Technical => Engine Tech => Topic started by: tbirdsps on February 05, 2008, 09:04:07 AM
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 05, 2008, 09:04:07 AM
My daughters 86 3.8 Bird has failed the California emissions test. Hydrocarbons high at idle. Everything else is good. Fresh tune up consisting of new plugs, cap and rotor. Timing correct. Wires are good and only two years old.
All six plugs are light tan with no fouling at all. The car runs really good but it has a slight, very slight misfire at idle. This engine really runs great and feels like more power than 120hp. Not sluggish at all.
I need some suggestions. O2 sensors? They are origonal with 124k miles.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: JeremyB on February 06, 2008, 11:15:05 AM
Oxygen sensors will cause high HC readings. I'd replace those and then check the codes.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 06, 2008, 01:22:53 PM
Thanks, that's just what I'm going to do. I don't see anything else wrong....there're no codes now but pre-1996 OBD systems just don't do the job like the new systems.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: Haystack on February 06, 2008, 10:00:53 PM
my cats were bad, and it was enough to get me to pass mine.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 11, 2008, 12:43:04 PM
Here's a long sad story and it says little about the Ca. emissions tests.
Failed the first test. About 13% high at idle of HC. Everything else is good. So, I do a normal tune up. Plugs, cap and rotor. Timing is right on.
Failed the second test. Another 10% worse at idle HC. Everything else is good. So I go ahead and change the O2 sensors. The car is running great by the way.
Failed the third test. This time it's 125% high at idle and about 2,000% high at 2500 rpm. Now labeled Gross Polluter.
So, my daughter applies to the state for them to pay for fixin. They'll pay up to $450 for repairs. Oh and they give her another 60 days to pass. Now I can see and smell no difference between the tests. My 82 will pass and will literally run me from the garage if I let it idle while backed in. Hers doesn't smell any different from my other low emissions cars. No smoke, and only light fumes.
Here's the best part of the story. If after the mechanic spends $450 and it still doesn't pass.....no problem the state will extend the emissions test (failed) for two years. Then the process repeats. Strange. I'm now convinced that California is not interested in emissions. Just the money. Even tho they'll spend the taxpayers money will little or no result.:mad: To top it all off they'll pay $1,000 for her to junk the car! This is after the taxpayer spends $450 in repairs that may fail to fix the car. I'm even more perplexed.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: JeremyB on February 11, 2008, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: tbirdsps;203475
Here's the best part of the story. If after the mechanic spends $450 and it still doesn't pass.....no problem the state will extend the emissions test (failed) for two years. Then the process repeats. Strange. I'm now convinced that California is not interested in emissions. Just the money. Even tho they'll spend the taxpayers money will little or no result.:mad: To top it all off they'll pay $1,000 for her to junk the car! This is after the taxpayer spends $450 in repairs that may fail to fix the car. I'm even more perplexed.
I guess I see their policies in a different light.
The $450 cap limits your expenditure. If CA didn't give a , they'd have no limit and you probably would have had to junk the car due to the needed repair costs. They also subsidize the cost for people who make at or less than 225% of the federal poverty guidelines. If CA didn't give a , they'd just say tough tatas and laugh as you lost your job because your car was no longer street legal due to the fact that you couldn't afford the $450. The $1000 payment to junk your car (if it fails) is another method of reducing emissions.
CA is serious about emissions, but at the same time relatively sensitive to the fact that forcing everyone to pass is impossible and would be detrimental to those not so well off. Then again I live in Alabama, where there are no smog testings. My tags/registration are $30 a year.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 11, 2008, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: JeremyB;203496
I guess I see their policies in a different light.
The $450 cap limits your expenditure. If CA didn't give a , they'd have no limit and you probably would have had to junk the car due to the needed repair costs. They also subsidize the cost for people who make at or less than 225% of the federal poverty guidelines. If CA didn't give a , they'd just say tough tatas and laugh as you lost your job because your car was no longer street legal due to the fact that you couldn't afford the $450. The $1000 payment to junk your car (if it fails) is another method of reducing emissions.
CA is serious about emissions, but at the same time relatively sensitive to the fact that forcing everyone to pass is impossible and would be detrimental to those not so well off. Then again I live in Alabama, where there are no smog testings. My tags/registration are $30 a year.
