try to save what can be saved on my MX925

[myap]

Hi,

on my journey to try to fix my Canon MX925 I stumbled upon this great forum where people seem to have more knowledge on printers than anywhere eles
So I was wondering if someone could give me a recommendation on what to do with my MX925 issue:

Worked fine for ~6 years now. Was printing fairly regularly, but less and less.
Roughly a month ago, B200 popped up:
- tried refitting the printhead, replaced the cartridges without effect
- very rarely it starts working (reboot~50x on several days)->sometimes it makes it to the Nozzle check, which looks quite OK, but PGBK does not print at all, including the section at the bottom with no. pages printed
- checked the purging pads: added a few drops of window cleaner on pads -> looked completely dried up after switching it on, so probably OK.
- one thing I noticed, it takes a long time when switching on where the rollers inside keep moving.
- purchased replacement head (not genuine - just 35€ instead of 100€) -> still B200, once it started working, nozzle check bad, after nozzle cleaning it only showed indistinguishable stripes. (got refund though..)


Now I'm wondering if and what I can save:
- are there any good chances to restore without buying a 100€ printhead?
- can I somehow mask the pins to get it to not use PGBK, but everything else (previous posts suggested that won't work, but was in reference to others)
- can I at least use it as a scanner somehow?

It would be great if anyone could gie me any recommendation (or simply tell me I'm wasting my time).

Thanks for reading this!
Marcus

PS: I used mainly original canon cartriges when using it heavily, roughly 3 years ago changed to well reputed "peach" cartriges.

 

[stratman]

Welcome to the forum, myap.

Please post your nozzle check if you still have it or can print one.

Masking the print head will not bring back function of failed nozzles. Same goes with flushing and soaking if it is an electrical or warping issue.

The most referred to posting on masking is by Łukasz:

https://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/pgbk-doesnt-print.9121/#post-71495

are there any good chances to restore without buying a 100€ printhead?

Never say never, but... based on your story - no. Also, a new print head is not a guarantee of success since the logic assay board may be affected and reason why the "new" print head failed.

Note: an electrical failure in the print head can be propagated to the logic assay board and vice versa.

can I at least use it as a scanner somehow?

As you have found out, no, not with the error present.

 

[myap]

Hi stratman,

thanks for the quick reply and your honest opinion!

I uploaded pics of the nozzle checks I still have:
old -> defective original
new printhead_cheap-> 35€ printhead
new printhead_cheap_afternozzlecheck-> 35€ printhead after running nozzle clean once (stopped working after second nozzle check)

The printhead in the MX925 is a QY6-0086 and has a different layout from the one in @Łukasz' post. Had hoped someone may have a better matching one that I could try - scan only or printing without defective PGBK would be perfectly fine.

Do you (or anyone else) have some recommendation as to lengthen these printers' lifetime? my last Canon died after ~5 years with B200 as well. On one hand its an expense, but even more worrying is how much electronic waste this is generating if I need to throw away one of these every 5 years. That'd be 10 more printers in my remaining 50 or so years (hopefully).

Thanks,
Marcus

 

[stratman]

35€ printhead after running nozzle clean once (stopped working after second nozzle check)

What kind of cleaning did you do?

It is highly unlikely that a cleaning cycle, either regular or deep, would cause such ink starvation appearance unless the print head was already damaged and the added thermal stress generated by a cleaning (especially a Deep Cleaning) killed more of the print head electronics or cooked nozzles. Flushing/soaking a print head to get rid of actual clogs and then putting the print head back in before the electronics are completely dry may cause a short and electrical failure(s).

I think you have run up against a used print head, possibly out of China, and these have a high rate of failure. You can see why the forum consensus is to avoid these "cheap" print heads, including anything that is sourced from China no matter the cost, and purchase full freight from authorized sellers or known working from private seller or trusted individual.

The printhead in the MX925 is a QY6-0086 and has a different layout from the one in @Łukasz' post.

Experiment if you would like. It's how the forum has earned it's knowledge.

Recommendation: Put a new printer on your list to Santa.

 

[myap]

What kind of cleaning did you do?

When doing a nozzle check from the menu on the printer it asked me if I saw A or B pattern -> I selected the bad one and it asked me if I wanted to clean the nozzles. Thats what I did.

I think you have run up against a used print head, possibly out of China, and these have a high rate of failure. You can see why the forum consensus is to avoid these "cheap" print heads, including anything that is sourced from China no matter the cost, and purchase full freight from authorized sellers or known working from private seller or trusted individual.

definitely possible - got a full refund, but 35€ was as far as I was going in terms of investment, as a number of other faults were also likely. Although it looked suspiciously clean. I had expected stains somewhere if used. Could also just be a cheap reproduction.

I'm probably avoiding getting a printer at all, the regularity in which these break is not really worth the trouble.

Thanks for all your help!

Marcus

 

[stratman]

Could also just be a cheap reproduction.

There have been no verified knock-offs I am aware of. The Chinese are notorious for selling refurbished as new complete with counterfeit packaging.

Worked fine for ~6 years now.

I'm probably avoiding getting a printer at all, the regularity in which these break is not really worth the trouble.

Six years of faithful service is your Waterloo? I think there's more to this than that reason.