Let’s examine different fuel injector timing patterns on both defective and normal systems. Depending on the system and the mode of injector firing, it can sometimes be difficult to tell what is normal, what is defective or what may be the cause of a defect. We will begin this month with a look at several defective systems.
Like this article? Sign up for our enews blasts here.
The lower capture in Figure 1 is from a V6 Ford. Here we can see that some of the injector current pulses are missing and some are runted. This is an irregular defect pattern caused by the irregular CMP signal input shown in green. This CMP sensor is one of the Fords with the CMP signal mounted on a distributor type shaft. A common failure on these vehicles is that the CMP sensor drive shaft binds in the housing causing the sensor to advance in a stuttering way. As we know from our knowledge of AC sensors the speed of the sensor moving past the reluctor wheel will determine the sensors output amplitude. The speed and thus amplitude of this sensor varying wildly caused the PCM’s input circuitry to track and adapt its signal trigger level incorrectly. This engine did run rough briefly and then stall. Like the previous example, the PCM did not set a CMP DTC.
In our next two examples shown in Figure 2 we can see what appear to be two examples of peak and hold style injector current patterns that are being mis-triggered. The defective injector pulses are demarcated in the red circles. However our inputs, the CKP and CMP signals are normal, regular and present. While these defects are from two different vehicles with the same engine they at least look like they might have the same defect.
This is not the case, they are different defects. The capture in the upper portion of Figure 2 is from a vehicle where all injector timing inputs were normal yet the output is defective. Indeed the injector driver section of this PCM was defective, a common failure on the GM 2.2L LN2 engine. This engine simply registered misfire DTCs only. However, the lower capture in figure 2 is indeed an input problem just not any of the inputs shown. The TPS signal on this vehicle had irregular spikey drop outs causing the injectors to go into decel fuel cut only to recover and look like a fast acceleration. This vehicle did not set a TPS DTC because the PCM software has trouble differentiating between an TPS signal variation caused by actual gas pedal movement and TPS signal defect.
Always use all the data at your disposal, scan data, system knowledge and your scope. These cases are yet more examples of not relying on DTCs or the PCM’s rationality software. Computers have huge data capacity and are extremely fast but they are not very smart some times.
Have articles like this sent to you weekly by signing up for our enews blasts here.
