91 Wrangler failed emissions

"bllsht" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> > wrote:
>
>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>>>>
>>>>The Earth is round.
>>>
>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>>>
>>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
>>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a degree
>>in Physics, how lame is that?
>
> "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
> "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
> lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>
>>
>>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that emissions
>>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>>something
>>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion temps
>>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting rid
>>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn, duh.
>>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>>another one.
>
> EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
> started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
> emissions.
>
> Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
> better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
> they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
> needed it to pass emission standards.

I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes it
a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned. The same
thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to drive
it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...

>
>>
>>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
>>tuned
>>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions controls
>>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
>>have
>>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions certification,
>>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
>>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device in
>>one
>>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
>
> I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
> to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
> not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
> system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
>
OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor gas
mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for the
big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
money, don't blow it on "induction system service".

Cheers,

Earle

>>
>>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
>>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
>>Proverbs, 17:28.
>>
>>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
>>Chinese proverb.
>>
>>"The fool learns by suffering."
>>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
>>
>>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
>>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Earle


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The tax payers of Kalifornia will actually pay a thousand to junk a car
that doesn't pass smog.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O

http://www.billhughes.com/jeep_bookmark.htm

"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
.. .
> "bllsht" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>"bllsht" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Earle Horton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
> >>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Earth is round.
> >>>
> >>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
> >>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
> >>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
> >>>
> >>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
> >>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a
degree
> >>in Physics, how lame is that?
> >
> > "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
> > "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
> > lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
> >
> >>
> >>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that emissions
> >>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
> >>something
> >>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion
temps
> >>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting
rid
> >>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn,
duh.
> >>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
> >>another one.
> >
> > EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
> > started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
> > emissions.
> >
> > Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
> > better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
> > they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
> > needed it to pass emission standards.
>
> I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
> life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes
it
> a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned. The
same
> thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
> It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to
drive
> it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...
>
> >
> >>
> >>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
> >>tuned
> >>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions
controls
> >>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
> >>have
> >>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions certification,
> >>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
> >>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device in
> >>one
> >>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
> >
> > I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
> > to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
> > not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
> > system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
> >
> OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor
gas
> mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
> manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
> California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for the
> big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
> money, don't blow it on "induction system service".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle
>
> >>
> >>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
> >>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
> >>Proverbs, 17:28.
> >>
> >>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
> >>Chinese proverb.
> >>
> >>"The fool learns by suffering."
> >>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
> >>
> >>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
> >>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
> >>
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>Earle
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:27:09 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> wrote:

>"bllsht" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>>>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Earth is round.
>>>>
>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>>>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>>>>
>>>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
>>>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a degree
>>>in Physics, how lame is that?
>>
>> "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
>> "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
>> lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>>
>>>
>>>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that emissions
>>>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>>>something
>>>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion temps
>>>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting rid
>>>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn, duh.
>>>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>>>another one.
>>
>> EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
>> started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
>> emissions.
>>
>> Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
>> better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
>> they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
>> needed it to pass emission standards.
>
>I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
>life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes it
>a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned.

EGR reduces the formation of NOx. It can also slightly increase fuel
mileage. Using it to increase fuel mileage, even when it's not needed
for emissions makes it a scam? Your logic escapes me.

>The same
>thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
>It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to drive
>it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...

"They used to use". It's still in use, and it still works. The
difference in emissions on a vehicle with a properly working air
injection system, and without one is big. Easily seen with an exhaust
analyzer.

>
>>
>>>
>>>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
>>>tuned
>>>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions controls
>>>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
>>>have
>>>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions certification,
>>>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
>>>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device in
>>>one
>>>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
>>
>> I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
>> to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
>> not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
>> system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
>>
>OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor gas
>mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
>manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
>California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for the
>big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
>money, don't blow it on "induction system service".

CO is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbons without enough oxygen.
NOx is caused by high combustion temps. HC is unburned fuel.

With the exception of the wrong spark plugs (which could cause higher
combustion temps), malfunctioning ignition parts are not going to
increase CO or NOx. Poor ignition will cause less fuel to burn (lower
CO) lower combustion temps (lower NOx), and more unburned fuel (higher
HC). BTW, while it didn't fail for HC, the numbers are high as well.

I would start with concentrating on what could cause a rich condition.
A lazy O2 sensor could cause an increase in NOx as well as CO
problems. The cat would affect all emissions, but replacing it without
making sure everything else is working isn't a good idea.

I don't know what their "induction system service" consists of, but it
could help if it removes carbon buildup from the combustion chamber. I
wouldn't start there though.

