Failed emissions test
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
Here is the complete results:
40 km/h Limit Readign
HC ppm 104 39
CO % 0.58 0.36
NO ppm 1126 1984
idle
HC ppm 200 33
CO % 1 0.22
Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
everything is well in check except for that.
Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
reason for going with a cold engine...
Regards,
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40490045.2BD1929B@***.net...
> Hi Chris,
> I've never heard that before, we want it run as hot as possible to
> fully burn all the gases, that's why all SMOG motors run a 195 degree
> thermostats. Someone in this group said their Cherokee was originally
> bought in Europe, if that's true you may not have a catalytic converter,
> that's it's job to convert nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons into
> harmless water. My Bronco old with three hundred thousand miles on it
> and never had the heads off: http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
> >
> > Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126.
Any
> > ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some
"guaranteed
> > to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the
car
> > well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO
ppm
> > is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> > currently car-less!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Christian Fry wrote:
>
> The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
>
> As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the emission
> controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have the
> computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned hydrocarbons
> and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
>
> Here is the complete results:
>
> 40 km/h Limit Readign
> HC ppm 104 39
> CO % 0.58 0.36
> NO ppm 1126 1984
>
> idle
> HC ppm 200 33
> CO % 1 0.22
>
> Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> everything is well in check except for that.
> Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> reason for going with a cold engine...
>
> Regards,
> Chris
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
I did the test again this morning cold, and the NO went down to about 1500.
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
I did the test again this morning cold, and the NO went down to about 1500.
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
I did the test again this morning cold, and the NO went down to about 1500.
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
Apparently if it was -40 or so I would have passed...
Since the cold seems to have left us, my only other choice is to
inspect/replace the suspect catalytic converter. Not bad, think I can get
away with $100 or so for that one...
Chris
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40498099.263079B@***.net...
> Do you have a catalytic converter???? If so you want to have at
> least twenty minutes of cruising to have it working a sixteen hundred
> degrees, to change the nitrogen oxides to water.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Christian Fry wrote:
> >
> > The hydrocarbons were well placed, I have a bit of room to move there...
> >
> > As for warming the car up, from what I understand it's to get the
emission
> > controls up and running - it can take up to 90 seconds on cars to have
the
> > computer in closed loop mode. After that, a few more unburned
hydrocarbons
> > and I'm happy, so long as I get the paper!
> >
> > Here is the complete results:
> >
> > 40 km/h Limit Readign
> > HC ppm 104 39
> > CO % 0.58 0.36
> > NO ppm 1126 1984
> >
> > idle
> > HC ppm 200 33
> > CO % 1 0.22
> >
> > Hope that clears up any issues regarding other control systems. Seems
> > everything is well in check except for that.
> > Mechanic advised me it might even be plugs that are too hot, hence the
> > reason for going with a cold engine...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Failed emissions test
Data Retrieved: http://www.smogtips.com
NOx (Nitrous Oxides) is a chemical created when an engine's combustion
chamber temperatures reach over 2500F. The combination of nitrogen and
oxygen under these high temperatures create NOx. Below are four of the
possibly conditions, that could cause a vehicle to emit an excessive
amount of NOx. Cause #3 is the most common, however in cases were a
vehicle has failed for both high NOx and high HC, pay close attention
to problem #4 also. (Note: You should always insure the EGR is working
fine before replacing the CAT.)
(Rare)1.Bad cooling : If an engine's cooling fans are not turning on
at the right temperature this could cause the engine to overheat and
emit NOx. If your engine doesn't have an over-heating problem you can
omit this problem.
(Rare)2. The second reason for a NOx failure could be high engine
compression. High compression in an engine's combustion chambers
develop over time due to carbon build-up. This high compression causes
high temperatures, which result in NOx emissions. Keep in mind though,
this problem usually is seen in vehicles with over 200,000 miles.
