What's new
By:
TurboTransAm.com

Register today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Failed Emissions

^This. Number 689 is all stock except for intake and cat back exhaust. I failed Colorado emissions this year since the P.O. had gutted the cat :yes:. I got an emissions chip from Eric at TurboTweak and the car passed. That chip must have really leaned out the fuel. I replaced that immediately with the TT stock chip. Good to go.
 
gatorlance said:
^This. Number 689 is all stock except for intake and cat back exhaust. I failed Colorado emissions this year since the P.O. had gutted the cat :yes:. I got an emissions chip from Eric at TurboTweak and the car passed. That chip must have really leaned out the fuel. I replaced that immediately with the TT stock chip. Good to go.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to keep the car stock while passing smog. But I'd go with that as a last resort.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?bjxs1j
 
fast400 said:
Are the Walbro pumps, rubber seals and fuel lines able to handle the E85?
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that he empty his tank and fill it completely full of E85.

I'm just suggesting maybe add one or two gallons if he has maybe a half tank of premium gasoline.
 
michbc3 said:
How does that help? Does it help NOX, CO or HC? What's the science behind that?
Click to expand...

There is a ton of science behind it. It is not new news that oxygenated fuels give off less emissions.

Adding E85 will slightly lean out the fuel mixture, and it also jacks the octane rating up. (along with the oxygen) The ethanol portion of the E85 doesn't give off near the emissions that gasoline does. Gasoline has over 500 ingredients (give or take a few hundred), including hexane that give off much more NoX, CO and hydrocarbons. Ethanol has one ingredient.
 
Sounds like magic. If leaning out a mixture solved emission problems, that would be fine with me. But that's not the way that it works. In general, a mixture that is too rich results in excess hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel). A misture that is lean can result in excessive CO and also raises NOX. NOX primarily results from very high combustion temperatures. One has to compromise and balance the mixture, plus optimize timing to obtain lowest emissions. The additives in gasoline are there for a purpose or else they wouldn't be in there at all (like injector lubrication, prevention of oxidation in the fuel system, vaporization, extended fuel storage, etc.) so I would not "dis" them. When you burn alcohol instead of gasoline you get "different" emissions, not necessarily "better" emissions. I don't see why the addition of a gallon of alcohol would create a better balance of NOX, CO and HC. If a guy has a mostly stock engine in mechanically good condition, the best thing to do is put a good cat converter on it, use the factory chip, put new gasoline in it, change the oil, have a clean air filter and install new plugs. There isn't a very big cam in the stock engine so it should pass 1989 emissions easily. If the car has mechanical problems, all bets are off.
 
TTA579 said:
Agreed, and I did all that (minus the plugs). And it passed. There is some question about whether or not the timing is slightly off due to a 100k mile chain.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?n4vgm0
Click to expand...

Excellent. A timing light would reveal if the timing is jumping around from a chain problem. It's not easy to see that timing tab of course. But with some difficulty and a careful aim, I can see mine.
 
michbc3 said:
A timing light would reveal if the timing is jumping around from a chain problem.
Click to expand...


Okay, I need an explanation please,because I'm not seeing how valve timing and ignition timing are the same....we are talking about ignition timing,right?DontKnow:
 
WS6 said:
Okay, I need an explanation please,because I'm not seeing how valve timing and ignition timing are the same....we are talking about ignition timing,right?DontKnow:
Click to expand...

Oh heck, you're right. That was totally bogus advice. We're not using a distributor... Thanks for the correction.
 
I did have one weird problem with erratic timing on a TTA though that I fixed. The internal connections on a knock gauge that I had were making intermittent contact. Sometimes with the key on, the gauge displayed knock without the engine even running. When the engine was operating, the gauge was introducing false signals into the ESC line, causing the computer to retard the timing willy-nilly. I saw that on the harmonic balancer using a timing light of course. To get this back to the topic of emissions, before I knew that this was going on, it made passing emissions a crap shot. Replaced the gauge and all is well. Rock solid timing now.
 
michbc3 said:
Sounds like magic. If leaning out a mixture solved emission problems, that would be fine with me. But that's not the way that it works. In general, a mixture that is too rich results in excess hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel). A misture that is lean can result in excessive CO and also raises NOX. NOX primarily results from very high combustion temperatures. One has to compromise and balance the mixture, plus optimize timing to obtain lowest emissions. The additives in gasoline are there for a purpose or else they wouldn't be in there at all (like injector lubrication, prevention of oxidation in the fuel system, vaporization, extended fuel storage, etc.) so I would not "dis" them. When you burn alcohol instead of gasoline you get "different" emissions, not necessarily "better" emissions. I don't see why the addition of a gallon of alcohol would create a better balance of NOX, CO and HC. If a guy has a mostly stock engine in mechanically good condition, the best thing to do is put a good cat converter on it, use the factory chip, put new gasoline in it, change the oil, have a clean air filter and install new plugs. There isn't a very big cam in the stock engine so it should pass 1989 emissions easily. If the car has mechanical problems, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

It isn't magic. Alcohol emits lower emissions than gasoline - period.

I'll agree the emissions are different between the two, but there is no arguing the fact that total emissions are lower with alcohol. I'm not sure how to address the comment, "I don't see why the addition of a gallon of alcohol would create a better balance, etc, etc". The balance isn't better per say, but, it is lower. Lower = better.

No arguements here on keeping up on the maintenance of the vehicle, at all.

I was just to help someone out. :)

:cheers:

Also, I'm curious - how much tougher have the emissions gotten since '89? (I think they have gotten quite a bit worse?) Minnesota doesn't test.....yet.
 
If alcohol leans out a mixture, then what happens to emissions when one puts alcohol in a car that might be tuned borderline lean already? Or might even be tuned properly already? In my way of thinking, messing with arbitrary fuel additives could mess up the A/F and cause the car to fail.

