
Posted by Dave Jacko on March 30, 2007, 7:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Autocom CDP Pro users please read this" Re coding in firing order has made absolutely NO difference at all. code p2339 will not erase. Then we re coded as per Autocom instructions But one thing we have noticed after programming either way, if we read fault codes immediately after any re-programming sequence we get fault code P1664 (injector pump control module malfunction) Hope you all have a good weekend
|
Re: re programmed in firing order
Posted by Dave F on March 30, 2007, 8:13 pm, in reply to "re programmed in firing order" Just done one of these today. Code stored for cylinder 3 knock threshold exceeded and flashing glow light. Bad starting, would not rev from cold. Code would not erase. This was a 51 plate Mondeo 2.0 TDCi. I programmed the injector for cyl 3 ( inj 2 ) using AD Pro and the code would not erase, all symptoms the same. So i tried it the other way around Cyl 4 ( inj 3 ) incase the code meant knock threshold for inj 3 rather than cyl 3. Still no different. I then programmed all four as per the first ( correct ) procedure; Injectors 1,2,3,4 Still the same. All the way through this the tool told me 'successful' after each coding operation. Then it hit me. The AD Pro software shows coding for two versions... Could this be your problem Dave ???
|
Re: re programmed in firing order
Posted by D Jackson on March 30, 2007, 8:52 pm, in reply to "Re: re programmed in firing order"
|
Re: re programmed in firing order
Posted by Michael Whitworth on March 30, 2007, 11:10 pm, in reply to "Re: re programmed in firing order" Are you in staylebridge/Ashton? If so, do you fancy a ride to Manchester in the morning and I will connect IDS to it for ya and code the injectors. Give me a ring in the morning. 0161 793 8373 or 07967 591079 Mike
|
FIXED
Posted by dave jacko on April 2, 2007, 6:25 pm, in reply to "Re: re programmed in firing order" Car went to dealers and had the four injectors re-coded and a ecm software update this has cured the fault. Many thanks for all the help Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Tony Sefton on April 2, 2007, 10:06 pm, in reply to "FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 4, 2007, 8:41 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" From my understanding of what has been said already, there are two ways that a scan-tool can deal with this. It will either tackle it in the same manner as IDS & injector numbers 1 2 3 4 will fit into cylinders 1 3 4 2 respectively. Or the scan-tool will do the job in a way that would make sense to someone who doesn’t have specialist knowledge of the subject & injectors 1 2 3 4 will correspond with cylinders 1 2 3 4. I did ring the Snap-on help line for some clarification & was told by a helpful Simon that no one else had had any issues. He had heard somewhere about the 1 2 3 4 = 1 3 4 2 scenario, but he didn’t think it applied to Snap-on scanners. I did ask him to look into it & perhaps take a look at this thread. I haven’t heard anything back from him yet. How do other scan-tools deal with this? Kev have you done any with the ACR? Cheers all Dave Hill
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by les smith on April 5, 2007, 8:51 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 5, 2007, 9:30 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" Simon (from the help line) did mention something about that the other day. Actually I got a call from him today to confirm the correct entry method. It is as I said in my earlier post & that is to enter the correction codes as per cylinder number i.e. cylinders 1 2 3 4 correspond to injectors 1 2 3 4. Glad it’s been clarified as I have another one in on Tuesday. Oh & don’t forget to replace the top seal. There are two sizes as the new injectors are different to the originals so make sure you get the right one or you get loads of smoke & a worried looking mechanic Cheers all Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Kevin Apps on April 5, 2007, 10:57 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 5, 2007, 11:25 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" "All ok using label"? Do you mean that you entered the code from lets say injector 3 (in cylinder 3) & it worked? Because the Ford way would mean injector 3 would be cylinder 4. Bloody game innit. Whatever it takes, it wont cost you mate because the lesson will pay dividends. Paula is not too good at the moment, Thanks for asking. Cheers mate Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 10, 2007, 9:57 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" I replaced another injector today on a 52 plate TDCi engine code 8. The car was as noisy as f*** when I drove it across the car park. After fitting the new injector & entering the correction code in the same manner as I said in the previous post, I started it up & went for a ride, It sounded 100% better than it did before I replaced the injector. The trouble is the customer is complaining that it is still knocking. I went out with him for a road test & there is a slight knock under very light acceleration, but not something that you would consider unusual. I re entered all the injector codes sent him away to try it. The local Ford guys have told me how they sometimes have noisy motors that they struggle to quieten down & they sometimes seem to run quieter with the wrong correction codes entered. I told the customer that as all the injectors have done the same work (130,000 miles), then more injector problems