Scott from AA was saying that one of the big things "they" wanted to achieve with the new tighter emissions was to get rid of a lot of the guys running standalone ECUs in their bimmers and civics, which consequently are not running very well and have higher emissions. I was really glad to see the NOx was *only* tightened to 2.5 instead of the 2.0 or 1.5 that I thought they were going to go with, because mine hovers around 2 historically.
Oh joy, P0401 is back... (and how 80's fail emissions)
- Thread starter nakman
- Start date
Inukshuk
Rising Sun Member
I will have to test this year. I have 10 prior emissions reports.
Limits back in 2001: HC was 4.0, CO was 25.0 and NOx was 9.0. My very first test with a 116,310 mile 1993 80 the HC was 0.4, CO was 9.3, and NOx was 8.82.
NOx History:
In 2012, right after my rebuild, I blew a 9.35 and a 9.25. I forget what we fixed, but then got down to a 3.02. Then I tend to be high 2's to mid 3's.
In 2020 I blew a 2.2. Only once in 20 years under 2.5, but oddly that was two years ago.
HC has always been comfortably around .5 +/-. One .9, once .18
CO was 14.66 in 2020. Ranged from 3.9 to 20. Three times it has been over 15.
Last edited:
DaveInDenver
Rising Sun Ham Guru
For comparison the numbers they are retroactively requiring your 80s to meet.
2022:
HC: 1.0000
CO: 15.0000
NOx: 2.5000
Kind of like DORA asking you to go back and prove you had at least a 90th percentile 175 on the LSAT or 3.85 GPA to keep practicing law when the lower bound 10th percentile 120 or 2.0 was required initially. And then eventually the Board will require you to have had a perfect 180 or 4.0 to keep practicing.
I'm sure this is in the googles somewhere, but I'd be curious to see the carbon footprint comparison between the manufacturing of a new car vs. just keeping an older car on the road. I would wager that the long term impact of a new car would eventually be less than the impact already created by the older technology but where is the break even point? The sunken cost of a vehicle already being used vs. expending energy/resources to make a new one should create the starting line in the comparison, right? I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to make things better, I'm just saying it would be an interesting comparison.
DaveInDenver
Rising Sun Ham Guru
Life cycle analysis is a perennial graduate thesis topic. Probably done a thousand times and if it's done honestly it'll usually conclude it's cheaper for the owner and easier on Mother Earth to use your widget until it's worn out than to build something new.
HDavis
Hard Core 4+
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,140
Well, my new to me 80 has failed CO. I’ve done Spark plugs, plug wires, cap and an oil/filter change. I had half a tank of fresh 91 and idled it at 1500-2000 rpm for the test.
My question is.. Will heet fix my issue or O2 sensors? Awhile back @nuclearlemon changed O2 sensors with high CO and that worked. Should I add heet and go test or just swap out the O2 sensors or both?
My question is.. Will heet fix my issue or O2 sensors? Awhile back @nuclearlemon changed O2 sensors with high CO and that worked. Should I add heet and go test or just swap out the O2 sensors or both?
Attachments
Last edited:
Add two bottles of ketchup heat and double check your timing too. If that doesn't work then swap your O2s. Also you have a 97, ask them to just do a OBDII check if you didn't already?
J1000
Rising Sun Member
You can just splash a half gallon or so of E85 in the tank, basically the same thing as Heet and way cheaper 
Have you set the timing? Also I had great luck with Cataclean getting some old abused cats back working better.
Have you set the timing? Also I had great luck with Cataclean getting some old abused cats back working better.
HDavis
Hard Core 4+
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,140
Well, I failed the second test worse than the last. I asked for the obdII test and was told I was locked in to doing the rollers since I failed previously.
This time I had half a tank of 91 with two bottles of the ketchup heet and set timing at 3 degrees. Prior to adjusting, it was a little over 3 degrees.The environmental conditions were the same except I rolled right in to the test from off of the highway. Additionally, i took it to the testing center in Golden instead of Aurora. As you can see it tested quite a bit higher for Carbon Monoxide. It also smells like it’s running rich and burned through half a tank like it was nothing.
I’ve since ordered Oxygen sensors and some MAF cleaner in hopes those items are contributing to my high CO levels.
This time I had half a tank of 91 with two bottles of the ketchup heet and set timing at 3 degrees. Prior to adjusting, it was a little over 3 degrees.The environmental conditions were the same except I rolled right in to the test from off of the highway. Additionally, i took it to the testing center in Golden instead of Aurora. As you can see it tested quite a bit higher for Carbon Monoxide. It also smells like it’s running rich and burned through half a tank like it was nothing.
I’ve since ordered Oxygen sensors and some MAF cleaner in hopes those items are contributing to my high CO levels.
The
The fact that you’re failing CO miserably and passing HC makes me think you have moderate rich condition. It could be O2 sensors, but I’d also check that your TPS is adjusted properly, your air filter is clean, and your MAF is in ship shape. A faulty ECU coolant temp sensor would cause this too, and may go undiagnosed due to it being out of range, but not open.
Inukshuk
Rising Sun Member
I know nothing about Colorado when it comes to specifications, so kind of dumb question. But is there a year that says what is allowed on inspection standards?
That’s interesting… I wonder when the 4runner going to have those issues.
J1000
Rising Sun Member
I think we still have the IM240 test in CO. It breaks down by year so it shouldn't change even as the vehicle ages. 1996 is the start of tighter limits, sometimes 1995 depending on the exact make and model. Good reason to get a 93/94 vs. 96/97.
LARGEONE
Rising Sun Member
My limits are definitely higher on the ‘95. I used to think the ‘97s were the holy grail, but now I think of you like the later style dash and live in CO you may be better with a ‘95 just for emissions!!!
N/A on presence of cats, O2 etc
N/A on presence of cats, O2 etc
Last edited:
The 97 passed today. Long backstory but I had to put two brand new cats on. Hopefully they last longer than 1 year like the last ones. Got the 3” turned up and over the frame as well.
Here's a link to the records from the '96 for comparison:
risingsun4x4club.org
And here's all the reports I have for this '97 so far.
2/15/19: two brand-new cats
11/25/2020: after only 1 year, the cats were plugged, possibly due to a faulty knock sensor issue. Limped them along, did an early emissions test, then re-installed the high-performance single cat until the next emissions test was due.
3/17/23: two brand-new cats. Cleanest burning report I think I have ever seen.
Here's a link to the records from the '96 for comparison:
Oh joy, P0401 is back... (and how 80's fail emissions)
Cats burned out because it had a CEL? Was it running super rich or something?
risingsun4x4club.org
And here's all the reports I have for this '97 so far.
2/15/19: two brand-new cats
11/25/2020: after only 1 year, the cats were plugged, possibly due to a faulty knock sensor issue. Limped them along, did an early emissions test, then re-installed the high-performance single cat until the next emissions test was due.
3/17/23: two brand-new cats. Cleanest burning report I think I have ever seen.
Last edited: