If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
87 5th Avenue Emission Problems
I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it
failed miserably Here are the results: ASM2525 Test Curb Idle Test Limit Reading Result Limit Reading Result HC ppm 83 197 FAIL 300 504 FAIL CO% 0.46 0.16 PASS 1.50 6.76 FAIL NO ppm 893 1220 FAIL N/A N/A N/A RPM 1092 VALID RPM 854 VALID Dilution 13.8 VALID Dilution 17.2 VALID What are the possible causes and cures? TIA P.S. It passed the Gas Cap Pressure Test and Fuel Filler Integrity Check |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about that here's a better version of the report ASM2525 TEST LIMIT READING RESULT HC ppm 83 197 FAIL CO% 0.46 0.16 PASS NO ppm 893 1220 FAIL RPM 1092 VALID DILUTION 13.8 VALID CURB IDLE TEST LIMIT READING RESULT HC ppm 300 504 FAIL CO% 1.50 6.76 FAIL NO ppm N/A N/A N/A RPM 854 VALID DILUTION 17.2 VALID |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Mr. Minnow wrote:
> I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it > failed miserably > > Here are the results: It's *very* hard to read your results -- the tabulation didn't come out as you tried to make it do -- but it looks to me as if your results a HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm, FAIL) CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%, PASS) NOx: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm, FAIL) Your CO is about 1/3 of the allowable limit, and is an excellent reading for a carbureted car -- but your HCs are more than double the allowed limit, and your NOx is 1/3 higher than allowed. This combination of results suggests your engine is running so lean that it is misfiring. Those cylinders that do fire produce a great deal of NOx due to the lean mixture, while those that do not fire produce a great deal of HC due to noncombustion. (These '85-'89 civilian M-body cars with the Holley 2bbl don't generally run very well in stock form, even when everything is set by the book. Lean surge under steady throttle is the rule, rather than the exception. Not that this helps you -- just saying.) So, what's causing your misfiring? Could be any number of things. A faulty Oxygen sensor in the driver side exhaust manifold (how long since you replaced it?). A faulty carburetor, a faulty Lean Burn computer, a plugged fuel filter...it might not even be a lean misfire at all; your readings could also be caused by the reduction portion of the exhaust catalyst system having reached the end of its life, resulting in very high NOx tailpipe readings and insufficient free Oxygen in the exhaust stream to allow the oxidation section of the catalyst to clean up the HC. Time for some systematic diagnosis by someone who has considerable experience with the carbureted Mopars of the mid '70s through late '80s. Just throwing parts at it will get very expensive long before the problem is solved. DS |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
"Mr. Minnow" > wrote: > Sorry about that here's a better version of the report > > ASM2525 TEST > > LIMIT READING RESULT > HC ppm 83 197 FAIL > CO% 0.46 0.16 PASS > NO ppm 893 1220 FAIL > RPM 1092 VALID > DILUTION 13.8 VALID Running lean with a possible inoperative EGR and non functioning catalytic convertor. > CURB IDLE TEST > > LIMIT READING RESULT > HC ppm 300 504 FAIL > CO% 1.50 6.76 FAIL > NO ppm N/A N/A N/A > RPM 854 VALID > DILUTION 17.2 VALID Way too rich. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2005, Mr. Minnow wrote: > > > I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it > > failed miserably > > > > Here are the results: > > It's *very* hard to read your results -- the tabulation didn't come out as > you tried to make it do -- but it looks to me as if your results a > > HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm, FAIL) > CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%, PASS) > NOx: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm, FAIL) Dan, I haven't seen the whole original post; are these readings at idle? The limits seem rather strict for a 1987 vehicle. What state is this guy in? > Your CO is about 1/3 of the allowable limit, and is an excellent reading > for a carbureted car -- but your HCs are more than double the allowed > limit, and your NOx is 1/3 higher than allowed. This combination of > results suggests your engine is running so lean that it is misfiring. > Those cylinders that do fire produce a great deal of NOx due to the lean > mixture, while those that do not fire produce a great deal of HC due to > noncombustion. I would say that a lean burn 318 that met these failure limits is a decent running engine. That doesn't help the car owner, but it sounds like his