juicyjosh

iTrader: (29)

The air pump does help. You can also purchase an electric air pump and plumb it into the cat.

Forget about paying $1200 for a cat designed in 1992.

Agreed. They strap your car to roller and put a grossly unrealistic load on the barrel to get the engine to stress. I think the government should require passing smog for all their vehicles too, including all transport vehicles, 18-wheelers and such, then smog all aircraft that are in flight 24-7, then measure the environmental impact of an aircraft carrier, multiplied by the number of those, add in nuclear subs, NASA rockets, all in the spirit of fairness, of course

Ernesto13B,

It sounds like you have engine problems, which you might need to address eventually. For now, most importantly you need to have a functional O2 sensor and a fresh cat. A fresh new cat from a muffler shop will cost you $200 to weld in place of your current one. This might be all you need to get the car to pass. If your cat's bad, you need to replace your cat. There's no substitute for it when it comes to passing smog.

[Next is help from a working air pump, as well as a functioning EGR valve, although you'd probably get an engine warning light if the car notices it malfunctioning. Fresh oil and plugs, and an ignition booster like an HKS Twin Power are good for incremental improvements (You can borrow someone's HKS unit; it takes 30s to put it in.) It's hard to tell if "Guaranteed to Pass" works, but at this point, you might as well try that too.]

Now for the proof:

Last year, with leaking oil seals on a crappy Mazda reman with 60k miles, rolling on tires 7% larger than stock circumference, BUT with a new O2 sensor, EGR valve, and new muffler shop Magnaflow, I got this:

Nathan Kwok

Not cool at all! I didn't even know that was legal to suddenly change the test requirement like that. That said, it should still be possible to pass the test. Here are my test results from January with 75k miles on the stock main cat and a dp (everything else stock):

Test________CO2%__O2%______HC(PPM)________CO%_____ ____NO(PPM)______
_______RPM_MEAS__MEAS_MAX_AVE_MEAS__MAX__AVE__MEAS _MAX__AVE__MEAS
15mph_2938_14.0____0.7_|_88__21___13__|_0.52__0.06 __0.14_|_704__150__127
25mph_2909_14.1____0.6_|_53__13___12__|_0.50__0.05 __0.05_|_738__136__203

I've posted similar numbers year after year so the stock cat seems to be pretty reliable. Back when I had the pre-cat on there the HC was in the single digits, so that could always be your ultimate backup plan, but it shouldn't be necessary.

RedDragon777

same here, my mustang has been running an off-road H-pipe and muffler deletes for almost 3 years now and not a single problem with passing inspection. Most inspection stations down here do not even charge me the extra $15 they used to. Seems they got used to most of the cars down here having loud and smelly exhausts. But i know the second i cross the California state line i am going to get pulled over for excessive noise and pollution.

wstrohm

After reading this thread, I sent the following e-mail to the California Air Resources Board...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sirs/Madams,

It has been brought to my attention several times over the past years that automobile emission testing requirements are being tightened on cars that were once able to pass smog tests, still perform as before, but for some reason are expected to perform better as they age. I find this difficult to believe both from a technical point of view, and also from a legal one. Ex post facto laws (or rules, in this case) are a very bad thing. They are detrimental to persons having invested in a product in good faith with the expectation that if the product is maintained to its original performance, it will be legally acceptable in the foreseeable future. If test requirements become a "moving target," then the expectation cannot be met.

Here is an example of California emission requirements for the Mazda RX-7 manufactured during 1992 - 1994 product years, and test requirements that have been tightened:

OLD LIMITS as of 1-12-2010:

HC's (PPM)---88 MAX@15 mph
HC's (PPM)---53 MAX@25 mph

CO (%)---0.52 MAX@15mph
CO (%)---0.50 MAX@25mph

NEW LIMITS as of 6-24-2010:

HC's (PPM)---61 MAX@15 mph
HC's (PPM)---37 MAX@25 mph

CO (%)---0.36 MAX@15 mph
CO (%)---0.35 MAX@25 mph

As you can see, a car that could pass the old limits might very well not pass the new ones. Where is the logic that shows that the car should be able to pass the new standards? In fact, our 1994 RX-7 (a 16-year old design) did pass the old limits in 2008, but the measured values were outside the new, 6/24/2010 limits at that time. Where is the technical justification for requiring this car to pass these new limits? Where is the legal justification for an ex-post facto rule of this nature? If the car does not meet the new standards, a class-action suit might be required to force compensation from the CARB to the affected owners of all automobiles which passed previous standards but do not pass the new ones. If the car becomes legally undriveable due to this unreasonable action by the California government, the owners should be entitled to recompense for the current value of their car.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RedDragon777

To be honest this seems like a way for the CARB to push people to buy new "efficient" vehicles. But to me that is ridiculous to try and get people to buy a new vehicle when most people are struggling to keep up their current one.

AzEKnightz

iTrader: (24)

you can, but it'll cost you =].

5 gas analyzer from the SnapOn Modis scanner =P

-AzEknightz

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I don't think The State of California controls renewal emissions standards on a local basis. That is controlled by the county governments. Because of this, some counties (like LA) may require a dyno smog (for renewal) while others (like Imperial) require no smog at all.

scotty305

iTrader: (2)

My '94 RX-7 passed emissions yesterday, the requirements were the same as your January test (which appear to be the same requirements as every test I have on record since 2006). This test was performed in San Bernardino county, in case that somehow makes a difference.