are likely to follow. Has anyone one else had any problems with slight knocking after replacing injectors? Cheers Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Darren Bamford on April 12, 2007, 11:34 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 13, 2007, 12:03 am, in reply to "Re: FIXED" That explains a few things. Although it was slightly noisy, it did run ok. Now it has done a few miles it has come back with a hesitation & stalling fault. New codes present referring to fuel pressure. (Can’t recall the numbers, will update) I was scoping injector current vs volts on one of theses yesterday. I noticed at one point that when I moved the current clamp to the neighbouring injector & the volt connection remained in the first injector that the two traces still lined up (I was triggering off the current). This suggested to me that it was not a sequential injection system, at least at idle. Can this be right? I wouldn't have thought so personally. Cheers Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Tony Sefton on April 14, 2007, 8:28 am, in reply to "Re: FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Michael Whitworth on April 14, 2007, 8:37 am, in reply to "Re: FIXED" Its a couple of yrs since I duel scoped a TDCi but from memory i think that the voltage trace can be misleading, you may find that you get a shadow/ghost from the other injectors firing but no current flow. If you increase timebase so you can see more firing events, you will see what I mean. Mike
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 14, 2007, 6:59 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" Thanks for the replies. I agree that they must be sequential after all on a diesel it is crucial to correct running. But what a surprise I have had in scoping this. I have looked again with more time on screen as Mike suggested, with all four injector voltages (ecu switching side) & still it appears that all injector events are happening together. I initially only scoped two injectors because I thought that they would be high voltage in the 80 volt range & I didn’t want to fry the Pico as I only have two attenuators. Anyway I looked at the voltages & realised that they weren’t excessive. So all four injectors were scoped……..... & A closer look. This looks to be more than a ghost image & is quite misleading....... Next I decided to see if there was any current flow to prove one way or another. This next capture confirms what Mike says, that there is no current flow on the other events & only on the actual injection event...... I have had a similar problem with ghosting problems before when capturing all four ignition secondaries on a Mondeo zetec. I must get onto Pico to see if its me or the scope at fault. Oh does anyone know how to bring the posts back over to the left hand side in the main forum section? It’s a pain when they drift toooo far to the right Cheers all Dave
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Sean Mc Gettigan on April 14, 2007, 8:02 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED"
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave F on April 15, 2007, 12:39 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" I recently looked at a Di Vectra C with LPG fitted. The installer was having trouble getting the LPG injectors to fire correctly. The reason was the 'ghosting' effect you mention and as Sean also says i believe it is due to the back EMF being used to help charge the capacitor for the next firig event. Below is one of the waveforms which shows the missing current draw. I advised them to change the LPG kit so that it measures and emmulates from the current duration rather than voltage. Do you think this is possible ?? Dave
Link: Vectra Di.pdf
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by JamesD on April 15, 2007, 10:03 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" This applies to the solenoid type injectors. The piezo injectors have a different design, function and command. The second voltage pulse is indeed a 'charge' pulse in order to recharge the capacitors. It can be a little confusing when analysing the voltage alone. You'll also notice that the voltage waveform differs slightly when measured at each of the two pins on the same injector. The most accurate method of analysing the function of the injector is by reviewing the current waveform. If you clamp a single injector wire from multiple injectors (you may squeeze all four subject to the design of the clamp/size of the wire) and trigger the scope from the voltage pulse on injector no 1. Make sure that the trigger threshold is above the 'charge pulse'. Or you can simply move the current clamp from inj to inj. When looking at the voltages it does APPEAR that all injectors 'fire' at the same time, but this is because the recharge phase happens in between true injector command pulses. The current waveform width (the injector command duration) can be analysed to determine the injector adaptation if the scan tool isn't playing ball. The pulse width is typically around 650 microseconds at warm idle. Adaptations can vary typically by plus or minus 200 microseconds. This stuff is covered on the Technical Topics Saturday Common Rail Diesel course . Cheers for now,
Link: Common Rail Diesel Training
|
Re: FIXED
Posted by Dave Hill on April 18, 2007, 10:47 pm, in reply to "Re: FIXED" James I feel another course booking may be looming. Cheers all Dave