I think it's very interesting. Your are completely correct that the law is allowing non-compliant vehicles to remain in use so that the people who cannot afford repairs or replacement can continue to drive their vehicles. This is why we pay the taxes after all. The car is in really good shape except for the paint. I also suspect that the emissions test was not as accurate as possible. Meaning that I don't understand how it could be that bad without spewing black smoke out the tailpipe. We should find out within a couple of weeks. I'll be sure to update this post when we find out what the heck is going on with this car. It costs $50 per year for the registration and $60 for the emissions test every other year. Still not bad.
I has got to be something rediculously simple. Maybe the ECA took a vacation. I'm still wondering where the smoke went.;)
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: Haystack on February 11, 2008, 09:16:34 PM
bang out your front two cats and get a new one in the middle. It did wonders on my 87 cat.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 12, 2008, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: Haystack;203607
bang out your front two cats and get a new one in the middle. It did wonders on my 87 cat.
I'm sure that'll help.:fart:
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: Beau on February 12, 2008, 02:41:21 PM
Trust Haystack to come up with totally off-the-wall "ideas" lol... I don't see how GUTTING the cats will make it "cleaner"...???
Tbirdsps, have you tried a different sniffer station, or are you mandated to the same one every time?
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on February 12, 2008, 04:52:48 PM
Quote from: FordTruckFreeek;203731
Trust Haystack to come up with totally off-the-wall "ideas" lol... I don't see how GUTTING the cats will make it "cleaner"...???
Tbirdsps, have you tried a different sniffer station, or are you mandated to the same one every time?
It'll be mandated by at least Monday. It now has to go to a Gold Shield station because the state is picking up the tab.
My wife has bet me that it'll pass with no work. She thinks the other station manipulated the test. I say he can't unless he screws with the car which I didn't see happen.
We'll see.
Title: Update
Post by: tbirdsps on March 06, 2008, 04:18:56 PM
It's finally going in to the "Gold Shield" station on Monday. We are now suspecting cats. My brother in law had a truck do the same thing.
Fail by a little, tune up and got worse, much worse. It was his cats on a Ford 460. Science has always confused me. It's just that some things work on magic with no simple, understandable or reasonable explanation.
Title: Update as promised
Post by: tbirdsps on March 26, 2008, 09:51:32 AM
I'm really PO'd. My daughter took her car in to the "Gold Shield" station for repair on the 10th. It passed on the 10th after doing nothing to the car.
To review, on the 7th of February it failed miserably. The allowed HC emissions at idle is 120 ppm. It measured 1250 ppm. The allowed HC at 2500 rpm is 150 it measured 2276. This was very very bad.
Since she is unemployed at the moment the state assistance program approved her to get her car fixed at the state's expense. We pay taxes for that so there's no guilt involved.
On the 10th the mechanic tested it and the HC at idle was 87. High but within standards. The HC at 2500 rpm measured 96 ppm.
So the mechanic checks out the car. This took two weeks! Repairs a vacuum hose that I missed and replaces the stinking thermostat! The car tested yesterday. At idle it measured 20 ppm at idle for HC and 32 ppm HC at 2500 rpm. This is rediculously clean. Some new cars don't do that well.
I'm happy it's fixed but I do feel ripped off by the origonal tester.
So, here's to the origonal tester:shakeass: :shakeass: :flip: :flip:
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: CatCarMan2012 on March 27, 2008, 12:27:10 PM
I think what Haystack was alluding to is the old cats are no longer working, so knock a hole in them, and then install a new cat further down stream. By placing it after the Y pipe, you would only need to install one.
It doesn't seem that crazy to me. Then again, I only have to pass a visual emissions inspection.
=dz
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: bhazard on March 27, 2008, 12:54:20 PM
Move away from that state... FAR away.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: CatCarMan2012 on March 27, 2008, 08:41:25 PM
Its TX. And really, a bunch of smog in SA comes in from Mexico. >>Cough..wheeze<<
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: Carpimp1987 on March 27, 2008, 09:12:46 PM
Move to texas or out of the state your in.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: jcassity on March 28, 2008, 01:10:14 AM
Quote from: FordTruckFreeek;203731
Trust Haystack to come up with totally off-the-wall "ideas" lol... I don't see how GUTTING the cats will make it "cleaner"...??? ?
that was just rediculously uncalled for.
what he means is,,,,,,,, gut the pre cats because they may be clogged. since they are clogged, they will allow more deposits to collect on the o2's which will signal the map and run richer conditions.
after the pre's are gutted and a new intermediate is installed, it may make the difference.
however,,,,,,,,,,,,, i dont think so since you described it was running real well.
anyway tbirdsps,, i agree that CA is running a mafia with permission but when someone makes a suggestion, sarcasm gets you real far.
besides, it doesnt sound like you work on your own cars anyway so how would you even know what was meant by gutting the pre cats. You dont,, so learn.
