Date:         Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:59:40 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Temp II Gets Bad Rap
Comments: To: Jay L Snyder <Jay.L.Snyder@USA.DUPONT.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <85256982.006B0438.00@CDCLN08.LVS.DUPONT.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hear, hear!  It's a resistor, f'heaven's sake.  Well, a special resistor,
but not that special.  Of course it's no simpler than the Temp I
sensor.  However if it were badly designed it could fail from mechanical
stress as the sensor body temperature-cycles.

As to the stories of "tests ok but still caused a problem" -- I reckon that
depends on the test.  If it goes open-circuit when it heats up the ECU is
going to think the engine suddenly got dipped in liquid nitrogen.  But if
it displays a smooth resistance vs. temperature curve within the limits
defined by Bentley (notice that the tables for T I and T II values are
identical) then that's a definitive test that the part is good.

david

At 15:35 10/24/2000, Jay L Snyder wrote:
>I find it hard to believe how many times I read about replacing the Temp II
>sensor.  It has to be the simplest part of the whole FI system.  I am
>wondering if most problems that were "fixed" by replacing the Temp II
>sensor were due to bad connections at the sensor, or air trapped in the
>antifreeze at the sensor location.  Both would likely be fixed by putting
>in a new sensor.  (Assuming, like me, you would take the time to clean-up
>the wiring before reconnecting.)

David Beierl - Providence, RI
  http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"