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Kevin Apps on April 18, 2007, 11:04 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Dave Hill on April 19, 2007, 8:45 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Come on then old timer. Spill the beanz Should I perform a SEARCH
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Michael Whitworth on April 19, 2007, 9:02 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" You just post under the first post instead of the last!!! DOH!!! Mike
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Michael Whitworth on April 19, 2007, 9:04 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Kevin Apps on April 20, 2007, 12:32 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Phil Dunmore on April 24, 2007, 11:18 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Did another today, same spec as Dave's, year 2002, engine code 8 (Modis & VIN plate) a: Modis, Macscan & ACR report code p2339 cylinder numbers in firing order. b: Modis does indeed reprogram in cylinder layout order. c: A right royal cock up has been made, definatly by one scanner manufacturer, probably several others. d: My mate has his new injector in the wrong place How's that then Grand Master Bamford, you knew all along didn't you
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Dave Hill on April 25, 2007, 11:29 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Maybe I am tired or just stupid (dont go there you lot ) I am trying to get my head around all these comments. I think you are saying from your post that when a fault code is logged e.g. P2338 CYLINDER 3 ABOVE KNOCK THRESHOLD, that this actually means cylinder 4. Good point to raise I think & it certainly made me question my work. My take on it is that the DTC will indicate which cylinder is affected by excessive knock, in a conventional manner. Cylinders 1,2,3 & 4 starting from crank pulley end. The confusing part (To me) is the way in which the correction codes are entered. Does the Diag tool work in a user friendly way & use a common sense approach i.e. injectors 1,2,3 & 4 would match cylinders 1,2,3 & 4 respectively. Or the convoluted way Ford do it & injectors 1,2,3 & 4 corespond to cylinders 1,3,4 & 2. 1=1 OR 1=1 Call me a cynic but it seems to me that the manufacturers are employing some devious ways of making the job hard for us independents. I suppose they need to protect their investment in technology somehow. It would be nice to get some clarification from the scan-tool makers. The response from Snap-on was along the lines of “no-one else has said that they have had a problem”. Cheers for now Dave
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Phil Dunmore on April 26, 2007, 6:23 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" DTC for knock limit exceeded identifies cylinder number in firing order sequence. Modis progams correction codes in physical postion sequence(conventional cylinder numbering). From a recoding point of view this does not matter if you code all four cylinders correct codes will be assigned to correct cylinders. However from a diagnostic point of view, a faulty injector could be wrongly identified. What Sun have been reported to say is correct, they do programm the correct injector to the correct position. What they do not seem to have grasped is reporting some cylinder codes in firing order whilst others are in numerical order. Next time you get one try inducing open circuit codes one at a time, these are in numerical order.
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by TONY VAMPLEW on May 2, 2007, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Darren bamford please read "Got another one" may be of interest to you
Posted by dave jackson on May 4, 2007, 9:10 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" re programmed only the one injector, injector code from the injector that was in No 3 cylinder was applied to cylinder 3 on the diag tool. Banny, If i have inputed the wrong code Is 30 miles long enough of a drive to re set knock threshold code ? Or can we say that Autocom identifies Cylinder 3 (really injector 2) as the fault and programes as cylinder 3. i.e the autocom software as automatically converted injector to cylinder. Cheers
|
Confused! You will be!!!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 4, 2007, 11:43 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" The Ford guys are adamant that a code relating to a knock threshold exceeded on lets say cylinder 3, actually means cylinder 3 (third one from crank pulley). It's only when you come to enter the correction codes that the 1342 1234 query comes into play. I have mused over this for a while now & to make a point I have had to write it down. this one highlights an area for potential confusion. Depending on how you look at it, cylinder two can relate injector 3 or 4 (see red & blue highlighted text) I hope Darth Bamford (sorry Darren ) can put me straight on this. I can feel my throat getting tight, hard to breath aarrrggg! Cheers all
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Phil Dunmore on May 5, 2007, 12:11 am, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" Code reported cylinder 3 knock control limit exceeeded(or similar wording) You replaced third injector from timing chain end. You recoded cylinder three with snappy, the same injector you changed. This did not clear fault code. You then coded cylinder number four on snappy(or all cylinders in any order). This cleared the code because the fault was on the forth cylinder from timing end which is third in firing order. Dont chuck the old unit yet. Key points.
|
Re: Confused! You will be!!!!!
