Gross Polluter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
.... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
.... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
.... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
parts to fix stuff ...
"Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
>
> This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> wiating list for tests.
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> >
> > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
Smog
> > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
attached
> > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
on a
> > treadmill.
> >
> > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
car
> > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
the
> > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
satisfied -
> > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
crap
> > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> >
> > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
freeway
> > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
back
> > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
colors.
> > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
allowed,
> > and the actual reading that was measured.
> >
> > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
of
> > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
to
> > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
at
> > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
so
> > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
around
> > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
and
> > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrocarbons
> > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
exceeded
> > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
numbers
> > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> >
> > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
high
> > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> >
> > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
maybe
> > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
car
> > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
Yeah, that was the gist of Harry's advice to me this time - we got by
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
Yeah, that was the gist of Harry's advice to me this time - we got by
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
Yeah, that was the gist of Harry's advice to me this time - we got by
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gross Polluter
Yeah, that was the gist of Harry's advice to me this time - we got by
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
but not by a whole lot. Damn, you'd think that with only 165k on it
you shouldn't need to fix anything yet...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:27:31 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... my guy says I only need a new CAT. Of course, I never need the cheap
> parts to fix stuff ...
>
>
>
>
> "Will Honea" <hwj25(remove this)@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-d6hKXyBvv26Z@anon.none.net...
> > Sounds like something I mentioned a while back after having mine done.
> > The guy who does my tests tries to maintain appointment times so that
> > you pull straight in to the test bay w/o ever shutting down. Last
> > time, I was marginal at low speed so he had me run it out to the
> > freeway, up 2 exits, turn around and come back. As you note, it
> > passed with flying colors then. He did suggest look into new cat and
> > O2 sensor before I have to bring it back next time, though.
> >
> > This guy maintains that the biggest problem is that the cat cools down
> > below light-off temp too fast and low speed/idle won't heat it up
> > enough to light off - altho it will generally stay at temp if it's
> > there already and you leave it idling.. He can generally get anything
> > I take in to pass the sniffer - maybe that's why he always has a
> > wiating list for tests.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:44 UTC "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Living in the People's Republic of California has its ups and downs.
> > > Yesterday was a down, for a while.
> > >
> > > The Governor needs to make a yacht payment, so he sent me a vehicle
> > > registration renewal notice that demands me to make a trip to the local
> Smog
> > > Station and support the yachting tastes of those guys. Anyway, they
> attached
> > > a host of sensors and probes to my car while making it run a mile or so
> on a
> > > treadmill.
> > >
> > > The treadmill part of the test seems to have been my undoing. They
> > > administer this test at two speeds, slow - 15mph - and fast - 25mph. My
> car
> > > tripped the Gross Polluter flags and sirens during the low speed run on
> the
> > > treadmill, but seemed to make the computers happy - or at least
> satisfied -
> > > on the high speed run. The machine spit out a report that detailed the
> crap
> > > being spewed from the tail pipe.
> > >
> > > The guy administering the test allowed me to take my car out to the
> freeway
> > > and get off at the next exit and come back in, where he immediately
> > > administered the exact same test again, and within minutes of pulling
> back
> > > into the repair bay. On the second test, the car passed with flying
> colors.
> > > The report that the machine spits out lists the max reading that is
> allowed,
> > > and the actual reading that was measured.
> > >
> > > Two tests, the first a dismal failure and the second a shining example
> of
> > > automotive technology working to keep our skies clean and blue. The ONLY
> > > difference being a trip around the block, well down the freeway and back
> to
> > > the shop. As a Gross Polluter, the NO at low speed tipped the counters
> at
> > > 1996, whatever that means. The allowable limit is 695 for this category,
> so
> > > my car measured roughly 3 times the allowable limit. After the run
> around
> > > the block, this number came in at 130. The high speed test allowed 717,
> and
> > > I got 587 as a GP, and 140 on the 2nd test. Carbon Monoxide and
> Hydrocarbons
> > > are also tested and reported, as a Gross Polluter, these numbers
> exceeded
> > > the max allowable by factors of about 3, and when the car passed the
> numbers
> > > tiny fractions of the same numbers when the Polluter flag was tripped.
> > >
> > > If the car can fail in the low speed test, and pass the high speed test,
> > > then drive around the block and pass both tests, why don't they do the
> high
> > > speed test first so the low speed test has a better chance of passing?
> > >
> > > What I learned is that when you take an older car to the Smog ***** for
> > > yacht payment collections, mine is a '94 with nearly 200,000 miles,
> maybe
> > > you should leave it idling in the parking lot before the test is
> > > administered. I had come in from a 40+ mile commute, but they let the
> car
> > > sit for an hour before they got to it, so it cooled off so much that the
> > > smog stuff was not up to speed during the test.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Will Honea
>
>
--
Will Honea
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
