 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008check eng lite: 06 Xa
hi guys, i am just a tourist on this ng, but hoping to get some advise. i recently bought a 06 Scion Xa and within a few days the check engine light came on with 5 evap system codes. the car has just 18k miles , p.o. got it jan 16 06. i now see that consumer reports saya there is a problem with the fuel system with 06 Xa's so i wonder where i should be looking, ( i tried the filler cap and reset the codes once). thanks for any constructive comments, peter in CT > hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > thanks for any constructive comments, > peter in CT Isn't it under warranty? Ed > Isn't it under warranty? > > Ed i wonder being the second owner peter ps how is wilber >> Isn't it under warranty? >> >> Ed > i wonder being the second owner > peter > ps how is wilber What was the original date of sale? Many emission system components have a longer warranty than the basic warranty (see your owner's guide). The dealer should be able to tell you whether or not your car is still covered. The original warranty transfers with the car, so there is a good chance a problem with the emissions system is covered. Ed >> Isn't it under warranty? >> >> Ed > i wonder being the second owner > peter > ps how is wilber Emissions systems are warranteed for, IIRC 10 years. I would bring it to the dealer. The original warranty was 3 years/36,000 miles. Like CE said, check the original date of purchase. Also, if the car was bought by you from a dealer and was a "Certified Used...er, Toyota..." there should be an extended warranty that came with it. It has to have been a Certified Used Toyota, or, if the original ourchaser bought the extended warranty package then it is transferrable to you. Check this out. 18,000 miles is not a lot of miles to be throwing codes... hi, the codes i get are: P2043E Evap Sys Leak Orifice Low Flow P2043F Evap Sys Leak Orifice Hi Flow P2401 Evap Sys Leak Circuit Low P2402 Evap Sys Leak Circuit High P2419 Evap Sys Switching Valve Circuit Low the dealer said it would be a $92.50 diag charge, (even if it is a warranty issue? Oh, no, not then). they said it is the charcoal canister and filler neck (that seems odd but...) so next week they will have the pats and "fix" it under warranty i wonder why this happened and if there is any way to prevent a re-occurrence? thanks peter Those codes are not valid. Check this link out ... http://autorepair.about.com/od/obdcodedatabase/a/OBD_1996_year.htm Does the Check light come back on again after being reset? The Evap System is the system that controls gas fumes that were formerly vented to the atmosphere long ago. The system is supposed to be sealed (closed), but is obviously opened whenever gasoline is pumped into the tank. It has been found that most evap system errors are rooted in the gas cap not installed completely. There are other things that can cause leaks, but the gas cap can be caused and corrected by the vehicle operator, and I would suggest that before a dime is spent on service diagnosis, a few extra seconds to make sure the gas cap is seated well is worth the cost. The codes you gave are not valid for the ODB II system, and a valid Evap System error code would be in the range of P0440 to P0456, or something close to that. > hi, > the codes i get are: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > thanks peter > Those codes are not valid. doh seems i may have had a read/write then copy/paste error on the p-codes but the descriptions are ok > Check this link out ... > http://autorepair.about.com/od/obdcodedatabase/a/OBD_1996_year.htm useful site but i am wary as the codes are for "up to 2003" and this is a 2006... > Does the Check light come back on again after being reset? yes in a day or two > The Evap System is the system that controls gas fumes that were formerly > vented to the atmosphere long ago. The system is supposed to be sealed > (closed), but is obviously opened whenever gasoline is pumped into the > tank. It has been found that most evap system errors are rooted in the > gas cap not installed completely. There are other things that can cause > leaks, but the gas cap can be caused and corrected by the vehicle > operator, and I would suggest that before a dime is spent on service > diagnosis, a few extra seconds to make sure the gas cap is seated well > is worth the cost. this was the first step, before finding this ng. i didnt however look at the filler neck which toyota is replacing > The codes you gave are not valid for the ODB II system, and a valid Evap > System error code would be in the range of P0440 to P0456, or something > close to that. peter >> Those codes are not valid. > doh seems i may have had a read/write then copy/paste error on the p-codes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > useful site but i am wary as the codes are for "up to 2003" and this is a > 2006... The codes do not change. Some can be added as time goes on, that is certainly true. But the Evap System codes have been thoroughly defined, and no new codes are needed, making the codes you listed more suspect than the link I gave. >> Does the Check light come back on again after being reset? > yes in a day or two [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > this was the first step, before finding this ng. i didnt however look at > the filler neck which toyota is replacing That's a good thing to do. It's certainly a similar kind of problem. As a practical matter, yoiu probably can't look very closely at the filler neck because much (if not all) of it is hidden. POINT OF OREDER Notice how I put a couple of carriage returns between my comments and yours? This helps people see where we take turns at the keyboard. I nearly missed part of what you had to say because your comments got mixed with mine ... > hi, > the codes i get are: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > thanks peter The cause of the check engine light is not a loose gas cap. The charcoal canister traps the evaporative emissions (gas fumes) and stores the fumes for the engine to burn. There is a hose between the charcoal canister in the engine compartment and the fuel filler neck, and I think this problem has cropped up before. The replacement parts should cure the problem, but to be sure, try to avoid topping of the tank. Constantly topping off the tank can contaminate the charcoal canister.  SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >> hi, >> the codes i get are: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The cause of the check engine light is not a loose gas cap. this has happen before with my wife cross threading a cap on a different car tho. The charcoal > canister traps the evaporative emissions (gas fumes) and stores the fumes > for the engine to burn. There is a hose between the charcoal canister in > the engine compartment and the fuel filler neck, and I think this problem > has cropped up before. The replacement parts should cure the problem, but > to be sure, try to avoid topping of the tank. Constantly topping off the > tank can contaminate the charcoal canister. hard to say for sure as the car is new to me. let you know next week after toyot fixes it. peter >>> hi, >>> the codes i get are: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > this has happen before with my wife cross threading a cap on a different > car tho. A loose gas cap will give a different set of trouble codes. The codes you listed are Toyota-specific codes. <snipped> > The replacement parts should cure the problem, but >> to be sure, try to avoid topping of the tank. Constantly topping off the >> tank can contaminate the charcoal canister. > hard to say for sure as the car is new to me. let you know next week after > toyot fixes it. > peter SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> The cause of the check engine light is not a loose gas cap. >> this has happen before with my wife cross threading a cap on a different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <snipped> Do you know what the rationale would be for unique codes for this? There is already a wealth of Evap System Error Codes, and problems that exist with the canister would also exist on other auto maker's products so this should not be a unique system. A major reason for OBD II was that OBD I used different codes for the same problem from different auto makers, ie; a fouled plug gave a different code for every auto maker, and technicians were found to charge the customer for the education to learn the various codes, and of course there was different different diagnostic equipment required as well that generated charges to the consumer. If Toyota uses unique codes for a common problem, this seems like a giant step backwards. >>>> The cause of the check engine light is not a loose gas cap. >>> this has happen before with my wife cross threading a cap on a different [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > generated charges to the consumer. If Toyota uses unique codes for a > common problem, this seems like a giant step backwards. The intent of the OBD II protocol was to standardize the diagnostic interface for all automakers, i.e., diagnostic connector configuration, software that interprets trouble areas, and the diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) for components that are common to most or all vehicles. The OBD II protocol allows for manufacturer-specific codes if the manufacturer does things in a unique way or monitors a component that not all vehicles have, like a traction control system. I said above that the number 2 is for manufacturer-specific codes, but that was incorrect. I think the numbers the OP listed are warranty operations codes and not DTC's. Dealers have to use the manufacturer's warranty operations codes to get paid for warranty repairs. I'm not sure if the warranty coding system is still the same, but dealers used to have to list 3 codes for a warranty repair: T-1 was a description of what the car was doing or condition; T-2 is the cause of the condition; and T-3 is what the dealer did to resolve the condition. The codes the OP listed look like T-2 codes to me. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>> The cause of the check engine light is not a loose gas cap. >>>> this has happen before with my wife cross threading a cap on a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > what the dealer did to resolve the condition. The codes the OP listed > look like T-2 codes to me. Okay, that makes sense. I would expect the Evap System codes to be in the range of P0440 to P0459, or something like that. If the codes the OP gave us were Warranty Codes, or codes specifically pulled by Toyota but not sourced in OBD, then they could easily be as he stated. They are Toyota Codes, but not OBD Codes. That makes sense. I'd like to call you on one very fine point though. OBD II did standardize codes and connections for auto makers, but the intent was to make it so the consumer would not