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

 

In message <42523EC5.C3DD6693@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

>Bullsh*ter,
> I meant losing the computer would lose the advance control over the
>distributors centrifugal and vacuum advances during warm up. Not that
>I'm for it, but by the time it's up on wheel dyno taking it SMOG test,
>whether it's retarded cold is irrelevant, as that can't be tested at
>that time.

Losing the computer means you lose the ability to retard timing. The vacuum and
centrifugal advance are not controlled by the computer, and they always work.
Not being able to retard timing on the dyno will certainly show up as higher NOx
numbers.

> Yes, they did add a letter since mine.
> You're just too full of bull sh*t to have a SMOG license, I don't
>believe you. Of course, you could scan it and put it up for us to see.

You're right, I could.

> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> When the going gets tough, change the subject, eh?
>>
>> I'll disregard the fact that your comments had NOTHING to do with my reply and
>> address what you just posted...
>>
>> 1. It appears that you're saying that you don't want full vacuum advance when
>> cold? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong again. You want MORE advance
>> for cold running.
>>
>> 2. There is no class A license anymore. They went away not long after they did
>> away with road draft tubes. There is EB for basic area technicians and EA for
>> advanced emission specialist. Since you asked, I have an EA license.
>>
>> In message <4250D8E9.259A1DF0@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
>>
>> > We eliminate full vacuum advance for cold running only. Remember I
>> >had a class A license, do you?
>> >http://www.----------.com/oscilloscope.jpg
>> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> >mailto:--------------------
>> >
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am familiar with the Nutter hack. Maybe you should have another look. The
>> >> ignition module is just a driver for the coil. The computer that your pal
>> >> recommends bypassing controls the timing. That is why the ignition wiring is
>> >> modified.

 

In message <42523EC5.C3DD6693@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

>Bullsh*ter,
> I meant losing the computer would lose the advance control over the
>distributors centrifugal and vacuum advances during warm up. Not that
>I'm for it, but by the time it's up on wheel dyno taking it SMOG test,
>whether it's retarded cold is irrelevant, as that can't be tested at
>that time.

Losing the computer means you lose the ability to retard timing. The vacuum and
centrifugal advance are not controlled by the computer, and they always work.
Not being able to retard timing on the dyno will certainly show up as higher NOx
numbers.

> Yes, they did add a letter since mine.
> You're just too full of bull sh*t to have a SMOG license, I don't
>believe you. Of course, you could scan it and put it up for us to see.

You're right, I could.

> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> When the going gets tough, change the subject, eh?
>>
>> I'll disregard the fact that your comments had NOTHING to do with my reply and
>> address what you just posted...
>>
>> 1. It appears that you're saying that you don't want full vacuum advance when
>> cold? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong again. You want MORE advance
>> for cold running.
>>
>> 2. There is no class A license anymore. They went away not long after they did
>> away with road draft tubes. There is EB for basic area technicians and EA for
>> advanced emission specialist. Since you asked, I have an EA license.
>>
>> In message <4250D8E9.259A1DF0@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
>>
>> > We eliminate full vacuum advance for cold running only. Remember I
>> >had a class A license, do you?
>> >http://www.----------.com/oscilloscope.jpg
>> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> >mailto:--------------------
>> >
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am familiar with the Nutter hack. Maybe you should have another look. The
>> >> ignition module is just a driver for the coil. The computer that your pal
>> >> recommends bypassing controls the timing. That is why the ignition wiring is
>> >> modified.

 

In message <42523EC5.C3DD6693@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

>Bullsh*ter,
> I meant losing the computer would lose the advance control over the
>distributors centrifugal and vacuum advances during warm up. Not that
>I'm for it, but by the time it's up on wheel dyno taking it SMOG test,
>whether it's retarded cold is irrelevant, as that can't be tested at
>that time.

Losing the computer means you lose the ability to retard timing. The vacuum and
centrifugal advance are not controlled by the computer, and they always work.
Not being able to retard timing on the dyno will certainly show up as higher NOx
numbers.