(Most Common)3. The third reason for your NOx failure may be due to a
malfunctioning EGR valve and/or plugged up EGR ports and passages. EGR
stands for exhaust gas recirculation. And that is exactly what this
component does. The EGR system recirculates burned up exhaust gases
back into the combustion chambers. Since these recycled exhaust gases
have already been in the combustion chambers once, they have burned up
most of their fuels, means there is now much less real fuel in the
chambers to ignite. This keeps the chamber temperatures down and thus
reduces NOx emissions. The EGR valve should be inspected to insure its
proper operation. A working valve should be able to open its passage
using manifold vacuum. Manifold vacuum is created during the engine's
intake cycle. The high demand for air during this cycle creates a
vacuum within the engine's intake manifold. This vacuum is then used
to control several important functions within the vehicle, including
controlling the EGR valve. Some vehicles even rely on this vacuum to
control their heating and air-conditioning components. The EGR system
is prone to collecting carbon build-up. Some vehicle manufacturers
recommend cleaning this component an a regular basis.
(Common)4. And, finally, the fourth reason for a NOx failure is a bad
Catalytic Converter. The Catalytic Converter, commonly referred to as
the CAT is a component designed to continue the combustion process
within itself and emit a more thoroughly burned and less harmful
emission containing exhaust. It is normally placed between your
engine's exhaust port and your car's muffler. It allows the engine
exhaust to pass through while it reduces all emissions. A good CAT
should dramatically reduce HC, CO and NOx. The CAT is a catalyst, it
plays a very small part on how well your engine runs. It only begins
working after the exhaust has exited the engines combustion chambers.
And like many catalyst it is not designed to last forever. From time
to time it will need replacement. How long your vehicle's CAT will
last depends on how completely your engine burns the fuel before
presenting it the to the CAT and also on the quality of the CAT.
Factory CATs should normally last 5 to 10 years. Aftermarket CATs
should work for at least half that (for the cost difference I would
normally go with the aftermarket CAT). We see this failure more often
in vehicles which have produced high emission numbers in more then one
category. Note: When replacing your factory CAT it is very important
to use a OEM factory specification replacement part. Not all CATs are
alike. They are all built to suit their own vehicle's specific needs.
The most accurate way to find out if your vehicle CAT is working
efficiently is by using an exhaust gas analyzer. Unfortunately this
tool is fairly expensive and not designed for home use. You must visit
a local smog station and have the smog technician inspect the CAT via
the shop's gas analyzer.
Obvious symptoms of a bad CAT however could be any of the following:
a. major loss of power over 15-25 mph (CAT is plugged up and
restricting exhaust flow)
b. very strong exhaust smell on a vehicle that runs great(engine
running efficiently, but CAT not completing the burning process)
c. Loud rattle being heard from inside the CAT (CAT substrate broken
up).
In this first insure the proper operation of the EGR valve and then
move on to the CAT system. Testing the EGR and CAT systems require
the use of special expert tools. A certified station will be able to
accurately diagnose your vehicle's emissions failure and and help
eliminate the chance of wasting money replacing parts or components
which may have not needed replacement. Specially in the case of
replacing some of the more expensive emission components.
I've found a website on line called http://www.smogtips.com. They have
a lot of information about smog checks and live smog support.
"Christian Fry" <fry_christian@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LD62c.5029$i_2.102410@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
>
> Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126. Any
> ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some "guaranteed
> to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the car
> well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO ppm
> is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> currently car-less!
>
> Regards,
> Chris
NOx (Nitrous Oxides) is a chemical created when an engine's combustion
chamber temperatures reach over 2500F. The combination of nitrogen and
oxygen under these high temperatures create NOx. Below are four of the
possibly conditions, that could cause a vehicle to emit an excessive
amount of NOx. Cause #3 is the most common, however in cases were a
vehicle has failed for both high NOx and high HC, pay close attention
to problem #4 also. (Note: You should always insure the EGR is working
fine before replacing the CAT.)
(Rare)1.Bad cooling : If an engine's cooling fans are not turning on
at the right temperature this could cause the engine to overheat and
emit NOx. If your engine doesn't have an over-heating problem you can
omit this problem.
