|
'93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Need some help determining if emision failed due to real problem
and how to fix *OR* was this a suspect emission tester and i just wait for different tester ? what to do ? I am original owner of '93 civic Si HB 205,450 miles. I do most all basic maintenence (filters/oil/etc) and repairs (eg. brake pads/ radiator replace/master cylinder replace/ ignitor replace/ replace distributor, etc ) honda dealer gets the bigger invasive stuff like timing belt, water pumps, clutch ... The car has passed emissions by no small margins till this year and it FAILED miserably ? *BUT* only on the 25/25 test ? Only 5,400 highway miles were put on the car from 2008 test to 2009 test. 2009 numbers =========================== ....................25/25 test............50/15 ----------------------................--------- HC ppm .....288.....................65 CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 NOx ppm....345.....................255 RPM............2718..................1971 CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 2008 numbers =========================== .....................25/25 test...........50/15 -------------------------.............--------- HC ppm .....73........................70 CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 NOx ppm...236......................212 RPM...........2100.....................1925 CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 Ques 1: Does this test failure look like real (possible) numbers ? that is, how does it fail 25/25 ***SO *** bad and not the 50/15 ? Ques 2: if these are real numbers then what repair am i looking to fix this ? Ques 3: Can the tester muck up the test and get that 25/25 test failure ? Not that he wanted to muck it up but maybe a little incompetent because he had these several problems ... - Could not get the tack sensor in the right place , kept moving it all around like on top dash , center dash, on mirror , under dash, on windshield, on the hood , under the hood ? could not seem to find a place that gave good tach readings and kept saying, "your RPM is bad" - He tried the clip on tach wire but could not get the wire connected to machine correctly. - at some point during testing he could not seem to get the gear shifted so he left it in 1st and ran the car up to about 20 miles per hour in 1st gear the car was running really loud so i peeked in at the tach which up around 5000-6000 yes that is 5K-6K and held it there for about 30 seconds waiting for the machine to do something ? Anyways, i would appreciate some helpful advice on what to fix or do please robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
robb wrote:
> Need some help determining if emision failed due to real problem > and how to fix > *OR* was this a suspect emission tester and i just wait for > different tester ? > what to do ? > > I am original owner of '93 civic Si HB 205,450 miles. > > I do most all basic maintenence (filters/oil/etc) and repairs > (eg. brake pads/ radiator replace/master cylinder replace/ > ignitor replace/ replace distributor, etc ) honda dealer gets the > bigger invasive stuff like timing belt, water pumps, clutch ... > > The car has passed emissions by no small margins till this year > and it FAILED miserably ? > *BUT* only on the 25/25 test ? > > Only 5,400 highway miles were put on the car from 2008 test to > 2009 test. > > 2009 numbers > =========================== > ...................25/25 test............50/15 > ----------------------................--------- > HC ppm .....288.....................65 > CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 > NOx ppm....345.....................255 > RPM............2718..................1971 > CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 > > > 2008 numbers > =========================== > ....................25/25 test...........50/15 > -------------------------.............--------- > HC ppm .....73........................70 > CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 > NOx ppm...236......................212 > RPM...........2100.....................1925 > CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 > > > Ques 1: > Does this test failure look like real (possible) numbers ? that > is, how does it fail 25/25 ***SO *** bad and not the 50/15 ? > > Ques 2: > if these are real numbers then what repair am i looking to fix > this ? > > Ques 3: > Can the tester muck up the test and get that 25/25 test failure ? > Not that he wanted to muck it up but maybe a little incompetent > because he had these several problems ... > > - Could not get the tack sensor in the right place , kept > moving it all around like on top dash , center dash, on mirror , > under dash, on windshield, on the hood , under the hood ? could > not seem to find a place that gave good tach readings and kept > saying, "your RPM is bad" > > - He tried the clip on tach wire but could not get the wire > connected to machine correctly. > > - at some point during testing he could not seem to get the gear > shifted so he left it in 1st and ran the car up to about 20 > miles per hour in 1st gear the car was running really loud so i > peeked in at the tach which up around 5000-6000 yes that is 5K-6K > and held it there for about 30 seconds waiting for the machine to > do something ? > > > Anyways, i would appreciate some helpful advice on what to fix or > do please > > robb > Sounds like you need to get it tested by a different tester. Incorrect rpm data and not shifting the gears will screw up the test easily. -- Steve W. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
The CO is way high regardless of RPM.
