IMAGINETHAT

iTrader: (1)

Hello -

I am interested in a '95 FD and am curious if that model year is more difficult than others to pass emissions
since they didn't come with an EGR ? Especially interested in input from the CA owners. The car would be
stock with the exception of the pre-cat removed (retaining air pump + main cat).

Thanks in advance for the responses.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

if anything the 95 is easier. the stupid EGR valve isn't even active during the emissions test, and its usually bad which turns the CEL on

jza80

iTrader: (32)

I have a federal specification 1995 with low mileage (<25K miles) OEM main cat, JDM DP, all the other emissions equipment hooked up and functioning. No problem passing the ASM test, basically 0 CO and HC, NOx is slightly above the middle of the allowable range. This is with the OEM ECU, of course.

IMAGINETHAT

iTrader: (1)

Thanks - A part of me of was thinking that. I had EGR issues with my Supra for awhile, just wished I could throw out the whole damn thing.

Great to hear that - I appreciate the feedback.

Thanks guys.

DaleClark

iTrader: (55)

Fortunately the EGR system in the RX-7 is really basic. It's a useless system though - the port for exhaust gasses is SUPER tiny and almost immediately blocks up with carbon. I think Mazda knew the system was a joke but had to put it on for California emissions.

In 93, only California cars had the "smart" EGR valve. All 94's had them so they didn't have to have 2 separate cars (Cali and Federal). 95 they totally removed the system.

Japanese cars never had EGR at all.

Dale

mdp

In California the pollution equipment required for each car is model, year and sometimes VIN specific. Since California 1995 RX-7s did not come from the factory with EGR valves the valve is not on the computer generated pollution equipment check list that smog technicians use to certify that the car has all it’s pollution control equipment.

IMAGINETHAT

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the input everyone - good info to have.