• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

The RenX Files: High idle problems

The TCU and ECU wires to the TPS are independent, BUT!!!!!! ................................

They run through the same harness at some point under the hood, where a TCU/TPS wire could short to an ECU/TPS wire!!!!!!
 
Supermud, it your Jeep has the C101 connector on the firewall above the booster, I suggest you unbolt the two halves, scrape all the tar-like crud out of it, spray it out with contact cleaner, wipe it down a few times and repeat. Then add some dielectric grease and put it back together. Alot of very important info between sensors and ECU travels through this incredibly crappy connection.
 
Supermud, it your Jeep has the C101 connector on the firewall above the booster, I suggest you unbolt the two halves, scrape all the tar-like crud out of it, spray it out with contact cleaner, wipe it down a few times and repeat. Then add some dielectric grease and put it back together. Alot of very important info between sensors and ECU travels through this incredibly crappy connection.

One of the first things I did when I got the xj last winter. A repeat may be a good idea though.
 
The TCU and ECU wires to the TPS are independent, BUT!!!!!! ................................

They run through the same harness at some point under the hood, where a TCU/TPS wire could short to an ECU/TPS wire!!!!!!

I suppose that could happen but if while driving the tranny shifts out of gear automatically then the computer is getting a TPS signal for sure or could or maybe it could short to both? I started going through some more wiring yesterday and while i was at it noticed where the TCU harness runs coming out of the firewall on the passenger side and interweaving with the main harness till the C101 connector so I'll take a close look at it today when I get home. (on the computer in financing class)
 
I am thinking a dirty short between a signal wire and ground, not a complete short, but a carbonized, or oily high impedance short that changes the idle voltage seen by the ECU.

My C101 has all that black stuff and still works fine. that black stuff is an old military grade dielectric, anti corrosion waterproof sealant goo that has worked well for 23 years on my 87. But, I did clean and tighten the female pins one by one!
 
I am thinking a dirty short between a signal wire and ground, not a complete short, but a carbonized, or oily high impedance short that changes the idle voltage seen by the ECU.

My C101 has all that black stuff and still works fine. that black stuff is an old military grade dielectric, anti corrosion waterproof sealant goo that has worked well for 23 years on my 87. But, I did clean and tighten the female pins one by one!

Wasn't marfac the name of that stuff? Must have used that crap when they still owned AM General. Factory had bulletins suggesting you clean the C101 back in the day, so I figure not one of them has improved since then. Wonder why they eliminated it in later years?
 
For all I know it had PCBs in it, which were oulawed, but I think they had alignment and pin engagement contact issues with lemons off the assembly line that dogged them. Brake oil leaks are not kind to it due to it's position IIRC?

But in reality I have no idea, except that they had enough problems with them, that they go rid of them, or it was to reduce cost by Chrysler. less parts?

I did one real good pin cleaning just on the pins on mine with perchlorethylene brake cleaner, aerosol and used needle nose pliers to tighten the female pins, and I don't think it fixed any of my problems. All my problems were else where, or if it was the C101, I just ran a new wire (I ran new, direct grounds on my dual TPS to the battery).
 
The C101 wasn't affected by brake fluid cuz it was mounted to the firewall above the booster. But, it was enough of a problem causing resistance in circuits that the factory came out with a CPS bypass kit to eliminate the CPS path through it, and they recommended cleaning out the C101 real well, not unlike you have described. I like the idea of cleaning it and "tightening" the pins. I also have performed th poor man's CPS bypass of the C101 on a few 87 and 88s.

We had so many problems with the grounds, C101, and connectors at the dealership when these Jeeps were new, that I always advocate ground refreshing, C101 cleaning, and connector cleaning with contact cleaner. These procedures cost nothing but a little bit of time and solved many problems when we performed them. Maybe that's why we were the first Five-Star Chrysler dealer in the Southwest.
 
Right. It was the fuse box and firewall bulk heads that got soaked with break oil....another source of possible problems. Many of my problems were all in the fuse boxes of my 85 and 87. The brake oil rear seal leak was part of the problem, the other being loose fuse holder pins, corroded fuse holder pins...., undersized wires in the AC blower circuits and poor - new ignition - run switches burning up the switch and wire on the AC blower circuits wire.