Something has forced the FI pig rich. Further diagnosis is next. HTH Ben > > 2009 numbers > =========================== > ...................25/25 test............50/15 > ----------------------................--------- > HC ppm .....288.....................65 > CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 > NOx ppm....345.....................255 > RPM............2718..................1971 > CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 > > 2008 numbers > =========================== > ....................25/25 test...........50/15 > -------------------------.............--------- > HC ppm .....73........................70 > CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 > NOx ppm...236......................212 > RPM...........2100.....................1925 > CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 > |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"Steve W." <csr684NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gvnq28$cn1$1@news.eternal-september.org... > robb wrote: > > Need some help determining if emision failed due to real problem > > and how to fix > > *OR* was this a suspect emission tester and i just wait for > > different tester ? > > what to do ? [trim] > > Sounds like you need to get it tested by a different tester. Incorrect > rpm data and not shifting the gears will screw up the test easily. > -- > Steve W. > Thanks Steve, for the reply and advice. robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"ben91932" <benteaches@gmail.com> wrote in message news:67d0ac36-9abe-4b16-a248-502bdcc10af8@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > The CO is way high regardless of RPM. > Something has forced the FI pig rich. > Further diagnosis is next. > HTH > Ben > > 2009 numbers > =========================== > ...................25/25 test............50/15 > ----------------------................--------- > HC ppm .....288.....................65 > CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 > NOx ppm....345.....................255 > RPM............2718..................1971 > CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 > > 2008 numbers > =========================== > ....................25/25 test...........50/15 > -------------------------.............--------- > HC ppm .....73........................70 > CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 > NOx ppm...236......................212 > RPM...........2100.....................1925 > CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 > Thanks Ben, for the reply and help. Would you not expect some scaling of failure into the 50/15 test considering the severity of failure in the 25/25 test ? After researching some , would you expect a Oxygen Sensor malfunction or something else ? Can the original O2 sensor last 18 yrs ? The O2 sensor is the original :} Thanks again, robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in news:i6-
dnX9UvptHpr3XnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@earthlink.com: > > "ben91932" <benteaches@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:67d0ac36-9abe-4b16-a248-502bdcc10af8@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> The CO is way high regardless of RPM. >> Something has forced the FI pig rich. >> Further diagnosis is next. >> HTH >> Ben >> >> 2009 numbers >> =========================== >> ...................25/25 test............50/15 >> ----------------------................--------- >> HC ppm .....288.....................65 >> CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 >> NOx ppm....345.....................255 >> RPM............2718..................1971 >> CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 >> >> 2008 numbers >> =========================== >> ....................25/25 test...........50/15 >> -------------------------.............--------- >> HC ppm .....73........................70 >> CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 >> NOx ppm...236......................212 >> RPM...........2100.....................1925 >> CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 >> > > Thanks Ben, > for the reply and help. > > Would you not expect some scaling of failure into the 50/15 test > considering the severity of failure in the 25/25 test ? > > After researching some , would you expect a Oxygen Sensor > malfunction or something else ? > > Can the original O2 sensor last 18 yrs ? The O2 sensor is the > original :} > > Thanks again, > robb > > O2 sensors are spec'd to last 60-100K miles. They can get "slow" before that,and affect emissions and mileage even sooner. Google is your friend. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message news:Xns9C1ACBB5821C2jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.83... > "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in news:i6- > dnX9UvptHpr3XnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@earthlink.com: > > > "ben91932" <benteaches@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:67d0ac36-9abe-4b16-a248-502bdcc10af8@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > >> The CO is way high regardless of RPM. > >> Something has forced the FI pig rich. > >> Further diagnosis is next. > >> Ben > >> > >> 2009 numbers > >> =========================== > >> ...................25/25 test............50/15 > >> ----------------------................--------- > >> HC ppm .....288.....................65 > >> CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 > >> 2008 numbers > >> -------------------------.............--------- > >> HC ppm .....73........................70 > >> CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 > > > > Thanks Ben, > > Can the original O2 sensor last 18 yrs ? The O2 sensor is the > > original :} > > > > > O2 sensors are spec'd to last 60-100K miles. > They can get "slow" before that,and affect emissions and mileage even > sooner. > > Google is your friend. > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik at kua.net > Thanks Jim, for the helpful info. I say it is original. I think it is the original. Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there regular service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 sensor being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the **BIG** service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers escape my memory) Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. So, in other posts i read... Denso seems to make good O2 sensors ? Is that a good brand to look for ? Thanks for any helpful opinions and advice, robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: <snip> > > I say it is original. I think it is the original. > Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there regular > service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 sensor > being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the **BIG** > service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers escape > my memory) > > Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was LOTS wrong with the technician's actions durng the test. -- Tegger |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Tegger wrote:
> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in > news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: > > > <snip> > > >> I say it is original. I think it is the original. >> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there regular >> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 sensor >> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the **BIG** >> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers escape >> my memory) >> >> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. > > > > > Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? > > There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was LOTS wrong > with the technician's actions durng the test. > > > > i'm not sure i buy that - this guy's story doesn't add up. testing machines won't accept a test unless the test protocol is followed closely, and 2718rpm at 25mph is not first gear like the op alleges. the machine checks for rpm's and won't accept if not in range. and not only must they be in range, they must be relatively constant. if they're not constant, the machine extends the test until they are and held there for the requisite test duration. bottom line - this is probably a valid test and a simple failure. given that the op hasn't changed the sensor in 18 years, he probably hasn't changed plugs or leads either - a much more likely cause of incomplete combustion and high readings. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:8ZWdneEn_a6spLzXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Tegger wrote: > > "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in > > news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: > > > > <snip> > > > >> I say it is original. I think it is the original. > >> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there regular > >> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 sensor > >> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the **BIG** > >> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers escape > >> my memory) > >> > >> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. > > > > Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? > > > > There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was LOTS wrong > > with the technician's actions durng the test. > > > > i'm not sure i buy that - this guy's story doesn't add up. testing > machines won't accept a test unless the test protocol is followed > closely, and 2718rpm at 25mph is not first gear like the op alleges. > the machine checks for rpm's and won't accept if not in range. and not > only must they be in range, they must be relatively constant. if > they're not constant, the machine extends the test until they are and > held there for the requisite test duration. > > bottom line - this is probably a valid test and a simple failure. given > that the op hasn't changed the sensor in 18 years, he probably hasn't > changed plugs or leads either - a much more likely cause of incomplete > combustion and high readings. > Hello OP here ... While i applaud your deductive reasoning on my story to keep me honest , the story is a truthful rendition of what occured durring the emission test. the only thing i allege is what i saw, which was a big 20 something on the emission monitor and peeking at the tachometer that was in the car and seeing it hovering around 5-6k or there abouts for about 30 seconds (while the tester watched the monitor) and me realizing that for the 25/25 test it seems he never shifted out of first gear , next he ground the gears again a bit and managed to get it into to second for the next test. I was not really paying attention to the testing until i heard the engine reving really high, i didn't remember that during any past test and when he slightly ground the gears i became more watchful and started adding up all the other stuff he did like move the tach sensor all around the car and the comment about the bad RPM made me wonder if the tester guy just flubbed my test or is it reallistic to think that 1 year and 5400 miles later my car has gone from clean to enviro-mean, maybe the emmision machine was reading 2700 when he had it reved up to 5K ? i do not know but someone probably knows there are alot of experienced and smart people here. anyways that seemed like alot of useless fill for my questions which were... can these emission tester guys muck up the test like that or do i really need to start looking for the problems and more importantly what to concentrate on ? I do appreciate the help. robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
robb wrote:
> "jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:8ZWdneEn_a6spLzXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Tegger wrote: >>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in >>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original. >>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there > regular >>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 > sensor >>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the > **BIG** >>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers > escape >>>> my memory) >>>> >>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. >>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? >>> >>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there > was LOTS wrong >>> with the technician's actions durng the test. >>> >> i'm not sure i buy that - this guy's story doesn't add up. > testing >> machines won't accept a test unless the test protocol is > followed >> closely, and 2718rpm at 25mph is not first gear like the op > alleges. >> the machine checks for rpm's and won't accept if not in range. > and not >> only must they be in range, they must be relatively constant. > if >> they're not constant, the machine extends the test until they > are and >> held there for the requisite test duration. >> >> bottom line - this is probably a valid test and a simple > failure. given >> that the op hasn't changed the sensor in 18 years, he probably > hasn't >> changed plugs or leads either - a much more likely cause of > incomplete >> combustion and high readings. >> > > Hello OP here ... > While i applaud your deductive reasoning on my story to keep me > honest , the story is a truthful rendition of what occured > durring the emission test. > > the only thing i allege is what i saw, which was a big 20 > something on the emission monitor and peeking at the tachometer > that was in the car and seeing it hovering around 5-6k or > there abouts