Nutter Bypass Ignition Modification???

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. I never told the OP
to do anything except to clean his carb and how to do a Nutter that can
be reversed for 'free'....

So I guess seeing as you avoided the question, you are unable to tune a
carb engine to run in California eh?

No computer, no clue....

Mike

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >LOL! I give up.
> >
> >So you are telling us there is no way a carburetor engine can pass
> >emissions in California without computer assist, eh?
> >
> >If you say so.....
> >
> >Oh, we just fluked that pass on Norm's NOx, we weren't even trying to
> >dial in lower NOx which we could have done if needed.....
> >
> >But hey, if that just 'can't' be done down on that left coast, well...
> >I feel really sorry folks have to put up with such poor 'mechanics'. It
> >still comes down to 'no computer, no clue'.
>
> As usual, when you've painted yourself into a corner, it's the crappy mechanics
> that are the problem, eh? Well, with your lack of knowledge emission systems
> and test procedures, you've showed us what you're capable of. You got your
> buddy's Jeep to get NOx up to the 'gross polluter' limits. Congratulations!
>
> To tell the OP to do this hack, after he's already told you he just spent 6
> months trying to pass smog, is irresponsible. You're setting him up to fail,
> and spend a bunch of money restoring it to factory specs. There is no cost
> limit on missing or modified emission controls, and he'll be required to spend
> what it takes to restore it, and make it pass.
>
> Great advice from a guy with no clue!
>
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bull****. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
> >> >> >> >> >> >> twice what California's are.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
> >> >> >> >> >> >that says different.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
> >> >> >> he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My friend Norm Mitchell who posts here now and then has a Nuttered (by
> >> >> >me) 89 YJ that 'has' to pass all the emissions including NOx.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On his test he got 1500 for NOx in Toronto Canada.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bill hughes is allowed 2139 IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Once again, you're comparing Bill's 1978, 6400lb GVW vehicle to a 1989, 4000lb
> >> >> GVW vehicle. I guess it's just too much to ask of your poor little brain.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Too funny, you are the 'foole' that keeps saying no way can the Nutter
> >> >pass NOx and I just proved you wrong.
> >>
> >> You just proved that the hack passes Canada's loose NOx standards for an 89 YJ.
> >> The OP lives in California, and 1500 for NOx would be very close to being a
> >> gross polluter here.
> >>
> >> California pass/fail cutpoints for an 89 YJ would be:
> >> 5015 test - 1015ppm NOx
> >> 2525 test - 875ppm NOx
> >>
> >> Once again, you are actually the fool.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There are a 'lot' of Nuttered jobs out there that I personally know
> >> >about and we all have passed emissions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Once again, the OP is in California. It won't fly here.
> >>
> >> >Oh by the by, a YJ has a way higher GVW than 4000 lb, even the old CJ7
> >> >has a GVW of 4450.....
> >>
> >> Still nearly 2000lb less than Bills 6400lb Bronco, which places it in a
> >> different emissions category in California.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mike
> >> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

You obviously don't understand how NOx is created, how it's controlled, and how
emission testing is done.

Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe. The problem is you
also have to pass a visual and functional test as well as the emissions test.

Passing out the tailpipe alone may work in Canada, but it ain't gonna fly here.

'Trial and error' will get a bit expensive as well, unless the OP has access to
a dyno and smog machine.

