 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Jaguar Cars / November 20081990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons
1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons Did my car originally have a metal cover below the second set of cat-cons in the middle of the car, or was there only ever the 2-layer asbestos sandwich cover above them? I'm wondering if I should add a cover back in below to keep them hot to work better - I'm having trouble getting the NO/NO2 emissions down to an acceptable level to pass an emission test. > 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trouble getting the NO/NO2 emissions down to an acceptable level to > pass an emission test. I can say as the owner of a 1990 sov uk car, that it and all following years do not have metal covers below the cats. I presume you are not in the uk as over here we do not require cat testing on cars manufactured before 1993. If you are having trouble with emmisions then make sure your cars ignition and air filtration are top notch, plugs, dizzy cap and leads and air filter are a good start if you've not done them recently. Other than that have a compression/leak down test done to check condition of engine. I say this as cats are mega money to replace if you have to keep them on. Generally the car will run with best possible exhaust gases according to the perameters of the ecu and all engine sensors. I presume you don't have an engine check light? All the best, Mr Smooth. >I presume you are not in the uk as over here we do not require cat >testing on cars manufactured before 1993. I'm in Canada. >Other than that have a >compression/leak down test done to check condition of engine. Just bought a compression gauge - will test this week. >to the perameters of the ecu and all engine sensors. I presume you >don't have an engine check light? I have a "FUEL 26" code showing on VCM (but NOT "CHECK ENGINE" light, which seems a little odd???). I will test all fuel related items and clean things like airflow meter, etc. I also bought a fuel pressure gauge, but I have to fart around to find the right fitting adapter - my kit has Ford & GM only, which also fits many others but not Jag ( I think). Once I clear whatever the problem is that is causing the code 26, I will then test it again. If it still doesn't pass, and there is nothing mechanical wrong with the engine, I can try changing my address, on my driving license only, to a rural part of the province where this test cert. is not required, or shelve the car for another 2 years till it is not required here either, being 20+ years old. I can get recertified, used cat-cons, but a whole replacement set is over $C1000, and that still leaves me with used items, not new! Thought I'd better drop you this bit of info I unearthed on the jaguarlovers site. Fuel fail 26 is . As the engine gets partly warmed up, it stumbles and sets the code. The code will clear when the trouble does, on the next restart. Possible faults for a FF26 are : - Low fuel pressure (plugged filter, weak pressure regulator on fuel rail, plugged system) - Intake manifold air leak (vacuum hoses, intake manifold gasket, evap system hose rot, egr pipe rusted out, problem with air injection system (leaking valve). - Ignition misfire, (bad plug, wires, cap, rotor) - Purge valve stuck open (vacuum leak in evap system) - Oxy sensor fault (not common) - Bad maf sensor or connections. Best to start with the ignition system : If the wires, cap, rotor are old, replace them, along with spark plugs. The catalytic converters may eventually MELT, plugging the exhaust if the car is ran with the FF alarm on, so don't ignore it just because the engine runs ok. Hope yours are ok! Mr Smooth. >Thought I'd better drop you this bit of info I unearthed on the >jaguarlovers site. Hi, Thanks - that's the document I am working from already, hahaha. I got lucky. Since the code 26, and the result of my emission test, and anything else, all pointed toward a lean running condition from low fuel pressure, air leak, etc., I was outside this afternoon checking out where to tap in with my new fuel pressure gauge and the vacuum gauge I haven't bought yet. I saw a rubber elbow coming out of the manifold towards the rear and go to a tubing that runs across the top of the firewall to the other side of the car, behind the battery. I fished the other end of it out from under the battery and - you guessed it - an open tube, sucking wind like nobody's business! I plugged it up, disconnected the battery to reset the ecu (idle speed etc), and now it runs perfectly with no code showing after about 15 minutes idle. It's still up on stands waiting for a couple of suspension parts, but I think I'm a long way towards getting the NOx emissions down under the limit. Best regards, - Tom Great stuff Tom, nice when that happens! As a note on cats, new from cats direct over here for around £150, copy that link below to see. If you email them they might be able to quote