Let's see... You paid money for a real technician to diagnose the underlying cause for a malfunction, you don't like the result, and now you're asking the internet for a second opinion....

 

Find another shop.. really...
a small vacuum leak.. bad vapor control valve.. bad wire.... bad connector.. these trucks have 30 plus feet of hose for EVAP..
bad gasket or bad valve in gas cap.. if you have a 2 piece gas tank fill inlet.. could be a small crack in the fitting.

put electrical tape over the light.. ( j/k )

THE ONLY GOOD TEST OF THE EVAP SYSTEM... IS A SMOKE GENERATOR...
FILLING THE SYSTEM WITH SMOKE.. YOU FIND THE LEAK... NO LEAK,,, ITS A CONTROL VALVE ISSUE.
< this is my professional opinion,, now retired >

 

Except it's always a good idea to get a second opinion on anything that expensive if you can.

 

It's usually a good idea to look up the specifics of a fault code before making any comments or suggestions on how to address it. This is NOT a "leak" issue, it's an issue with the performance of an electrical circuit. That means valve, wiring, or PCM. Presumably, after " extensive diagnosis by an experienced and trusted dealer technician " the lesser possibilities were eliminated. Without the test results obtained by that tech, we are not in a position to second guess his conclusions.

Sure, a 2nd opinion is a good idea, but it would need to be obtained from someone who can actually perform the needed diagnostics (hands-on). The only thing we forum members can get our hands on are our keyboards.

Unless the OP has mandatory emissions testing that would preclude licensing, learning to ignore the light or some black tape wouldn't be such a bad idea, IMHO.

 

 

What's a "performance PCM"? The PCM is simply a computer with specific programming in it.

No, you cannot simply ground a wire or whatever to fool the computer. And, no, you are not going to get a technician to risk penalty for attempting to rig it.

No that concerns me since a smoke test is not part of the diagnostic procedure for a P0443 DTC.

 

I hoped there may be a performance oriented PCM vendor that I'd purchase my PCM from with "performance" tuning built into the device. Thus giving me a "mod" while I'm replacing.

I do understand the "risk" to the technician. Thus why I would take the risk but am asking if this is a somewhat common issue on the 3V V10 and if other folks have dealt with this in the past. A quick search brought nothing related to the code so I asked the question. I do respect the technician's license and wouldn't want to have them risk their livelihood for me trying to save a few bucks. If this wasn't a CEL for something that I feel is stupid, I'd just buck up and pay. For a light caused by vapor control, I don't want to throw down the cash.

 

You may think the code is "stupid", but it's part of an emission control system that has been mandated by federal law for decades. Either complain to your congressman or get over it, it's not a subject for a troubleshooting discussion. As also noted previously, if you do not have mandatory emissions testing, feel free to ignore it.

This not a particularly common issue. Usually, it's a faulty solenoid valve, connector or wiring issue. Assuming your expert actually performed the required tests as per the pinpoint tests in the PCED and it led him to the PCM as being faulty, then it probably has a fault. As previously noted, the smoke test was not a portion of the protocol for this fault code so I'm now skeptical as to his "expertise".

A used PCM, if you can match up the ID codes (pull the PCM, if necessary, and read the ID code off the label), runs from $150 to $300 on car-part.com. You'd have to reprogram the VID block and the PATS system to use it; both tasks are readily done using Forscan (w/free extended license), a Windows laptop, and an inexpensive OBDII adapter.

 

As stated above, we are almost CA like re: emissions here. Not really an option to "ignore" it and I'm not able to "ignore" it as it drives me nuts. I do think it's a "stupid" reason to trip a check engine light. To me a CEL should be for things that will create catastrophic failure and such. Our legislators and lobbyists have decided to make something useful, less useful but I digress.

This is great advice. Thanks (I think the tech was just trying to rule out EVERYTHING but the PCM?)

Appreciate your expertise

 

The so-called "check engine" light is mis-named. It's intended to come on when the computer detects a failure that would impact emissions, not engine failure. If it were named "Check Emissions System" instead with no apparent drive-ability concerns, it would be ignored even more.

The oil pressure and coolant temperature lights are there to let you know about "catastrophic" conditions.

If the tech truly understood the DTC and its root causes, he wouldn't have wasted time doing a test that could not possibly cause that code.