Maryland State Emissions test failure-any suggestions?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Dan wrote:

> o2 sensor, etc. have little effect on NOx.

Incorrect. Lean mixtures increase NOx; an O2S that thinks the mixture is
richer than it actually is will drive the mixture lean and increase NOx.

> IMHO NOx also gets worse in colder weather...I'm still working on
> proving why

Simple. Colder ambient temperature = denser intake charge = higher
cylinder pressure = higher combustion temperature = increased NOx.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Rita =C4 Berkowitz wrote:

> No, if you can prove that you made an attempt to have the vehicle
> repaired and the costs are $400 or above than Maryland will issue you a
> waiver, so I have been told.

Read more closely -- there is a limit to the number of waivers that are
granted for any particular automobile. One cannot go on getting waiver
after waiver after waiver, year after year after year.

> It's asinine that one would even believe that the emissions test has
> clean air as its goal instead of generating revenue for the state. It is
> just more bull**** to fleece the public.

Those few of us who breathe air believe otherwise.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote:

> Oh, come on. The OP's car is a 1986 BMW 325e! They go for less than a
> grand these days.

Goooood! Then the OP has plenty of money left to fix the damned thing
right.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>If the cost of repair exceeds a certain amount, you can get a waver.
>
>
> ...IF you can demonstrate financial hardship, which is going to be rather
> difficult to do when the vehicle in question is a BMW.

a 1986 BMW? I'm sure that's worth a pretty penny.

and I dont think its based on financial condition anyway, its not here
in Georgia.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> [corrected your units; "gpm" is gallons per minute; emission results are
> g/mi, grams per mile.]
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, old school bmw owner wrote:
>
>
>>1986 BMW325e 178,000 miles:
>>FAILED NOx actual=3.0586 g/mi, cutpoint=2.8000 g/mi
>>FAILED HC actual=2.0497 g/mi, cutpoint=1.8000 g/mi
>
>
>>My car does burn and leak oil
>
>
> Well, there's your answer. Engines that burn oil produce a great deal of
> NOx and usually high HC. The emission test cutpoints are set so as to
> "catch" oil-burning cars like yours and "ground" them until they're
> repaired.
>
>
>>but it starts right up, idles smoothly and drives great.
>
>
> That's nice, but the state doesn't care.
>
>
>>There is no visable smoke to speak of.
>
>
> Any visible smoke is "to speak of".
>
>
>>My O2 sensor
>>has been replaced and has +/- 45,000 miles on it.
>
>
> ...and is probably steadily getting coated with the oil your engine burns.
>
>
>>I don't want to spend $$$ to have my engine rebuilt or do other drastic
>>costly measures
>
>
> Nobody wants to spend $$$, but when a machine is worn out, as yours is,
> it's time to repair it or get rid of it. The rules apply equally to those
> who drive Hyundais and those who drive BMWs.
>
>
>>BTW 2 years ago when my car was last tested my emission #s were
>>excellent,way under the standards and I only drive +/- 6,000 miles/yr.
>
>
> The standards have probably been tightened since that time, and that's
> also how machines work: Eventually, they pass the critical wear point and
> can no longer pass emissions.
>
>
>>I don't want to pollute the air
>
>
> Are you sure? You wrote:
>
>
>>Ran a full tank of gas with a bottle of Guaranteed to Pass and put a
>>bottle of Heet in tank before retest My catalytic converter was replaced
>>within the past year, but with an inexpensive universal replacement not
>>with a BMW replacemnt.
>
>
> This sounds more like the behavior of someone trying to cheat past the
> test with a polluting vehicle than of someone who doesn't want to pollute
> the air.
>
> DS

Burning oil does not contribute at all to failing an emissions test, at
least directly. Cars putting out clouds of oil smoke can pass without a
problem. However, your car is suffering from other ailments (which, at
176k miles, isn't anything unexpected).

High combustion temperatures create NOx but reduce HC, while lower
temperatures reduce HC and increase NOx. My point is that your
combustion temperature is not the problem (since your failing both
tests). EGR valves, if your car has one, reduce NOx, so I would check
the condition of that. For HC's, make sure your carb is probably
adjusted. If its too rich, it will create a lot of HC emissions.

In article >,
James Masologites > wrote:

> Burning oil does not contribute at all to failing an emissions test, at
> least directly.

Utter nonsense.

> Cars putting out clouds of oil smoke can pass without a
> problem.

Haven't seen it happen in over 9 years of IM-240 testing in
Wisconsin. Seen plenty of examples of the opposite though.

> However, your car is suffering from other ailments (which, at
> 176k miles, isn't anything unexpected).

That's pretty much already been determined.

> High combustion temperatures create NOx but reduce HC, while lower
> temperatures reduce HC and increase NOx.

Well, half of that is somewhat correct.

> My point is that your
> combustion temperature is not the problem (since your failing both
> tests).

Actually, it is. The fact that higher combustion temperatures
help to lower HC is not a guaranty that it always will,
especially in light of the fact that his HC went past the cut
point -after- he dosed the fuel with Heet and the Guaranteed to
Pass snake oil. All he did was to over oxygenate the fuel
creating an extreme lean condition, which will greatly contribute
to excessive HC and NOx.

> EGR valves, if your car has one, reduce NOx, so I would check
> the condition of that. For HC's, make sure your carb is probably
> adjusted. If its too rich, it will create a lot of HC emissions.

His 86 BMW doesn't have a carburetor.

wrote:
> Have you checked for vacuum leaks and the EGR valve?

my car is not equipped with an EGR valve and I have no idea nor proper
equipment to check for vacuum leaks. Thanks for the suggestions.

Thanks for responding, in MD the amount is $450. If I'm going to spend
that much I need to know what to spend it on.

Daniel, thanks for taking time out to respond to my post.
gpm (grams per mile) was exactly what was printed on the diagnostic
report.
my car doesn't leak/burn that much oil, maybe a quart every 1,000
miles, I thought that was somewhat normal for a 20 year old car.
I used GTO because it was recommended to burn off carbon deposits and
clean my fuel system, the Heet was also used to clean the fuel tank of
moisture and reduce emissions (or so I hoped) and the cat cost $300
which I hoped would reduce emissions.

financial hardship is not an issue in MD. $450 in emissions related
repair costs must be documented to get a 2 year waiver.