New question. When playing with old snap-on MT2500 brick, when I try to scan the airbag module, it's giving me a bunch of codes. Airbag light on the dash flashes at key-on and startup, but then goes out, which is normal per the service manual. I was under the impression that if there were active codes, the airbag light would remain on?

The scanner says the module has the following codes present (or does it....that sounds pretty effed up, worthy of setting a light, or something...)

21 Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator) Ckt Resistance Too High Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator) Ckt Resistance Not Known
22 Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator) Ckt Resistance Too Low Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator) Ckt Resistance Not Known
23 Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator) Voltage (12 volt VSS) Too High
25 Short To Battery or 12 volt (VSS) In Steering Column (Clockspring or Detonator)
31 Open 36VLR To Deployment Circuit (clockspring-to-airbag wires)
33 Steering Diode Shorted In Arming Sensor
35 Discriminating Sensor Open
41 Back-up electrical Voltage (12 volt VSS) Charging Failure
42 Back-up electrical Voltage (12 volt VSS) Too Low
51 Accident Detected
52 EEPROM (computer memory) Accident Area Full

Do you think the module has just died over time and is shorting or spitting out data? Car has original bags, sensors, wiring, etc. I don't know how these things fail, but this one might have.

 

Is that a scan of the “new” EBCM module, which you indicate in your original thread now has the ABS working?

Any particular reason you didn’t post this as a continuation of that thread, where you talked about the MT2500 scanner and the problems you've had getting it to work? You also noted that it wouldn’t read the airbag module, and I mentioned that GaryDoug was unable to get Scan9495 to read the 93 SRS, even though it would read 94/95. I told you he also mentioned there was an easy way to read he SRS system in the factory manual. Did you look up/try that method to compare the codes to the ones from the brick?

It isn’t unheard of for a programmed scanner to produce bogus codes due to errors in the database.

 

I think maybe you're confusing this thread about Airbag/SRS questions with my thread about ABS questions. ABS is fixed except for the communication piece...details in the ABS thread.

Yesterday when I was troubleshooting the last problem with ABS, I tried to scan the Airbag module just to see if things were the same or different. They were the same....but...on the AIRBAG module, the scanner tells me "communication mismatch" but then if I override that and tell me to read codes anyway (that part I did not know about), it spits out a list of ominous-sounding codes including accident . But the Airbag light isn't on, and it flashes normally during startup, so I'm curious what's up now.

I'm more apt to believe something is up with the scanner at this point. I've tried inputing different years 93 94 95 Camaro or Firebird. For the EBCM I input other GM models that use ABS VI, no success there. I've tried a few different cartridges for it. I have 93 domestic primary, 94 domestic primary, one for 97 primary with bi-directional controls, an older and a newer troubleshooter cartridge, and a newer VCI cartridge from about 1999 or so. They all tell me the same thing with the Airbag module too -- communication mismatch. I'm using a snap-on cable, GM-1 ALDL connector, following all the instructions.

I'm led to believe that this MT2500 was a fairly popular/universal mechanics scanner that shops would use and if I understand correctly, people have been able to successfully use these with F-cars throughout the years. Either I'm doing it completely wrong, or there's probably something wrong with this scanner at this point.

I need to read in the service manual about pulling codes for 93, if there are flash diagnostics with the airbag light and see if the airbag module itself will confirm the presence of any issues.

 

I understand what you are asking. Wording of my first sentence is not good, if I said “scanner you used to read”, rather than “scan”, it would have been clearer. To me it would have been better to continue in the earlier post, so people could see the previous issues with the scanner, and the info I provided with regard to the SRS system. I was just trying to help.

But it's your thread, do it any way you want.

 

Ah, no big deal. If you want to combine them, it would make sense either way.