One of my old threads has a post where I did a study to show how far the idle moved for a TPS signal volatge change from .80 to .85, or something like that, and the idle speed change was huge, like double, or 50% increase, I forget the exact numbers something 100 rpm per .01 volts. I just know it was an eye opener as to how serious an 8 ohm loss in the grounds was. I had ignored a known 8 ohm loss in my ground wire connections for a year until then. Now if it gets to 1 ohm (above the test meters internal resistance losses) I get real concerned. So, yes, the C101 could have been a major source of variable resistance caused by vibration, road bumps, chuck holes.... where a 2 to 3+ ohm change could run the idle crazy.


My most recent problems have been fuel pump failures that were fixed by cleaning the grounds and electrical connection pins at the fuel tank, fuel pump location, the 89 did it this week, my 87 did it 2 years and 15,000 mile ago.
 
The clutch master cylinders were notorious for leaking brake fluid into the fuseboxes from 84 to 86. They used Brirish cylinders and put Dot 3 fluid in them. Ooops. I have bypassed the C101 for the CPS wires on the 87 I'm building. The 88 has the factory bypass and the 90 has no c101.
 
Oh my 87 has the C101 CPS bypass but also has the connector off the harness. It took me till last week to figure out what that extra connector was for. I noticed the same color wires but it didnt fire when i switched em then while cleanin up under the dash I saw the 2 push on connectors on the computer and the 2 hangin there.
 
The clutch master cylinders were notorious for leaking brake fluid into the fuseboxes from 84 to 86. They used Brirish cylinders and put Dot 3 fluid in them. Ooops. I have bypassed the C101 for the CPS wires on the 87 I'm building. The 88 has the factory bypass and the 90 has no c101.

Hmm. I thought my 89 had no C-101?

My 85 was/is a manual tranny, so I had the clutch fluid leak issue problem and the brake fluid leak issue, both. The fuse box was a mess by the time I got the rig 2003. I had to do a bunch of rewiring on the 85, but going diesel on it helped as it eliminated a bunch of wires.
 
Didn't find/fix anything yet but I was thinking about it yesterday and just relized the output voltage I'm getting off the TPS is about double what it should be and since when I disconnect one plug it returns to normal/cuts in half, I beleive the TPS is somehow shorting the 2 input voltages into one (is that possible?). Also when i remove the input voltage wire from one plug but leave the 2 outputs, it has a output voltage of about half of normal (~.4 since it's being supplied half) Though this all does not apply to the WOT reading which is lower than normal when the idle voltage is doubled. It was a thought but Im doubtfull but hopefull, though i also don't want to spend money on replacing a tps which I already replaced and i don't even have the extra money to go and buy one anyway and my local junkyard has no renix jeeps.
 
If you dig back far enough into this thread, I posted ohm readings for a brand new, and for a used (bad) TPS that were both isolated, as in no jeep connectors were connected to the TPS, it was totally isolated. It does sound like a shorted TPS internally. I thought it was new TPS? No warranty?

IIRC the two sides of the TPS are totally independent on a good TPS but I don't recall for sure.
 
If you dig back far enough into this thread, I posted ohm readings for a brand new, and for a used (bad) TPS that were both isolated, as in no jeep connectors were connected to the TPS, it was totally isolated. It does sound like a shorted TPS internally. I thought it was new TPS? No warranty?

IIRC the two sides of the TPS are totally independent on a good TPS but I don't recall for sure.

Yea I figured the 2 sides should be independent. I'll look around for the receipt, see if i can warranty it, should be stuffed in the glove box with the 10,000 other parts receipts lol. Just sold a set of steelies today for $100 so I got some parts funds.
 
Just took back the 2 month old TPS got a free replacement and like magic my high idle went away Great Success! Though it irritates me that I still have a very important sensor sending important information from the same brand that produced the piece of sh!t that just failed. (like the $80 unit bearing that was supposed to last 100,000 miles and lasted 1 month and then when I used a puller to get off split into 2 pieces) Hopefully it was just a fluke. (knock on wood)
 
Yea but I still got to take care of the rear axle. Can't find a 87 era d35 around so I'm goin straight to the 8.8 as soon as i can go grab the one with the LSD I've been eyin up for a while.

two weeks too late-- I just gave away an '88 D35 with good bearings and brakes. You're better off upgrading, anywho-- but I would have happily brought it up for ya and enjoyed a trip through memory lane (grew up in Forest Hill :rof:)
 
Back
Top