When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
After adding a lot of Lucas oil treatment, car is behaving better on traffic lights.
It's not hesitating as much as before.
Once this tank is empty, I'll add techron concentrate with high octane fuel and see how that works.
BTW, does anyone know decent mechanic shop in Denver that doesn't charge arm and legs?
I tested with multimeter and right two connections are open, 1.
That's the right connectors to test right?
Left two give me 1829. Does left side not matter? Am I switching left to right?
Does it confirm MAF is bad?
I don't think my cleaning broke anything but who knows.
Here's a picture. Thanks for confirming.
As for backprobing, I couldn't get the rubber seals out so didn't do it.
Can I just pull those hard?
The table says at 68F you should see 2210-2690 ohms resistance between E2 and THA.
Yours sounds like it's bad. I would replace it.
I replaced mine when it failed this test.
The table says at 68F you should see 2210-2690 ohms resistance between E2 and THA.
Yours sounds like it's bad. I would replace it.
I replaced mine when it failed this test.
Okay that part is now $70.
That's quite a price hike from $48 but still cheaper than local stores.
Hopefully, it'll fix at least the lean on bank 1 issue.
thanks
artbuc,
doesn't that resistance test confirm MAF is bad?
I don't get any reading on the right two connectors.
I tried from 20 - 2000k modes and all it shows is 1 while the left two shows around 1800.
My scanner is on the way but will take few days at least.
Not sure about this particular car, but on most Toyota vehilcles, ECU will default to 68 degrees when IAT sensor is faulty.
Art, in my case I only had P0171. I captured live data, did the diagnosis.
The MAF failed the resistance test. It wasn't reading 1 like Mystery reports but was way off spec.
Replaced MAF, problem went away.
Unfortunately I had run like that for many months and soon after resolving P0171 I got a P0420.
Replaced cat, problem went away. I'm guessing it was fouled by running rich for so long.
artbuc,
doesn't that resistance test confirm MAF is bad?
I don't get any reading on the right two connectors.
I tried from 20 - 2000k modes and all it shows is 1 while the left two shows around 1800.
My scanner is on the way but will take few days at least.
No, it means your IAT sensor is bad but since you do not have that code it does not make sense. Also, a faulty IAT sensor will not cause any of your issues since the ECU will default to 68 degrees.
No, it means your IAT sensor is bad but since you do not have that code it does not make sense. Also, a faulty IAT sensor will not cause any of your issues since the ECU will default to 68 degrees.
Okay thanks.
It's weird that the two connectors are static at 1 ohm.
I'll wait for the scanner before ordering parts.
No, it means your IAT sensor is bad but since you do not have that code it does not make sense. Also, a faulty IAT sensor will not cause any of your issues since the ECU will default to 68 degrees.
Artbuc, this seems inconsistent.
The ECU may use a default temperature if it determined the IAT sensor was bad, but it would also throw an IAT sensor code.
Since it hasn't thrown a code it seems likely to be using the reported temperature when calculating airflow.
Artbuc, this seems inconsistent.
The ECU may use a default temperature if it determined the IAT sensor was bad, but it would also throw an IAT sensor code.
Since it hasn't thrown a code it seems likely to be using the reported temperature when calculating airflow.
Right, I said OP's resistance readings were not consistent with no IAT code. At this point who knows what is going on and if OP's reports are accurate? All codes must be cleared and see what code reappears first. I seriously doubt that A/F, MAF, IAT and knock sensors all failed at the same time along with a major vacuum leak. Somone has screwed this car up royally and I doubt we are getting the whole story.
Right, I said OP's resistance readings were not consistent with no IAT code. At this point who knows what is going on and if OP's reports are accurate? All codes must be cleared and see what code reappears first. I seriously doubt that A/F, MAF, IAT and knock sensors all failed at the same time along with a major vacuum leak. Somone has screwed this car up royally and I doubt we are getting the whole story.
I had this car since 2007 and no one has screwed with this car and one doesn't need to deliberately destroy car to get car troubles.
I think it had 61k miles when I bought it.
Oil change done regularly and timing belt/water pump changed at 82k in 2010 or 11.
Other than that, no services done except the starter replaced last year.
I have a friend who has 1999 RX300.
He visited me today and I tested his MAF with multimeter.
He just replaced it few months ago so it's brand new.
Same results. The right two connections show 1 resistance and left two show around 1200.
Mine also shows 1 on right two and around 1800 on left two. So Lexus IAT resistance test instruction is messed up.
It's incorrect.
That means my MAF is okay. Problem is something else.
I have a friend who has 1999 RX300.
He visited me today and I tested his MAF with multimeter.
He just replaced it few months ago so it's brand new.
Same results. The right two connections show 1 resistance and left two show around 1200.
Mine also shows 1 on right two and around 1800 on left two. So Lexus IAT resistance test instruction is messed up.
It's incorrect.
That means my MAF is okay. Problem is something else.
Will your friend swap sensors for a while?
The repair manual I'm reading covers 1999 RX300 and ES300.
In the IAT sensor resistance section it has two different pictures, one for ES300, the other RX300.
In the ES300 picture the E2 and THA pins are the left two.
In the RX300 picture the E2 and THA pins are the right two.
But the denso web site shows the same part number for both cars. One of those pictures is wrong. I never noticed the difference.
06-12-18, 09:05 PM