>
>Cheers,
>
>Earle
>
>>>
>>>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
>>>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
>>>Proverbs, 17:28.
>>>
>>>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
>>>Chinese proverb.
>>>
>>>"The fool learns by suffering."
>>>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
>>>
>>>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
>>>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Earle

"bllsht" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:27:09 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> > wrote:
>
>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>>>>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Earth is round.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>>>>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>>>>>
>>>>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
>>>>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a
>>>>degree
>>>>in Physics, how lame is that?
>>>
>>> "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
>>> "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
>>> lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that emissions
>>>>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>>>>something
>>>>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion
>>>>temps
>>>>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting
>>>>rid
>>>>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn,
>>>>duh.
>>>>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>>>>another one.
>>>
>>> EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
>>> started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
>>> better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
>>> they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
>>> needed it to pass emission standards.
>>
>>I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
>>life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes
>>it
>>a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned.
>
> EGR reduces the formation of NOx. It can also slightly increase fuel
> mileage. Using it to increase fuel mileage, even when it's not needed
> for emissions makes it a scam? Your logic escapes me.

When these things first came out they were presented as "pollution controls"
not "something that maybe will slightly reduce pollution until it wears out
or clogs". Now with computer controlled fuel injection and a catalytic
converter we find it's not needed at all. "Outatime" quoted something like
$60 to replace one, no doubt burning up what you've saved from the slight
mileage increase.

>
>>The same
>>thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
>>It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to
>>drive
>>it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...
>
> "They used to use". It's still in use, and it still works. The
> difference in emissions on a vehicle with a properly working air
> injection system, and without one is big. Easily seen with an exhaust
> analyzer.
>

New cars still come with A.I.R. pumps?

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
>>>>tuned
>>>>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions
>>>>controls
>>>>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
>>>>have
>>>>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions certification,
>>>>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
>>>>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device in
>>>>one
>>>>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
>>>
>>> I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
>>> to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
>>> not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
>>> system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
>>>
>>OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor
>>gas
>>mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
>>manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
>>California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for the
>>big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
>>money, don't blow it on "induction system service".
>
> CO is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbons without enough oxygen.
> NOx is caused by high combustion temps. HC is unburned fuel.
>
> With the exception of the wrong spark plugs (which could cause higher
> combustion temps), malfunctioning ignition parts are not going to
> increase CO or NOx. Poor ignition will cause less fuel to burn (lower
> CO) lower combustion temps (lower NOx), and more unburned fuel (higher
> HC). BTW, while it didn't fail for HC, the numbers are high as well.

Incomplete burning produces CO where it should have produced CO2. Poor
ignition parts produce incomplete burning which simulates, if you will, an
overly rich condition.

Cheers,

Earle

>
> I would start with concentrating on what could cause a rich condition.
> A lazy O2 sensor could cause an increase in NOx as well as CO
> problems. The cat would affect all emissions, but replacing it without
> making sure everything else is working isn't a good idea.
>
> I don't know what their "induction system service" consists of, but it
> could help if it removes carbon buildup from the combustion chamber. I
> wouldn't start there though.
>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Earle
>>
>>>>
>>>>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
>>>>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
>>>>Proverbs, 17:28.
>>>>
>>>>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
>>>>Chinese proverb.
>>>>
>>>>"The fool learns by suffering."
>>>>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
>>>>
>>>>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
>>>>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Earle


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

That's not much of a down payment, considering what car's cost now, is it?
Heck, it probably just pays for the bill from the recycler's to take the
car.

Cheers,

Earle

"L.W.(ßill)Hughes III" > wrote in message
.. .
> The tax payers of Kalifornia will actually pay a thousand to junk a car
> that doesn't pass smog.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>
> http://www.billhughes.com/jeep_bookmark.htm
>
> "Earle Horton" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "bllsht" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>"bllsht" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>> >>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The Earth is round.
>> >>>
>> >>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>> >>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>> >>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>> >>>
>> >>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
>> >>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a
> degree
>> >>in Physics, how lame is that?
>> >
>> > "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
>> > "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
>> > lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that
>> >>emissions
>> >>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>> >>something
>> >>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion
> temps
>> >>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting
> rid
>> >>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn,
> duh.
>> >>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>> >>another one.
>> >
>> > EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
>> > started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
>> > emissions.
>> >
>> > Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
>> > better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
>> > they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
>> > needed it to pass emission standards.
>>
>> I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
>> life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes
> it
>> a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned. The
> same
>> thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
>> It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to
> drive
>> it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
>> >>tuned
>> >>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions
> controls
>> >>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
>> >>have
>> >>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions
>> >>certification,
>> >>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
>> >>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device
>> >>in
>> >>one
>> >>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
>> >
>> > I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
>> > to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
>> > not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
>> > system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
>> >
>> OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor
> gas
>> mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
>> manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
>> California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for
>> the
>> big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
>> money, don't blow it on "induction system service".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> >>
>> >>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
>> >>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
>> >>Proverbs, 17:28.
>> >>
>> >>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
>> >>Chinese proverb.
>> >>
>> >>"The fool learns by suffering."
>> >>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
>> >>
>> >>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
>> >>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>
>> >>Earle
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi Earle,
It knocks the heck out of plentiful 350" use in our hot rods. The junk
yard must take a sledge hammer to the block.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O

http://www.billhughes.com/jeep_bookmark.htm

"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
.. .
> That's not much of a down payment, considering what car's cost now, is it?
> Heck, it probably just pays for the bill from the recycler's to take the
> car.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:11:45 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> wrote:

>"bllsht" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:27:09 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>>>>>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Earth is round.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>>>>>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't top
>>>>>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a
>>>>>degree
>>>>>in Physics, how lame is that?
>>>>
>>>> "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
>>>> "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
>>>> lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that emissions
>>>>>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>>>>>something
>>>>>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion
>>>>>temps
>>>>>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting
>>>>>rid
>>>>>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn,
>>>>>duh.
>>>>>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>>>>>another one.
>>>>
>>>> EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
>>>> started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
>>>> emissions.
>>>>
>>>> Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
>>>> better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
>>>> they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
>>>> needed it to pass emission standards.
>>>
>>>I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
>>>life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes
>>>it
>>>a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned.
>>
>> EGR reduces the formation of NOx. It can also slightly increase fuel
>> mileage. Using it to increase fuel mileage, even when it's not needed
>> for emissions makes it a scam? Your logic escapes me.
>
>When these things first came out they were presented as "pollution controls"
>not "something that maybe will slightly reduce pollution until it wears out
>or clogs". Now with computer controlled fuel injection and a catalytic
>converter we find it's not needed at all. "Outatime" quoted something like
>$60 to replace one, no doubt burning up what you've saved from the slight
>mileage increase.

Catalytic converters "wear out or clog", are they a scam too?

>
>>
>>>The same
>>>thing can be said for the big afterburner (A.I.R. pump) they used to use.
>>>It looked real convincing and even used real horsepower and a belt to
>>>drive
>>>it, but as far as doing your part to clean up the environment...
>>
>> "They used to use". It's still in use, and it still works. The
>> difference in emissions on a vehicle with a properly working air
>> injection system, and without one is big. Easily seen with an exhaust
>> analyzer.
>>
>
>New cars still come with A.I.R. pumps?

Yes, some do.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Almost forty years experience tinkering with cars says that a properly
>>>>>tuned
>>>>>engine burns cleaner and uses less fuel. Trying to get emissions
>>>>>controls
>>>>>to work on an improperly tuned engine is like ****ing into the wind. I
>>>>>have
>>>>>consistently gotten well-tuned vehicles to pass emissions certification,
>>>>>with the EGR and various other Rube Goldberg devices removed. It's not
>>>>>hard. If your state does a visual, then disable the offending device in
>>>>>one
>>>>>way or another, but leave it in place. That's not hard either.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the properly tuned part. Emission controls are designed
>>>> to work on a properly tuned engine. However, in California, if you're
>>>> not doing an ASM (loaded mode) test, a functional test of the EGR
>>>> system is required. Sometimes just "being there" isn't enough.
>>>>
>>>OP's vehicle failed for excessive CO and NO. He also complains of poor
>>>gas
>>>mileage. Suspect number one has to be ignition parts, and vehicle
>>>manufacturers made them the easiest things to replace. Someone mentioned
>>>California would subsidize repairs to the tune of $300. Save that for the
>>>big ticket item, like a new cat if indicated. If you really can get that
>>>money, don't blow it on "induction system service".
>>
>> CO is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbons without enough oxygen.
>> NOx is caused by high combustion temps. HC is unburned fuel.
>>
>> With the exception of the wrong spark plugs (which could cause higher
>> combustion temps), malfunctioning ignition parts are not going to
>> increase CO or NOx. Poor ignition will cause less fuel to burn (lower
>> CO) lower combustion temps (lower NOx), and more unburned fuel (higher
>> HC). BTW, while it didn't fail for HC, the numbers are high as well.
>
>Incomplete burning produces CO where it should have produced CO2. Poor
>ignition parts produce incomplete burning which simulates, if you will, an
>overly rich condition.

Poor ignition parts will result in unburned fuel, causing HC to
skyrocket. CO is caused by burning fuel with insufficient O2 available
(rich). Ignition problems don't simulate a rich condition.

Next time you take one of your expertly tuned vehicles in for a smog
check, close up the gap on one of the plugs to create a less than
optimal spark. I guarantee it won't fail for high CO.

