Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

A cheap chinese brand (Topoint).  But my research indicated that the cheap sensors usually work OK initially but but don't last as the OEM sensors.  Since I was doing this by trial and error I didn't want to spend a bunch of money on something that may not be the problem (I've already done that a lot).  It is unlikely that I would get 4 new sensors that have the exact same problems as the 4 sensors that that I'm replacing.  

I still have the original sensors that I could test and reinstall if it would help for troubleshooting.  

Posted

Anything other than AC Delco or Denso sensors are complete garbage for these specific trucks. Cheap sensors read incorrectly straight out of the box and give error code all the time.

 

Denso sensors aren't even a lot of money of these trucks anyway. Like $36 each for them online.

 

There really isn't much left to try here. From the parts cannon you listed, the motor has been changed, new spark plugs and the rest of the ignition system has been done as well.

 

With the fuel side, you said pressure is good and there is minimal to no exhaust back pressure. All that left is either dirty injectors or a wiring issue from a harness that is 24 years old by now. Would be pretty unlikely to see a computer driver failure that is very sporadic like this.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, CamGTP said:

Anything other than AC Delco or Denso sensors are complete garbage for these specific trucks. Cheap sensors read incorrectly straight out of the box and give error code all the time.

 

Denso sensors aren't even a lot of money of these trucks anyway. Like $36 each for them online.

 

There really isn't much left to try here. From the parts cannon you listed, the motor has been changed, new spark plugs and the rest of the ignition system has been done as well.

 

With the fuel side, you said pressure is good and there is minimal to no exhaust back pressure. All that left is either dirty injectors or a wiring issue from a harness that is 24 years old by now. Would be pretty unlikely to see a computer driver failure that is very sporadic like this.

I'd be willing to try the Denso sensors if it can be determined there is a high probability the non-OEM replacement sensors as well as the original sensors are causing the problem.  It seems there would be a way to test sensors if they are bad.  

If the sensors are bad and telling the computer the truck it is running lean shouldn't I see fuel trim trying to compensate for it?  The same with dirty injectors.  My (limited) experience with dirty injectors is they cause problems during low load conditions but smooth out at full throttle.  I thought about running some injector cleaner through it but wouldn't dirty injectors show up in some other data?  

Edited by RKCRLR
Posted (edited)

I cleared the faults and took another drive while logging the data (attached).  I didn't get a check engine light but I could feel the power being lost.  When I stopped and turned around initially the power came back, I was just starting out at part throttle and it was like a switch was thrown.  The power remained until I let off the throttle because of my speed.  When I applied full throttle again the power was gone.  When I got home p0300, P0131, P0137, P0151, and P0157 were pending.  All but one cylinder had multiple misfires in history.  

 

I noticed that once the problem started there were a lot of zeros for short term fuel trim, especially at 100% throttle.  

trackLog-2024-Sep-30_12-23-55.csv

Edited by RKCRLR
Posted

Fuel trims don't operate in open loop while at wide open throttle. Long term fuel trims may carry over into power enrichment but the short term fuel trims will always go to zero.

 

If those low voltage codes keep coming up for bank 1 sensor 1/2 and bank 2 sensor 1/2, then it's either the sensors that are the problem or the wiring to the sensors. If it was my truck, I'd be replacing them with Denso sensors before doing anything else.

 

I tuned a truck a few weeks back that ran really good everywhere but full throttle. it was down on power and the o2 voltages would basically flat line when you put the pedal to the floor. The fuel pressure was good and the fuel trims where good too. Pressure never dropped and it always followed the commanded fuel pressure that the computer was asking. His o2 sensors had over 200k on them and we thought it could be the age that was causing them to read wonky. He ended up getting a ton of lean codes and other o2 sensors codes because the MAF sensor ended up being faulty. It was not reading the correct amount of air coming into the engine, thus the computer was never giving it enough fuel and causing the o2's to show lean.