for about 30 seconds (while the tester watched the > monitor) and me realizing that for the 25/25 test it seems he > never shifted out of first gear , next he ground the gears again > a bit and managed to get it into to second for the next test. > > I was not really paying attention to the testing until i heard > the engine reving really high, i didn't remember that during any > past test and when he slightly ground the gears i became more > watchful and started adding up all the other stuff he did like > move the tach sensor all around the car and the comment about the > bad RPM made me wonder if the tester guy just flubbed my test or > is it reallistic to think that 1 year and 5400 miles later my car > has gone from clean to enviro-mean, > > maybe the emmision machine was reading 2700 when he had it reved > up to 5K ? i do not know but someone probably knows there are > alot of experienced and smart people here. > > anyways that seemed like alot of useless fill for my questions > which were... can these emission tester guys muck up the test > like that or do i really need to start looking for the problems > and more importantly what to concentrate on ? > > I do appreciate the help. > > robb > > no, he cannot up the test - the machine will not accept it. you need to concentrate on fixing the problem, not the blame. based on your response, that might be something you find hard to do. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18... > "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in > news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: > > <snip> > > > > I say it is original. I think it is the original. > > Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there regular > > service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 sensor > > being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the **BIG** > > service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers escape > > my memory) > > > > Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. > > Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? > > There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was LOTS wrong > with the technician's actions durng the test. > -- > Tegger > Hello Tegger, yes i did read it. steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes. Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and 1/2 strike on my story. I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor every ~80K ? i know i have never done it. I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ? Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ? other wise i am out $50. thanks for all the helpful advice, robb |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
robb wrote:
> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18... >> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in >> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: >> >> <snip> >>> I say it is original. I think it is the original. >>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there > regular >>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 > sensor >>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the > **BIG** >>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers > escape >>> my memory) >>> >>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. >> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? >> >> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was > LOTS wrong >> with the technician's actions durng the test. >> -- >> Tegger >> > Hello Tegger, > yes i did read it. > steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what > i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do > not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach > reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on > the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes. > > Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and > 1/2 strike on my story. > > I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor > every ~80K ? i know i have never done it. > > I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but > according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts > about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ? > > Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have > to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ? > other wise i am out $50. > > thanks for all the helpful advice, > robb > > > > what is smarter? 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different result [retesting]? or 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you money or stop wasting electron on usenet! |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
jim beam wrote:
> robb wrote: >> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message >> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18... >>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in >>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: >>> >>> <snip> >>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original. >>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there >> regular >>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 >> sensor >>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the >> **BIG** >>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers >> escape >>>> my memory) >>>> >>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. >>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? >>> >>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was >> LOTS wrong >>> with the technician's actions durng the test. >>> -- >>> Tegger >>> >> Hello Tegger, >> yes i did read it. >> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what >> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do >> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach >> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on >> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes. >> >> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and >> 1/2 strike on my story. >> >> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor >> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it. >> >> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but >> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts >> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ? >> >> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have >> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ? >> other wise i am out $50. >> >> thanks for all the helpful advice, >> robb >> >> >> >> > > what is smarter? > > 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different > result [retesting]? or > > 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? > > denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you money > or stop wasting electron on usenet! > I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if there is actually a problem. