You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

bllsht wrote:
>
> So you're saying that EGR and spark controls don't reduce NOx emissions? And
> air injection doesn't reduce HC and CO?
>
> If you don't have the right stuff going into the cat converter, you're not gonna
> have the right stuff coming out.

 

You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

bllsht wrote:
>
> So you're saying that EGR and spark controls don't reduce NOx emissions? And
> air injection doesn't reduce HC and CO?
>
> If you don't have the right stuff going into the cat converter, you're not gonna
> have the right stuff coming out.

 

You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

bllsht wrote:
>
> So you're saying that EGR and spark controls don't reduce NOx emissions? And
> air injection doesn't reduce HC and CO?
>
> If you don't have the right stuff going into the cat converter, you're not gonna
> have the right stuff coming out.

 

You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

bllsht wrote:
>
> So you're saying that EGR and spark controls don't reduce NOx emissions? And
> air injection doesn't reduce HC and CO?
>
> If you don't have the right stuff going into the cat converter, you're not gonna
> have the right stuff coming out.

 

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
> >>
> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
> >> twice what California's are.
> >>
> >
> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
> >
> >Mike
>
> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.

LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
pass....

The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
gets 15 ppm.

We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.

The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
0.16%.

Bye now.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
> >>
> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
> >> twice what California's are.
> >>
> >
> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
> >
> >Mike
>
> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.

LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
pass....

The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
gets 15 ppm.

We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.

The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
0.16%.

Bye now.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
> >>
> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
> >> twice what California's are.
> >>
> >
> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
> >
> >Mike
>
> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.

LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
pass....

The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
gets 15 ppm.

We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.

The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
0.16%.

Bye now.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
> >>
> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
> >> twice what California's are.
> >>
> >
> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
> >
> >Mike
>
> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.

LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
pass....

The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
gets 15 ppm.

We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.

The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
0.16%.

Bye now.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

In message <4252C4CA.D73B8E43@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
>> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
>> >>
>> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
>> >> twice what California's are.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
>> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
>> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
>> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
>> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.
>
>LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
>in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
>that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
>pass....
>
>The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
>gets 15 ppm.
>
>We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.
>
>The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
>0.16%.
>
>Bye now.....

LOL. You are comparing cut points for a 78 Bronco with a cat and air injection
to cut points for a 86 CJ with a computer? Surely nobody here is as stupid as
you think they are. Let's not compare apples and oranges.

You also chose to ignore NOx in your reply. If you recall, and what I've said
all along is the OP's NOx emissions will suffer greatly using the Nutter hack.

Yeah yeah, I know, you don't get tested for NOx, but YJs do and the cut points
are higher in Canada.



>
>Mike
>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

In message <4252C4CA.D73B8E43@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <42513AE3.A39A2BCC@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <424EA779.BA298F23@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
>> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
>> >>
>> >> --------. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
>> >> twice what California's are.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
>> >that says different. You are like a broken record and I don't feel like
>> >proving you wrong with the exact same info 'once again'. We have posted
>> >it several times, but I guess with all that computer learning you got,
>> >there is nothing left over for real facts eh.
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.
>
>LOL! So the only post you refuse to comment about is the one where Bill
>in California 'once again' shows his emissions numbers and the 'fact'
>that he is allowed to have way higher readings than us and still
>pass....
>
>The highest HC we are allowed is 300 ppm, he is allowed 329 and my CJ7
>gets 15 ppm.
>
>We used to be allowed 350 ppm HC, but they lowered it.
>
>The highest CO we are allowed is 1.6% and Bill is allowed 3.83%! I get
>0.16%.
>
>Bye now.....

LOL. You are comparing cut points for a 78 Bronco with a cat and air injection
to cut points for a 86 CJ with a computer? Surely nobody here is as stupid as
you think they are. Let's not compare apples and oranges.

You also chose to ignore NOx in your reply. If you recall, and what I've said
all along is the OP's NOx emissions will suffer greatly using the Nutter hack.

Yeah yeah, I know, you don't get tested for NOx, but YJs do and the cut points
are higher in Canada.



>
>Mike
>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's