>
>Cheers,
>
>Earle
>
>>
>> I would start with concentrating on what could cause a rich condition.
>> A lazy O2 sensor could cause an increase in NOx as well as CO
>> problems. The cat would affect all emissions, but replacing it without
>> making sure everything else is working isn't a good idea.
>>
>> I don't know what their "induction system service" consists of, but it
>> could help if it removes carbon buildup from the combustion chamber. I
>> wouldn't start there though.
>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Earle
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
>>>>>shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
>>>>>Proverbs, 17:28.
>>>>>
>>>>>"When a fool helps, the more he helps, the worse things get."
>>>>>Chinese proverb.
>>>>>
>>>>>"The fool learns by suffering."
>>>>>Hesiod, Works and Days, 216.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Doctores indoctos, nunca hubo pocos."
>>>>>F. Caudet, Mejores refranes españoles, #2545
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>Earle

"bllsht" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:11:45 -0700, "Earle Horton"
> > wrote:
>
>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:27:09 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:04:30 -0700, "Earle Horton"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"bllsht" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:44ijs310gvj5thta31i5runtak0b29i7rk@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:57:06 -0800, Outatime
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Funny that this sort of part is "always" out-sourced, and the
>>>>>>>>> OEM and aftermarket parts are usually identical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Earth is round.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have EGR.
>>>>>>> A 1991 4.0L Wrangler doesn't have adjustable timing.
>>>>>>> High CO is caused by a rich mixture, NOT high combustion temps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Look this guy claims to know someone who is ASE certified. I can't
>>>>>>top
>>>>>>that. I wouldn't know anyone who was ASE certified. I just have a
>>>>>>degree
>>>>>>in Physics, how lame is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> "ASE certified" only means he passed a multiple guess test. I've known
>>>>> "ASE certifed techs" that I wouldn't allow to put a spark plug in my
>>>>> lawn mower, let alone diagnose a bad plug to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We figured in 1978 when I was working in the Dodge garage that
>>>>>>emissions
>>>>>>controls like EGR were just a scam to make the tree huggers think
>>>>>>something
>>>>>>was being done. It turns out we were right. EGR lowers combustion
>>>>>>temps
>>>>>>and inhibits formation of NO, but the cat does all the work in getting
>>>>>>rid
>>>>>>of it. CO is a combustible gas, ergo high temperatures make it burn,
>>>>>>duh.
>>>>>>The PCV valve was a good idea, computer controlled fuel injection was
>>>>>>another one.
>>>>>
>>>>> EGR came along before the cat converter did, and it works. Until they
>>>>> started using three way cats, the cat didn't to anything to reduce NOx
>>>>> emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Early EGR systems left a lot to be desired, but controls are a lot
>>>>> better today. In fact, some vehicles are equipped with EGR because
>>>>> they actually get slightly better fuel mileage, not because they
>>>>> needed it to pass emission standards.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that a working EGR doesn't hurt, and might even increase engine
>>>>life, but the part about not actually needing it to pass emissions makes
>>>>it
>>>>a scam as far as the tree hugging enviro-Nazi crowd is concerned.
>>>
>>> EGR reduces the formation of NOx. It can also slightly increase fuel
>>> mileage. Using it to increase fuel mileage, even when it's not needed
>>> for emissions makes it a scam? Your logic escapes me.
>>
>>When these things first came out they were presented as "pollution
>>controls"
>>not "something that maybe will slightly reduce pollution until it wears
>>out
>>or clogs". Now with computer controlled fuel injection and a catalytic
>>converter we find it's not needed at all. "Outatime" quoted something
>>like
>>$60 to replace one, no doubt burning up what you've saved from the slight
>>mileage increase.
>
> Catalytic converters "wear out or clog", are they a scam too?
>
You have a point there. Seriously, I wonder how much good they do, compared
to cost, replacement cost and the amount of pollution that they actually
clean up. I convinced that considering net benefit, most pollution controls
are next to useless, except PCV/CCV and computerized fuel injection. I
wouldn't knowingly disable a pollution control, like most of my neighbors
have already done, but I am pretty sure the cat in my Wrangler has puked its
guts out through the high performance muffler I have installed. That's why
"cat back" performance upgrades are so popular, for letting the big pieces
out.

Cheers,

Earle


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill,

I can't believe you're arguing for junking perfectly good, rebuildable or
maybe even running engines. I guess you have yours already, huh?

Cheers,

Earle

"L.W.(ßill)Hughes III" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hi Earle,
> It knocks the heck out of plentiful 350" use in our hot rods. The junk
> yard must take a sledge hammer to the block.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>
> http://www.billhughes.com/jeep_bookmark.htm
>
> "Earle Horton" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> That's not much of a down payment, considering what car's cost now, is
>> it?
>> Heck, it probably just pays for the bill from the recycler's to take the
>> car.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Earle
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi Earle,
Nope, you misunderstood me. I miss my fifty dollar cars.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O

http://www.billhughes.com/jeep_bookmark.htm

"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bill,
>
> I can't believe you're arguing for junking perfectly good, rebuildable or
> maybe even running engines. I guess you have yours already, huh?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com