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Nate Nagel wrote: > jim beam wrote: > snip >> >> what is smarter? >> >> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different >> result [retesting]? or >> >> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? >> >> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you >> money or stop wasting electron on usenet! >> > > I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly > and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. > > The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it > may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its > own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if > there is actually a problem. > > nate Pay no heed to beam as he resides in his "special" corner of the world having little to do with the rest of us free thinkers. I agree that the test may have been botched. Beam's assertion that the "machine" is infallible is, well, ah... fallible. BTW, how's JP doing these days? JT |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:YZidnfwOFeDqybzXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: >> > > what is smarter? > > 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different > result [retesting]? or > > 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? I have seen retests give significantly different numbers when absolutely nothing was done to the car in between. Paying for a re-test is cheaper than a new oxygen sensor. To me it's worth the gamble. -- Tegger |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Tegger wrote:
> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in > news:YZidnfwOFeDqybzXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > > >> what is smarter? >> >> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different >> result [retesting]? or >> >> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? > > > > I have seen retests give significantly different numbers when absolutely > nothing was done to the car in between. > > Paying for a re-test is cheaper than a new oxygen sensor. To me it's worth > the gamble. > > > for sure, i'd make sure i took it to a "test only" station, but when the op "witnesses" a number of things that are clearly wrong: "i do not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on the dash" "RPM............2718" vs. "i peeked in at the tach which up around 5000-6000" i seriously doubt his story. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >> > > > > snip > > >>> >>> what is smarter? >>> >>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different >>> result [retesting]? or >>> >>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? >>> >>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you >>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet! >>> >> >> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done >> correctly and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. >> >> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when >> it may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop >> with its own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and >> find out if there is actually a problem. >> >> nate > > > Pay no heed to beam as he resides in his "special" corner of the world > having little to do with the rest of us free thinkers. you're a "free thinker"??? on reflection, i suspect you probably are! > > I agree that the test may have been botched. Beam's assertion that the > "machine" is infallible is, well, ah... fallible. > > BTW, how's JP doing these days? > > JT |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Nate Nagel wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> robb wrote: >>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18... >>>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in >>>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original. >>>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there >>> regular >>>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2 >>> sensor >>>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the >>> **BIG** >>>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers >>> escape >>>>> my memory) >>>>> >>>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff. >>>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post? >>>> >>>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was >>> LOTS wrong >>>> with the technician's actions durng the test. >>>> -- >>>> Tegger >>>> >>> Hello Tegger, >>> yes i did read it. >>> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what >>> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do >>> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach >>> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on >>> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes. >>> >>> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and >>> 1/2 strike on my story. >>> >>> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor >>> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it. >>> >>> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but >>> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts >>> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ? >>> >>> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have >>> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ? >>> other wise i am out $50. >>> >>> thanks for all the helpful advice, >>> robb >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> what is smarter? >> >> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different >> result [retesting]? or >> >> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? >> >> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you >> money or stop wasting electron on usenet! >> > > I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly > and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to post, and which does not accord with the facts. > > The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it > may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its > own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if > there is actually a problem. if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes. > > nate > |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
On 5/30/09 12:13 PM, in article
QfudnbmPTPO39LzXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@speakeasy.net, "jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly >> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. > > he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to > post, and which does not accord with the facts. > > What "facts"? Other than what he has related here, you don't actually know any "facts" to be challenging. >> >> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it >> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its >> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if >> there is actually a problem. > > if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes. > > Once again, if Beam feels the least bit challenged, the accusations of stupidity directed toward everyone and anyone start flying. Best bet is to just kill-file him. Life is too short. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
"robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in news:8L-
dnY2qKZjT0rzXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink.com: <snip> > > I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor > every ~80K ? i know i have never done it. It is NOT "standard practice". You replace the sensor once it stops behaving as it should. You're way high on HC and NOx on both years' tests, but the '09 CO of over 9% may be just a one-time glitch. It could simply be that the cat was insufficiently warmed up for both tests. You don't have EGR, so that won't be an issue. Have you ever checked the basic ignition timing? How old are your plug wires/cap/rotor/plugs? > > I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but > according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts > about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ? > > Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Don't know. In my area you can have it tested any number of times until it passes. I think you have to pay for each retest. > Right now i have > to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ? > other wise i am out $50. If you randomly replace parts with no success you'll be out at least that amount anyway. First thing to do is re-book the test, but at a different station. Make sure you're the very first car on the machine for that day. Take the car for a long drive (at least an hour) and time your arrival at the station with just enough time to hand in your key. TURN THE ENGINE OFF; DO NOT ALLOW IT TO IDLE. They should have the vehicle on the dyno within fifteen minutes at the outside. This will ensure the cat is up to temp and as efficient as it can be, which is critical. IF the car fails again, even when properly prepped, THEN you start doing troubleshooting. The results from this test, combined with the results from the other tests, should be enough for a competent tech to daignose the car. -- Tegger |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
E. Meyer wrote:
> On 5/30/09 12:13 PM, in article > QfudnbmPTPO39LzXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@speakeasy.net, "jim beam" <me@privacy.net> > wrote: > >>> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly >>> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car. >> he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to >> post, and which does not accord with the facts. >> >> > > What "facts"? Other than what he has related here, you don't actually know > any "facts" to be challenging. > >>> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it >>> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its >>> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if >>> there is actually a problem. >> if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes. >> >> > > Once again, if Beam feels the least bit challenged, the accusations of > stupidity directed toward everyone and anyone start flying. Best bet is to > just kill-file him. Life is too short. > please, if your reading age drops below 3rd grade, it's best you do. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
robb wrote:
> > maybe the emmision machine was reading 2700 when he had it reved > up to 5K ? i do not know but someone probably knows there are > alot of experienced and smart people here. Well, it was stated that the tester was having a hard time positioning the machine's tach pickup... and 2700 is suspiciously close to 1/2 of 5000 (maybe the car's tach was actually reading 5400). IF the tach pickup was only getting every other spark (like from only one coil of a 2-coil pack on a 4-cylinder) then it could easily read 1/2 the correct value. Get it tested again somewhere else- that'll give you a final answer. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
jim beam wrote:
> what is smarter? > > 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different > result [retesting]? or > > 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? > > denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you money > or stop wasting electron on usenet! > C'mon, Jim.... Its a CHEAP test, and there's certainly reason to question the first test (yes you CAN screw it up... its not easy, but it can be done, and I mentioned one way- getting the tach pickup positioned incorrectly so that its off by a factor of 2). If this were an OBD-II system resetting a code repeatedly, I'd agree with you 100%, just fix the problem. But it WAS a suspect test procedure. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Steve wrote:
> robb wrote: > >> >> maybe the emmision machine was reading 2700 when he had it reved >> up to 5K ? i do not know but someone probably knows there are >> alot of experienced and smart people here. > > Well, it was stated that the tester was having a hard time positioning > the machine's tach pickup... that's the worst thing about the op's description of the test - the tach reading, unless it's a obdII vehicle, is taken by putting a sensor on one of the plug leads, under the hood, not a "paddle" on the dash. and revving the engine is perfectly kosher if the cat is cold or there is a misfire. bottom line, the test was good. the op's description was unreliable. and his paranoia unjustified. the emissions result was perfectly consistent with the failure that followed. > and 2700 is suspiciously close to 1/2 of > 5000 (maybe the car's tach was actually reading 5400). IF the tach > pickup was only getting every other spark (like from only one coil of a > 2-coil pack on a 4-cylinder) then it could easily read 1/2 the correct > value. > > Get it tested again somewhere else- that'll give you a final answer. > |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
Steve wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> what is smarter? >> >> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different >> result [retesting]? or >> >> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting??? >> >> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you >> money or stop wasting electron on usenet! >> > > C'mon, Jim.... > > Its a CHEAP test, and there's certainly reason to question the first > test (yes you CAN screw it up... its not easy, but it can be done, and I > mentioned one way- getting the tach pickup positioned incorrectly so > that its off by a factor of 2). very hard to mess it up. and you won't get a "factor of 2" on this vehicle. the test is kosher. the op's description is flawed. spending more money on a test would have been a waste. > > If this were an OBD-II system resetting a code repeatedly, I'd agree > with you 100%, just fix the problem. But it WAS a suspect test procedure. > > |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
