Thread: Odd Td5 auto behaviour

Originally Posted by Markf

It’s a 2002 pre facelift car with a 16p engine so it’ll be EU3 I guess.

Ok thanks,
MAF has significant impact on the auto on these cars, having said that, the fact that it won't lockup under any circumstance is concerning. Definitely check the fluid level and new MAF as you have said.

If it only started doing it after a service I would be checking what fluid was used, and rectify if necessary.
Another unfortunate side effect of servicing an older auto is that the New fluid *can* dislodge a bit of muck that can then circulate and get stuck in the valve block, hopefully it's not this...

Cheers
James

Originally Posted by shack

Ok thanks,
MAF has significant impact on the auto on these cars, having said that, the fact that it won't lockup under any circumstance is concerning. Definitely check the fluid level and new MAF as you have said.

Driving it a mates place yesterday with the MAF disconnected was an "interesting" experience. After I put the known good MAF in it we went back to normal so the old MAF probably isn't the cause.

If it only started doing it after a service I would be checking what fluid was used, and rectify if necessary.
Another unfortunate side effect of servicing an older auto is that the New fluid *can* dislodge a bit of muck that can then circulate and get stuck in the valve block, hopefully it's not this...

Cheers
James

The oil and filter change was done by a respected auto specialist but I'm going to check it anyway after it cools down. I really hope it's not the valve block. I've rebuilt a couple in the past for a mate (BMW but similar ZF boxes) and while not hard it is bloody fiddly and time consuming.

Yesterday I gave the red plug a really good going over and this morning on a short drive, just long enough to get the temp up to normal, 3rd lockup happened normally at about 70kph and I managed to provoke it to lockup at about 65kph which it maintained down to about 50kph. Interestingly the P1884 gearbox error hasn't made a reappearance but the engine driver demand error has come back so I'm possibly looking at a replacement TPS anyway.
I'll clear the fault(s), if any, and go for a longer drive this arvo - Moe to Morwell and back about 30km of freeway and a bit of 60kph road.

Just food for thought, if not mentioned already:
*As Slunnie has said, 2 issues, likely unrelated.
*disconnect the MAF and the engine should run fine (to show nothing more than the MAF is faulty or not).
*As sierrafery has likely mentioned, dont buy a cheap MAF, if you ask him, he will give you a long explanation on what should be used etc etc.
*Also as mentioned, the injector harness causes endless ****. AND it can start to leak oil again if replacement has been poorly done.
*"driver demand fault" from memory can be a faulty throttle.

*The 3 common electrical faults relating to the auto is: XYZ (inhibit switch), the harness going across top of transfer case, there is a metal loop that cuts into the harness, and the TCM under the passenger seat.

Originally Posted by DazzaTD5

*"driver demand fault" from memory can be a faulty throttle.

So, my TPS stab wasn't that dark after all? The DF code did suggest that to me as a layman in these things.

Originally Posted by johntins

So, my TPS stab wasn't that dark after all? The DF code did suggest that to me as a layman in these things.

Swapping the TPS is on my radar - it may, or may not, be related - I'll see how I go. Problem is that the spare that I have is a two track unit and the one in the car is a three track. A mate in Melbourne has one I can borrow but I need to find the time to go and get it.

Originally Posted by DazzaTD5

Just food for thought, if not mentioned already:
*As Slunnie has said, 2 issues, likely unrelated.
*disconnect the MAF and the engine should run fine (to show nothing more than the MAF is faulty or not).

With the MAF disconnected the shift points were all over the place compared to when it was connected...:-)

*As sierrafery has likely mentioned, dont buy a cheap MAF, if you ask him, he will give you a long explanation on what should be used etc etc.

I've already read all about that...:-) The MAF that's in it now is a nearly new genuine LR part which as near as I can tell via Nanocom is working correctly.

*Also as mentioned, the injector harness causes endless ****. AND it can start to leak oil again if replacement has been poorly done.

The injector harness was done a couple of hundred kilometres ago by me. The plug where the injector loom meets the engine loom is oil free so any oil I'm seeing at the red plug is the "left overs" from the engine loom.

*"driver demand fault" from memory can be a faulty throttle.

This'll be addressed possibly over the weekend when I can get to Melbourne.

*The 3 common electrical faults relating to the auto is: XYZ (inhibit switch), the harness going across top of transfer case, there is a metal loop that cuts into the harness, and the TCM under the passenger seat.

Yesterday I improved the shining hours by cleaning out my spare XYZ switch and swapping it over and carefully checking the loom for kinks,cuts and abrasions. All good and is well protected. I'd say that the TCM is OK as it shifts perfectly with the only problem being TC lockup only happening intermttantly.

I reckon that it's starting to look convincingly like a dodgy TC or valve block although I still have to check the fluid level and filter. If I had to have one or the other I'd prefer the valve block. I can get that out without removing the transmission, I've rebuilt them before and the parts aren't that expensive. The TC, on the other hand, is an expensive proposition - transmission removal can't be done by me.

Originally Posted by johntins

So, my TPS stab wasn't that dark after all? The DF code did suggest that to me as a layman in these things.

It appears that your TPS stab was on the money. I think so anyway...

Today I had a (21,6) driver demand error logged. M&S lights flashing and MIL on. Engine would only idle. Cleared the error with Nanocom and off we went working properly. When I got home I did a bit of research and it seems that the TPS is firmly in line for replacement. My further research turned up a post from OffTrack where he linked the P1884 CAN_MESSAGE... fault with the DRIVER DEMAND fault. He said :-

"The Autobox uses throttle position information to help determine shift and TC lockup points so logs a fault if this data isn't available. The troubleshooting procedure for this is to check the Engine ECU for throttle related faults and rectify."

Seeing as I'm seeing a few "DRIVER DEMAND" errors and now the (21,6) with M&S and MIL another TPS may go a fair way towards solving the TC intermittant lockup problem. Now I'll start chasing down an affordable 3 track TPS. Wish me luck...:-) I'm hoping after a new TPS and a visit to the auto people in a couple of days will see the issue banished.

The question now is will a two track TPS be suitable in a car with a three track, after a bit of Nanocom magic, of course ?

Originally Posted by Markf

It appears that your TPS stab was on the money. I think so anyway...

Today I had a (21,6) driver demand error logged. M&S lights flashing and MIL on. Engine would only idle. Cleared the error with Nanocom and off we went working properly. When I got home I did a bit of research and it seems that the TPS is firmly in line for replacement. My further research turned up a post from OffTrack where he linked the P1884 CAN_MESSAGE... fault with the DRIVER DEMAND fault. He said :-

"The Autobox uses throttle position information to help determine shift and TC lockup points so logs a fault if this data isn't available. The troubleshooting procedure for this is to check the Engine ECU for throttle related faults and rectify."

Seeing as I'm seeing a few "DRIVER DEMAND" errors and now the (21,6) with M&S and MIL another TPS may go a fair way towards solving the TC intermittant lockup problem. Now I'll start chasing down an affordable 3 track TPS. Wish me luck...:-) I'm hoping after a new TPS and a visit to the auto people in a couple of days will see the issue banished.

The question now is will a two track TPS be suitable in a car with a three track, after a bit of Nanocom magic, of course ?

I couldn't see it anywhere...have you tried cruise?