for international delivery. If you end up needing one... http://www.cats-direct-shop.co.uk/two-year-catalytic-converter.php?recordID=749 Cheers, Mr Smooth. >Great stuff Tom, nice when that happens! > >As a note on cats, new from cats direct over here for around £150, >copy that link below to see. I'll keep it in mind if I do need one, however the ones shown at that link are only the back 2 cats. There are another 2 smaller ones on the joined pipes immediately after the manifold that are not shown (and presumably not included ??? ) in that item. Best regards, - Tom > I'll keep it in mind if I do need one, however the ones shown at that > link are only the back 2 cats. There are another 2 smaller ones on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Tom Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction) will not impare the emissions on a warm engine. Just my two penneth on the subject. Cheers, Mr Smooth. >Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there >to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with >californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction) >will not impare the emissions on a warm engine. I tried to find the actual emission numbers on the web somewhere for the Ontario, Canada test to compare with the California, USA ones, but all I have to go on are the nmers on my test sheet from last week, and I think they are different for different vehicles/years because other test sheets posted in forum discussions on the topic show different numbers. I didn't actually get around to looking for the Cal. numbers when I couldn't find Ont. ones. I suspect our controls here are just about as strict as Cal., so I'd probably need those front ones as well, or at least to give a margin for a bad test day. The results seem to vary considerably with the same car at different times, even on the same day! Some parts suppliers have the rear ones, with or without the pipes, and suggest you cut and paste "universal" ones into your manifold for the fronts! Sure thing! I'll see how I do with the manifold leak plugged before I start spending all that money - it's only $C17.50 to retest. - Tom > I suspect our controls here are just about as strict as Cal., so I'd > probably need those front ones as well, or at least to give a margin > for a bad test day. The results seem to vary considerably with the > same car at different times, even on the same day! Yes Tom, the best way to achieve lowest emmisions for a test is to give the car a good run at highway speeds 55mph or above for 5-10mins immediatly prior to the test. Hopefully it will give you the edge to pass the test. It is certainly recomended for cars over here that are close to the limit. All the best, Mr Smooth. >All the best, Mr Smooth. Oh poop! The car runs immensely better than before, but I got a worse score on NOx emissions than when it was running lean enough to detect it on the O2 sensor (code 26). I guess my only option now is to buy some new cat-cons and try again. Prices for new parts in N. America vary from $500 - $1500, with I suppose the more expensive ones being metal not ceramic. I looked at that web site you mentioned, but they show only shipping options within UK. I have sent them an email to ask about DHL or other delivery to Canada. At GBP125 (= C$232) they seem too cheap - I hope they are up to standard and have enough material in them to pass our requirements here. If I do get them, I will install them for the test, then pull them and store them till next test, to keep them fresh and useable for many years. I will need one every 2 years. That way a engine problem or rusty exhaust pipe won't screw up my good cat-cons. Have you got any recommended way of separating the cat-con section from the tail pipes without destroying anything other than copious heat from a cutting torch? My last efforts to loosen these just caused a rust-weakened pipe to break clean at the joint with one of the mufflers. It was hard enough just to brute-force the broken pipe piece out of the enlarged entrance to the muffler. There are times when you'd rather not have stainless - it will weaken and break at a joint, but the bits sleeved together are very difficult to separate if there is rust formed between the layers. BTW, what are your emission limits there that these cat-cons are okay to handle? Here we have (for a 4 L Jag), at 40kph, HC 50 ppm (I got 10 and 14), CO% 0.28 (I got 0.00 and 0.01), and NO ppm 548 (I got 1081 and 1735). I just noticed something screwy on the test, however as I typed this out. The recorded RPM for 40kph on the first test was 505 - that is wrong - it idles at 800! It was 1555 for the second test. If their machine calculates ppm based on actual amount from their sensor vs. theoretically calculated total volume from RPM, then the first test NO reading was really skewed against me in the first test. I'll have to look into the Province's testing/calculation methods a little