 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / May 200587 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 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 > Sorry about that here's a better version of the report > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > RPM 1092 VALID > DILUTION 13.8 VALID Running lean with a possible inoperative EGR and non functioning catalytic convertor. > CURB IDLE TEST > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > RPM 854 VALID > DILUTION 17.2 VALID Way too rich. > 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 In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505281012320.23042@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, > HC: 504ppm (limit 300ppm) FAIL > CO: 6.76% (limit 1.5%) FAIL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oxygen sensor, possibly malfunctioning carburetor, possibly malfunctioning > Lean Burn computer... Lean misfire with 6.7% CO and attendant 504 ppm HC? I don't think so... > ...answer's still the same: Proper and skillful diagnosis. Yup, the rest of the gas readings would be a big help also. > > HC: 504ppm (limit 300ppm) FAIL > > CO: 6.76% (limit 1.5%) FAIL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lean misfire with 6.7% CO and attendant 504 ppm HC? Lean misfire *under load*. The 6.7% CO and 504ppm HC are idle readings. In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505281524180.29067@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, > > > HC: 504ppm (limit 300ppm) FAIL > > > CO: 6.76% (limit 1.5%) FAIL [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lean misfire *under load*. The 6.7% CO and 504ppm HC are idle readings. True enough... your text reply followed the idle reading though. > 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 are: 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 > > I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it > > failed miserably [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 > Those are ASM2525 (acceleration simulation). OK, the limits seemed pretty tight for an idle test - that explains things! > 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. No doubt. I'd go after rich-running culprits first; gross causes like air bleed blockage in the carb, choke closed, etc... > 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. The converter may be toast already having to deal with this kind of overload (at idle). > 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! That's a challenge I like, but the work would be "by the hour" for sure. Toyota MDT in MO > > Those are pretty standard state limits for an '87 car, and he's > > flunking them very, very badly. > > No doubt. I'd go after rich-running culprits first; gross causes like > air bleed blockage in the carb, choke closed, etc... Air bleed, perhaps, but a stuck-closed choke doesn't jive with 0.16% CO and 1220ppm NOx under load. > The converter may be toast already having to deal with this kind of > overload (at idle). Very possibly so. I can't remember if they were still farting around with multiple converters in '87. > > 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! > > That's a challenge I like, but the work would be "by the hour" for sure. Well, that's part of the challenge: matching a tech able *and* willing to put in the time with an owner able *and* willing to pay him to do so! > Air bleed, perhaps, but a stuck-closed choke doesn't jive with 0.16% CO > and 1220ppm NOx under load. That's the problem here... there are surely multiple problems which will all need to be corrected before all three gasses are within the allowable limits. We're theory pissing without hands-on testing. Great, now I just typed 'pissing' and 'hands-on' in the same sentence. Toyota MDT in MO 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 a.s 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 > > I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it > > failed miserably [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > DS > 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 >> I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it >> failed miserably [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >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. I'm From Canada (ONT.) And I forgot to mention a stubborn oil leak from your guess is as good as mine(I just can't pin point it.) I know it's not the EGR or Cat Con (Replaced in '01 car drove it to Nov 2002 then it sat for 2003 & 2004). I don't know if the oxygen sensor was replaced but more than likely it was. Thanks Mr. Minnow > I'm From Canada (ONT.) And I forgot to mention a stubborn oil leak from > your guess is as good as mine(I just can't pin point it.) I know it's > not the EGR or Cat Con (Replaced in '01 car drove it to Nov 2002 then it > sat for 2003 & 2004). I don't know if the oxygen sensor was replaced but > more than likely it was. You really can't say the EGR and catcon are good just because they were replaced. With your HC as high as it is, the catcon could easily be cooked. And the EGR valve is only one part of the system; the crossover passage and ports (in the intake manifold and the heads, respectively) could well be clogged with carbon. Don't know where in Ontario you are, but I can recommend a couple of good shops in the Toronto area. Canadian Tire does not count as a good shop. >I'm From Canada (ONT.) And I forgot to mention a stubborn oil leak from your >guess is as good as mine(I just can't pin point it.) I know it's not the EGR [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thanks Mr. Minnow Where in Ontario? I'm in Waterloo. >>>I took my car(87 5th Ave with a 318(5.2L) v8) in for an emission test and it >>>failed miserably [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Otherwise,Mr Stern has pretty well covered it. Actually, a converted car WITH a working set of catalysts and correctly tuned SHOULD pass with flying colors. But what usually happens is that someone replaces the ignition system, disconnects the lean-burn computer, and leaves the lean-burn carb in place. That doesn't work so good, because the lean-burn carb NEEDS computer control to work right. There are two ways to do the conversion: 1) replace both the carb AND the ignition and do away with the computer, 2) Replace the ignition, but let the computer continue to control the carb. It doesn't "know" that its not still controlling the ignition, and will merrily hum along (assuming that the computer is working, the O2 sensor is working, and the carburetor's VDC solenoid is working.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.