In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. I never told the OP
>to do anything except to clean his carb and how to do a Nutter that can
>be reversed for 'free'....
>
>So I guess seeing as you avoided the question, you are unable to tune a
>carb engine to run in California eh?
>
>No computer, no clue....
>
>Mike
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >LOL! I give up.
>> >
>> >So you are telling us there is no way a carburetor engine can pass
>> >emissions in California without computer assist, eh?
>> >
>> >If you say so.....
>> >
>> >Oh, we just fluked that pass on Norm's NOx, we weren't even trying to
>> >dial in lower NOx which we could have done if needed.....
>> >
>> >But hey, if that just 'can't' be done down on that left coast, well...
>> >I feel really sorry folks have to put up with such poor 'mechanics'. It
>> >still comes down to 'no computer, no clue'.
>>
>> As usual, when you've painted yourself into a corner, it's the crappy mechanics
>> that are the problem, eh? Well, with your lack of knowledge emission systems
>> and test procedures, you've showed us what you're capable of. You got your
>> buddy's Jeep to get NOx up to the 'gross polluter' limits. Congratulations!
>>
>> To tell the OP to do this hack, after he's already told you he just spent 6
>> months trying to pass smog, is irresponsible. You're setting him up to fail,
>> and spend a bunch of money restoring it to factory specs. There is no cost
>> limit on missing or modified emission controls, and he'll be required to spend
>> what it takes to restore it, and make it pass.
>>
>> Great advice from a guy with no clue!
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Bad guess there bllsht, we have compared paperwork with california folks
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >online several times and we have higher standards here.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bull****. Even the NOx pass/fail cut points you posted here were more than
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> twice what California's are.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Give it up, every time you post this crap we break out our paperwork
>> >> >> >> >> >> >that says different.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The fact is you can't prove your claim because it's not true.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> My first post in this thread said the OP would fail for NOx in California, where
>> >> >> >> he is, if he lived where loaded mode testing is done.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My friend Norm Mitchell who posts here now and then has a Nuttered (by
>> >> >> >me) 89 YJ that 'has' to pass all the emissions including NOx.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On his test he got 1500 for NOx in Toronto Canada.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bill hughes is allowed 2139 IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Once again, you're comparing Bill's 1978, 6400lb GVW vehicle to a 1989, 4000lb
>> >> >> GVW vehicle. I guess it's just too much to ask of your poor little brain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Too funny, you are the 'foole' that keeps saying no way can the Nutter
>> >> >pass NOx and I just proved you wrong.
>> >>
>> >> You just proved that the hack passes Canada's loose NOx standards for an 89 YJ.
>> >> The OP lives in California, and 1500 for NOx would be very close to being a
>> >> gross polluter here.
>> >>
>> >> California pass/fail cutpoints for an 89 YJ would be:
>> >> 5015 test - 1015ppm NOx
>> >> 2525 test - 875ppm NOx
>> >>
>> >> Once again, you are actually the fool.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There are a 'lot' of Nuttered jobs out there that I personally know
>> >> >about and we all have passed emissions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Once again, the OP is in California. It won't fly here.
>> >>
>> >> >Oh by the by, a YJ has a way higher GVW than 4000 lb, even the old CJ7
>> >> >has a GVW of 4450.....
>> >>
>> >> Still nearly 2000lb less than Bills 6400lb Bronco, which places it in a
>> >> different emissions category in California.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Mike
>> >> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Finally!

You admit it 'can' be done.....

I think you believe the 'Nutter' is more complicated than adding 2
hidden wires and setting the timing and carb to pre 1982 settings.

As far as the 'Nutter' goes, all the visual emissions junk can be left
in place like I did for my first test until I found out I only needed
the stuff I left working anyway like the EGR, PCV, canister, gas cap and
air filter flaps for my 'visual' inspection.

All the miles of vacuum lines and solenoids can be left in place, they
just have no function and the two 'new' wires needed for the Nutter can
easily be tucked out of sight in the wiring harness with crimp on M/F
connectors so it can be reversed in 10 minutes if needed.

You then just set the carb up for the best lean and keep your fingers
crossed at the sniffer.

Norm Mitchell just showed up tonight in his 89 'Renegade' YJ for a visit
after 2 years absence. This is the YJ gent I was quoting for his
emissions.

He has to go for a new one in the next couple weeks and will post his
new readings but here is his old ones without us 'trying' to pass NOx
because he passed. We were working on HC's....

You are allowed 1015 in Ca and he got 1085 with a 'blown' CAT according
to the 'mechanic' that sounds like you.

So he put a new CAT on and went up to 1512 NOx!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are his readings:
---------------------------------------------------------------

Befo
ASM test
HC (132 allowed): 220 FAIL
CO (1.24 allowed): 0.35
NO (1724 allowed): 1085
at idle
HC (300): 3106 FAIL
CO (1.50): 0.25

when I first starting this my CO was at 3.0 or
so.. and NO was failing as well.
Tinkering got them to passing levels, but
nothing I did could make the HC reading
move at all.

After cat installed:
ASM test
HC: 30
CO: 0.00
NO: 1512
at idle
HC: 145
CO: 0.00

This was without using any additives. I was
running esso 92 gas. My computer
for the (stock) carb is disabled (nutter
bypass)

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

So we would get along much better if you stopped saying BS about things
that 'could' be possible. I get 'set off' way too easy as well these
days, the doctors are telling me that is due to stroke damage from a
nasty car accident I was a passenger in a couple years back so I will
apologize for doing that.

Oh and the OP said he was going to use a dyno to check the differences
so he does have access to a 'tweak toy'.