Posted by Andy Gladish on May 5, 2007, 1:31 am, in reply to "Confused! You will be!!!!!" Well yes i am confused......NOW! It did make sense. I need to sleep! Regards Andy
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by TONY VAMPLEW on May 6, 2007, 1:05 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Phil Dunmore on May 7, 2007, 11:33 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 12, 2007, 6:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Confused! You will be!!!!!" After a chat with the Dark Lord himself (Thanks Darren I appreciated your time) I was quite satisfied to settle for the consensus of opinion that when a knock code is set, that the offending cylinder should be considered the cylinder in firing order. i.e. when cylinder 3 knock threshold code is set, it actually means the third cylinder to fire. So that would make it cylinder 4. . I was so satisfied in fact that I recalled one of the Mondeo's to set right my mistake. Anyway, bearing in mind that I have had two of these in now & fitted injectors in both of them, after noting a P2338 cyl 3 knock limit exceeded. I should also say that I did recode them & clear the light & only when they came back a week later with the same code & a nasty knock did I advise the replacement of the injector. Anyway I apparently have made the mistake of replacing number 3 injector in cylinder three, when according to general opinion I should have replaced the injector in cylinder number 4. (Still with me) Right, now that’s clear in your minds. I recalled the first Mondeo that had a new injector & after a lot of buggering about at the dealers & going through their returns bin. I found the original injector (identifiable by its coding). I was thinking that if I fit this injector back into its original hole & see how it sounds. So now it’s back in the same state that it was originally presented to me & coded using the Snap on simple method. I started it & it sounded absolutely awful, like a piston was broken. I know about the lack of pilot & post injection after recoding, but this was worse than ever. I entered the correction codes in the way AutoDiagnos suggest & it was still terrible. Next I fitted the new injector into cylinder 4 the one that I should have done originally (allegedly & still up for debate). After I coded it in (both ways) & still it sounds terrible. I have been on a 15-mile road test & it’s still noisy. Bare in mind also, that when I originally replaced the injector, it was 90% quieter upon start-up, without actually coding anything. Now I am in a right conundrum. I have the top diagnostic guys in the UK explaining one method & of interpreting a knock code & the dealer guys & many other diesel specialists & now my own evidence, telling me the opposite. Both of these 2002 (code 8) Mondeo’s have been back with the customers now for a few weeks & have not logged a knock code or given the customer cause for concern. So it looks to me that the knock code does identify the cylinder in a conventional manner & not as suggested by many guys on here. Trying to keep this short & to the point honest. I also unplugged the injector in the third cylinder from the front pulley, to induce a circuit code & P0203 injector circuit malfunction cylinder 3 was logged. I find it hard to believe that different methods of cylinder identification would be employed for the purposes of diagnosis. In summary, I believe that the evidence shows, that a knock code relating to a specific cylinder, actually applies to that cylinder, as conventionally considered. The only area left uncertain is which method the various scan tools use for entering the correction codes. As I write this, I am still unsure which way my kit does it, because when I originally saw these Mondeo’s, I recoded all of them & as such, it wouldn’t have mattered if I were right or wrong in my entry method. The next time I see one I will take the time to pin down the correct method. On this last Occasion however, I did enter the codes in the way Tony Vamplew mentioned & it does sound ok. Apologies’ fellas for the long winded post All the best Dave Hill
|
Re: Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Graham Bullock on May 12, 2007, 8:48 pm, in reply to "Next Chapter!!!" I see what you a saying about the way various scan tools re-code - they can be different, but what about the way these scan tools read the code? ie your snap on scanner reads the fault on cyl 3 and you then use snap on to code cyl 3, but if you read the code with snap on as fault on cyl 3 and then you used another scan tool such asCDP Pro to code it you may have to code cyl 4. Hope you follow my thinking. Graham
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Tom Sinclair on May 12, 2007, 9:54 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by martin young on May 12, 2007, 10:20 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Kevin Apps on May 12, 2007, 10:24 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re: Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 13, 2007, 10:37 am, in reply to "Re: Next Chapter!!!" You are muddying the already cloudy waters Thats my departement!. I am possibly being naive here, but surely the various scan tools are going to pull the same code & simply apply the appropriate text that the tool manufacturer has written into the software. I am no expert (obviously ) but when a scan-tool interrogates a PCM & it requests fault codes & then the PCM sends a packet of data that contains the numerical information. The scan tool looks the code up in its database & adds the wording. So if a scan-tool retrieves a code P2338, then this is the code that the PCM has sent & I would expect it to be the same on all scanners & should be beyond misinterpretation. (who am I kidding ) So P2338 is going to be P2338 whatever tool you are using & as said already, this states that cylinder 3 (not injector 3) knock threshold limit has been exceeded. This I believe is very straight forward & has only been confused by folks who have gone off on a tangent by coding a injector & when it dawns on them that the injector they just coded wasnt the same as the cylinder identified as the knocking one, they are assuming that the fault code has mislead them. Take Phil Dunmore’s post (April 24, 2007, 11:18 pm) as an example, The original garage made a diagnosis of cylinder 4. It appears that they couldn’t clear the code because they didn’t know how, & jumped in & swapped the injector anyway. They still couldn’t clear the code & farmed the job out. The Phil comes along & enters the correction codes, as per AutoDiagnos instructions (see below) What the original garage should have done was to recode all the injectors, using the correct method of course (whatever that is ). This would have cleared the light & code & probably made it run ok. Cheers for now Dave Hill
