 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / August 2008NOx emissions on '82 4.9l
My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx levels. Other than EGR valve, what else should I check? Any help greatly appreciated. Has about 50k on a rebuilt engine. C6 auto tranny. Thanks, Tom > My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx > levels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Tom > > My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx > > levels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, > > Tom This may be kinda late but on my '78 F350 with the 351 and 2-barrel carb I cleaned the EGR valve, cleaned the carb (with spray), adjusted the smog pump belt and tightened the smog pump hoses and my NO was significantly lower than the previous test two years earlier. You might want to check the bypass valve on the smog pump line and make sure it's functioning (and the smog pump too). And, of course, check all the vacuum hoses. I'm very happy to say that the smog test guy said this was probably the last smog test that truck will have to get. Kinda hard to believe. They are up to 1975 as the cutoff year in California. They added a vapor recovery system check for cars '95 and older and it cost an extra $15 but it passed (I checked it before I took it in) except my gas cap failed. That cost another $20!!! Back in the good 'ol days before Test Only Centers you just gave the guy $50 and it miraculously passed on the next try. I guess the total cost was about the same. > My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx > levels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Tom Tom, if I remember correctly and I'm sure 50 people will point it out if I'm wrong, the primary cause for high NOX levels is an overly lean engine condition. This results in high combustion temps which create NOX . I would check timing, fuel-air mixture, and the EGR system.... Hope this helps. Dave D > > My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx > > levels. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wrong, the primary cause for high NOX levels is an overly lean engine > condition. Nope. Highest NOx occurs just slightly richer than stoichiometric. > This results in high combustion temps Nope. Highest combustion temperatures occurs just slightly richer than stoichiometric. which create NOX . Yup. > I would > check timing, Good idea. >fuel-air mixture, Another good idea. > and the EGR system.... YA (yet another) good idea. > Hope this helps. > > Dave D > In article <48a54093@news.acsalaska.net>, ///snipped/// >> Tom, if I remember correctly and I'm sure 50 people will point it out if >> I'm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yup. Again, pulling solely from memory, stoichiometric combustion is defined as the point at which all of the fuel charge is completely burned. This is (as far as automobile engines are concerned, a purely theoretical point that does not now nor ever has existed in reality. The usual combustion in auto engines is much richer than stoichiometric, therefore a point just slightly richer than stoichiometric (your words) would in reality be a lean condition in automobile engines. Is this not correct? I remember that Chrysler developed the "lean burn" engines in the 70s to deal with the particulate emission requirements imposed on auto makers. Quite soon this had to be corrected to deal with the increased NOX emissions of these engines. Do I recall correctly? Dave D ///snipped/// > > In article <48a54093@news.acsalaska.net>, > ///snipped/// [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Again, pulling solely from memory, From a time when it was taught and understood incorrectly? > stoichiometric combustion is defined as > the point at which all of the fuel charge is completely burned. That's one description. > This is (as > far as automobile engines are concerned, a purely theoretical point that > does not now nor ever has existed in reality. It doesn't? >The usual combustion in auto > engines is much richer than stoichiometric, True under power, not true at cruise, deceleration, idle. > therefore a point just slightly > richer than stoichiometric (your words) would in reality be a lean condition > in automobile engines. Is this not correct? 10.3/1 is leaner than 8.9/1, is that the point you're trying to make? > I remember that Chrysler > developed the "lean burn" engines in the 70s There was nothing "lean" about the "Lean Burn" engines. Do you suppose a warranty replacement computer labeled "Spark Control Computer" in leu of an original labeled "Lean Burn" computer magically changed something WRT the air fuel ratio of a non feedback fuel system or is it possible that it was merely a marketing name? > to deal with the particulate > emission requirements imposed on auto makers. "particulate emissions?" > Quite soon this had to be > corrected to deal with the increased NOX emissions of these engines. 'Those' engines didn't have "increased NOX (NOx) emissions," although in many cases [they] didn't have an EGR valve. (wazzat tell you?) > Do I > recall correctly? Doesn't matter what you recall, what matters is what you've learned since. > My '82 E150 w/4.9l won't pass the New Jersey emission test due to high NOx > levels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Tom You may have an air pump that's not working correctly or broken belt. If you have an air pump, the tube connecting it to the CAT may be leaking. This is assuming you have an air pump, some 82s F150's 4.9 do not. rrb |
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
|
©2009 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.