CEL came on yesterday, 2006 ODB trouble codes

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Donal

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Posts
244
Reaction score
361
Location
Americus Georgia
Sure. Did you try one of the AL plates and it didn't work or do you need the OEM plate for some other reason? You don't have to mention the reason I'm curious because if I send you the OEM plate and then need it back etc etc.
The one on your engine has the boss for a manual gage line. None of the plates leak with correct gasket in good condition.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
Someone suggested one of the AL machined plate setups. This showed up today.
I'll install when it stops raining.

View attachment 421697View attachment 421698View attachment 421698

I took the OEM plate off today. Noticed a nick in the gasket, maybe that is why the leak.
I installed the new billet AL plate but used the original bolts. The supplied bolts/screws had 1/2 the threads. Not good. I'm also not sure about the volume of the cavity for the O-ring but it went together and felt like it bolted flat. Considering the short bolts I would not give this kit a high grade.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
The one on your engine has the boss for a manual gage line. None of the plates leak with correct gasket in good condition.
I'm now thinking these AL aftermarket plates might affect oil flow in a negative way. As you suggest a new gasket using the existing stock part is probably what I will do.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
Appreciate the update. Keep 'em coming!
After replacing the purge and vent valves with OEM, I had a different thought regarding the purge/seal test. Why does the purge to go 10% and vent closed during the "test". I think this could be that if the leak is not more than 10% purge then the leak is small enough to pass the test. This way the EMU "measures" the leak. I'm still waiting for the evap drive cycle to complete or reset the trouble code.
 

Fless

Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Posts
11,696
Reaction score
23,755
Location
Elev 5,280
After the "seal" action neither valve should be open. Are you saying that the scan tool is commanding the purge valve to open 10% after the seal?

During the "purge" you should be able to ramp up the purge suction by 10% at a time. The higher that percentage is, the rougher the engine will run because it's (trying to) pull a vacuum on a closed system. But once the purge is closed (by commanding the seal) it should go to 0%.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
After the "seal" action neither valve should be open. Are you saying that the scan tool is commanding the purge valve to open 10% after the seal?

During the "purge" you should be able to ramp up the purge suction by 10% at a time. The higher that percentage is, the rougher the engine will run because it's (trying to) pull a vacuum on a closed system. But once the purge is closed (by commanding the seal) it should go to 0%.
As you say - during the "purge" the vent closes and the purge command goes to 10%. If you press "increase" the purge command goes to 20% etc. etc.... the vacuum goes up and may get too high and the test will kick you out. Or, while this is happening you hit the "seal" button and I was thinking the purge would be commanded to zero and the ECU would watch along with the viewer how fast the vacuum returns to zero. But the purge valve only returns to 10%, it doesn't go to zero command. I originally thought this was a bug - but maybe it isn't as explained in previous post. I tried an experiment - I confirmed the 10% by using a stethoscope and then I forced the purge command to zero by unplugging it. The vacuum held pretty well. So this leaves me wondering if it is a bug or intentional.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
After the "seal" action neither valve should be open. Are you saying that the scan tool is commanding the purge valve to open 10% after the seal?

During the "purge" you should be able to ramp up the purge suction by 10% at a time. The higher that percentage is, the rougher the engine will run because it's (trying to) pull a vacuum on a closed system. But once the purge is closed (by commanding the seal) it should go to 0%.

More on this - What does a purge/seal test do?
I found an Autel video on Youtube and when the guy hit "seal" the purge valve went to zero.
 
OP
OP
2

2006Tahoe2WD

Full Access Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Posts
497
Reaction score
314
Location
Silicon Valley
This guy is good and recommend by other YouTube mechanics as it relates to EVAP.
I think this confirms that the purge valve should go to zero when "sealing".
My theory to that Foxwell might be doing something valid was incorrect.
So, IMHO Foxwell has a bug or this is some sort of pilot error.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
131,993
Posts
1,860,547
Members
96,387
Latest member
sfcadams
Top