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 13, 2007, 11:08 am, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!" What Can are you taking your info from mate? Scrumpy Jack? Unfortunately there is no help given with the Snappy (Basic). Does the ACR come with useful destructions? Cheers Dave
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Tom Sinclair on May 13, 2007, 11:38 am, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Kevin Apps on May 13, 2007, 3:29 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 13, 2007, 4:36 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!" I was just curious to hear if the ACR comes loaded with instructions. I am not after the details mate, just wandering how helpful other tools are. I agree that finding out for yourself has to be the way. It’s just that P2338 is the same in any language surely Cheers mate Dave
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Tom Sinclair on May 13, 2007, 8:16 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Phil Dunmore on May 15, 2007, 10:26 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by TONY VAMPLEW on May 17, 2007, 7:31 am, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Kevin Apps on May 17, 2007, 6:31 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Tony Gould on May 17, 2007, 9:36 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on May 17, 2007, 10:09 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!" That’s gotta be wrong! Whichever way you look at it Someone is being economical with the facts, or more like they haven’t got a ***kin clue. At the risk of sounding patronising, I think that it is important for posters to make the distinction between injector number & cylinder number in making comments. You say that you noted that.... """came up with No 3 injecter,forgot code""" The code would have been P2338 Cylinder 3 knock threshold limit exceeded (or words to that effect). If the dealer followed their normal procedure then they would have coded all the injectors. But I doubt that they would have coded injector 3, in the case of a cylinder 3 knock limit code. Cheers Dave (Hill)
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Tony Gould on May 18, 2007, 5:20 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Re:Next Chapter!!!
Posted by Phil Dunmore on May 20, 2007, 10:58 pm, in reply to "Re:Next Chapter!!!"
|
Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Michael Whitworth on May 23, 2007, 10:40 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" So today I got an 03 plate Mondeo TDCi in with a P2338 code stored and the description on IDS was "Cylinder 3 upper knock limit attained" So before changing anything I decided to do a little research. First thing I did was plug in Multiscan as I know this can code the injector correction factors, When I selected Injector programming it gave me a screen with a list of 4 lines of hex data in 8 blocks of 2. None of this data matched the numbers on the injectors or the numbers on the sticker on the cam cover. This was the same for Autodiagnos too. Which read: The numbers on the cam cover did however match the injectors. The first number was for Inj no1/Cyl no1, to the right of that was Inj2/Cyl3, bottom left was Inj3/Cyl4 and bottom right was Inj4/Cyl2. Injector1/Cylinder1 Injector2/Cylinder3 Injector3/Cylinder4 Injector4/Cylinder2 The Cylinder Numbers ARE the physical cylinders where no1 is nearest the crankshaft pulley and no4 is nearest the gearbox. The arrangement above is as you read the sticker on the cam cover. I entered the correction factor for Injector2/Cylinder3 and the code cleared instantly. So to conclude, when the ECU reports a Cylinder number at fault, It is that Physical Cylinder it is refering to. Hope this helps clarify the situation, (or not) Mike
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by john weddup on May 24, 2007, 6:39 am, in reply to "Chapter 10 (lol)" Thanks Mike for taking the time to show the correct stuation as we beleived it too be. The confusion (much as your post shows) comes when after market tools show the wrong information and interprit things wrongly. As I have said many times recently how can we trust programming of new modules with these tools. People here even seem to question if we need tools to program new units. I think a big wake up call is going to happen soon and diagnostic work will return to the specialist who has invested in the right tools and has the knowledge to fix the cars. I am now seeing so many cars that come to me with customer saying so and so's scanner said this and he fitted this and this and its a little better. b#####cks its no better at all because he did not do any diagnostic work at all just fitted what his scanner said (if it pulled or interpreted code correctly) and then guessed at what to do. I see the same with aircon machines. The salesman have been very busy and done well. Just about every repairer has a machine but often has not got a clue how air con works. I think aircon and scanners have been sold because the garages out there are scared about whats happening for the future and they are being told they must have these to stay in business. Scare tactics. John
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by tim bowkett on May 24, 2007, 6:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)"
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Darren Bamford on May 24, 2007, 6:55 pm, in reply to "Chapter 10 (lol)" you posted---- there is a slight error in your post is should be Which read: surely people must grasp the concept now????? that must be the end... have you updated to IDS49 yet Cheers Mike Darren.........................