have to pay for the myriad test equipment needed by service centers to accomplish a relatively routine service call. If a guy with a Ford and a guy with a Chevy showed up on the same day with the same problem at the same service center, the technician would need two different diagnostic tools to figure out the problem, and would bill for the education and for the equipment needed to do the automotive equivelent of getting the pulse and blood pressure from the vehicle. Consumers were getting hosed under OBD I, and OBD II standardized this operation to the benefit of the consumer. The auto industry complies because they are told to, not because it makes life easier for them. Make no mistake, OBD II is intended to benefit the consumer, not the industry. <snipped>> >> The intent of the OBD II protocol was to standardize the diagnostic >> interface for all automakers, i.e., diagnostic connector configuration, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > to, not because it makes life easier for them. Make no mistake, OBD II is > intended to benefit the consumer, not the industry. I don't actually *know* the rationale for standardizing the OBD II system, but I do know that it is an SAE standard. I haven't kept up my membership in the SAE, but they weren't a consumer advocacy group back when I was a member, and I doubt that they are now. The SAE, being a group of engineers, does like to have things standardized as engineers often do. The automakers benefit from the standard because much of the research and engineering is already done for them. From my experience in the car business, my guess is that the independent service industry lobbied the SAE for one interface that they could buy, instead of having to purchase several different scanners while the auto dealer service departments could get away with scanners just for their brands. Of course, the independent service industry is going to say that it helps the consumer because the independent shops give the dealers competition, and competition is good for the consumer. I agree with the principle behind having a standardized interface and that competition is good for the consumer, but what I've noticed is that many independent shops lack the diagnostic skills to interpret the DTC's and just swap the component identified by the DTC instead of checking the component's function. Dealers send their technicians to factory classes so that they keep current with the technology in vehicles and also learn how to properly diagnose and repair various conditions. Many independent shops do not send their employees to continuing education, as evidenced by their low success rate in diagnosing anything other than a simple component swap. IOW, what should have been a good thing by having a standard DTC and interface hasn't quite come to fruition. The independent service industry is lobbying lawmakers for "right to repair" laws where automakers have to make proprietary information available to them, in addition to the factory service manuals that are already available. The automakers' counter to this argument is that they invested a lot of time, money, and resources to develop, test, and produce the proprietary information and that they should be able to keep it to themselves just like anything that someone in any other industry would be able to do. I tend to agree. Just because an I pod is wildly popular doesn't mean that Apple has to license their design to anyone who wants it. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > <snipped>> > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > The automakers benefit from the standard because much of the research and > engineering is already done for them. The OBD I standard came out of SAE too. Granted, the independent service community was overwhelmed by the various iterations of implementation of the OBD I system, they charged a service fee for the trouble it caused them. My understanding is that OBD II is consumer-driven. Obvious benefactors are the service providers, but they charged fees for the problems caused by OBD I, so they were not really motivated to change out of the OBD I system. The consumer was met with insurmountable issues with some implementations of OBD I, and OBD II gave us a data scheme that could be learned and would easily transfer from one car to the next that we had parked in the driveway. In the OBD I world, I had to have a different scan tool for every car I owned, in the OBD II world, the same scan tool works on all of the cars I own. >> <snipped>> >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > The OBD I standard came out of SAE too. Technically, there was no OBD I standard. Each automaker had their own proprietary diagnostic system and codes. You didn't even need a code scanner to pull codes from a Toyota OBD I system. All you needed was a paper clip to short the check terminals. The lack of a standard was the reason for OBD II. > Granted, the independent service community was overwhelmed by the various > iterations of implementation of the OBD I system, they charged a service > fee for the trouble it caused them. My understanding is that OBD II is > consumer-driven. Obvious benefactors are the service providers, but they > charged fees for the problems caused by OBD I, so they were not really > motivated to change out of the OBD I system. Service facilities charged a service fee to pull trouble codes from OBD I systems because most consusmers couldn't figure out how to pull them and so they were willing to