3.0 Mitsubishi V-6 1990 Oxygen Sensor Code

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by septicman, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. septicman

    septicman Guest

    This engine is in my 1990 Montero. Recently, I replaced the oxygen
    sensor as the service engine light kept staying on and the code in the
    computer was for the oxygen sensor, plus the car was sucking lots of
    gas. After replacing the sensor, the fuel economy went back up, but
    the
    service engine light goes on and off, and it's the same code for the
    oxygen sensor. Any ideas?
     
    septicman, Apr 19, 2006
    #1
  2. septicman

    hartless Guest

    Yes, If the code is for the Oxygen sensor, that does not mean it is just the
    Oxygen sensor. It is for the circuit, and also the other sensor's that
    contribute to the Oxygen sensor readings. Could be a map sensor or other
    things that control what is being read by the Oxygen sensor. Join a
    mitsubishi group also. They will be more helpful then a Chrysler group.
     
    hartless, Apr 19, 2006
    #2
  3. septicman

    NewMan Guest

    Oh yeah, the 3.0 Mitsubishi...

    Didn't you know that code stands for "Replace Crappy Engine"? ;)
     
    NewMan, Apr 21, 2006
    #3
  4. septicman

    Steve Stone Guest

    The 3.0 mitsu with 110,000 miles in my 88 New Yorker gets 34 mpg highway.
    Alot better than some of the current stuff out there.
     
    Steve Stone, Apr 23, 2006
    #4
  5. septicman

    NewMan Guest

    My 94 Acclaim, before I got rid of it, had less than 130,000 km. It
    ran rough, and puked oil like a seive - all the seals were thrashed.
    No amount of gas mileage is worth the super high maintenance required
    by a poor design. An engine design must address the Total Cost of
    Ownership - not just good gas mileage.

    Based on 16000 miles per year and 34 MPG, your consumption is about
    470.58 Gallons. At $2.65 per gallon, that is about $1247.

    At 25 MPG that is 640 gallons. At $2.65 per gallon that is $1696.

    A difference of about $448 per year.

    So, if you buy the car new, and you put the $448 per year into a
    maintnenace fund, then you can afford to do the maintenance to keep
    fixing the unreliable 3.0 litre engine.

    If you buy the car used, then you have not had a chance to enjoy the
    savings, all you get to enjoy the costs of maintaining a badly
    designed engine. Add that to the A604, and you have a loser to be
    sure. Sorry. I just don't like the engine.

    It is the same old story, pay at the pump, or pay at the shop. I LOVE
    my 3.3 litre engine. It is very hardy and reliable. So what if it uses
    a little more gas. At least it is not puking oil into the streets. It
    has lots of power and, should you need to work on it, it is easy to
    work on as well.
     
    NewMan, Apr 23, 2006
    #5
  6. septicman

    PC Medic Guest



    Hmmm...94 and 95 Caravans with 171K and 190K miles respectively and never
    had any problems.
    Guess you just failed to take proper care of yours or read the Service
    Bulletins to keep them maintained properly.
     
    PC Medic, Apr 24, 2006
    #6
  7. septicman

    PC Medic Guest

    I believe if you had kept up with the TSB's for your vehicle, you would be
    aware it was the vavlve seats. Your sdealer should have caught this as well
    when it was brought in for scheduled maintnance.
     
    PC Medic, Apr 24, 2006
    #7
  8. septicman

    NewMan Guest

    No, not really. I "inherited" this car with my (now) wife. I had
    nothing to do with its maintenance of this vehicle in its early days -
    and even she purchased the car used.

    I have a 94 Caravan with 180,000 km that I purchased at about 128,000
    km. The vehcile is properly maintained, and it has never let me down
    (touch wood). I still prefer the 3.3 and 3.8 design. It is very
    robust. And my experience with mitsubishi and other foreign engines
    has not been good over the last 15 or so years.

    Just my experience I guess.
     
    NewMan, Apr 24, 2006
    #8
  9. septicman

    septicman Guest

    your post is sub-morinc comment and those that follow aren't much
    better.....
     
    septicman, Apr 24, 2006
    #9
  10. septicman

    septicman Guest

    your post is sub-moronic and those that follow aren't much better.....
     
    septicman, Apr 24, 2006
    #10
  11. septicman

    NewMan Guest

    It was meant as tonge-in-cheak as my experience with this engine has
    not been good. Sorry if it appeared "sub-morinc".
     
    NewMan, Apr 24, 2006
    #11
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.