Maryland State Emissions test failure-any suggestions?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, James Masologites wrote:

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

False. Burning oil pushes HC and NOx way up, even at levels too low to
produce much visible smoke.

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

False. Visible smoke is an automatic failure regardless of test numbers.

> For HC's, make sure your carb is probably adjusted. If its too rich, it
> will create a lot of HC emissions.

Except that in the State of Maryland in *this* universe, '86 BMWs do not
have carbs.

Check the valve cover around where the one spark plug was oil-fouled
(if you can remember which one) otherwise just check the whole valave
cover for oil leaking from the cover seal - it is not always a valve
stem problem. If the valve cover seal is bad oil can get into the well
around the spark plug and seep into the combustion chamber. You may
not have to replace the head gasket.

Please also note that a fouled plug will not burn fuel properly and so
the exhaust will contain a lot of unburnt fuel, probably increasing the
HC content by a fair bit. It will also destroy your catalytic
converter very quickly. Imagine what happens if you continually spray
unburnt fuel on your cats - which incidentally may not be operating at
its optimum temperature because the engine is not burning fuel
properly. A cat that runs too "cold" will also self-destruct. On top
of all this, the O2 sensor will get fouled by the oil and... because it
is no longer putting out the correct readings it will screw up fuel
mixture and combustion efficiency. This itself may explain the NOx and
HC readings.

I am not sure of your description of the other 5 plugs. I would pull
the current plugs out and have a look again. The old plugs may have
been in the car too long but it's the new plugs that may be causing the
current problems, not the old ones. The one with the oil is different
because the oil should never be there. Make sure your plugs are of the
correct specifications, especially regarding heat range. Here's a
blurb from NGK about heat range:

http://www.ngksparkplugs.com/techinf...000&country=US

If you car has problems don't try to get fancy and put in "high
performance" stuff - it will likely just confuse things more. Just use
the original BMW-spec replacements parts and return the car to "normal"
running condition before you decide get "fancy". Whenever a device
goes wrong, put it back to original specs and observe performance and
get it fixed before trying to change the specs. Your car may be worth
fixing after all.

"old school bmw owner" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Michael, thanks for replying. Only 1 spark plug was oil-fouled. The
> other 5 were worn with what looks like carbon deposits. I was hoping
> for advice other than it's time to surrender the car, but you're
> probably correct, the time has come. I just hate to junk this car. It
> drives great, it starts up every time and it does exactly what I need
> it to do. Do you think that a new costlier cat will reduce emissions,
> or is that just wasting money? Thanks again.

One is enough. Do a compression check, I wager that cylinder is down on
compression due to a bad valve, valve guide, worn cam lobe, etc.

Is your idle uneven?

-Russ.

>
> One is enough. Do a compression check, I wager that cylinder is down
on
> compression due to a bad valve, valve guide, worn cam lobe, etc.
>
> Is your idle uneven?
>
> -Russ.

Hey Russ, thanks for you reply. No, that's just it, my car idles
smoothly, I can hardly tell that it's idling. It also drives great with
no hesitation, stalling or backfiring on acceleration or deceleration.
One plug is oil fouled but I checked my records and this has been a
problem for a while; even 2 years ago when my car passed emissions with
real low numbers. I know my engine is old but I've taken good care of
it. I guess the state of MD is forcing me to spend the time and money
or else put the car out to pasture.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
| "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
| .umich.edu...
|
| > 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.
|
| 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. 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.
|
|
| Rita
|

I agree. Imagine making 10 million people make a extra car trip every two
years..the extra gas...the extra emissions of trips that need not have ever
been made at all. Sure it may clean up probably 1% of the cars out there that
are a problem, but I've not known a single person to fail a emissions test yet
including yours truly. So, it's obviously one of those liberal "feel good"
measures that just cost people money and provide useless jobs to a few hundred
people and may actually contribute to smog! Of course the state has their
hands tied. They have to show that they're doing these useless things or risk
not getting federal highway money.

I don't understand why you would insist on replacement other parts when
you have an obvious oil leak problem - read the post I made earlier
today.

You are "spinning your wheels". I owned an '86 325e before some dits
rear-ended her. I had an aftermarket cat at the time and it worked
just fine - it had less capacity than the OEM but the emissions test do
not test emissions at full throttle, which was where the OEM cat
clearly outperforms the aftermarket ones. It passed the tests fine.
You should fix your oil problem first.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Rita 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.

Here is the link to the MVA

http://www.marylandmva.com/MVAProg/VEIP/veipwaiver.htm

I don't see anything about any limits to the number of times a waiver can be
granted. Please post a link stating otherwise.

>> 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.

That's not my point. Evidently the government disagrees with you since
there are so many gross polluters driving around with and without waivers.
All my vehicles meet emissions standards so this isn't an issue for me.

There are people out there that find it more economical to get a waiver for
$450 every two years than it does to but a new car. If the government were
worried about air quality you wouldn't have waivers in the first place.
It's us fools that have to be fleeced into paying for something we don't
need.



Rita

In article >,
"James C. Reeves" > wrote:


> I agree. Imagine making 10 million people make a extra car trip every two
> years..the extra gas...the extra emissions of trips that need not have ever
> been made at all.

Most people do not make a separate trip for an emissions test, at
least the ones with functioning brains don't. Easily
accomplished on the way home from work, school, the grocery
store, etc.

> Sure it may clean up probably 1% of the cars out there
> that are a problem,

The cut points are constantly adjusted to achieve a failure rate
between 10 and 12 percent.

> but I've not known a single person to fail a emissions test
> yet
> including yours truly.

There can be a number of reasons for this.

> So, it's obviously one of those liberal "feel good"
> measures that just cost people money and provide useless jobs to a few
> hundred
> people and may actually contribute to smog!

It costs $500 per ton to remediate air pollution by implementing
vehicle emissions testing, it costs $5000 per ton to remediate
air pollution at the smoke stack. A properly designed smog
program will have sufficient test facilities in each county that
are easily accessible with convenient hours. In this state and
others, they even provide free technical assistance to minimize
ping-ponging of motorists between mechanics and the test station.

> Of course the state has their
> hands tied. They have to show that they're doing these useless things or
> risk
> not getting federal highway money.

Yup!

Michael Low wrote:

> You should fix your oil problem first.

Michael thanks. The answer is hard to accept, because I'm thick-headed
but after the denial stage, anger stage, compromise stage(I can't
remember the forth one) I've finally reached the acceptance stage. Just
as a final thought before I bury this horse that I've beeaten to death;
I've discovered that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key factor
creating global warming is not even tested in MD.

In article
.com>,
"old school bmw owner" > wrote:

> Michael Low wrote:
>
> > You should fix your oil problem first.
>
> Michael thanks. The answer is hard to accept, because I'm thick-headed
> but after the denial stage, anger stage, compromise stage(I can't
> remember the forth one) I've finally reached the acceptance stage. Just
> as a final thought before I bury this horse that I've beeaten to death;
> I've discovered that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key factor
> creating global warming is not even tested in MD.

CO2 occurs naturally, it is a greenhouse gas but not a pollutant
as CO, HC and NOx are.
CO2 is measured, it just isn't reported or visible on the VIR.
CO and CO2 are both monitored to determine sample dilution.

FYI, the more efficiently an engine runs, the higher the CO2.

If CO2 emissions bother you, plant more trees.