Check Engine Light

Would a sensor cause it to run rough? Most noticable at idle?

There is a couple of things I am going to do first before looking for faulty sensors, one is to change plugs as it's very unlikely these have been changed since the vehicle was new. I bought the vehicle at

103,000km, put 15,000 on it in a 21 months. I have not changed plugs since I owned it. Another is to change the fuel filter. Then I will run some injector cleaner in the tank, just filled. Hopefully this will correct it, as it's past due for this type of service anyway, if not then I'll have to get it in and on a scope.

Allan

Big Shoe wrote:

Plugs are due at 100,00 miles, so your 118k km is early for needing plugs, I'd think.

You say "rought at idle". Wouldn't a restricted fuel filter have more problems at hard acceleration rather than at idle?

I'm rarely one to believe when it comes to auto advice, but before you do a lot that's not necessary, wouldn't having the "check engine" codes read be a better thing to do first?

Craig

Whoops, make that 100,000 miles.

The check engine light is the PCMs way of trying to tell you something... is there any particular reason that you are refusing to listen?

If a car comes in to the shop with the CEL illuminated, the VERY FIRST thing that happens is a code scan.

Fuel filter and plugs are routine maintenance items and should be addresed according to schedule as long as no abnormal conditions have been encountered.

Old school I guess. Older vehicles, if they acted like this I would suspect fouled plug. I'll take it in and have it scanned once they are open, holiday weekend here. Will post results.

Thanks

Jim Warman wrote:

Still trying to recover from turkey overdose, myself....

Having the codes read is going to be the least painful way of addressing your issue.... when I got my licence, cars still had points....THAT'S "old school"....

Hurting tonight too...too much turkey;-)

Remember points well, my first was a 1962 Plymouth Savoy, slant six standard. Next was a '63 Studebaker Daytona.

Cheers!

Allan

Jim Warman wrote:

Hi Folks,

Code 301 came up and points to cylinder 1 misfire. Possibilities of a bad wire or bad plug. Mechanic figures it's probably a bad plug as they do go bad from time to time but didn't rule out a cracked wire. It's in for service now, they'll call when ready.

Allan

Allan wrote:

I've owned a 95 Explorer for over 10 years and recently I bought a 98 Sport for my son. (Explorer's can be bought for next to nothing.) For the 95 I had about 5 check engine situations over a period of

250000 miles. In all cases the problem was fixed by changing the appropriate sensor. A few weeks ago the check engine light came on in the 98 and it turned out to be a bad O2 sensor on one of the exhaust down pipes. In all cases the easiest thing to do was to read the code which pointed in the right direction. After that a little experience will help diagnose the problem. I've always used a trusted mechanic that does not charge me for the code read, just the part replaced. Mark

Yes, my favorite of my cars is a 69 Camaro where I must manually set the point dwell and ignition timing. I never worry about a check engine condition on that vehicle. However, I only drive it on Sundays. Mark

Vehicles I had but not anymore. 1969 Mustang 351 Cleveland. Go like there's no tomorrow! 1958 Rambler Ambassador 327ci with Continental Kit.

Allan

Mark Barrett wrote:

The code on ours was 301 (cylinder 1 misfire). Pulled the plugs and they were fouled and wet for some reason. The mechanic asked if the vehicle burned oil, no, it doesn't. Replaced all six plugs, changed the air cleaner filter and fuel filter, runs nice now although it still surges a bit when first starting, that is it drops rpm to almost stall, then picks up immediately to proper idle. Mechanic said (local small town shop) that he didn't have the equipment to determine why this was happening. I'll have to take it into the Ford dealer next time I'm in the city. Perhaps this is a sensor that is going bad. May have something to do with the ping too perhaps?

Allan

Mark Barrett wrote: