97 voyager - catalytic efficiency failure

OK, so the "service engine soon" idoit light came on. So I paid the
local Merchant’s Tire $98 just to tell me i have a catalytic
efficiency failure. Now they want some $300 or $400 more to complete
the diagnosis.

I’m thinking they’ve gotta be kidding, right?

1) Is there some other way to find out what’s really wrong?

2) Is the car in any real serious trouble or is it just some nuissance
thing?

Thanks for any advice...

Glendon

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-9...ict128570.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=626977

"Glendon" > wrote in message
news:1_626977_4fd49e343f84cc551d136fabe3919d6c@aut oforumz.com...
> OK, so the "service engine soon" idoit light came on. So I paid the
> local Merchant's Tire $98 just to tell me i have a catalytic
> efficiency failure. Now they want some $300 or $400 more to complete
> the diagnosis.
>
> I'm thinking they've gotta be kidding, right?
>
> 1) Is there some other way to find out what's really wrong?
>
> 2) Is the car in any real serious trouble or is it just some nuissance
> thing?
>
> Thanks for any advice...
>
> Glendon
>
> --
> Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL:
http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-9...ict128570.html
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=626977

When the upstream 02 sensor and downstream 02 sensor start switching at the
same rate, that is telling you that the catalytic converter is not working
and replacement is the only fix. That is how the cat efficiency monitor
works

Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech

need a new cat. converter

Glendon wrote:

> OK, so the "service engine soon" idoit light came on. So I paid the
> local Merchant’s Tire $98 just to tell me i have a catalytic
> efficiency failure. Now they want some $300 or $400 more to complete
> the diagnosis.
>
> I’m thinking they’ve gotta be kidding, right?
>
> 1) Is there some other way to find out what’s really wrong?
>
> 2) Is the car in any real serious trouble or is it just some nuissance
> thing?
>
> Thanks for any advice...
>
> Glendon
>
> --
> Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-9...ict128570.html
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=626977

"Glendon" > wrote in message
news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@aut oforumz.com...

> Without finding
> > the reason
> > that this
> > catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
> >
> > Ted
>
> The car has about 200k miles on it.

Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?

> The flashing dash light gives me
> the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
>

Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he

http://www.troublecodes.net/

There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
might be interesting reading.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Glendon" > wrote in message
> news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@aut oforumz.com...
>
> > Without finding
> > > the reason
> > > that this
> > > catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
> > >
> > > Ted
> >
> > The car has about 200k miles on it.
>
> Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?
>
> > The flashing dash light gives me
> > the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
> >
>
> Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he
>
> http://www.troublecodes.net/
>
> There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
> might be interesting reading.
>
> Ted
>
There is no 72, try again, I would bet its 52 (02 sensor)

maxpower wrote:

> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Glendon" > wrote in message
>>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@a utoforumz.com...
>>
>>
>>>Without finding
>>> > the reason
>>> > that this
>>> > catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
>>> >
>>> > Ted
>>>
>>>The car has about 200k miles on it.
>>
>>Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?
>>
>>
>>>The flashing dash light gives me
>>>the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
>>>
>>
>>Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he
>>
>>http://www.troublecodes.net/
>>
>>There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
>>might be interesting reading.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>
> There is no 72, try again, I would bet its 52 (02 sensor)
>
>

Actually, I'm pretty sure that 72 is the code that my 96 Grand Voyager
flashed when the catcon went bad. The funny thing was, this code isn't
even in the table of the FSM! However, when the dealer read it with the
scan tool, it said the issue was catcon efficiency not being in spec.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> maxpower wrote:
>
> > "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Glendon" > wrote in message
> >>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed@a utoforumz.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Without finding
> >>> > the reason
> >>> > that this
> >>> > catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ted
> >>>
> >>>The car has about 200k miles on it.
> >>
> >>Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?
> >>
> >>
> >>>The flashing dash light gives me
> >>>the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
> >>>
> >>
> >>Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he
> >>
> >>http://www.troublecodes.net/
> >>
> >>There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
> >>might be interesting reading.
> >>
> >>Ted
> >>
> >
> > There is no 72, try again, I would bet its 52 (02 sensor)
> >
> >
>
> Actually, I'm pretty sure that 72 is the code that my 96 Grand Voyager
> flashed when the catcon went bad. The funny thing was, this code isn't
> even in the table of the FSM! However, when the dealer read it with the
> scan tool, it said the issue was catcon efficiency not being in spec.
>
> Matt
Matt you could be right, I was told back in 96 that on the newer
vehicles cycling the key was not an acuate way of retreiving fault codes,
On the older vehicles 1994 earlier there was no such thing as a code 72

maxpower wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>maxpower wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Glendon" > wrote in message
>>>>news:1_629473_3ffcac4d085bd124711a9b87f8909aed @autoforumz.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Without finding
>>>>>
>>>>>>the reason
>>>>>>that this
>>>>>>catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>The car has about 200k miles on it.
>>>>
>>>>Have o2 sensors ever been replaced?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The flashing dash light gives me
>>>>>the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't know that one, but maybe you can find it he
>>>>
>>>>http://www.troublecodes.net/
>>>>
>>>>There is also an article on there titled "Catalyst Efficiency Failures"
>>>>might be interesting reading.
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no 72, try again, I would bet its 52 (02 sensor)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I'm pretty sure that 72 is the code that my 96 Grand Voyager
>>flashed when the catcon went bad. The funny thing was, this code isn't
>>even in the table of the FSM! However, when the dealer read it with the
>>scan tool, it said the issue was catcon efficiency not being in spec.
>>
>>Matt
>
> Matt you could be right, I was told back in 96 that on the newer
> vehicles cycling the key was not an acuate way of retreiving fault codes,
> On the older vehicles 1994 earlier there was no such thing as a code 72
>
>

The MIL light did flash out code 72, but my code table in the factory
manual didn't go that high. I found 72 via a Google search and it said
it was catalytic convertor efficiency and this agreed with the scan tool
at the dealer so I figured it was correct. And since replacing the
converter, the MIL hasn't reactivated.


Matt

"" wrote:
> "tim bur" > wrote in message
> ...
> > need a new cat. converter
> >
>
> That is just the beginning of it. How many miles on this? I
> think it not
> likely that a
> catcon would fail in a 97 Voyager without some reason. Our 95
> T&C has
> 110,000
> miles on it and it's catcon is still going strong.
>
> catcons fail because the fuel mixture going into them is
> wrong. Too rich
> and they get sooted
> up. Too lean and they overheat and burn up. Without finding
> the reason
> that this
> catcon failed, a new one will be destroyed in short order.
>
> Ted

The car has about 200k miles on it. The flashing dash light gives me
the codes: 12 - 33 - 72 - 55

- can anyone confirm what those codes mean? i.e. do they really tell
us the cat. converter is dead and needs replacing?

- how long can a drive this thing before it does serious damage or
quits?

thanks,
Glen Flowers

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-9...ict128570.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=629473