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

 

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.

 

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

 

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
>

 

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.

 

"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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
>

 

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.
>
>

 

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.

 

> 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

 

> 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

 

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
>