deeper. >Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there >to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with >californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction) >will not impare the emissions on a warm engine. From Wikipedia article on cat-cons: For spark ignition engines, the most commonly used catalytic converter is the three-way converter which converts the three main pollutants of concern CO, HC, and NOx to less-toxic substances. The control of NOx involves a reduction process that releases oxygen and the control of CO and HC involves an oxidation process that consumes oxygen. Therefore, a 3-way converter contains two catalyst-coated stages: The first catalyst stage encountered by the exhaust is for reduction of NOx, which produces oxygen employed by the second stage to oxidize CO and HC. So it may be that I really need the first-stage cat-cons replaced because my emission problem is with the NOx. Maybe I should be looking to get the EGR setup off an 89 Jag engine. EGR specifically addresses the NOx emissions problem also. > So it may be that I really need the first-stage cat-cons replaced > because my emission problem is with the NOx. > > Maybe I should be looking to get the EGR setup off an 89 Jag engine. > EGR specifically addresses the NOx emissions problem also. Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport) 22 CO emissions (mixture) At the time of writing, for vehicles first used between 1st August 1975 and 31st July 1986 (P to C registration), the CO level must not exceed 4.5% by volume. For vehicles first used between 1st August 1986 and 31st July 1992 (D to J registration), the CO level must not exceed 3.5% by volume. Vehicles first used after 1st August 1992 (K registration) must conform to the manufacturer's specification. The MOT tester has access to a DOT database or emissions handbook, which lists the CO and HC limits for each make and model of vehicle. The CO level is measured with the engine at idle speed, and at "fast idle". The following limits are given as a general guide: At idle speed - CO level no more than 0.5% At "fast idle" (2500 to 3000 rpm) - CO level no more than 0.3% (minimum oil temperature 60ºC) If the CO level cannot be reduced far enough to pass the test (and the fuel and ignition systems are otherwise in good condition) then the carburettor is badly worn, or there is some problem in the fuel injection system or catalytic converter (as applicable). 23 HC emissions With the CO within limits, HC emissions for vehicles first used between 1st August 1975 and 31st July 1992 (P to J registration) must not exceed 1200 ppm. Vehicles first used after 1st August 1992 (K registration) must conform to the manufacturer's specification. The MOT tester has access to a DOT database or emissions handbook, which lists the CO and HC limits for each make and model of vehicle. The HC level is measured with the engine at "fast idle". The following is given as a general guide: At "fast idle" (2500 to 3000 rpm) - HC level no more than 200 ppm (minimum oil temperature 60ºC) Excessive HC emissions are caused by incomplete combustion, the causes of which can include oil being burnt, mechanical wear and ignition/ fuel system malfunction Obviousy our test doesn't cover 1990 emissions but as the exhaust system is the same for jags upto 1995 you can use the post 1993 levels. Looks like it doesn't cover NOx levels. If you fancy some downpipes there are some second hand ones as wel as new on ebay uk from £60 to £350. That website with the cats for sale will do them with steel cores as well as ceramic for not to much money. Cheers, Mr Smooth. >Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport) Thanks for the info - the UK approach to emission controls for old vehicles makes much more sense than the "flat rate" rules here. It's like the Ontario Gov't wants to stab the consumer in the back retoractively, probably with the support if not collusion of the local auto industry. I got htis short note back from my inquiry regarding the cat-cons you pointed me to : " Hi, sorry we only ship within the UK. Best Regards Nathan Nichols Autospares-Sutton Ltd " Don't know what I can do to get their stuff now - it's many hundreds of dollars cheaper than anything available this side of the Atlantic. - Tom >>Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport) >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Tom Make a friend in GB who will reship them to you? OK, I'm not sure this is the 'right' part, but my CarQuest terminal comes up with: 1 CARQUEST/AP EXHAUST 602214 Universal Converter 90-92 $156.23 00.0 2 FRONT UNIV. CONVERTER 1 CARQUEST/AP EXHAUST 609004 Universal Converter 90-92 $286.22 00.0 2 REAR UNIV. CONVERTER Now, these are 'universal' type converters so you'd have to adapt/weld on flanges as needed. And, I'm not 100% sure they are the correct converters, but they probably will work OK in your application. Just a thought! |
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.