Collecting Cal Smof Info
08-14-2006, 12:22 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Tom M'Guinn
I PASSED! After several weekends of work, the car passed with low-flying muted colors.
15MPH: (CO2= 14.2; 02= .4)
HC Limit 135; measured 125
CO Limit .83; measured .40
NOx Limit 1136; measured 1125 (if it were an 87, it would have failed here)
25MPH: (CO2= 14.6; O2=.1)
HC Limit 110; measured 37
CO Limit .63; measured .10
NOx Limit 996; measured 409
Before the test, I replaced the plugs, some rubber hoses, O2 sensor, stock chips, injectors, etc. The only non-stock part was the Huntley turbo -- but I ran the stock J boot (thanks to Danno's tip), airbox, etc. It was over 90 degrees today, which may have added to the NOx. The much lower NOx at 25mph makes me wonder if there is a small vacuum leak, which has lesser impact at higher rpms. I am not too excited about the high NOx at 15mph -- my results would have failed on an 87 car. Guess I should be happy just to have passed...
15MPH: (CO2= 14.2; 02= .4)
HC Limit 135; measured 125
CO Limit .83; measured .40
NOx Limit 1136; measured 1125 (if it were an 87, it would have failed here)
25MPH: (CO2= 14.6; O2=.1)
HC Limit 110; measured 37
CO Limit .63; measured .10
NOx Limit 996; measured 409
Before the test, I replaced the plugs, some rubber hoses, O2 sensor, stock chips, injectors, etc. The only non-stock part was the Huntley turbo -- but I ran the stock J boot (thanks to Danno's tip), airbox, etc. It was over 90 degrees today, which may have added to the NOx. The much lower NOx at 25mph makes me wonder if there is a small vacuum leak, which has lesser impact at higher rpms. I am not too excited about the high NOx at 15mph -- my results would have failed on an 87 car. Guess I should be happy just to have passed...
Well, it's been two years, and I just squeaked by again. Almost identical numbers from this test in 2004. At the 15mph test, the NO limit was 1125 this year, and my car was at 1081. My cat is starting to rattle a bit, so assume that it the reason I'm soooo close. Just happy to have another two year hall pass...
08-14-2006, 01:16 AM
#18
Burning Brakes
if you're having problems passing in CA then read this closely: make sure that they test your car in the lowest gear possible so that the revs are higher. i've had trouble passing each year until i noticed the difference in rpm's from 1 year to the next. all the years i barely squeaked by the revs were low and then i noticed a certain year where i passed easily-- the difference? the time i passed the revs were higher.
it's up to the tester which gear they use and of course they usually shift into the highest gear possible but you need to maintain 2500 or so rpm to ensure a passing number.
good luck to all!
it's up to the tester which gear they use and of course they usually shift into the highest gear possible but you need to maintain 2500 or so rpm to ensure a passing number.
good luck to all!
08-14-2006, 02:25 AM
#19
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by superloaf
if you're having problems passing in CA then read this closely: make sure that they test your car in the lowest gear possible so that the revs are higher. i've had trouble passing each year until i noticed the difference in rpm's from 1 year to the next. all the years i barely squeaked by the revs were low and then i noticed a certain year where i passed easily-- the difference? the time i passed the revs were higher.
it's up to the tester which gear they use and of course they usually shift into the highest gear possible but you need to maintain 2500 or so rpm to ensure a passing number.
good luck to all!
it's up to the tester which gear they use and of course they usually shift into the highest gear possible but you need to maintain 2500 or so rpm to ensure a passing number.
good luck to all!
During my test today, the computer told the technician which gear to put the car in. Not sure if the computer would realize if the car was in a different gear and/or if the technician is free to use another...
08-14-2006, 12:13 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Santa Clara, Ca
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom,
Congrats. Now you have another 2 years before having to worry again.
This is from my last 2 test in Feb 04 an Feb 06. Changes to the car consist of the following from the test in Feb 04.
Guru 18 PSi chips
Scivision MAF.
Feb 06
15 Mph: 1556 RPM
HC: Max 116 Measured 14
CO: Max .74 Measured .01
NO: Max 791 Measured 648 (Higher than 2 yrs ago)
25 Mph: 2425 RPM
HC: Max 91 Measured 6
CO: Max .62 Measured .00
NO: Max 730 Measured 275
My car has 122,500 miles
See my Sig for current mods.
Results from 2 years ago Feb 04.
15 Mph: 1553 RPM
HC: Max 116 Measured 20
CO: Max .74 Measured .01
NO: Max 791 Measured 13
25 Mph: 2472 RPM
HC: Max 91 Measured 13
CO: Max .62 Measured .03
NO: Max 730 Measured 728
The car had 118,000+ miles with Authotority Stage II chips, Lidsey Wastegate W/Manual boost controller and 3” exhaust, Hi Flow Cat from Lindsey. I also just replaced the 02 sensor and spark plugs.
Congrats. Now you have another 2 years before having to worry again.
This is from my last 2 test in Feb 04 an Feb 06. Changes to the car consist of the following from the test in Feb 04.
Guru 18 PSi chips
Scivision MAF.
Feb 06
15 Mph: 1556 RPM
HC: Max 116 Measured 14
CO: Max .74 Measured .01
NO: Max 791 Measured 648 (Higher than 2 yrs ago)
25 Mph: 2425 RPM
HC: Max 91 Measured 6
CO: Max .62 Measured .00
NO: Max 730 Measured 275
My car has 122,500 miles
See my Sig for current mods.
Results from 2 years ago Feb 04.
15 Mph: 1553 RPM
HC: Max 116 Measured 20
CO: Max .74 Measured .01
NO: Max 791 Measured 13
25 Mph: 2472 RPM
HC: Max 91 Measured 13
CO: Max .62 Measured .03
NO: Max 730 Measured 728
The car had 118,000+ miles with Authotority Stage II chips, Lidsey Wastegate W/Manual boost controller and 3” exhaust, Hi Flow Cat from Lindsey. I also just replaced the 02 sensor and spark plugs.
08-14-2006, 04:39 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by Tom M'Guinn
During my test today, the computer told the technician which gear to put the car in. Not sure if the computer would realize if the car was in a different gear and/or if the technician is free to use another...
hmmm, not sure about that. i've had to go to test only stations for the past 4 years and i had to tell the guy to use the lower gear to raise the rpm's.
but i did think it was weird that they specify the rolling speed of 15 & 25mph but didn't specify the rpm's.
tom, what gear did it specify?
08-14-2006, 08:53 PM
#22
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A suburb of Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
if you're having problems passing in CA then read this closely: make sure that they test your car in the lowest gear possible so that the revs are higher. i've had trouble passing each year until i noticed the difference in rpm's from 1 year to the next. all the years i barely squeaked by the revs were low and then i noticed a certain year where i passed easily-- the difference? the time i passed the revs were higher.
Most 951's tend to fail with high NOX readings. NOX is a byproduct of high combustion temps. Only under high temps will oxides of nitrogen combine. High combustion temps are usually caused by a lean AFR.
Since the installation of my wide band O2 sensor, I can see that given a constant RPM and LOAD, my EGT tends to increase along with an increase in RPM. Not sure if this is specific to my car or similar to others.
Perhaps your car is just a little lean (out of tune) at a certain RPM range and by increasing the RPM the added fuel brings the AFR back in line. Dont know for sure.
I would venture to say that in a smog test most 951's would fair better with lower RPM ranges based on my observations, but perhaps my thinking is misguided. With a lower gear, the load on the engine would increase. This also could increase EGT, and thus your theory of a lower gear would definately decrease the load on the engine.
It would be an interesting test on the rolling smog wheels.
08-15-2006, 12:08 AM
#23
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by superloaf
hmmm, not sure about that. i've had to go to test only stations for the past 4 years and i had to tell the guy to use the lower gear to raise the rpm's.
but i did think it was weird that they specify the rolling speed of 15 & 25mph but didn't specify the rpm's.
tom, what gear did it specify?
but i did think it was weird that they specify the rolling speed of 15 & 25mph but didn't specify the rpm's.
tom, what gear did it specify?
08-15-2006, 12:23 AM
#24
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Bill
Interesting theory, but I wonder.......
Most 951's tend to fail with high NOX readings. NOX is a byproduct of high combustion temps. Only under high temps will oxides of nitrogen combine. High combustion temps are usually caused by a lean AFR.
Since the installation of my wide band O2 sensor, I can see that given a constant RPM and LOAD, my EGT tends to increase along with an increase in RPM. Not sure if this is specific to my car or similar to others.
Perhaps your car is just a little lean (out of tune) at a certain RPM range and by increasing the RPM the added fuel brings the AFR back in line. Dont know for sure.
I would venture to say that in a smog test most 951's would fair better with lower RPM ranges based on my observations, but perhaps my thinking is misguided. With a lower gear, the load on the engine would increase. This also could increase EGT, and thus your theory of a lower gear would definately decrease the load on the engine.
It would be an interesting test on the rolling smog wheels.
Most 951's tend to fail with high NOX readings. NOX is a byproduct of high combustion temps. Only under high temps will oxides of nitrogen combine. High combustion temps are usually caused by a lean AFR.
Since the installation of my wide band O2 sensor, I can see that given a constant RPM and LOAD, my EGT tends to increase along with an increase in RPM. Not sure if this is specific to my car or similar to others.
Perhaps your car is just a little lean (out of tune) at a certain RPM range and by increasing the RPM the added fuel brings the AFR back in line. Dont know for sure.
I would venture to say that in a smog test most 951's would fair better with lower RPM ranges based on my observations, but perhaps my thinking is misguided. With a lower gear, the load on the engine would increase. This also could increase EGT, and thus your theory of a lower gear would definately decrease the load on the engine.
It would be an interesting test on the rolling smog wheels.
