 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / July 2005error code for 97 ram
I get the following trouble code when driving, it returns when I clear it out P0132 - O2 Sensor circuit, high voltage (cylinder bank no. 1, sensor no. 1) I also get the error code 21 Now, I would assume that this means I have a bad o2 sensor, but if that is the case, would it be the pre-cat sensor, or the post-cat sensor? When searching online, someone said that code could mean a bad catalytic converter. Is that also a possibility? Thanks in advance If it is the downstream sensor then it could be indicating a bad converter. but bank 1 sensor 1 indicates that it is an upstream o2 sensor and would not be able to indicate the converters condition.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I get the following trouble code when driving, it returns when I clear > it out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks in advance I would assume that with a bad o2 sensor, it would decrease my mileage? Any recommendations on the best place to get a replacement? > If it is the downstream sensor then it could be indicating a bad converter. > but bank 1 sensor 1 indicates that it is an upstream o2 sensor and would not > be able to indicate the converters condition. SignatureGet a free Apple Mini Mac http://www.freeminimacs.com/?r=14466563 If it is reading high, it can cause your mileage to drop because the computer will think that you are running lean and richen the mixture to the max.. They are available at most auto parts stores SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I would assume that with a bad o2 sensor, it would decrease my mileage? > Any recommendations on the best place to get a replacement? > > > If it is the downstream sensor then it could be indicating a bad converter. > > but bank 1 sensor 1 indicates that it is an upstream o2 sensor and would not > > be able to indicate the converters condition. wrong again, asshat an O2 sensor outputs HIGH VOLTS when the difference between inside and outside O2 levels is maximum, ZERO VOLTS when they are the same so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it is running very rich ALREADY > If it is reading high, it can cause your mileage to drop because the > computer will think that you are running lean and richen the mixture to the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not > > > be able to indicate the converters condition. > so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it is > running very rich ALREADY $10 says he comes back with, "when I said 'reads high', I was referring to the amount of O2 detected, not the voltage it puts out" Still feeling the need to be an a.shole, huh SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it is > > running very rich ALREADY > > $10 says he comes back with, "when I said 'reads high', I was referring to > the amount of O2 detected, not the voltage it puts out" > wrong again, asshat Whats the matter Gary, still upset over the torque converter? > an O2 sensor outputs HIGH VOLTS when the difference between inside and > outside O2 levels is maximum, ZERO VOLTS when they are the same You are wrong as well Asswipe. While you are correct on the response for oxygen content, it does not compare the outside to the exhausr stream. It looks at the % content of oxygen in the exhaust stream only. > so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it is > running very rich ALREADY Not always. If the senssor is always high or high as in above expected voltages, the computer will flag it as a problem which in this case it did, and go into open loop mode which just about always results in lower mileage although sometimes in more power as well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > wrong again, asshat > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > oxygen content, it does not compare the outside to the exhausr stream. It > looks at the % content of oxygen in the exhaust stream only. bullshit, dickweed the sensor has to have a benchmark to compare the exhaust gas O2 level to here, read this : " Oxygen Analyzers - Principle of Operation (Zirconium Oxide Sensor) The sensor used in MEECO's Oxytek PPB Oxygen Analyzer is made of the solid state oxygen ion conducting (electrolyte) material zirconium oxide. Due to oxygen vacancies in the ceramic lattice, at temperature over 450 degrees Centigrade, oxygen ions are mobile in the solid material. It is this property that enables the measurement of oxygen in a gas of unknown composition. When two gases of differing oxygen concentrations are on opposite sides of a zirconium oxide membrane, each side with a conductive (platinum) electrode material, a DC voltage is generated that is a function of the difference in oxygen concentration. In practice, one side of the membrane is a known reference gas, typically air, and the opposite side is the unknown sample gas to be measured." more at: http://www.meeco.com/pages/a_pop.htm#zirconium_oxide > > so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it is > > running very rich ALREADY [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and go into open loop mode which just about always results in lower mileage > although sometimes in more power as well. bullshit again it will stay in closed loop as long as CTS is reading above the ECM's programmed level ........................................... you really don't understand, do you? I warned you this would happen, I'd kick your a.s every time you f.cked up take it like a man > > > wrong again, asshat > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > more at: http://www.meeco.com/pages/a_pop.htm#zirconium_oxide My mistake, what I read was talking about the sensor looking for 2% O2 in the exhaust stream and never mentioned needing oxygen on the other side of the sensor element. Now I know something I didn't know before. Maybe someday you might learn something, ah hell, who am I kidding. > > > so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it > is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it will stay in closed loop as long as CTS is reading above the ECM's > programmed level Bullshit. The computer flagged a code stating that the O2 sensor is not operating properly and the OP also stated that his mileage has gone down and that the engine may be running rich which is also a sign that the engine is remaining in open loop mode. Why would the computer depend on a sensor that it knows ihas failed? Why is it that even when you are right (as rare as that is) , you have to be an a.shole to the point of making yourself wrong again? > ........................................... > > you really don't understand, do you? Far more than you do pinhead. > I warned you this would happen, I'd kick your a.s every time you f.cked up > > take it like a man Once again Gary, you really should follow your own advice. Now are you going to admit to your error on converter fluid flow or continue to be a little pussy? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > wrong again, asshat > > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > that is) , you have to be an a.shole to the point of making yourself wrong > again? because it has TWO O2 sensors, you dumb f.ck one on each bank > > > > > wrong again, asshat > > > > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > one on each bank No it doesn't you dumb f.ck. It has 2 sensors but they are pre and post converter, not one on each bank. The pre-catalyst sensor is responsible for mixture and the post-catalyst monitors the converter. Now who is the one that just doesn't get it? I think that you need to crack those books again, loser. Speaking of converters, I see that you deleted my question about you admitting to your error on TC fluid flow. I guess that you simply decided that it was easier to be a little pussy that stand up and be a man for a change. I sure hope that you don't have kids. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> because it has TWO O2 sensors, you dumb f.ck >> >> one on each bank > > No it doesn't you dumb f.ck. It has 2 sensors but they are pre and post > converter, not one on each bank. Well, actually you [insert derogatory name of your choice], it depends on what engine it has (which I don't believe was ever mentioned in this thread) - if it's a 3.9L, 5.2L, or a 5.9L light-duty (ie. 1500-series), then there's one upstream and one downstream. If it's a 5.9L heavy-duty-cycle (in a 2500 or 3500), or a V10 (HDC, ie. federal emissions), then there's one sensor per cylinder bank, both of them pre-cat. If it's a MDC V10 (ie. CA emissions), then there's FOUR sensors - one in each down pipe, one pre-cat, and one post-cat. So - in one scenario, you're correct. In two other scenarios, Gary's correct. Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a greater number of cases. > >> because it has TWO O2 sensors, you dumb f.ck > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (in a 2500 or 3500), or a V10 (HDC, ie. federal emissions), then there's one > sensor per cylinder bank, both of them pre-cat. The funny thing is that DC doesn't seem to define it quite the way you have above. As for the V8's, they do in fact as you stated declare them as LCD and HDC for light and heavy duty EMISSION cycle, they define the HDC engines as being identified by having an air injection pump, not by the series truck it is in and would indicate that the LDC and MDC engine can be in just about any model. So unless your V10 has an air injection pump, it should also have 4 sensors according to the FSM. As you know, unlike you, I don't own my own personal fleet of these vehicles and need to depend on the FSM for this type of information. > If it's a MDC V10 (ie. CA emissions), then there's FOUR sensors - one in > each down pipe, one pre-cat, and one post-cat. Which would discount this one since it has F O U R sensors, not two as Gary claimed. > So - in one scenario, you're correct. In two other scenarios, Gary's > correct. Wrong!!!! In one senerio I am correct, in the second Gary would be and in the third, neither of us would. > Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a > greater number of cases. Then you would be in error as well. Welcome to the club :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > any model. So unless your V10 has an air injection pump which it does... as do all Federal Emissions V10s, and thus it has two sensors. CA emissions V10's do not (go figure...), and have 4 sensors. > have 4 sensors according to the FSM. You can look at your books all you want... want a picture from underneath my truck to confirm? > my own personal fleet of these vehicles and need to depend on the FSM for > this type of information. Then