Mike

bllsht wrote:
>
> You obviously don't understand how NOx is created, how it's controlled, and how
> emission testing is done.
>
> Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe. The problem is you
> also have to pass a visual and functional test as well as the emissions test.
>
> Passing out the tailpipe alone may work in Canada, but it ain't gonna fly here.
>
> 'Trial and error' will get a bit expensive as well, unless the OP has access to
> a dyno and smog machine.
>
> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
<snipped>

In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>Finally!
>
>You admit it 'can' be done.....

Sure, the numbers can be manipulated, but there is more to passing a smog test
in California than just what's coming out the tail pipe. There are visual and
functional parts of the test also. One of the functional tests is checking the
timing, so there's no room to play there.

>
>I think you believe the 'Nutter' is more complicated than adding 2
>hidden wires and setting the timing and carb to pre 1982 settings.

Yeah, I know what's involved, and I know what a big difference it makes. I told
the OP that he'd have a problem passing NOx if he does this modification. I
don't know if you understand why it makes such a big difference, or why I said
that, so here's the reason.

In addition to EGR, spark advance control is also used to control the creation
of NOx. The computer is what handles that job. It doesn't do a great job as
far as performance is concerned. We all know they fall on their face around
3,000 RPM, but it does do the job of controlling NOx. The reason they run
better with the computer out of the loop, is because it's not retarding the
timing any more. So, you get great performance, but NOx skyrockets.

Try retarding the timing to pass smog, and all you do is fail the ignition
timing functional test.

>
>As far as the 'Nutter' goes, all the visual emissions junk can be left
>in place like I did for my first test until I found out I only needed
>the stuff I left working anyway like the EGR, PCV, canister, gas cap and
>air filter flaps for my 'visual' inspection.
>
>All the miles of vacuum lines and solenoids can be left in place, they
>just have no function and the two 'new' wires needed for the Nutter can
>easily be tucked out of sight in the wiring harness with crimp on M/F
>connectors so it can be reversed in 10 minutes if needed.

Another thing that gets disabled without the computer is the air injection
system, which can make a big difference in HC & CO.

>
>You then just set the carb up for the best lean and keep your fingers
>crossed at the sniffer.

Since NOx testing came in to play, lean isn't necessarily the way to go anymore.
Of course you don't want to be too rich, but lean will cause a higher combustion
temp. In addition to that, the cat converter needs CO to achieve the reduction
of NOx that it's supposed to do.

>
>Norm Mitchell just showed up tonight in his 89 'Renegade' YJ for a visit
>after 2 years absence. This is the YJ gent I was quoting for his
>emissions.

Don't tell me.... They test every two years up there.

>
>He has to go for a new one in the next couple weeks and will post his
>new readings but here is his old ones without us 'trying' to pass NOx
>because he passed. We were working on HC's....
>
>You are allowed 1015 in Ca and he got 1085 with a 'blown' CAT according
>to the 'mechanic' that sounds like you.

There are two parts of the ASM test in California. 5015(50% @ 15 mph) and
2525(25% @ 25 mph). I don't know where you are, or where your test was
performed, but according to Ontario's smog program web page, they only do the
2525 test. In California, you're only allowed up to 875 on the 2525 portion of
the test for an 89 YJ 258.

>
>So he put a new CAT on and went up to 1512 NOx!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there were no adjustments between the two tests and the CAT was the only
change made, I'd make sure he put the right cat on it. An oxidation cat won't
do a thing for NOx. It's supposed to have a 3 way cat on it. Should be a dual
bed cat with downstream air going into the middle, between the two beds.

>
>Here are his readings:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Befo
> ASM test
> HC (132 allowed): 220 FAIL
> CO (1.24 allowed): 0.35
> NO (1724 allowed): 1085
> at idle
> HC (300): 3106 FAIL
> CO (1.50): 0.25

Do they give you the CO2 and O2 numbers as well? They would help. Looking at
the idle numbers, it's either missing really bad or the oxidation portion of the
cat isn't working at all. Probably both.

>
> when I first starting this my CO was at 3.0 or
>so.. and NO was failing as well.
> Tinkering got them to passing levels, but
>nothing I did could make the HC reading
> move at all.
>
> After cat installed:
> ASM test
> HC: 30
> CO: 0.00
> NO: 1512
> at idle
> HC: 145
> CO: 0.00

From here, I can only guess, but that looks too lean to me. I'd expect to see a
lower HC idle number. Also CO at 0.00 makes me think the same. Remember, lack
of CO doesn't help NOx reduction either.

>
> This was without using any additives. I was
>running esso 92 gas. My computer
> for the (stock) carb is disabled (nutter
>bypass)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>So we would get along much better if you stopped saying BS about things
>that 'could' be possible. I get 'set off' way too easy as well these
>days, the doctors are telling me that is due to stroke damage from a
>nasty car accident I was a passenger in a couple years back so I will
>apologize for doing that.

Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you what
'would' happen, and I told you why. If you need an explanation on something, I
have no problem with doing that. Being attacked because you don't understand
something is what's getting old.

>
>Oh and the OP said he was going to use a dyno to check the differences
>so he does have access to a 'tweak toy'.

He said he was going to take it to a smog test station for a pre-test. Those
aren't free.

>
>Mike
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> You obviously don't understand how NOx is created, how it's controlled, and how
>> emission testing is done.
>>
>> Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe. The problem is you
>> also have to pass a visual and functional test as well as the emissions test.
>>
>> Passing out the tailpipe alone may work in Canada, but it ain't gonna fly here.
>>
>> 'Trial and error' will get a bit expensive as well, unless the OP has access to
>> a dyno and smog machine.
>>
>> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
><snipped>

bllsht wrote:
>
>
> Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you > what 'would' happen, and I told you why.

Sigh.....

First you say:

you will fail the NOx portion of the emissions test miserably.

Then after 'much' prompting you say:

Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe.

I give up.....

Oh and Norm moved away 2 or 3 years ago. He just moved back to this
city and stopped in for a beer. He doesn't need my help to pass
emissions.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>bllsht wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you > what 'would' happen, and I told you why.
>
>Sigh.....
>
>First you say:
>
>you will fail the NOx portion of the emissions test miserably.

With timing set to factory specs, it will definitely fail miserably.

>
>Then after 'much' prompting you say:
>
>Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe.

I also said that it takes more than passing out the pipe to pass a smog test in
California. You tweak the timing enough to make up for the lack of spark
control and you WILL fail the ignition timing check. Fail the timing check and
you fail the smog test. Get it?



>
>I give up.....
>
>Oh and Norm moved away 2 or 3 years ago. He just moved back to this
>city and stopped in for a beer. He doesn't need my help to pass
>emissions.
>
>Mike
>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

ROTFLMAO!

Gotcha.

SOB, I just found another of 'my' emissions slips and they put the NOx
reading on it!!!!

1986 Canadian CJ7 4.2L, 'No' Catalytic converter (not needed in Canada),
no computer, base timing set at 9 deg BTDC with the vacuum line off like
the book says, 92 octane ESSO gas, stock BBD carb set to best lean idle
and ported on the timing advance and......

Drumroll........

On the ASM 2525 test I got 589 NOx!!!!!.

16 ppm HC

0.11% CO

LOL!

That was on my 2003 test.

Darn it I knew I had my own numbers around for NOx somewhere.

So my 86 CJ7 set up just like it is would pass California emissions for
an 89 YJ!!!!

Photo of the papers he
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=4290636987

And a post on alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4 with the JPG photo of the
paperwork.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh, Not a fluke, I killed the computer in 2000, this was just the only
year they actually put the NOx reading on because I don't have to pass
that.

Good bye now bllsht.

;-p

Mike.

bllsht wrote:
>
> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you > what 'would' happen, and I told you why.
> >
> >Sigh.....
> >
> >First you say:
> >
> >you will fail the NOx portion of the emissions test miserably.
>
> With timing set to factory specs, it will definitely fail miserably.
>
> >
> >Then after 'much' prompting you say:
> >
> >Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe.
>
> I also said that it takes more than passing out the pipe to pass a smog test in
> California. You tweak the timing enough to make up for the lack of spark
> control and you WILL fail the ignition timing check. Fail the timing check and
> you fail the smog test. Get it?
>
> >
> >I give up.....
> >
> >Oh and Norm moved away 2 or 3 years ago. He just moved back to this
> >city and stopped in for a beer. He doesn't need my help to pass
> >emissions.
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

I must have missed the part where it passed the visual or functional tests....Oh
yeah, they didn't do any....

Apples and oranges.

In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:

>ROTFLMAO!
>
>Gotcha.
>
>SOB, I just found another of 'my' emissions slips and they put the NOx
>reading on it!!!!
>
>1986 Canadian CJ7 4.2L, 'No' Catalytic converter (not needed in Canada),
>no computer, base timing set at 9 deg BTDC with the vacuum line off like
>the book says, 92 octane ESSO gas, stock BBD carb set to best lean idle
>and ported on the timing advance and......
>
>Drumroll........
>
>On the ASM 2525 test I got 589 NOx!!!!!.
>
>16 ppm HC
>
>0.11% CO
>
>LOL!
>
>That was on my 2003 test.
>
>Darn it I knew I had my own numbers around for NOx somewhere.
>
>So my 86 CJ7 set up just like it is would pass California emissions for
>an 89 YJ!!!!
>
>Photo of the papers he
>http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=4290636987
>
>And a post on alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4 with the JPG photo of the
>paperwork.
>
>Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
>Oh, Not a fluke, I killed the computer in 2000, this was just the only
>year they actually put the NOx reading on because I don't have to pass
>that.
>
>Good bye now bllsht.
>
>;-p
>
>Mike.
>
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >bllsht wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you > what 'would' happen, and I told you why.
>> >
>> >Sigh.....
>> >
>> >First you say:
>> >
>> >you will fail the NOx portion of the emissions test miserably.
>>
>> With timing set to factory specs, it will definitely fail miserably.
>>
>> >
>> >Then after 'much' prompting you say:
>> >
>> >Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe.
>>
>> I also said that it takes more than passing out the pipe to pass a smog test in
>> California. You tweak the timing enough to make up for the lack of spark
>> control and you WILL fail the ignition timing check. Fail the timing check and
>> you fail the smog test. Get it?
>>
>> >
>> >I give up.....
>> >
>> >Oh and Norm moved away 2 or 3 years ago. He just moved back to this
>> >city and stopped in for a beer. He doesn't need my help to pass
>> >emissions.
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

And yet I can get all my reading sweet without a catalytic converter.

And no I never mucked with the timing other than to go for best power
which I have left alone for 5 or more years. Oops, late last year I did
drop the timing down to 6 to see if it helped an overheating issue, it
didn't, the waterpump was bad so it is back at 9.

So you just aren't going to stop with the BS eh.

Ok I will bite only because I am bored.

Just what 'functional' tests do you think the 258's Ford emissions
computer will tell them about eh?

Don't forget that it has no data port or OBD crap so the 'functional'
tests are the gas cap because they can pressurize that, they could watch
the EGR move I guess and watch the air filter flaps move or vacuum test
them. I guess you could vacuum test the canister too. And you could
toss a timing light on it because it has no magnetic pickup for the
computer. Maybe make the PCV rattle?

All that is moot, because all that is in place and working.

LOL!!!!!

Mike

bllsht wrote:
>
> I must have missed the part where it passed the visual or functional tests....Oh
> yeah, they didn't do any....
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >ROTFLMAO!
> >
> >Gotcha.
> >
> >SOB, I just found another of 'my' emissions slips and they put the NOx
> >reading on it!!!!
> >
> >1986 Canadian CJ7 4.2L, 'No' Catalytic converter (not needed in Canada),
> >no computer, base timing set at 9 deg BTDC with the vacuum line off like
> >the book says, 92 octane ESSO gas, stock BBD carb set to best lean idle
> >and ported on the timing advance and......
> >
> >Drumroll........
> >
> >On the ASM 2525 test I got 589 NOx!!!!!.
> >
> >16 ppm HC
> >
> >0.11% CO
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >That was on my 2003 test.
> >
> >Darn it I knew I had my own numbers around for NOx somewhere.
> >
> >So my 86 CJ7 set up just like it is would pass California emissions for
> >an 89 YJ!!!!
> >
> >Photo of the papers he
> >http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=4290636987
> >
> >And a post on alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4 with the JPG photo of the
> >paperwork.
> >
> >Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
> >
> >Oh, Not a fluke, I killed the computer in 2000, this was just the only
> >year they actually put the NOx reading on because I don't have to pass
> >that.
> >
> >Good bye now bllsht.
> >
> >;-p
> >
> >Mike.
> >
> >bllsht wrote:
> >>
> >> In message >, "Mike Romain" wrote:
> >>
> >> >bllsht wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nothing I've said is BS, and none of it is what 'could' happen. I told you > what 'would' happen, and I told you why.
> >> >
> >> >Sigh.....
> >> >
> >> >First you say:
> >> >
> >> >you will fail the NOx portion of the emissions test miserably.
> >>
> >> With timing set to factory specs, it will definitely fail miserably.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Then after 'much' prompting you say:
> >> >
> >> >Anyone can tweak enough and get it to pass out the pipe.
> >>
> >> I also said that it takes more than passing out the pipe to pass a smog test in
> >> California. You tweak the timing enough to make up for the lack of spark
> >> control and you WILL fail the ignition timing check. Fail the timing check and
> >> you fail the smog test. Get it?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I give up.....
> >> >
> >> >Oh and Norm moved away 2 or 3 years ago. He just moved back to this
> >> >city and stopped in for a beer. He doesn't need my help to pass
> >> >emissions.
> >> >
> >> >Mike
> >> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's