Yeah, it was a phantom code you get when the vacuum line is off and nobody notices. Problem solved, all by myself!
Hatt
Been a while since I've been here. Since then I've had to have my
> 2.8v6 rebuilt. Luckily, I found a retired engine rebuilder business
> owner to do it, saving me some money. Unlucky for me, he left some
> wires on both sides of the block touching the exhaust manifold, and I
> started getting a new code. I had all those wires repaired, but the
> guy who did that said I probably should get a new under the hood loom
> to do it right, but he didn't know if one could be obtained any
more.
> On my way to work the next day, on came the "service engine soon"
> light again and sets code 43. The electronic guy said it was a sort
> of phantom code on these things, and very difficult to track down, and
> could be very expensive to try to fix. He suggested I keep driving it
> till it became a constant, or led to a more obvious problem. [I can
> turn the ignition off, restart, and the light goes away].
>
> After spending a few thousand dollars having mechanics replace
sensors
and do just about everything possible to the "outside," of this
> engine, I finally went to mobile1, then broke a pushrod, which led to
> the rebuild, at which time bad cam bearings, bad cam, [some lobes
> .060" under], and bad main bearings were found. This was within two
> weeks after switching to mobile1. Can it be said conclusively that
> mobile1 caused this? No. Consensus is that that was a bad idea
> however. Consensus even says that 5w 30 oils are a bad idea in this
> engine. Now I don't want to start a war over the virtues of
mobile1,
and if I do, I won't take part in it because I don't have the
> knowledge, but it sure seems odd that these things went after
> switching to it. And yes, I do know that they may have already been > on their way.
>
> In the meantime I'll listen to theories about the cause and fix for > code 43.
>
> Hatt
>
>
>
>
>