 

So I wouldn't rule out the MAF being a cause for all of this too.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, CamGTP said:

Fuel trims don't operate in open loop while at wide open throttle. Long term fuel trims may carry over into power enrichment but the short term fuel trims will always go to zero.

 

If those low voltage codes keep coming up for bank 1 sensor 1/2 and bank 2 sensor 1/2, then it's either the sensors that are the problem or the wiring to the sensors. If it was my truck, I'd be replacing them with Denso sensors before doing anything else.

 

I tuned a truck a few weeks back that ran really good everywhere but full throttle. it was down on power and the o2 voltages would basically flat line when you put the pedal to the floor. The fuel pressure was good and the fuel trims where good too. Pressure never dropped and it always followed the commanded fuel pressure that the computer was asking. His o2 sensors had over 200k on them and we thought it could be the age that was causing them to read wonky. He ended up getting a ton of lean codes and other o2 sensors codes because the MAF sensor ended up being faulty. It was not reading the correct amount of air coming into the engine, thus the computer was never giving it enough fuel and causing the o2's to show lean.

 

So I wouldn't rule out the MAF being a cause for all of this too.

I'm not dead set against getting some Denso sensors but I'd want to understand what is going on before I throw more parts at it.  I've already got a new truck on order and this truck will be going up for sale (too many cancelled/interrupted camping trips).  If I were to replace the Chinese sensors with Denso sensors I'd probably only replace the upstream sensors to start with to verify they correct the low voltage condition there, if that makes sense.  

 

So does the computer ignore the O2 sensors during WOT?  One thing I've noticed is the CFM seems high (i.e., 1200 CFM at 4K RPM).  Using the formula (cubic inches)*(RPM)/3456 I get 525 CFM at 100% volumetric efficiency.  However that should cause a rich condition, correct?  

 

I've attached a reformatted file for easier reading.  

trackLog-2024-Sep-30_12-23-55.ods

Posted (edited)

I haven't read up the latest here (or looked at the latest logs) but it WAS lean according to O2 sensors at WOT, when it should be rich - power enrichment.  I'd check out the MAF sensor too.

 

Has it ever used an oiled air filter?

Edited by asilverblazer
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

I haven't read up the latest here (or looked at the latest logs) but it WAS lean according to O2 sensors at WOT, when it should be rich - power enrichment.  I'd check out the MAF sensor too.

 

Has it ever used an oiled air filter?

I only have used paper filters.  I removed the MAF and inspected it.  I didn't see anything wrong and it wasn't oily but I didn't try to clean it.  I didn't want to damage it and it appeared to be working correctly.  When RPMs were doubled the reading approximately doubled.  I recorded mass flow rate rate during my last logging session but I could record output voltage directly if it would help.  

 

I agree the O2 sensors indicate a lean (low voltage) condition.  What seems strange is the long term fuel trim doesn't seem to attempt to correct for it.  Going by Commanded AFR the power enrichment is inconsistent.  Sometimes it reduces down to 11.5 AFR at 100% throttle and sometimes it doesn't but the O2 sensors are showing lean either way.  

 

It's not clear to me if the power enrichment should be happening all the time at WOT.  The service manual states:

 

Acceleration Mode
When the control module senses rapid changes in the throttle position and the manifold pressure, the
system enters the acceleration mode. The system provides the extra fuel needed for smooth acceleration.  

 

Another thing that seems strange to me is how long the 02 sensors are below 100 mv.  My experience with fuel delivery problems under high load conditions (admittedly on carbureted systems) is that they recover quickly under part or no load conditions.  This doesn't seem to be happening here.  

Edited by RKCRLR
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know what "[GM]H2OS Sensor (mV)" is in Torque Pro?  It is a single PID I can log.  Is it the supply voltage for the O2 sensors?  Or O2 sensor heaters?  

I noticed that it varies a lot and there is a rough correlation between low voltage there and low voltage at the O2 sensors.  

 

 

Edited by RKCRLR
Posted

That log shows some weird stuff happening.

 

At line 296, short term fuel trims go to 0 and stay there for the remainder of the log.

 

At line 344-425, the upstream O2 sensor readings stop fluctuating, throttle is showing 100% but commanded AFR stays at 14.9 instead of going to 11.5.

 

Line 696-733 O2 sensors stop reading.

 

Focusing on lines 250-300 show what I would expect: Throttle goes wide open to 100% commanded AFR goes rich. The problem as I see it is that the upstream O2 sensors show lean when they should be reading richer. I looked at the timing advance to see if the advance is correlating to the O2 readings but not seeing a pattern there. 

 

I do see a correlation between the timing advance and long term fuel trims.

 

Fuel flow and air flow are tracking together consistently.

 

When the O2 sensors are reading, the difference between the upstream and downstream is negligible, The catalytic converters could be bad. The voltages are fluctuating together, but the fluctuations look abnormal to me.

 

My conclusions are leaning towards the O2 sensors are reading poorly cutting of short term fuel trims.

 

  • Like 1
Posted

I studied the logged data and made a summary.  I've attached a refined copy.  Hopefully someone can make better sense of this than I can.  Just looking at the data I'd suspect a fuel delivery problem but that isn't supported by my fuel pressure gauge readings.  Power enrichment is hit and miss and it is like the computer gave up on adjusting the fuel trims. 

First part throttle acceleration around 12:27:06.  O2 sensors reading as expected, combination of long term and short term fuel trim around 25%. 

Part throttle acceleration around 12:27:54.  O2 sensors reading as expected, combination of long term and short term fuel trim around 25%-30%.  Long term fuel trim transitions to ~25% and short term fuel trim transitions to close to zero by end of run. 

Part throttle acceleration at 12:28:58 transitioning to full throttle acceleration at 12:29:04.  Part throttle acceleration similar to previous.  At full throttle computer enters enrichment mode, LTFT decrease to less than a few percent, STFT at zero, O2 sensors go below 100mV. 

Part throttle acceleration at 12:29:20 transitioning to full throttle acceleration at 12:29:25 and then back to part throttle at 12:29:34.  During part throttle acceleration LTFT ~25% and STFT at zero.  At full throttle computer does not enter enrichment mode, LTFT decreases to ~2%-5%, STFT increases to 30%-35%.  LTFT stays  around 5% and STFT is 25%-35% during subsequent part throttle operation ending at 12:29:39.  O2 sensor readings generally as expected during part and full throttle operation. 

Full throttle acceleration around 12:29:44.  Computer enters enrichment mode, LTFT around 5%-6%, STFT at zero, O2 sensors sometimes go below 100 mV.  After this LTFT is around 5% and STFT is at zero for all part and full throttle conditions.  It's like the computer gave up on adjusting the fuel trim. 

Between 12:30:32 and 12:32:13 I did a short part throttle acceleration, a long full throttle acceleration, a short part throttle condition, and another full throttle acceleration.  Computer never entered power enrichment mode and O2 sensors never got above 100 mV. 

At 12:32:50 I did a partial throttle acceleration that transitioned to full throttle at 12:32:55.  The computer didn't enter power enrichment mode until 12:32:58 and the O2 sensors were below 100 mV prior to that.  There are a few points that O2 sensors were above 100 mV during enrichment mode but they were generally below 100 mV. 

Full throttle acceleration between 12:34:39 and 12:34:48.  Never entered power enrichment mode and O2 sensors always below 100 mV. 

Part and full throttle acceleration between 12:34:55 and 12:35:03.  Computer entered power enrichment mode at full throttle.  Sometimes the O2 readings looked good and sometimes not. bank 1 did better than bank 2. 

Part throttle acceleration between 12:37:11 and 12:37:23.  O2 sensors below 100 mV. 