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Michael Whitworth on May 24, 2007, 8:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)" >>>>>> I posted that because it is wrong!! that is exactly what was displayed on Multiscan!!!! Just lately Multiscan is proving to be full of errors, I think I need to have a chat with V-Techs support line as no one else will be having these problems. Mike
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Michael Whitworth on May 24, 2007, 8:45 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)" Lets just follow the intructions on the tool, blindley, even if they are wrong!! Having different tools that can do this job I thought it would be useful to make a comparison, to this end I can say I still cant trust aftermarket tools with this function. Mike
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by tim bowkett on May 24, 2007, 9:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)"
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Kevin Apps on May 24, 2007, 11:33 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)"
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by tim bowkett on May 24, 2007, 11:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)"
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by Michael Whitworth on May 25, 2007, 7:55 am, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)" >>>>as long as you know which way your tool does them and follow that procedure and it works for you where is the problem<<<< I seem to recall (a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away)this thread was started because a member was using an aftermarket tool to do this job but even reading the instructions it still couldn't complete the task. After many wasted hrs he had to bail out and let the dealer have it. This thread has raised a lot of interesting points and hopefully cleared up a few problems along the way. We ALL know you should read instructions and follow them to the letter, some do but a lot don't "If all else fails, read the instructions" springs to mind. One of the problems with working on all makes is we need more than one tool to do the job, which means we may have to learn 2 or 3 ways of doing the same task depending on what tool we use. Some instructions can be misleading or even totally wrong, so don't you think it is a good idea to at least try to understand what each tool is doing and why? >>>>just because they dont do them in the way the dealer tool does<<<< From what I can see the aftermarket tools do do this job the same way as the dealer tool. The reason the issue is clouded by firing order/injector no is purely due to the way ford present the codes on the sticker on the cam cover. >>>>as long as they do the job<<< But do they? Mike
|
Re: Chapter 10 (lol)
Posted by David Wagstaff on May 27, 2007, 3:45 pm, in reply to "Re: Chapter 10 (lol)" Just to add to the confusion, the order in which the scan tool asks for the codes is not necessarily the order in which the scan tool transmits these codes to the ECU. It may be that that tool ask for them in a seemingly more logical order, then translates that order before sending to the ECU. What it seems is needed are clear instructions from the tool manufacturer, on how they have programed their tool to respond. This is why tools will differ from one manufacturer to another, whilst still doing the same job. David Wagstaff
|
Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 15, 2007, 10:12 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold" The previous two jobs that I have done I had coded all injectors & in doing so have covered all bases & guaranteed clearing the code. This time I needed to prove the method that the Snappy uses. Rather than just give the answer, I thought it might be interesting to let you ponder a while about the correct programming procedure. So here it is. This is what the Snap-on tool presents you with, during the coding procedure. What’s your move? P2337 cylinder 2 knock threshold limit exceeded. example 2 example 3 One of these procedures cleared the code (& light), but which one? From the Autodiagnos procedure. (Might help!) Cheers all Dave (Hill) I will post the answer on Saturday 23rd of June 18:00 hrs
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Alan Blore on June 16, 2007, 11:10 am, in reply to "Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by les on June 16, 2007, 3:22 pm, in reply to "Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Such a long thread that i was sure I had contributed, and sure enough way back I had. Sounds like a trick question but I too will stick my neck out and say that you do No two cyl only. Due to the software fault within your snappy you have to come out the system and then go back in or the tool would freeze and as you can choose which cyl you want to code in any order. Most likely I will be wrong as I am never invited to pub quiz's
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Tony Sefton on June 16, 2007, 6:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" P.S. Why are all the injector codes Reading the same code number. ???
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 16, 2007, 8:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" The coding number is taken from the injector in cylinder 2. The cylinder that the fault code relates to. Les The snappy coding problem doesn’t apply to the Heritage. I think it is the windows based Modis & Solus that suffer the lock-up issue. Thanks for the replies Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Harney on June 16, 2007, 10:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Regards
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Tony Sefton. on June 17, 2007, 5:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" So that's what I would expect to enter to correct the problem. ??