> Yes, they did add a letter since mine.
> You're just too full of bull sh*t to have a SMOG license, I don't
>believe you. Of course, you could scan it and put it up for us to see.

You're right, I could.

> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> When the going gets tough, change the subject, eh?
>>
>> I'll disregard the fact that your comments had NOTHING to do with my reply and
>> address what you just posted...
>>
>> 1. It appears that you're saying that you don't want full vacuum advance when
>> cold? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong again. You want MORE advance
>> for cold running.
>>
>> 2. There is no class A license anymore. They went away not long after they did
>> away with road draft tubes. There is EB for basic area technicians and EA for
>> advanced emission specialist. Since you asked, I have an EA license.
>>
>> In message <4250D8E9.259A1DF0@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
>>
>> > We eliminate full vacuum advance for cold running only. Remember I
>> >had a class A license, do you?
>> >http://www.----------.com/oscilloscope.jpg
>> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> >mailto:--------------------
>> >
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am familiar with the Nutter hack. Maybe you should have another look. The
>> >> ignition module is just a driver for the coil. The computer that your pal
>> >> recommends bypassing controls the timing. That is why the ignition wiring is
>> >> modified.

 

In message <42523EC5.C3DD6693@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

>Bullsh*ter,
> I meant losing the computer would lose the advance control over the
>distributors centrifugal and vacuum advances during warm up. Not that
>I'm for it, but by the time it's up on wheel dyno taking it SMOG test,
>whether it's retarded cold is irrelevant, as that can't be tested at
>that time.

Losing the computer means you lose the ability to retard timing. The vacuum and
centrifugal advance are not controlled by the computer, and they always work.
Not being able to retard timing on the dyno will certainly show up as higher NOx
numbers.

> Yes, they did add a letter since mine.
> You're just too full of bull sh*t to have a SMOG license, I don't
>believe you. Of course, you could scan it and put it up for us to see.

You're right, I could.

> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> When the going gets tough, change the subject, eh?
>>
>> I'll disregard the fact that your comments had NOTHING to do with my reply and
>> address what you just posted...
>>
>> 1. It appears that you're saying that you don't want full vacuum advance when
>> cold? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong again. You want MORE advance
>> for cold running.
>>
>> 2. There is no class A license anymore. They went away not long after they did
>> away with road draft tubes. There is EB for basic area technicians and EA for
>> advanced emission specialist. Since you asked, I have an EA license.
>>
>> In message <4250D8E9.259A1DF0@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
>>
>> > We eliminate full vacuum advance for cold running only. Remember I
>> >had a class A license, do you?
>> >http://www.----------.com/oscilloscope.jpg
>> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> >mailto:--------------------
>> >
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am familiar with the Nutter hack. Maybe you should have another look. The
>> >> ignition module is just a driver for the coil. The computer that your pal
>> >> recommends bypassing controls the timing. That is why the ignition wiring is
>> >> modified.

 

In message <42523FDE.28D63F3A@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

> You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
>eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?

The converter eliminates SOME of the NOx that's created during the combustion
process. EGR and spark control REDUCE the AMOUNT of NOx created in the first
place.



> 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.

 

In message <42523FDE.28D63F3A@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

> You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
>eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?

The converter eliminates SOME of the NOx that's created during the combustion
process. EGR and spark control REDUCE the AMOUNT of NOx created in the first
place.



> 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.

 

In message <42523FDE.28D63F3A@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

> You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
>eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?

The converter eliminates SOME of the NOx that's created during the combustion
process. EGR and spark control REDUCE the AMOUNT of NOx created in the first
place.



> 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.

 

In message <42523FDE.28D63F3A@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:

> You said NOX, and you now know it's the catalytic converter that
>eliminates it. Would like me to write that out again?

The converter eliminates SOME of the NOx that's created during the combustion
process. EGR and spark control REDUCE the AMOUNT of NOx created in the first
place.



> 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.