I think that most agree that with a stock car, it's best to avoid anecdotal trickery and just go with what the factory used: gasoline. After all, they only spent a few million $ developing their emission calibrations using that fuel...

The increased octane of alcohol means nothing during an emission dyno roller test conducted at 2500 rpm. No turbocharger boost is occuring. If one thinks that alcohol reduces emissions by adding "some", that's fine. If it does help one parameter or another, it's probably because the engine is calibrated too rich at that particular RPM and load. I'd like to know what a petrochemical engineer with actual experience has to say about this - which is why I asked for a scientific explanation. Perhaps a car magazine has done an article on it (something titled like: adding alcohol to pass emissions).

I'm a little curious. The premise sounds good, but I'd like to see some published data. I'm not so sure that "all" emissions would be lowered and if so, then how and why for each category? Don't take offense. Engineers ask a lot of questions...
 
This is is some good conversation guy's@ a interesting topic, i agree with everything Michbc3 said... the only flaw i could find " spent a few mil developing emission calibrations using that fuel... is gas the same as 1989? i have no idea whats in the stuff we buy this day's, but your right were's the proof ? :detective: :chat:
 
robert lee said:
This is is some good conversation guy's@ a interesting topic, i agree with everything Michbc3 said... the only flaw i could find " spent a few mil developing emission calibrations using that fuel... is gas the same as 1989? i have no idea whats in the stuff we buy this day's, but your right were's the proof ? :detective: :chat:
Click to expand...

Good catch robert lee! That was another oversight on my part. I dont mind being corrected. Of course gasoline is different today. :drunk: But I wouldnt drink it just yet.
 
Just to add something about ignition timing and KR. I don't know if just throwing a timing light on and checking the balancer vs.timing marks is an accurate way to check base timing. The correct way,with a factory ECM, is jumper the A&B pins on the ALDL and start the car. It will start hard and have low idle but it locks the ignition timing at 15*. Then you can put your light on it and check. This more or less shows if the reluctor ring has slipped or otherwise been installed wrong and give you some insight as to whether your timing is advanced or retarded and you make appropriate adjustments to your chip.
Pointing a timing light at it in closed loop(or open) may yield some erratic high numbers in the 30s and 40's depending on the ECM's command.

And if one is running the origianl ECM than KR won't be applied unless a few flags are set, such as run time(very short),coolant temp below 46*F and the big one, idle below 1000 RPM. The ECM may see the ESC signal low, but it should not pull timing if one of those flags is present.

You may see knock counts climb,but it should not be making any attack corrections to quell the event.


....
 
Those are good points. I haven't used a stock ECM, so that's interesting to know. My aftermarket system doesn't follow that factory logic - although I could make it do that if I wanted to. If my ESC line has erratic signals on it, the timing will be erratic too - even at idle. I've seen it not only on the balancer, but also on my main screen. That was the tipoff that something was wrong. Thanks for the additional input because obviously most others on the list use a factory ECM. Consequently, my perspective might be different on some things like this.
 
Last edited:
Back to the A/F, when i tested the first time i had turned down the FP per instruction with emission chip, when it failed Nox i thought it was too lean so back up with FP only to fail Nox and HC (forgot about that damn p-plate ) pulled it off so hopefully it will pass monday athough its still running wacky as hell (blms will be 128-132 for 30 min then drop to 110 or futher till it stalls) if it fails again i think i'm gonna shoot it :guns:
 
michbc3 said:
If alcohol leans out a mixture, then what happens to emissions when one puts alcohol in a car that might be tuned borderline lean already? Or might even be tuned properly already? In my way of thinking, messing with arbitrary fuel additives could mess up the A/F and cause the car to fail.

I think that most agree that with a stock car, it's best to avoid anecdotal trickery and just go with what the factory used: gasoline. After all, they only spent a few million $ developing their emission calibrations using that fuel...

The increased octane of alcohol means nothing during an emission dyno roller test conducted at 2500 rpm. No turbocharger boost is occuring. If one thinks that alcohol reduces emissions by adding "some", that's fine. If it does help one parameter or another, it's probably because the engine is calibrated too rich at that particular RPM and load. I'd like to know what a petrochemical engineer with actual experience has to say about this - which is why I asked for a scientific explanation. Perhaps a car magazine has done an article on it (something titled like: adding alcohol to pass emissions).

I'm a little curious. The premise sounds good, but I'd like to see some published data. I'm not so sure that "all" emissions would be lowered and if so, then how and why for each category? Don't take offense. Engineers ask a lot of questions...
Click to expand...


All fair points of the discussion, and, no offense taken. I will do some research to seek out the answers. I have seen the information before, but I do not have it readily available right this moment.

More to come! :cheers:
 
89MNTTA said:
Here's some pretty good information right here:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/emissions_e85.html
Click to expand...

These guys in your link are comparing a tank of straight gasoline to E85 as run in a flex fuel vehicle. Doesn't really apply to adding "some" alcohol to a tank of gasoline in an old car without special tuning like we are talking about. A better place to find information on what we are discussing would most likely appear in a car enthusisast magazine.

Also, understand that NREL is a biased source in favor of the "government's" bias to put us all on alternative fuels -regardless of whether they are better or not. The original mission of DoE was to get us off of oil - which is a pretty dumb objective since fossil fuel holistically works best. But who would expect brilliance from Jimmy Carter? I worked with NREL/DoE in my last job professionally. I assure you that they aren't going to publish anything that portrays alternative fuels in an inferior light to make the "government approved solution" look bad. They don't get program money for saying that gasoline is fine and works great. There's the bias...

Since our objective here is to "work around" government emission standards to make our cars pass emission tests by adding "some" alcohol, official government sources are probably not going to be very helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top