(Rare)2. The second reason for a NOx failure could be high engine
compression. High compression in an engine's combustion chambers
develop over time due to carbon build-up. This high compression causes
high temperatures, which result in NOx emissions. Keep in mind though,
this problem usually is seen in vehicles with over 200,000 miles.
(Most Common)3. The third reason for your NOx failure may be due to a
malfunctioning EGR valve and/or plugged up EGR ports and passages. EGR
stands for exhaust gas recirculation. And that is exactly what this
component does. The EGR system recirculates burned up exhaust gases
back into the combustion chambers. Since these recycled exhaust gases
have already been in the combustion chambers once, they have burned up
most of their fuels, means there is now much less real fuel in the
chambers to ignite. This keeps the chamber temperatures down and thus
reduces NOx emissions. The EGR valve should be inspected to insure its
proper operation. A working valve should be able to open its passage
using manifold vacuum. Manifold vacuum is created during the engine's
intake cycle. The high demand for air during this cycle creates a
vacuum within the engine's intake manifold. This vacuum is then used
to control several important functions within the vehicle, including
controlling the EGR valve. Some vehicles even rely on this vacuum to
control their heating and air-conditioning components. The EGR system
is prone to collecting carbon build-up. Some vehicle manufacturers
recommend cleaning this component an a regular basis.
(Common)4. And, finally, the fourth reason for a NOx failure is a bad
Catalytic Converter. The Catalytic Converter, commonly referred to as
the CAT is a component designed to continue the combustion process
within itself and emit a more thoroughly burned and less harmful
emission containing exhaust. It is normally placed between your
engine's exhaust port and your car's muffler. It allows the engine
exhaust to pass through while it reduces all emissions. A good CAT
should dramatically reduce HC, CO and NOx. The CAT is a catalyst, it
plays a very small part on how well your engine runs. It only begins
working after the exhaust has exited the engines combustion chambers.
And like many catalyst it is not designed to last forever. From time
to time it will need replacement. How long your vehicle's CAT will
last depends on how completely your engine burns the fuel before
presenting it the to the CAT and also on the quality of the CAT.
Factory CATs should normally last 5 to 10 years. Aftermarket CATs
should work for at least half that (for the cost difference I would
normally go with the aftermarket CAT). We see this failure more often
in vehicles which have produced high emission numbers in more then one
category. Note: When replacing your factory CAT it is very important
to use a OEM factory specification replacement part. Not all CATs are
alike. They are all built to suit their own vehicle's specific needs.
The most accurate way to find out if your vehicle CAT is working
efficiently is by using an exhaust gas analyzer. Unfortunately this
tool is fairly expensive and not designed for home use. You must visit
a local smog station and have the smog technician inspect the CAT via
the shop's gas analyzer.
Obvious symptoms of a bad CAT however could be any of the following:
a. major loss of power over 15-25 mph (CAT is plugged up and
restricting exhaust flow)
b. very strong exhaust smell on a vehicle that runs great(engine
running efficiently, but CAT not completing the burning process)
c. Loud rattle being heard from inside the CAT (CAT substrate broken
up).
In this first insure the proper operation of the EGR valve and then
move on to the CAT system. Testing the EGR and CAT systems require
the use of special expert tools. A certified station will be able to
accurately diagnose your vehicle's emissions failure and and help
eliminate the chance of wasting money replacing parts or components
which may have not needed replacement. Specially in the case of
replacing some of the more expensive emission components.
I've found a website on line called http://www.smogtips.com. They have
a lot of information about smog checks and live smog support.
"Christian Fry" <fry_christian@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LD62c.5029$i_2.102410@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4.0
>
> Failed the emissions test (grr). The NO PPM was at 1984, max. is 1126. Any
> ideas what the problem might be? I changed the plugs, ran some "guaranteed
> to pass" through it, cleaned the air filter, and did the test with the car
> well warmed up. The guy said if I ran it cold it might pass, as the NO ppm
> is caused by a cylinder running too hot. Any insight would be great, I'm
> currently car-less!
>
> Regards,
> Chris