I mentioned your info to the tech, who said they have never heard of requirements getting more restrictive after the original EPA test was performed when the car was new. They suggested that your smog tech may have made a mistake and punched in the wrong vehicle on accident during your June test.

Aeka GSR

iTrader: (4)

This may be a problem for most since it is illegal to sell a universal cat in California and it is illegal for a shop to install one since 2009. My friend couldn't even get one shipped to his house even though it was going on a track car for the specific class rules that required a cat.

Ernesto13B

iTrader: (4)

Ok this is the thing, in January this year when I smogged my FD, it was the first time that I had ever failed so bad, that I was considered a gross polluter. I had never been a gross polluter before how did I know that was gonna happen? On my second test I was a gross polluter again. I'm thinking that once you become a gross polluter, they make your future retest more strict. But what do I know, I know nothing about emission laws.

wstrohm

Our 1994 FD was a gross polluter the first time it was tested, in August 1996. The car was completely stock with 19,657 miles. The faults were "an open circuit" and a vacuum leak (something in the "rat's nest," I think). The tech said that two of the vacuum hoses were incorrectly connected (at the factory, I guess).

Ernesto13B,

Your results are so bad that there must be something basic very wrong. A plug wire not fully plugged in, or a bad coil, maybe?

dgeesaman

iTrader: (7)

I'll bet you hear nothing from them. But kudos for making noise. The ones who drive these changes will continue to drive them unless resistance is met. Particularly in California, where politics is starving for popular support and the politicians are looking for any excuse to claim they individually are effective.

David

Funkspectrum

iTrader: (5)

Where you located? I wouldn't mind grabbing one up from you...

rx7>rx8

No Emissions in nebraska!!

1QWIK7

iTrader: (33)

Cali is tough with cars in general.

Im glad knowing i can buy my sticker when its time to get one. I know for damn sure my car wont pass lol

dgeesaman

iTrader: (7)

Here's an interesting lead:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bluebook/bb10/VEH/VEH-27157.htm

"The State Air Resources Board...shall adopt such reasonable regulations...regarding the maximum allowable emissions of pollutants from vehicles upon a highway...
... and shall not be stricter than the emission standards required of that model year motor vehicle when first manufactured."

wstrohm

Thank you, David; that is certainly worth a bookmark!

For general interest, the test requirements for our '94 in 1998 were as follows:

OLD LIMITS as of 08/08/98:

HC's (PPM)--125 MAX@15 mph
HC's (PPM)---75 MAX@25 mph

CO (%)---0.52 MAX@15mph
CO (%)---0.50 MAX@25mph

NEW LIMITS as of 6/24/2010:

HC's (PPM)---61 MAX@15 mph
HC's (PPM)---37 MAX@25 mph

CO (%)---0.36 MAX@15 mph
CO (%)---0.35 MAX@25 mph

I'm also wondering exactly what the "AVE" (average, I guess) numbers refer to... average of what? All cars for that year? RX-7s for that year? RX-7s in CA? etc. For instance, in 1998 the "AVE" HC was 12 @ 15 mph and 5 @ 25 mph. The CO% "AVE" was 0 at both speeds. Does that mean NO cars had ANY CO emissions in 1998?

But in 2008, the "AVE" HC was 21 @ 15 mph and 13 @ 25 mph. The CO% "AVE" was 0.06 @ 15 mph and 0.05 @ 25 mph. So as you would expect, the average measured pollutants did increase over the 10-year period. Hey, all the bits & pieces are older... what else could happen?

cpnneeda

iTrader: (1)

They do here in NC, but not in my county. If they did, 80% of the people here would be walking.

no_more_rice

LOL

I've said it before, trying to make a cat last on these cars is futile. Sell the car or move. Midpipe forever for me.

moconnor

iTrader: (14)

Not even approximating truth. Put a badly designed cat on a poorly tuned FD and this may be true. Otherwise, cats should last indefinitely.

If you review these CA emissions threads closely, it should be pretty clear at this point that a properly running FD with a (non metallic) cat will have absolutely no problems passing emissions in California.

And, guys, it is super cool an' all that you live in some part of the boonies that does not have emissions tests - but I am not sure how relevant it is to this thread.

FD3S2005

iTrader: (11)

pay the guy off whos doing the emissions? my uncle said thats what he used to do for his porsche when florida had emissions.. not sure it would work now tho, maybe worth a shot?

Chuck Norris FB

Kinda of the same here, any car from 1996 and up have to do emissions. 96 and below years are golden no test

cpnneeda

iTrader: (1)

I live on the other side of the boonies in a town called BFE.


But your right. Hopefully you all can figure this out so I can pull it from the archives when I finally have testing here.

Good Luck...

Gryffinwings

iTrader: (3)

It seems like the california emissions mania is getting out of hand.

Chuck Norris FB

I can't stress this enough,to the people of california and car owners in that state.



You guy's are FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKED I SAY!!!!!!!!!! GET THE **** OUT OFF THAT STATE WHILE YOU STILL HAVE LEGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



End of Rant....