Fail emissions test 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #1 – February 06, 2008, 11:15:05 AM Oxygen sensors will cause high HC readings. I'd replace those and then check the codes. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #2 – 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #3 – February 06, 2008, 10:00:53 PM my cats were bad, and it was enough to get me to pass mine. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #4 – 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. 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #5 – February 11, 2008, 02:00:42 PM Quote from: tbirdsps;203475Here'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. 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #6 – February 11, 2008, 05:05:37 PM Quote from: JeremyB;203496I 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #7 – 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. Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #8 – February 12, 2008, 09:12:10 AM Quote from: Haystack;203607bang 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: Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #9 – 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? Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #10 – February 12, 2008, 04:52:48 PM Quote from: FordTruckFreeek;203731Trust 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. Quote Selected
Update Reply #11 – 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. Quote Selected
Update as promised Reply #12 – 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: :flip: :flip: Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #13 – 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 Quote Selected
Fail emissions test Reply #14 – March 27, 2008, 12:54:20 PM Move away from that state... FAR away. Quote Selected
Topic: Fail emissions test (Read 3200 times)
previous topic - next topic