stop spouting off like you know all there is to know, and allow for the fact that people with more EXPERIENCE than you (someone that works on vehicles for a living, let's say) might just have seen a little more, and know a little more, than you have learned from all your READING. > Wrong!!!! In one senerio I am correct, in the second Gary would be and in > the third, neither of us would. Okay - a tie goes to the one with more experience. Gary still wins the point. > > any model. So unless your V10 has an air injection pump > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can look at your books all you want... want a picture from underneath > my truck to confirm? Why would I want that. I have no reason not to believe you. > > my own personal fleet of these vehicles and need to depend on the FSM for > > this type of information. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicles for a living, let's say) might just have seen a little more, and > know a little more, than you have learned from all your READING. Perhaps because some people in here have a bit of an attitude problem that even exceeds mine at my worst. > > Wrong!!!! In one senerio I am correct, in the second Gary would be and in > > the third, neither of us would. > > Okay - a tie goes to the one with more experience. Gary still wins the > point. LOL, gee, like I expected anything different form you. >> You can look at your books all you want... want a picture from >> underneath >> my truck to confirm? > > Why would I want that. I have no reason not to believe you. You dispute everything else, now you have no reason not to believe him? Holy crap, where are the demands for proof otherwise you are "right, again"? >> Then stop spouting off like you know all there is to know, and allow for > the >> fact that people with more EXPERIENCE than you (someone that works on >> vehicles for a living, let's say) might just have seen a little more, and >> know a little more, than you have learned from all your READING. Hell, stop spouting off like its a crime to own a fleet of vehicles. > Perhaps because some people in here have a bit of an attitude problem that > even exceeds mine at my worst. Thats funny, really...... SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > any model. So unless your V10 has an air injection pump >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > LOL, gee, like I expected anything different form you. Is this more of your senseless ramblings in some lame attempt to make me dance. Sorry Max, all you are really doing is getting your strings tangled, puppet boy. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > >> You can look at your books all you want... want a picture from > >> underneath [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > LOL, gee, like I expected anything different form you. > So - in one scenario, you're correct. In two other scenarios, Gary's > correct. Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a > greater number of cases. Wait, Tbone's wrong again, is anyone surprised? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> because it has TWO O2 sensors, you dumb f.ck >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > correct. Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a > greater number of cases. How quick you are to jump the gun, not surprising though. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > So - in one scenario, you're correct. In two other scenarios, Gary's > > correct. Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > correct. Gotta give the point to Gary on this one for being correct in a > > greater number of cases. > How quick you are to jump the gun, not surprising though. You were wrong. Why? because you decided that there was no other way it could be, as evidenced by your name calling and insistance: > > No it doesn't you dumb f.ck. It has 2 sensors but they are pre and post > > converter, not one on each bank. If you had been a reasonable person, and said that the info you had differed from someone else's, you'd have had a shot a being right. But you didn't . You immediately noted that the oher person couldn't possible know enough ( e.g. "dumbfuck") and noted what you felt was correct, and distinctly used a negative (e.g. "not") to describe the scenario you felt was incorrect. I told you that you did not have a command of the language, and you've proven it again. Have a nice day. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > How quick you are to jump the gun, not surprising though. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > a >> > greater number of cases. > > How quick you are to jump the gun, not surprising though. > > You were wrong. Why? because you decided that there was no other way it > could be, as evidenced by your name calling and insistance: Actually, no I wasn't. The OP, while not naming the truck series, did say that he believed it had two sensors located on eater side of the converter and asked which one the error code was referring to. As for the name calling, that was once again and as usual, started by Gary. I did not "decide" it was the only way it could be done, I went by the OP's claims. > > > No it doesn't you dumb f.ck. It has 2 sensors but they are pre and post > > > converter, not one on each bank. > > If you had been a reasonable person, and said that the info you had