pay a fee. The easy availability and use of OBD II scanners have made people less willing to pay a fee, and so the market place has started to move away from fees to just plug a scanner in. > The consumer was met with insurmountable issues with some implementations > of OBD I, and OBD II gave us a data scheme that could be learned and would > easily transfer from one car to the next that we had parked in the > driveway. In the OBD I world, I had to have a different scan tool for > every car I owned, in the OBD II world, the same scan tool works on all of > the cars I own. I have not tried to pull OBD I codes from a vehicle other than a Toyota, but Toyota's scheme seemed pretty easy to me. The codes were consistent from Toyota to Toyota, and a paper clip cost a lot less than even the cheapest OBD II scanner. The method for checking components identified by the DTC's haven't changed. The only drawback I see with Toyota's OBD I system is that it was not as comprehensive as OBD II, and the codes are not published in as many web pages as OBD II. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> <snipped>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > II scanners have made people less willing to pay a fee, and so the market > place has started to move away from fees to just plug a scanner in. They were not so willing as they had no other choice. There was no published standard that said to fully depress the gas pedal 5 times, or turn the igniiton on and off 5 times ending in the on cycle, or short two pins together, or stand on your head and spit wooden nickles and while twisting the rear view mirror counterclockwise as you pop the trunk latch and set the igniton to on, all at the same time. And the hoops to jump through for one car were different than for another. >> The consumer was met with insurmountable issues with some implementations >> of OBD I, and OBD II gave us a data scheme that could be learned and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > system is that it was not as comprehensive as OBD II, and the codes are > not published in as many web pages as OBD II. Of course the codes were consistant from one Toyota to the next, but Toyota built products that had the Chevy nameplate on them, and these were different than the rest of the Chevys. My Jeep has to turn the ignition off and on while holding your tongue to the left side of your mouth. My BMW requires mashing the gas pedal 5 times while holding your tongue against the right side of your mouth. My Ford wanted a scan tool connected to the right place while spitting wooden nickels. I have a Mazda that I have not figured out how the codes come out -- I'm pretty sure I don't hold my tongue in the correct orientation. You have Toyotas that want a paper clip inserted into the right front turn signal socket while dancing a jig. It should be easy to see why a service center would charge to pull codes. Once they get the codes to come out, whatever the code is is different from one car to the next, that's an extra charge. "We pull codes for $25.00. For another $50.00, we'll tell you what they mean. If somebody else fixes it, that's $25.00 more. You can see how the consumer was over the barrel with OBD I. <snipped> > They were not so willing as they had no other choice. There was no > published standard that said to fully depress the gas pedal 5 times, or [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > You can see how the consumer was over the barrel with OBD I. I don't know why the folks who designed the OBD systems on your Jeep, BMW, Ford, and Mazda made you go through such contortions when shorting a couple of connectors was such a simple solution. I'm not disputing that consumers can benefit greatly from OBD II, I'm just saying that is a side benefit that resulted from the requirement for tighter emissions monitoring and standardization. Now that I think about it, OBD II was the SAE's response to stricter emissions requirements while making it easier for emissions test stations to check more of the components that affect emissions that might not show up on a sniffer test. The standardization was a result of emissions regulations, not because of any great concern for the consumer on the part of the SAE. OBD II does make it easier for consumers and shade tree mechanics to pull trouble codes, but I'm not so sure that consumers and shade tree mechanics can even identify some of the components listed in the trouble codes, and even fewer would know how to test the component to see if it is actually bad or not. Merely replacing the identified component is an amateur approach to diagnosis that is no guarantee of success. For example, a friend's Windstar had a check engine light come on and yes, being able to use my handy dandy OBD II scanner instead of needing to buy a Ford specific scanner and do a jig was convenient. DTC's P0171 and P0174 - system too lean Bank 1 and Bank 2 came up. What do you think the fix was? In the interest of full disclosure, I called a friend who is a Ford master tech instead of checking voltages and resistance on a lot of components that I wouldn't know the correct values for anyway. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > For example, a friend's Windstar had a check engine light come on and yes, > being able to use my handy dandy OBD II scanner instead of needing to buy a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tech instead of checking voltages and resistance on a lot of components that > I wouldn't know the correct values for anyway. In the order of frequency that I see; 1) rotten PCV hoses 2) intake manifold gaskets leaking 3) MAF sensor failed/contaminated 4) IMRC seals leaking 5) both O2 sensors shorted >> For example, a friend's Windstar had a check engine light come on and >> yes, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 4) IMRC seals leaking > 5) both O2 sensors shorted You are a lot more familiar with Fords than I am! I was focusing on #3, but #2 fixed the problem. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > >> For example, a friend's Windstar had a check engine light come on and > >> yes, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You are a lot more familiar with Fords than I am! I was focusing on #3, but > #2 fixed the problem. I hope you didn't kick it out to another shop, intake gaskets on a Windfart is a gravy job. >> >> For example, a friend's Windstar had a check engine light come on and >> >> yes, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I hope you didn't kick it out to another shop, intake gaskets on a > Windfart is a gravy job. Not quite - I had a meeting that popped up the night the friend brought the Windstar to my house so my friend the Ford tech who brought the parts did it for about 20 bucks plus parts. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Now that I think about it, OBD II was the SAE's response to stricter > emissions requirements while making it easier for emissions test stations to > check more of the components that affect emissions that might not show up on > a sniffer test. The standardization was a result of emissions regulations, > not because of any great concern for the consumer on the part of the SAE. Here in Tejas they don't even sniff my 05 corolla for emissions. Totally OBD II tested.. So that makes sense.. It wouldn't surprise me if the OP's car has had the gas tank filled to the brim, or overflowed in the recent past. That happened to mine, and it eventually dried out and fixed itself. Ditto for the OBD II.. I let it clear itself.. I never reset it after all that happened. I recently had it inspected and it flew through without a hitch. So I assume the data from the evap problem has long since been purged. Seems like it takes about 40 cycles or so I think, but I fergot.. It had a few months to overwrite the old stuff... >> Now that I think about it, OBD II was the SAE's response to stricter >> emissions requirements while making it easier for emissions test stations [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I think, but I fergot.. It had a few months to overwrite the old > stuff... Vehicles with OBD II are tested via OBD II, while non-OBD II vehicles are usually sniffed. It takes 2 cycles without a fault to purge the memory for an OBD II vehicle. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Vehicles with OBD II are tested via OBD II, while non-OBD II vehicles are > usually sniffed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ray O > (correct punctuation to reply) I was thinking it was about that many for each part being tested, but I was thinking there was a overall "history" being written separately, that took more cycles to purge, but maybe not.. It's been a while since I read up on OBD II so I'm getting kinda foggy on it. At one time I thought about getting a scanner, but with the autozone nearby doing it for free, I couldn't see the point in wasting the money. I'm pretty sure a car with OBD II freshly reset will fail the test here. It has to run through a few cycles before you take it in for the test. <nm5k@wt.net> ... > "Ray O" : >> Vehicles with OBD II are tested via OBD II, while non-OBD II vehicles are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > here. > It has to run through a few cycles before you take it in for the test. That is the way it is in NJ anyway. If you reset the OBDII by pulling the fuse it wipes the memory but leaves a 'not ready' situation when read by the inspection station. I tried to slime my way through with the Sienna that way to avoid them picking up a code and I failed because of that 'not ready' situation. Tomes >> Vehicles with OBD II are tested via OBD II, while non-OBD II vehicles are >> usually sniffed. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > here. > It has to run through a few cycles before you take it in for the test. Most, but not all, components monitored by an OBD II electronic control module (ECM) have a 2-trip detection logic, where the ECM has to see the problem on 2 consecutive trips before it illuminates the malfunction indicator light (MIL). An example of a component that does not have 2 trip detection logic would be a knock sensor. If the ECM does not see a signal from the knock sensor, it will retard the timing the maximum amount because constant knocking can damage the engine. For components with 2 trip detection logic, the ECM records either a good or bad signal for 2 trips. If the memory is cleared, the memory locations for the component are empty and are neither good or bad and so the ECM indicates that it is not ready yet because it has not gone through the 2 trips necessary to fill the memory locations. There is no additional "history" beyond the last 2 trips, which is why you get the "not ready" status until the 2 trips have occurred. There are specific parameters for the ECM to count a driving session as a "trip." Basically, the engine, coolant, O2 sensors, and catalytic converter have to reach operating temperature and all of the sensors have to have a chance to sense whatever it is that they are supposed to be sensing. For example, just starting the car and letting it warm up won't let the vehicle speed sensor sense how fast the vehicle is moving. The factory repair manual has a list of conditions that have to occur before a driving session qualifies as a trip. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > They were not so willing as they had no other choice. There was no published > standard that said to fully depress the gas pedal 5 times, or turn the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > igniton to on, all at the same time. And the hoops to jump through for one > car were different than for another. There was no published standard because there was no standard. The service procedures fro extracting codes certainly were published in numerous ways by numerous entities. > Of course the codes were consistant from one Toyota to the next, but Toyota > built products that had the Chevy nameplate on them, and these were > different than the rest of the Chevys. What product did Toyota build that had a Chevy name plate? > My Jeep has to turn the ignition off and on while holding your tongue to the > left side of your mouth. Nope. > My BMW requires mashing the gas pedal 5 times while > holding your tongue against the right side of your mouth. Nope. > My Ford wanted a > scan tool connected to the right place while spitting wooden nickels. Nope. > I have > a Mazda that I have not figured out how the codes come out -- I'm pretty > sure I don't hold my tongue in the correct orientation. It has nothing to do with your tongue. > You have Toyotas > that want a paper clip inserted into the right front turn signal socket > while dancing a jig. Nope. > It should be easy to see why a service center would charge to pull codes. It should be easy to see why Starbucks charges for a cup of coffee. > Once they get the codes to come out, whatever the code is is different from > one car to the next, that's an extra charge. Rubbish. > "We pull codes for $25.00. For another $50.00, we'll tell you what they > mean. If somebody else fixes it, that's $25.00 more. Perfectly fair. > You can see how the consumer was over the barrel with OBD I. Yes, the cost of a paper clip certainly put them over a barrel. > The OBD I standard There is no such thing > came out of SAE too. OBD2 is not an SAE standard, it is an EPA emissions standard. Within that standard are SAE defined communication protocols, defined DLC shape and defined DLC pin configurations. > Granted, the independent service community was overwhelmed by the various > iterations of implementation of the OBD I system, Not true. > they charged a service fee > for the trouble it caused them. They charged a service fee for the time it took and the service they provided. Still do. > My understanding is that OBD II is > consumer-driven. You understand wrong. The EPA criteria for OBD 2 is that the MIL be illuminated when the system detects that emissions are exceeding federal standards by a factor of 1.5 > Obvious benefactors are the service providers, but they > charged fees for the problems caused by OBD I, Cardiologists charge fees for the problems caused by cholesterol. > so they were not really > motivated to change out of the OBD I system. Rubbish. > The consumer was met with insurmountable issues with some implementations of > OBD I, and OBD II gave us a data scheme that could be learned and would > easily transfer from one car to the next that we had parked in the driveway. > In the OBD I world, I had to have a different scan tool for every car I > owned, in the OBD II world, the same scan tool works on all of the cars I > own. The same scan tool does some stuff on all the cars you own. Different (multiple) scan tools are still a necessity for truly effective repairs. I guess that is one reason we see so many Scions on the used car lots of other brands. > hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thanks for any constructive comments, > peter in CT What error code did you get? What did you do to reset the codes? Your car is OBD II compliant, this means you can use the scan tool to extract the codes and reset them, instead of resetting them by disconnecting the battery and never what threw the code in the first place. Visit your local Autozone store where they will either pull the codes for you or give you the scan tool so you can pull them yourself. The data port is in the foot well along the bottom edge of the dashboard. It is typically found between the outer bulkhead and the steering column, generally in the area above the clutch pedal whether or not you actually have a clutch pedal. The directions are on the scan tool for pulling codes and erasing them. > hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thanks for any constructive comments, > peter in CT > hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thanks for any constructive comments, > peter in CT Toyota/Scion warrants the vehicle, not the owner. If the vehicle is within the 36 month, 36,000 miles warranty period, diagnosis and repair should be covered. The emissions warranty coverage period is even longer, so chances are, you can get the problem fixes. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thanks for any constructive comments, > peter in CT hi, scion of wallinford, ct fixed my scion today at no cost and sooner than they said so i am happy, thanks for your comments, peter |
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.