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Andrew Ruellan on June 17, 2007, 7:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by John Ritchie on June 17, 2007, 8:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Regards
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 23, 2007, 6:00 pm, in reply to "Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" P2337 cylinder 2 knock threshold limit exceeded. Cheers
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Tony Sefton on June 23, 2007, 6:08 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Alan B on June 23, 2007, 6:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Alan on June 23, 2007, 9:01 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" <<< Does that Mean The Information on the Screen is Wrong. ?? >>> Sefton you sh1t stirrer you
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 23, 2007, 9:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Who can say if its right or wrong? The only guys who can answer these questions are the Snappy programmers. There is a kind of convoluted logic to it (If you dig real deep). Looking at autodiagnos's text again...... It looks like reverse engineering with an extra dimension added don’t it! It took me three atempts to clear the code & MIL. The option that I have shown, was obviously the third try. This was the last way I expected it to do it. The pictures were taken to confirm each step I made, in case I cocked up. After I had cleared the fault, it was obvious from what I had already done in my last two attempts, that I had entered incorrect codes for the other two injector positions (number 1 not messed with) & this was confirmed by a distinct increase in diesel noise. I re entered the codes using the "Logic" that I had just discovered & the result was as good as any TDCi that you will hear. This now means that I have coded the previous two jobs incorrectly. What a bloody cafuffle! Cheers Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Tony Sefton on June 24, 2007, 2:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" i,e I was using the Jk100 on a Kia Sedona Yesterday and went into Key Programming, On Live data I got RR 02 sensor ----- Learnt Shouldn't that have said key 1 and Key 2. ?? ( Car may be coming back in for further testing, then I can re-check all options of Vehicle Models in case I got the wrong system. but can't really see it. ) I have also Asked a Manufacturer what Certain Items mean on Programming Features on his Diagnostic Tool and the Answer was. Err I Dunno. ?? I just Copied it. ?
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 24, 2007, 8:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Yes I see your point. (At last I hear you say) It appears that the scan-tool makers are quite happy to provide equipment that have the “potential” to carry out the task, if the operator is persistent enough (read sad enough). If I were to adopt the same approach in my work ethic, you can imagine the response I would get from my customers if it required of them, a similar amount of resolve & determination to reach their destination. Snap-on don’t offer much in the way of programming/coding functionality & if this example is anything to go by, perhaps it is just as well. Back up & information has been sparse & that is being very polite! My experiences of this kind are very limited compared to the UKAT “old school” & many may look upon my repeated postings on this topic as a little tedious. If I have bored anyone to death with my “dog with a bone” type approach, then I apologise. It’s just the way I am, when I need to know something, I tend to get there, eventually. Cheers all Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Kevin Apps on June 24, 2007, 9:07 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by TONY VAMPLEW on June 26, 2007, 7:26 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" p.s i think i put injector in wrong cyl but it all runs OK now and customer happy Tony
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!
Posted by Dave Hill on June 26, 2007, 8:25 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!" Tony All is well with the world at last hey! If only all the diag jobs were this easy Cheers all Dave(Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by John Ritchie on June 26, 2007, 8:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Dave Hill on July 2, 2007, 8:38 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" Code P2339 Cylinder 4 knock threshold limit. Got codes off injector fitted in cylinder number 4 entered it into cylinder 2 on the snappy & it sorted it. Might be able to earn some money on these at last What is this job worth do you think? Cheers all Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by martin young on July 2, 2007, 8:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)"
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Tony Sefton on July 2, 2007, 8:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" It Would be a Lot easier with an IDS. That way you know that your doing it right.
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Dave Hill on July 2, 2007, 9:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" I am confident that this is the right way for the Snappy. The two that I have done using this method have run smooth & quiet instantly. where as the two previous F*** ups have sounded like a bag of spanners in comparison. Trust me, this is right! Cheers Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by TONY VAMPLEW on July 2, 2007, 9:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" well i think ure right dave i just have not had a another lately to try it out on, charge them as much as u can there are plenty u lose on
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Graham Bullock on July 2, 2007, 10:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" So Code P2339 Cylinder 4 knock threshold limit really means the fouth injector in the injection sequence which is 134 2. Follow that OK. In your post of June 23, 2007, 6:00 pm -P2337 cylinder 2 knock threshold limit exceeded you entered the code into cyl 3 on the snappy - where did you get the code number from? Cyl 2 or 3? Graham
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Dave Hill on July 3, 2007, 6:34 am, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" I am glad you are struggling aswell. Its an arse about face method for sure, but I think during the software development stage (Snap-On I mean) someone didnt understand the finer details of what is happening. It looks to me like they made the same mistake that many others have & mixed their cylinders & injectors up. This is why I stated earlier in the thread that a distinction needs to be made between "cylinder number" & "injector number". I think it would Be easier to get your head around if they changed the wording on coding the screen from.......... ENTER EACH DIGIT OF INJECTOR ID: & Change it to........ ENTER EACH DIGIT OF INJECTOR ID: The way I am approaching this now with the Snappy, is to read the code & choose the cylinder (the easy bit). Then I have to turn it around in my mind by refering to the Autodiagnos chart. Snap-On talk...... P2336 cylinder 1 knock = read as injector 1 so code cylinder 1 Thats the best way I can explain it. HTH Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Les on July 3, 2007, 7:19 am, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" regards
