Knock Sensor code w/ JWT ECU?

[GseaQ]

This is an extension of the discussion of my leaking injector or o-ring. The car was running great before the injector thing - noticeably stronger and maybe even quicker revving under load than the "stock '92". Still, it now shows a Code 34 Knock Sensor that refuses to be cleared, even though the engine is only idling which means the knock sensors wouldn't even be listening. Or am I way off base with that notion?

Is it because of the injector leaking, but it seems to me it would take a lean condition, not a rich one to upset a knock sensor?

Or could it be that the JWT ECU takes the knock sensors out of the equation, hence the mandatory use of 91 or better fuel?

I should say the engine was supposed to have gotten new knock sensors when the JDM takeout was put in a year and a half ago. I can't see them or one of them failing that fast.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks,Glenn

[Q45tech]

You are confused, the code comes from KS failing the resistance self check. Then!The background noise set a software flag that allows the the selection of the premiun fuel map/

Two separate things the code and the performance control function.

[goody90q45]

You are confused, the code comes from KS failing the resistance self check.

Hopefully you'll be able to get to your car today to ohm your KS (and the fuel injectors). I think you're going to find that one of the KS is dead, or the KS harness has gone bad (doubtful on a 94).

[GseaQ]

Thanks for the clarification Dennis.

Glenn

[GseaQ]

Thanks Mike,

Yeah, heading in to see her now. I'll post results tonight.

Cheers,Glenn

[GseaQ]

Hi guys,

OK, here we go. I ohmed the pins on the knock sensor connector. The bottom left (facing the connector) was 588 k, but the bottom right was completely open - no connection at all. Is this how knock sensors fail? I thought maybe the resistance would increase to a point where they wouldn't work or would code, but to be completely open seems strange. Or is it?

I guess if it is the wiring, plug or harness I still have to take the plenum off to fix that, so I may as well replace them both, right? From what I've read (in the for sale write-up) they should have been new about a year and a half old. Hard to believe one would fail that quickly, isn't it? Thoughts anyone?

Glenn

[qship96]

you have 1 bad sensor,replace both and harness while you are in there.If they were really replaced recently,maybe they were overtightened upon installation or dropped leading to cracking and failing....engine may have also overheated sometime in the past causing it to crack.

My originals in my 96 lasted over 10 years,finally threw a code in 2007,replaced and noticed much improved tip in acceleration

[GseaQ]

Hi qship,

Yeah, I guess you're right. Maybe we'll be able to tell what happened after they come out. I ordered 2 new ones already. The ones in our '92 went (one I think a year ago, the other a few months ago) and I replaced them a couple of weeks ago. It feels like it's got another 100 hp now!

Thanks,Glenn