Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
Geez, they stopped using the Exhaust Gases Recycling valve twenty
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
Geez, they stopped using the Exhaust Gases Recycling valve twenty
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
Geez, they stopped using the Exhaust Gases Recycling valve twenty
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
Geez, they stopped using the Exhaust Gases Recycling valve twenty
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
years ago. OK, rather that write it all out again, how NOx is eliminated
by the catalytic converter:
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/hgt/case/convert.htm and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm Mostly for others
to more easily see what a bull sh*ter you are!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
bllsht wrote:
>
> 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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >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.
Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
rod' class.
You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
therefore:
California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
allow up here in Canada.
NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
In message <4253DD72.8C161A9C@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
>
>I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
>the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
>rod' class.
>
>You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
>therefore:
>
>California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
>allow up here in Canada.
>
>NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done. You've whined and cried
and argued everything but NOx here. Even now you say "NOx aside, don't matter",
even though that was my whole point to begin with. You can't really be that
dense, can you?
>
>Mike
>
>>
>> >
>> >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 <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.
>
>Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
>
>I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
>the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
>rod' class.
>
>You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
>therefore:
>
>California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
>allow up here in Canada.
>
>NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done. You've whined and cried
and argued everything but NOx here. Even now you say "NOx aside, don't matter",
even though that was my whole point to begin with. You can't really be that
dense, can you?
>
>Mike
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???
In message <4253DD72.8C161A9C@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
>
>I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
>the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
>rod' class.
>
>You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
>therefore:
>
>California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
>allow up here in Canada.
>
>NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done. You've whined and cried
and argued everything but NOx here. Even now you say "NOx aside, don't matter",
even though that was my whole point to begin with. You can't really be that
dense, can you?
>
>Mike
>
>>
>> >
>> >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 <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.
>
>Brrraaapppp! Wrong.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>This whole discussion was about a CJ or YJ 'without' the computer!!!!
>
>I got tested at the highest allowed for any tested vehicle allowed on
>the road because I have a 1978 Jeep engine in mine. I am in the 'hot
>rod' class.
>
>You are not allowed any higher for anything than a 'hot rod' class, so
>therefore:
>
>California will allow vehicles that pollute more on the roads than they
>allow up here in Canada.
>
>NOx aside, don't matter, they are allowed higher HC and CO levels.
My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done. You've whined and cried
and argued everything but NOx here. Even now you say "NOx aside, don't matter",
even though that was my whole point to begin with. You can't really be that
dense, can you?
>
>Mike
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