Another thing you aught to learn is your car can only be held liable for emissions rating of the year the car was made. CA never got the new regulation passed forcing older vehicles to comply with 2008 regulations,, but i suppose you'd have to do some reading to find out where you stand on that.
Im very curious about which vac line was broken, as in where was the far end termination?
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: tbirdsps on March 28, 2008, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: jcassity;211297
that was just rediculously uncalled for.
what he means is,,,,,,,, gut the pre cats because they may be clogged. since they are clogged, they will allow more deposits to collect on the o2's which will signal the map and run richer conditions.
after the pre's are gutted and a new intermediate is installed, it may make the difference.
however,,,,,,,,,,,,, i dont think so since you described it was running real well.
anyway tbirdsps,, i agree that CA is running a mafia with permission but when someone makes a suggestion, sarcasm gets you real far.
besides, it doesnt sound like you work on your own cars anyway so how would you even know what was meant by gutting the pre cats. You dont,, so learn.
Another thing you aught to learn is your car can only be held liable for emissions rating of the year the car was made. CA never got the new regulation passed forcing older vehicles to comply with 2008 regulations,, but i suppose you'd have to do some reading to find out where you stand on that.
Im very curious about which vac line was broken, as in where was the far end termination?
I didn't look at it. However, it runs really well. That vacuum line probably fixed a leak that caused the computer to slightly richen the mixture thus the final reduced HC. Along with the thermostat which was stuck open not allowing the engine to heat up properly. Temps a big thing in lowering emissions. My biggest point was after being labeled a "gross polluter" it passed at another station without doing anything to the car. It's quite obvious that the first station either ripped me off or his equipment was not good. I don't know much about the equipment but I don't think the computer can be manipulated to report high emissions. I was present for the test and the tester didn't do anything to the car to "make" it fail. It's still and probably remain a mystery but I did file a complaint with the state requesting that they check his equipment and processes. I would be curious to know whether he had an unusually high failure rate in February.
One the law that would require older cars to pass 2008 standards. That would cause hundreds of thousands of cars to fail. It's physically impossible to make a 1986 car pass 2008 standards. Although my daughters car actually passed standards for a 2000 model.
Currently all 1976 and newer cars must pass an emissions test every two years. There is a bill before the legislature that would require 1976 and older cars to pass emissions testing when being registered by a new owner in the 8 counties in the San Juaquin Valley( I'm sure I misspelled that). This is a very rediculous bill. It's estimated that 1976 and older cars contrubute less than 1% of the auto related pollution in the whole state.
The California emissions puppies's have spread their thoughts to 26 other states and some provinces in Canada. I'm in favor of reducing pollution of all kinds. But it has to be reasonably carried out. My lesson on this is that I took the car back to the same place three times. What a dummy. I'll never do that again nor will I use that facility again.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: CatCarMan2012 on March 28, 2008, 02:52:08 PM
I am all for emissions on newer vehicles. The reason is, If i can afford a new vehicle, then it shouldn't be belching smoke into the air. I think the older vehicles always get hit because the people making the rules typically have newer vehicles. Afterall, when is the last time you saw a state governor driving around an older vehicle.
However, I think I should be able to reg my 88 Coug and 92 SC without emissions because i drive them less than 1000 miles a year. Also, I am dying to build a StalkerV6 (linky goodness (http://"http://www.bruntonauto.com/")) but I have read the TX emissions laws and it states that a vehicle must pass emissions standards of the year it was manufactured. I have read, however, that as long as I use a Pre-Emission engine with receipts it will be OK. This seems like kinda a big risk.
Title: Fail emissions test
Post by: daminc on March 28, 2008, 03:35:09 PM
Still glad I live in NY. 4 more years I can yank the cats off