Brian from PCM for less thinks my sensors are shot. i was just wondering the ease of replacement for the two of them on my 94Z. Thanks all tips/hints are welcome

Tim

 

Having the O2 sensor socket makes life easier, as it provides room for the harness. Other than that, just soak down the old ones in penetrating oil the night before to ease removal. Make sure there is a touch of anti-seize compound on the threads of the new one. That's pretty much it.

 

Since you've got headers, there's a good chance they will be fairly easy to get out. The "sensor" socket will defintely help, but you could try with an open end wrench, before spending the $10 for the socker. Just don't round the corners off. If you have problems, just spring for the socket.

As far as using penetrating oil, do not spray it directly on the sensors if there is a chance you will reuse them. If they get oil into the sensor, it will affect the O2 readings, since the sensor compares the O2 levels in the exhaust to the O2 in the air that enters through the center of the sensor housing.

When installing, factory sensors come with conductive anti-sieze already on them. If you use any other anti-sieze, make sure it is conductive.

 

Thanks for the help guys, but i have another question. the stock file for the pcm i don't get the hesitation, but with the pcm for less tune i do. but i have more snot with the pcm4less tune then the other file. so i'm having a hard time believing its absolutly the 02s. I'm thinking if it was the 02s it would hesitate with both. any info???

thanks
tim

 

When was the last time the O2 sensors were changed? PCMforless is probably betting on them needing to be changed, as most people don't change them as often as they should.

As for the hesitation, has anything on the car been changed since the tune?

 

The sensors haven't been changed ever. the coil and opti are brand new while the wires and plugs only have a few miles on them. i haven't changed the sensors because i haven't been throwing any codes so i didn't think anything was wrong. but thanks for the info.

tim