Lexmark MX510 sporadicly error 146.00 and 230.03

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • i-have-fax-problems
    Technician

    50+ Posts
    • Mar 2020
    • 89

    Lexmark MX510 sporadicly error 146.00 and 230.03

    Dear Colleagues,

    i have a MX510 which causes sporadicly 146.00 Error (has something to do with the little paper lift/pick Motor under the Duplex unit).
    But as I have tested it at the customer there was no problem.
    What is this usually with 146.00?

    Another MX510 sporadically jams in the Duplex Unit. I've seen the jam only twice. Paper sucks in the duplex unit.
    You see the trailing edge on the rear site of the printer in the duplex. The paper is not wrinkeld, crammed nothing.
    Leading Edge has arrived the front side of the duplex. Erro is 230.03
    Does anyone know, where this comes usually from?

    Thank you.
  • trc
    Technician

    50+ Posts
    • Jan 2007
    • 95

    #2
    Re: Lexmark MX510 sporadicly error 146.00 and 230.03

    The problem is the reverse solenoid, part of the maintenance kit (200k yield) (fuser kit), change it, it will solve your problem

    Comment

    • RascalMJ
      Trusted Tech

      Site Contributor
      100+ Posts
      • Mar 2009
      • 174

      #3
      Re: Lexmark MX510 sporadicly error 146.00 and 230.03

      Originally posted by i-have-fax-problems
      Dear Colleagues,

      i have a MX510 which causes sporadicly 146.00 Error (has something to do with the little paper lift/pick Motor under the Duplex unit).
      But as I have tested it at the customer there was no problem.
      What is this usually with 146.00?

      Another MX510 sporadically jams in the Duplex Unit. I've seen the jam only twice. Paper sucks in the duplex unit.
      You see the trailing edge on the rear site of the printer in the duplex. The paper is not wrinkeld, crammed nothing.
      Leading Edge has arrived the front side of the duplex. Erro is 230.03
      Does anyone know, where this comes usually from?

      Thank you.
      What did you find with the 1st issue? I am seeing a similar issue

      Comment

      Working...