differed > from someone else's, you'd have had a shot a being right. Funny how you cut out the line that this was in response two where he said started by calling me this first and then said explicitly that the truck had two sensors, one on each side. Why is it that Gary can make these statements and even make them first and when I respond in kind, it is me that has the problem. Sorry Max, but as usual, you arguments are just spin and have no merit. > But you didn't . > You immediately noted that the oher person couldn't possible know enough ( > e.g. "dumbfuck") and noted what you felt was correct, and distinctly used a > negative (e.g. "not") to describe the scenario you felt was incorrect. Which is exactly what your little buddy did first, imagine that. The difference is that the OP specifically mentioned that he believed that his truck had a pre and post sensor, not one on each side and in a pre / post setup, a failure of the pre sensor will put the computer into open loop mode. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Lookit that, THREE more times where you justify being an a.s by pointing at someone else and saying, "but he did it tooo!!" You've now proven my assertion that you never take personal responsibility for what you do. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > How quick you are to jump the gun, not surprising though. >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > setup, a failure of the pre sensor will put the computer into open loop > mode. > Lookit that, THREE more times where you justify being an a.s by pointing at > someone else and saying, "but he did it tooo!!" Actually, I flat out asked you why it was ok for him to do it but not me and as usual, you were unable to answer even simple question and instead, tried to spin it into something else. Talk about predictable. > You've now proven my assertion that you never take personal responsibility > for what you do. LOL, only in Maxworld. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Actually, I flat out asked you why it was ok for him to do it but not me > and > as usual, you were unable to answer even simple question and instead, > tried > to spin it into something else. Talk about predictable. Why would I address Gary's actions with you? Predictable has nothing to do with it, placing responsibility with the person who IS responsible has everything to do with it. >> You've now proven my assertion that you never take personal >> responsibility >> for what you do. > > LOL, only in Maxworld. Yeah, sorta like "only in Tbone world" where you don't have time to leap on my (hell, ANYONE'S) word in an effort to prove yourself superior. You got right on this one. So.... Have at it, I have a meeting tonight. I expect an answer in no more than 10 minutes, and please, make it as egotistical as possible while blaming everyone but yourself for your behavior. If I come back and you haven't jumped all over it, we'll know the reverse psychology is working. If you have jumped all over it, we'll know your in it just for the bullshit, like we said you were. Thanks for walking right into a catch-22, and have a nice night. Max Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> Lookit that, THREE more times where you justify being an a.s by pointing > at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LOL, only in Maxworld. > > Actually, I flat out asked you why it was ok for him to do it but not me > > and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with it, placing responsibility with the person who IS responsible has > everything to do with it. Well, since he started it, that would make him responsible so I'll ask again, why is it ok for him and not me? Are you going to answer it this time or am I going to get more of this expected spin. Then again, there is always your deletion method. > >> You've now proven my assertion that you never take personal > >> responsibility [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > my (hell, ANYONE'S) word in an effort to prove yourself superior. You got > right on this one. So.... LOL, think what you want, it really doesn't matter. > Have at it, I have a meeting tonight. I expect an answer in no more than 10 > minutes, and please, make it as egotistical as possible while blaming > everyone but yourself for your behavior. If I come back and you haven't > jumped all over it, we'll know the reverse psychology is working. If you > have jumped all over it, we'll know your in it just for the bullshit, like > we said you were. There is nothing to jump on. I blame no one for my behavior but do question why mine is the only one being questioned. Actually, we both know the answer to that one which does little for you credibility. This has probably taken less than 10 minutes because I am currently on my computer and just answered one of your lame posts a few minutes ago so it really wouldn't take much of a prediction to figure the timing out. As far as reverse psychology, in order for that to work, I would have to be concerned about what you think of me and I really don't so of course I'm in this thread now for the BS, just like you. > Thanks for walking right into a catch-22, and have a nice night. LOL, you thing a lot of yourself but I guess that is the only way for that to happen. Tell all of your buddies at AA that I said hi. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > This has probably > taken less than 10 minutes because I am currently on my computer and just > answered one of your lame posts a few minutes ago so it really wouldn't > take > much of a prediction to figure the timing out. 18 minutes. Not bad, but still late. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Actually, I flat out asked you why it was ok for him to do it but not >> > me [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > LOL, you thing a lot of yourself but I guess that is the only way for that > to happen. Tell all of your buddies at AA that I said hi. I don't have any control over the speed the news servers post at SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > This has probably > > taken less than 10 minutes because I am currently on my computer and just [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > LOL, you thing a lot of yourself but I guess that is the only way for that > > to happen. Tell all of your buddies at AA that I said hi. > While you are correct on the response for oxygen content, it does not > compare > the outside to the exhausr stream. It looks at the % content of oxygen in > the exhaust stream only. And that batting average continues to dwindle. From http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/O2_Sensor.html : "An Oxygen sensor is a chemical generator. It is constantly making a comparison between the Oxygen inside the exhaust manifold and air outside the engine." >> wrong again, asshat > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > oxygen content, it does not compare the outside to the exhausr stream. It > looks at the % content of oxygen in the exhaust stream only Nope. It compares the oxygen content of the exhaust to ambient. That is why you never repair the wiring harness to an oxygen sensor. The typical four wire sensor gets its outside air thru the harness. If you taped/sealed/heat shrinked the harness, you'd ruin the sensor. Ask me if I learned this the hard way a bunch of years ago.. Denny >> so high volts would mean there is NO O2 in the exhaust stream, hence it >> is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mileage > although sometimes in more power as well. > >> wrong again, asshat > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > shrinked the harness, you'd ruin the sensor. Ask me if I learned this the > hard way a bunch of years ago.. I would rather take your word for it than learn this one the hard way. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >I get the following trouble code when driving, it returns when I clear >it out >P0132 - O2 Sensor circuit, high voltage (cylinder bank no. 1, sensor no. 1) >I also get the error code 21 >Now, I would assume that this means I have a bad o2 sensor, but if that >is the case, would it be the pre-cat sensor, or the post-cat sensor? >When searching online, someone said that code could mean a bad catalytic >converter. Is that also a possibility? >Thanks in advance Code 21 is the generic keyswitch flash code while P0132 is the corresponding specific code. 21 is telling you have an O2 sensor problem, the P0132 tells you which one (Pre-Cat). If you're the original owner of that '97 Ram and have never had the CAT replaced under the original FEDERALLY MANDATED 8-yr/80,000 mile Federal Emissions Warranty, then most likely it needs to be replaced (in addition to replacing the pre-cat O2 sensor). I honestly believe every catalytic convertor on every single '96 and '97 RAM 1500 failed (rotted/rusted out usually) long before 80k miles but sadly not many owners were aware of the federal 8/80 emissions warranty so most either ate the cost or never replaced them until they had to when the truck failed an emissions test somewhere. Mine went at 58k miles and the dealership replaced the CAT along with the Y-Pipe under the emissions warranty. They didn't do the work at the dealership, but rather sublet it to an independent muffler shop. Mine bombed out at 79,800 and started to rattle. I was real lucky that it started making noise when it did or I would have been paying out the big bucks. I brought the truck in for the hood latch recall and asked then to check it for me and they replaced it on the spot. I was surprised and impressed and if I still lived in NJ, that is where I would be buying my next car. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > >I get the following trouble code when driving, it returns when I clear > >it out [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > warranty. They didn't do the work at the dealership, but rather sublet it > to an independent muffler shop. Yeah, rattling is a classic symptom of a bad CAT, expecially in reverse and backing at slow speed, but not many realize it. Everyone just thinks "something's loose" but when they look under the truck there's nothing obvious unless you happen to kick the CAT. Glad to hear you got your's replaced under warranty. >Mine bombed out at 79,800 and started to rattle. I was real lucky that it >started making noise when it did or I would have been paying out the big >bucks. I brought the truck in for the hood latch recall and asked then to >check it for me and they replaced it on the spot. I was surprised and >impressed and if I still lived in NJ, that is where I would be buying my >next car. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.