Weekly

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Weekly

Best Answer I Can Give
 Weekly it feel like I fail a vehicle a 96 thru 99 for NOx. No light, no nothing, just NOx.
96 and newer OBDII right. OSI only on 2000? How many of those OIS PASS would FAIL a BAR 97 test for NOx?
 Never make fun of the choices your wife makes. You were one of them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

sfosvc1
A couple of months before we got our OIS I had a newish high end BMW fail MASSIVELY at huge gross polluter levels for CO and HC's. No MIL on, no codes, all monitors complete. BMW repaired it under warranty, it cost them 8 thousand dollars. On the OIS it would have passed all fine and dandy... :)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

kfworry
I did a manual mode test on a 98 Lexus LS 400.
It had already failed for high NOX at another shop.
Yes, there are many many vehicles that would fail tailpipe
versus OIS DAD.
Wake Up BAR Gods and Jerry Brown, get your head out of your ASS!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

Johnnybeme
Yu know......................... I have made this claim on IATN for YEARS. Arguing with Rocky and educators and people who see OBD2 as an emissions device. It is a diagnostic tool! The only way to verify is at the tailpipe. But heh us guys doing the testing for thirty years are just out of touch.

JM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

none
Even a NOx cell or bench is still an electrical interpretation of what it THINKS is happening.
People are usually shocked when they find out I'm not a very good electrician.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

Johnnybeme
What do you mean THINKS? It gives a scientific outcome. Now you may be correct in comparing it to FTP but it is still scientific not a computer model that says well if everything is OK then it MUST be clean! We cannot say we care about emissions if we do not question the testing method that we use.

JM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

Just the Facts
In reply to this post by none
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
In reply to this post by Johnnybeme
Johnnybeme wrote
Yu know......................... I have made this claim on IATN for YEARS. Arguing with Rocky and educators and people who see OBD2 as an emissions device. It is a diagnostic tool! The only way to verify is at the tailpipe. But heh us guys doing the testing for thirty years are just out of touch.
I believe in the statistics that the state has collected and analyzed to make the determination that OBDII actually works (for the most part) as far as monitoring emissions from a vehicle.   I truly believe OBDII testing works.

You'll get no argument from me that there are vehicles that OBDII will not catch.  Problem vehicles that the same set of statistics should make apparent.  I'll betcha BAR has that data.  

In AB2289 there was a provision written to have those "problem" vehicles identified and be tested using the BAR97.  

The program shall utilize the testing procedures described in
Section 44012. Vehicles selected for testing pursuant to this section
shall include vehicles equipped without second generation onboard
diagnostic systems (OBD II) and vehicles with emission problems that
may not be adequately detected by the vehicle's OBD II, as determined
by the department in consultation with the state board.
 The
department, in consultation with the state board, may also select for
testing pursuant to this section any other vehicles necessary in
order to meet the requirement described in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b).


I haven't seen a list of problem vehicles.  There should be a list.   Why hasn't the provision been implemented?  I have no idea.  


Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

D Rochells 150861
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
D wrote
The amount of problem vehicles and their rate of failure and retirement are not worth the time, effort and funding to do anything special.
Then you agree that OBDII Emission Testing works, statistically speaking.
Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

D Rochells 150861
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

none
In reply to this post by scanner
scanner wrote
Then you agree that OBDII Emission Testing works, statistically speaking.
I do.

When we were testing 2000 and newer on the BAR97 I had a VERY low fail percentage that had all monitors complete.

 
People are usually shocked when they find out I'm not a very good electrician.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

BlueSky
In reply to this post by scanner
Scanner....When they say "as determined by the department in consultation with the state board" who is the state board they are referring to?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
BlueSky wrote
Scanner....When they say "as determined by the department in consultation with the state board" who is the state board they are referring to?
California Air Resources Board - CARB
Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
In reply to this post by none
none wrote
scanner wrote
Then you agree that OBDII Emission Testing works, statistically speaking.
I do.

When we were testing 2000 and newer on the BAR97 I had a VERY low fail percentage that had all monitors complete.

That was my experience too.   If you did have an aberration, that should have been flagged, and put into the "Problem" database to be tested on BAR97.   As you stated, it was a low percentage.
Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

Kriss Vector
In reply to this post by Best Answer I Can Give
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

D Rochells 150861
In reply to this post by scanner
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
In reply to this post by D Rochells 150861
D wrote
Somewhat, mainly for Japanese vehicles. I don't think Corollas even need testing for the first 100,000 miles. I am disturbed by the apparent lack of OBDII to detect pre catalyst exhaust leaks, ie: Honda Civic 1.7 with the header cat.
Maybe there should be a place where we can fail for an audible pre-cat exhaust leak.    

I did have a 2003 Altima that passed OBDII, but failed for CO and HC.  It was in for CAP repairs.   Apparently, the robot that was supposed to weld the O2 sensor bung onto the exhaust manifold, wasn't working properly, and left an air leak that caused the vehicle to fail.    

Maybe that wasn't a good example, you couldn't hear the exhaust leak.  

OBDII is also too easy to tune and cheat OIS, the highly modified turbo cars go to a guy who does magic with the monitors and they will pass.
Back in the day, before OIS, one would substitute a car on the BAR97.  You're always going to have cheaters.   Cheaters are going to cheat.

And if we are going to go this route, I think we need more frequent checks. Maybe every six months they go to a kiosk for a plug in and the visual is every 2 years
Most people aren't cheaters.   I don't see any need to change the program from it's current form.  
Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

scanner
In reply to this post by D Rochells 150861
D wrote
I also don't believe BAR97 is a useful emissions test, it does not measure warm up and idle emissions and does not accurately simulate how the vehicles are really driven. I base this on diagnosing vehicle with emissions failures, and watching the readings in manual mode. IM240 would be more appropriate.
I will agree that IM240 is a more comprehensive test.    It's a 240 second section of the FTP that all vehicles are required to pass before they are offered to sell.  The test would be measuring the actual amount of pollutants coming out of the vehicle.  

The cost would be prohibitive, and it would probably have to be run by an independent contractor.  




Why make it simple, when it will work equally as well complicated.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Weekly

D Rochells 150861
In reply to this post by scanner
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
12