How do I pass NYS Inspection?

alice · 08-07-2007, 08:31 AM

I have been trying to get my '96 Tsi inspected in NY but I have 5 incomplete processes on the ecu. I am also throwing a MIL/CEL. P0505-Idle air. I replaced the ISC and 100 miles later the MIL/CEL comes back on. This is the third time the ISC has been replaced in my car. I have done the drive cycle since I last lost battery power to the ECU as well as driven a little over 500 miles. The processes are still incomplete and I know the ISC is working because my car still idles perfectly. I am thinking of getting a '95 ECU as I am planning on getting DSMlink. But since I saved my money up for the Thermal Cat-Back, I want to know if getting the new ECU and DSMlink would solve my problems? Can you turn off the stupid P0505 code with DSMlink? Sorry for the long post and Thank You for any help. -jeremy

Defiant · 08-08-2007, 01:40 AM

ECU: 3 monitors not ready, won't pass smog

Xit40 · 08-08-2007, 02:21 AM

This same crap happened with my car and I'm in NY too. The readiness monitors wouldn't run. The thread Defiant linked you to has a bunch of good information read up on it. Pretty much it boils down to: get rid of the CEL, your car automatically fails if it's on. It doesn't matter how since your readiness monitors aren't cycled. Then do the recommended drive cycles. Even after i did the drive cycles and I had no CEL or anything it still wouldn't pass. I had to take it to the Mitsubushi stealership and have them set the readiness monitors for it to pass. Basically it boils down to our ECU's don't like to run the readiness tests (which there is a Technical Service Bulletin for) and sometimes they need to be primed. Thankfully I haven't had a problem with it since. I would also insist that you do not want to pay for this since it's Mitsubishi's bad

poonman · 08-08-2007, 02:49 AM

the reason why 95-96 models get the p0505 codes is that the ECU drivers are not strong enough to run the IAC. You can change everyone of your sensors 1 million times and it will always come back. The ECU is the ONLY thing that runs the IAC. Mine still does it and still has the code. But I have been trying to work on a solution to this issue. I have been trying different type of transistor and resistors on my return signals to emulate a work IAC curcuit.

i would not recomend switching to the 95 ECU because its POS. I even have a brand new 95 programmed ECU that was just bought form chrysler last year and it still does it.

I'm not sure how your emissions work up there but i noticed that if i start my car warm it up ALL the way and reset the code once fully warm, it does not show a cell again until it drops about 10 degrees.

What happends is the ECU thinks that the IAC is bad and turns your injector pulse to about 150+ milsec causing you to run rich which might be why your failing.

Xit40 · 08-08-2007, 03:15 AM

There is no sniff test here. All they do is check the readiness monitors to make sure the emission components are running correctly and make sure there is no CEL.

poonman · 08-08-2007, 03:19 AM

do they ask you to start and shut off the car?

Xit40 · 08-08-2007, 03:23 AM

Nope they just plug it into a special computer which read the readiness monitors and then transmits the data to the DMV. My car would never pass a sniff test with my big cams and no cat, but it passes inspection ever year (partly because I know people that will forget they didn't see a cat as long as it passes the computer part).

poonman · 08-08-2007, 03:32 AM

I would recomend then trying to see if the problem can be taken away with my method of warming up the car fully then while running kick the code out and the CEL should go away until the next start. it works for me so maybe you

or you can always register your car here in florida

alice · 08-13-2007, 12:18 AM

Thanks for all the great replies people. That first thread does have a bunch of good info in it. At this point, I might just go with a '97+ ECU as I am 16 months overdue on inspection. Do you think the '97+ ECU might solve the problem?

jamisonj24 · 08-13-2007, 04:17 PM

If i were you I would get an eprom ecu since you mentioned purchaseing dsmlink. I don't know much about dsmlink so I would'nt know if that would get it passed but I would think that dsmchips could burn you a custom eprom to get your car to pass the ecu test.

spyderturbo007 · 08-14-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alice

Thanks for all the great replies people. That first thread does have a bunch of good info in it. At this point, I might just go with a '97+ ECU as I am 16 months overdue on inspection. Do you think the '97+ ECU might solve the problem?

Maybe.

Mine is a '97 and I this problem.

Imback · 08-18-2007, 03:22 AM

wow 16 months overdue? You are so lucky i'm already paying 180$ for my wrangler being a month over due... I gotta move near you it seems..haha

alice · 08-19-2007, 07:41 AM

So has anyone purchased a 97+ ECU to deal with these problems of readiness monitors not being ready and the P0505 CEL? In that first thread I guess that when these guys took their car to Mitsubishi, there were getting the ECU primed? That alone costs about $120 so I might as well just get the '97+ ECU. Thanks again all!

m_0ney_pit · 08-19-2007, 09:53 AM

In case you didn't know pocketLogger for OBD II has a function that checks the readiness of the sensors. If you don't have the current version of the software, email him about it.

alice · 09-10-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

the reason why 95-96 models get the p0505 codes is that the ECU drivers are not strong enough to run the IAC. You can change everyone of your sensors 1 million times and it will always come back. The ECU is the ONLY thing that runs the IAC.

So going on what poonman said above, would getting a used 2g ECU solve the problem?

spyderturbo007 · 09-11-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m_0ney_pit

In case you didn't know pocketLogger for OBD II has a function that checks the readiness of the sensors. If you don't have the current version of the software, email him about it.

Are you sure about that? I have the beta (v2.0) and it doesn't include that function. I asked about it awhile ago in their forum, but he replied that he did have a version that included that feature, but it's wasn't ready to be tested.