Full throttle acceleration between 12:37:34 and 12:37:41.  Computer entered power enrichment mode and O2 sensors as expected.  Looked like a good run. 

Full throttle acceleration between 12:38:44 and 12:38:52.  Computer entered power enrichment but most O2 readings below 100 mV. 

Low throttle operation between 12:39:19 and 12:39.42.  O2 sensors looked good for first couple of seconds then went below 100 mV. 

Low throttle operation between 12:39:52 and 12:40:11.  O2 sensors looked good for first couple of seconds then went below 100 mV. 

Low and part throttle operation between 12:40:34 and 12:41:34.  O2 sensors looked good for first second then went below 100 mV. 

trackLog-2024-Sep-30_12-23-55.ods

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

That log shows some weird stuff happening.

 

At line 296, short term fuel trims go to 0 and stay there for the remainder of the log.

 

At line 344-425, the upstream O2 sensor readings stop fluctuating, throttle is showing 100% but commanded AFR stays at 14.9 instead of going to 11.5.

 

Line 696-733 O2 sensors stop reading.

 

Focusing on lines 250-300 show what I would expect: Throttle goes wide open to 100% commanded AFR goes rich. The problem as I see it is that the upstream O2 sensors show lean when they should be reading richer. I looked at the timing advance to see if the advance is correlating to the O2 readings but not seeing a pattern there. 

 

I do see a correlation between the timing advance and long term fuel trims.

 

Fuel flow and air flow are tracking together consistently.

 

When the O2 sensors are reading, the difference between the upstream and downstream is negligible, The catalytic converters could be bad. The voltages are fluctuating together, but the fluctuations look abnormal to me.

 

My conclusions are leaning towards the O2 sensors are reading poorly cutting of short term fuel trims.

 

I made a post of my observations in parallel to your post.  By your statement are you saying that you think the O2 sensors are faulty and my next step should be to replace them with Denso sensors?  Their readings seem to make sense sometimes, especially at an idle.  When I watch real time data at an idle with the truck warmed up I can see the upstream sensors varying between 100 mV and 900 mV while the downstream sensors stay low.  And why would the LTFT be around 5% and the STFT be at 0% if the O2 sensors are giving erroneously low readings?  Wouldn't the computer try to compensate for that by increasing the fuel trim?  

 

Edit:  I see what you mean about the upstream and downstream O2 sensors fluctuating together under load.  But cats wouldn't cause operational problems unless they were plugged, correct?  

Edited by RKCRLR
Posted
13 minutes ago, RKCRLR said:

I made a post of my observations in parallel to your post.  By your statement are you saying that you think the O2 sensors are faulty and my next step should be to replace them with Denso sensors?  Their readings seem to make sense sometimes, especially at an idle.  When I watch real time data at an idle with the truck warmed up I can see the upstream sensors varying between 100 mV and 900 mV while the downstream sensors stay low.  And why would the LTFT be around 5% and the STFT be at 0% if the O2 sensors are giving erroneously low readings?  Wouldn't the computer try to compensate for that by increasing the fuel trim?  

All the log data seems to be what is expected except the O2 sensors. It might be a sensor quality or signal integrity issue. Once that occurs I'm not sure how the computer compensates.

 

The sensors should work better hot, yours appear to be doing the opposite. 

 

The apparent intermittent O2 signal performance could be wiring.

 

However, seems like you indicated the part quality might be suspect of the O2 sensors - based on that and if no questionable wiring conditions exist I would strongly consider new/better sensors.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Alright, parts cannon reloaded.  I've got two genuine Denso 234-4103 O2 sensors on order.  

 

Downstream O2 sensors being faulty won't cause these operational problems, correct?  My understanding is they will just throw a code that would prevent me from passing emissions testing.  I figure if the upstream sensors fix the problem I'll deal with potentially faulty downstream sensors then.  If they don't fix the problem then I'll move on to other things.  Is there a flaw in my logic?  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,372 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...