|
Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)
Posted by Dave Hill on July 3, 2007, 9:37 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)" What are you doing up that early? I had sh*t the bed. Thats my excuse anyway . Cheers Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by roy ritchie on September 16, 2007, 12:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Finally Tamed the Beast!!!(confused)"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Kevin Apps on September 16, 2007, 2:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by roy ritchie on September 16, 2007, 3:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by keith geach on September 16, 2007, 5:26 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by roy ritchie on September 16, 2007, 6:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by martin young on September 16, 2007, 6:46 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Michael Whitworth on September 16, 2007, 9:17 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion" probably your scanner giving you duff info, What year was this? Mike
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Michael Whitworth on September 16, 2007, 9:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion" If I were you I would try to get it on an IDS read it carefully while programming injectors then it should become clear. Isn't Alex W close to you? Mike
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by roy ritchie on September 16, 2007, 9:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Phil Dunmore on September 21, 2007, 9:31 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Dave Hill on September 21, 2007, 10:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion" So your method confirms what I posted about Snap-on's method of coding! Cheers Dave (Hill)
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Nigel Bennett on September 21, 2007, 10:19 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Phil Dunmore on September 22, 2007, 7:48 am, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion"
|
Re: Yes more injector confusion
Posted by Dave Hill on September 22, 2007, 4:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Yes more injector confusion" ""no intention of stealing your thunder, can't be bothered to read it all again to see who was first!"" Wasn’t worried about my thunder being stolen mate (as if!). I was more interested to note that we were both singing from the same hymn sheet . That way, other Snappy users can have a little more confidence in what "WE" have suggested as a method of doing the job! I frequently now, only enter the correction codes into the offending cylinder/injector. I have printed off the method I added in my previous post as it helps free up a spare brain cell for more important things. Cheers now Dave (Hill)
|
Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold
Posted by Nigel Bennett on November 17, 2007, 12:11 am, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
kia sedona 2.9
Posted by jay on June 15, 2009, 8:20 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by Dave very confused Jackson on September 29, 2010, 9:37 pm, in reply to "Re: FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by Mark Carter on September 29, 2010, 10:19 pm, in reply to "Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by Tony Ludford on September 29, 2010, 10:21 pm, in reply to "Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by Bryan Smith on September 30, 2010, 12:30 am, in reply to "Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by Dave Jacko on September 30, 2010, 9:09 am, in reply to "Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by lee mackintosh on September 30, 2010, 9:37 am, in reply to "Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?
Posted by dave on September 30, 2010, 10:21 am, in reply to "Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
older transit coding screen shots ids
Posted by D jacko on September 30, 2010, 10:41 am, in reply to "Re: Ford Transit TDCI 2007 2.4 Injector coding with IDS has the software developer got it all wrong ?"
|
Re: older transit coding screen shots ids
Posted by Dave Hill on September 30, 2010, 12:59 pm, in reply to "older transit coding screen shots ids"
|
Re: older transit coding screen shots ids
Posted by D jacko on September 30, 2010, 3:23 pm, in reply to "Re: older transit coding screen shots ids"
|
Re: older transit coding screen shots ids
Posted by Michael Whitworth on September 30, 2010, 6:06 pm, in reply to "Re: older transit coding screen shots ids"
|
Re: older transit coding screen shots ids
Posted by D Jackson on September 30, 2010, 7:07 pm, in reply to "Re: older transit coding screen shots ids"
|
So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG
Posted by D jacko on October 1, 2010, 12:49 pm, in reply to "FORD Mondeo tdci 2.0 (130) FMBA1 fault code P2339 cylinder 4 above knock threashold #"
|
Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG
Posted by Michael Whitworth on October 1, 2010, 1:59 pm, in reply to "So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG"
|
Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG
Posted by D jackson on October 1, 2010, 2:24 pm, in reply to "Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG"
|
Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG
Posted by Michael Whitworth on October 1, 2010, 4:28 pm, in reply to "Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG"
|
Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG
Posted by Dave Hill on October 1, 2010, 4:48 pm, in reply to "Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG"
|
up thass
Posted by D jacko on October 1, 2010, 5:36 pm, in reply to "Re: So whos got it correct and whos doing it WRONG"
|
Re: up thass
Posted by Michael Whitworth on October 1, 2010, 5:49 pm, in reply to "up thass"
|
Re: up thass
Posted by Roy Ritchie on October 1, 2010, 8:24 pm, in reply to "Re: up thass"
|
Re: up thass
Posted by Lee Mackintosh on October 1, 2010, 9:35 pm, in reply to "Re: up thass"
|
Re: up thass
Posted by Dave Hill on October 1, 2010, 10:48 pm, in reply to "Re: up thass"
|
Re: up thass
Posted by Michael Whitworth on October 7, 2010, 7:20 pm, in reply to "up thass"
|