jim beam wrote:
> Steve wrote: >> robb wrote: >> >>> >>> maybe the emmision machine was reading 2700 when he had it reved >>> up to 5K ? i do not know but someone probably knows there are >>> alot of experienced and smart people here. >> >> Well, it was stated that the tester was having a hard time positioning >> the machine's tach pickup... > > that's the worst thing about the op's description of the test - the tach > reading, unless it's a obdII vehicle, is taken by putting a sensor on > one of the plug leads, under the hood, not a "paddle" on the dash. Actually, I've seen OBD-1 inspections done on machines where a mag-mount antenna is stuck to the underside of the hood or fenderwell near the engine, not on a plug lead. Not all machines are made the same, and I immediately thought that design was just begging for a frequency error- crappy machine design if you ask me. But even clamping on a plug wire can have an error. I have used enough induction-pickup timing lights that get enough cross-talk between plug wires that they sometimes fire multiple times per distributor rotation, unless you position the pickup *very* carefully. And with a single antenna system like I described, you can get exactly the opposite problem on waste-spark ignition systems. The machine expects to pick up all spark pulses and divide by 4, but if it only picks up the spark from 1 coil and divides by 4, it will get 1/2 the correct RPM. and > revving the engine is perfectly kosher if the cat is cold or there is a > misfire. > > bottom line, the test was good. If the description was so poor, then you have no stronger case that it was good than I have in saying that it is questionable. > the op's description was unreliable. Some aspects were, I'll give you that. He admitted he wasn't paying close attention. But if he *EVER* saw 6000 on the car's tach, that alone make me suspicious. 3500 RPM or so- sure. 6000? No WAY. > and his paranoia unjustified. MAYBE. $30 for another test will remove all doubt. Cheap. If my wife came home with the same story, I'd take it myself and have it tested before I started throwing money at emissions parts. |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
> Would you not expect some scaling of failure into the 50/15 test > considering the severity of failure in the 25/25 test ? Maybe. Those cars can be sensitive to test procedures. I always let them run @ 2500 for 3 or 4 minutes before testing, I had a much easier time getting them to pass that way. > After researching some , would you expect a Oxygen Sensor > malfunction or something else ? I hate to sound nebulous, but... maybe.. O2, map, coolant sensor, tight valves.. there possibilities are almost endless. > Can the original O2 sensor last 18 yrs ? The O2 sensor is the > original :} Er.. um.. maybe ;) Yes, I have seen plenty of O2's last a long time. As another poster suggested, it's time to get your car someplace *competent* Ask your friends, call the BBB, call AAA.. find someone with a track record of 'very high quality'. Dont shotgun it with cheap parts, it may work, probably wont. At least 3/4's of the problems I see mentioned on this board stem from someone trying to save money.... Good luck, and I hope this helps. Ben |
Re: '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
> Can the original O2 sensor last 18 yrs ? The O2 sensor is the > original :} The original was of super high quality if it lasted over 200,000 miles. Why even try another brand? From my experience, denso's, bosch etc are all a crap shoot. If you install it and it doesnt work your only recourse is to exchange it and try another piece of crap and cross your fingers. Maybe they'll refund your money.. maybe not. If you value your time as I do, only use good parts, and never as a guess. HTH, Ben |
Re: [Update- PASS] '93 civic failed emission or suspicious emision test ?
What happen, what i did and PASS results follow.
First emmisions test failed. Tester had a difficult time geting a stable tach reading. Car died while driving two days later, would not re-start, or fire. Car had a very weak spark (as tested with my hand). Tested coil with Ohm meter at ~ 8 kOhms it was in replace range. I replaced ignition coil, replaced plug wires, I cleaned the rotor and cap terminals, I changed the plugs, replaced the PCV valve and put in a new engine air filter. Then i took for my free retest. 2009 **( RE-TEST )** numbers =========================== ....................25/25 test............50/15 --------------------------...........--------- HC ppm .........60....................54 CO %.............0.13 .................0.15 NOx ppm.......168...................146 RPM..............2084.................1913 CO + CO2 %....15.1...............15.1 So not too bad Thanks to groups for helping. robb "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in message news:Cq2dnYXO443w1oLXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m... > > Need some help determining if emision failed due to real problem > and how to fix *OR* > was this a suspect emission tester and i just wait for > different tester ? what to do ? > > I am original owner of '93 civic Si HB 205,450 miles. > Only 5,400 highway miles were put on the car from 2008 test to > 2009 test. > > The car has passed emissions by no small margins till this year > and it FAILED miserably ? > > 2009 numbers > =========================== > ...................25/25 test............50/15 > ----------------------................--------- > HC ppm .....288.....................65 > CO %..........9.38 **...............0.20 > NOx ppm....345.....................255 > RPM............2718..................1971 > CO + CO2 %....18.3..............15.1 > > 2008 numbers > =========================== > ....................25/25 test...........50/15 > -------------------------.............--------- > HC ppm .....73........................70 > CO %..........0.22.....................0.23 > NOx ppm...236......................212 > RPM...........2100.....................1925 > CO + CO2 % 15.1.................15.1 > > > - at some point during testing he could not seem to get the gear > shifted so he left it in 1st and ran the car up to about 20 > miles per hour in 1st gear the car was running really loud so i > peeked in at the tach which up around 5000-6000 yes that is 5K-6K > and held it there for about 30 seconds waiting for the machine to > do something ? > > > Anyways, i would appreciate some helpful advice on what to fix or > do please > > robb > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands