B2631 code for Sunload Sensor
The A/C was cooling intermittently. We scanned the HVAC system for codes and this is the only one we found (B2631). When in the shop, the Sunload Sensor reads 0 . Checked for 5 volt signal and ground at the connector and both are good. We replaced the sensor with the same results. The code will not clear and it remains current. If you shine a flashlight on the sensor , it will display a value, depending on how intense the light is. If you're out in the sun, it displays a value that changes. We ended up finding that the system had a leak at the rear expansion valve fitting and was low on charge. Installed the proper charge and the A/C is cooling properly. Everything else with the Climate Control seems to be OK. I'm just trying to figure out why we can't get rid of the code, or why it was set in the first place if the sensor is reading temperature. Any ideas?
Thanks!
Are the lights in your shop fluorescent? If so, that's likely your issue. At least, that's what ours do.
This is a no value code. The Asian manufactures use this code to inform you of a sun sensor is used and to test it the way you did. No voltage with no sunlight-voltage goes up the brighter the sun light. The code will always be present. Sorry it is hard to explain why the computer does not run a self check and pass the test.
Don’t bother with that code , nothing wrong , I am on the road now , but I think there is a tsb about this scenario , explaining that it’s “normal behavior “.
Toyota's same sun load sensor codes set in the shop. scan it outside and those codes on Toyotas are gone.
Thanks for the help everyone. The replys were just what I was looking for. I will disregard this code. I just wish I would have known this before I spent $ on a new sensor. There was no TSB that I could find that addresses this. Hopefully this will help the next guy.
Before replacing the sensor you could have checked it…..wait for it…in the sun! HA!
We did check it, and as I explained, it gave readings. We just couldn’t understand why the code would not clear. Thought there still might be something wrong with it so we replaced it.