state is trying to get rid of carbureted cars in one swoop... > So, what's causing your misfiring? Could be any number of things. A faulty > Oxygen sensor in the driver side exhaust manifold (how long since you > replaced it?). A faulty carburetor, a faulty Lean Burn computer, a plugged > fuel filter...it might not even be a lean misfire at all; your readings > could also be caused by the reduction portion of the exhaust catalyst > system having reached the end of its life, resulting in very high NOx > tailpipe readings and insufficient free Oxygen in the exhaust stream to > allow the oxidation section of the catalyst to clean up the HC. Lean misfire (very minor) is my immediate guess. I'm sceptical that the converter has failed to reduce NOx while still oxidizing CO like a champ. I mean, if his typical engine is producing typical CO, this converter is doing quite a job to get it down to .16%. > Time for some systematic diagnosis by someone who has considerable > experience with the carbureted Mopars of the mid '70s through late '80s. > Just throwing parts at it will get very expensive long before the problem > is solved. Hear, hear! Some research in his yellow pages for a shop that doesn't wince when he mentions his problem would be a good start. Toyota MDT in MO |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Away we go again. Dan, why do you suddenly cross post this BS without
giving us the full post you are replying to? It makes you seem like a total ass and yet you do it all the time. The last couple times folks have asked for clarification, you have ignored it. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's "Daniel J. Stern" wrote: > > On Fri, 27 May 2005, Mr. Minnow wrote: > > > I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it > > failed miserably > > > > Here are the results: > > It's *very* hard to read your results -- the tabulation didn't come out as > you tried to make it do -- but it looks to me as if your results a > > HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm, FAIL) > CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%, PASS) > NOx: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm, FAIL) > > Your CO is about 1/3 of the allowable limit, and is an excellent reading > for a carbureted car -- but your HCs are more than double the allowed > limit, and your NOx is 1/3 higher than allowed. This combination of > results suggests your engine is running so lean that it is misfiring. > Those cylinders that do fire produce a great deal of NOx due to the lean > mixture, while those that do not fire produce a great deal of HC due to > noncombustion. > > (These '85-'89 civilian M-body cars with the Holley 2bbl don't generally > run very well in stock form, even when everything is set by the book. Lean > surge under steady throttle is the rule, rather than the exception. Not > that this helps you -- just saying.) > > So, what's causing your misfiring? Could be any number of things. A faulty > Oxygen sensor in the driver side exhaust manifold (how long since you > replaced it?). A faulty carburetor, a faulty Lean Burn computer, a plugged > fuel filter...it might not even be a lean misfire at all; your readings > could also be caused by the reduction portion of the exhaust catalyst > system having reached the end of its life, resulting in very high NOx > tailpipe readings and insufficient free Oxygen in the exhaust stream to > allow the oxidation section of the catalyst to clean up the HC. > > Time for some systematic diagnosis by someone who has considerable > experience with the carbureted Mopars of the mid '70s through late '80s. > Just throwing parts at it will get very expensive long before the problem > is solved. > > DS |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:48:25 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote: >On Fri, 27 May 2005, Mr. Minnow wrote: > >> I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it >> failed miserably >> >> Here are the results: > >It's *very* hard to read your results -- the tabulation didn't come out as >you tried to make it do -- but it looks to me as if your results a > >HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm, FAIL) >CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%, PASS) >NOx: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm, FAIL) > >Your CO is about 1/3 of the allowable limit, and is an excellent reading >for a carbureted car -- but your HCs are more than double the allowed >limit, and your NOx is 1/3 higher than allowed. This combination of >results suggests your engine is running so lean that it is misfiring. >Those cylinders that do fire produce a great deal of NOx due to the lean >mixture, while those that do not fire produce a great deal of HC due to >noncombustion. > >(These '85-'89 civilian M-body cars with the Holley 2bbl don't generally >run very well in stock form, even when everything is set by the book. Lean >surge under steady throttle is the rule, rather than the exception. Not >that this helps you -- just saying.) > >So, what's causing your misfiring? Could be any number of things. A faulty >Oxygen sensor in the driver side exhaust manifold (how long since you >replaced it?). A faulty carburetor, a faulty Lean Burn computer, a plugged >fuel filter...it might not even be a lean misfire at all; your readings >could also be caused by the reduction portion of the exhaust catalyst >system having reached the end of its life, resulting in very high NOx >tailpipe readings and insufficient free Oxygen in the exhaust stream to >allow the oxidation section of the catalyst to clean up the HC. > >Time for some systematic diagnosis by someone who has considerable >experience with the carbureted Mopars of the mid '70s through late '80s. >Just throwing parts at it will get very expensive long before the problem >is solved. > >DS Is this vehicle still 100% stock, or has somebody screwed around with the lean-burn?I've seen these engines "converted" to standard carbs (remove the lean-burn) not have a chance of passing E-Test Otherwise,Mr Stern has pretty well covered it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Mr. Minnow wrote:
> Sorry about that here's a better version of the report > > ASM2525 TEST This is the "Acceleration Simulation Mode" test, IOW a test under load. <snip another difficult-to-read report> Next time, type it up like this: HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm) FAIL CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%) PASS NO: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm) FAIL > CURB IDLE TEST <snip> retyped: HC: 504ppm (limit 300ppm) FAIL CO: 6.76% (limit 1.5%) FAIL NO: N/A Still looks like lean misfire under load, possibly inoperative or clogged EGR system, possibly dead catalytic converter(s), possibly inoperative Oxygen sensor, possibly malfunctioning carburetor, possibly malfunctioning Lean Burn computer... ....answer's still the same: Proper and skillful diagnosis. DS |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Comboverfish wrote:
> > HC: 197ppm (limit 83ppm, FAIL) > > CO: 0.16% (limit 0.46%, PASS) > > NOx: 1220ppm (limit 893ppm, FAIL) > > > Dan, I haven't seen the whole original post; are these readings at > idle? Those are ASM2525 (acceleration simulation). > The limits seem rather strict for a 1987 vehicle. Oh, I donno...I had a '65 car that would reliably pass emission tests with similar limits. The guy's idle results and limits are HC: 504ppm (limit 300ppm) FAIL CO: 6.76% (limit 1.5%) FAIL Those are pretty standard state limits for an '87 car, and he's flunking them very, very badly. > Lean misfire (very minor) is my immediate guess. I'm sceptical that > the converter has failed to reduce NOx while still oxidizing CO like a > champ. If he's running lean enough to cause those readings, there won't be much CO off the manifold in the first place, so the catcon won't have a big job getting rid of it. > > Time for some systematic diagnosis by someone who has considerable > > experience with the carbureted Mopars of the mid '70s through late > > '80s. Just throwing parts at it will get very expensive long before > > the problem is solved. > > Hear, hear! Some research in his yellow pages for a shop that doesn't > wince when he mentions his problem would be a good start. He might be on the phone awhile. There weren't all that many techs who could do a good job with these Lean Burn systems when they were current and new! DS |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Mike Romain wrote:
> Away we go again. Dan, why do you suddenly cross post this BS without > giving us the full post you are replying to? I included all the pertinent info supplied in the original post. When more info was posted in the original group, I supplied that, too. If you don't like my posts, don't read them -- problem solved. DS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2005 Accord LX, fluttering sound while idle (and various other problems) | elmo | Honda | 1 | April 23rd 05 05:01 PM |
Minivans models and known problems | Frank | Technology | 6 | April 2nd 05 05:30 AM |
VW Problems website | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 5 | March 13th 05 09:31 PM |
various problems with my MX | nytrex | Mazda | 6 | February 7th 05 07:08 PM |
These problems normal for a 5-year-old Saturn? | Philip Nasadowski | Saturn | 7 | August 30th 04 03:55 AM |