|
air care issues |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author | ||
88FormulaFiero 
Member 
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: air care issuesPosted: 15 September 2008 at 11:02pm |
|
|
Hey everyone, As some of you know I just purchased Smurf's 87 SE. today I took it in to be air cared and it failed ... rather badly. during the idle test the hydrocarbons (spelling?) were four times the max allowed. Smurf said that he passed with below average readings after the engine mods, any ideas on what might have changed? might sitting for almost a year have had a significant effect? Thanks, Ryan |
||
 |
||
|
Patrick
Newbie 
Joined: 19 April 2008 Location: Vancouver Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 September 2008 at 11:06pm |
|
|
Is the engine running smoothly? How old is the cat?
|
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 September 2008 at 11:08pm |
|
|
It seems to be running fine, I'm not sure how old the cat is, but I know it was the one in a year ago, and its only had approx 5000k on the car since, also the cat doesnt look rusty or anything, looks fairly new.
|
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 September 2008 at 11:19pm |
|
|
The readings for the test were: driving test: Hydrocarbons allowed: 226 reading: 109 average: 135.50 carbon monoxide allowed: 1.64 reading: 0.34 average: 0.84 Oxides of Nitrogen allowed: 2378 reading: 378 average: 1181.5 Idle test: Hydrocarbons allowed: 301 reading: 1178 average: 39 Carbon Monoxide allowed: 3.54 reading: 0.55 Average: 0.04 |
||
|
||
|
Capt Fiero
Admin Group 
Founding Member Joined: 12 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 4039 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 September 2008 at 11:48am |
|
|
From those readings, it looks like Smurf installed #19 injectors in there. If he did you will need a custom chip or smaller injectors. Also I would replace the O2 sensor while you are at it.
|
||
|
Capt Fiero
88 Fiero GT 5spd V6 Eight Fifty Seven GT V8 5spd. |
||
|
||
|
CFoss
Senior Member 
Joined: 13 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 580 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 October 2008 at 9:46am |
|
|
Don't know if you fixed this yet, but those readings are consistent with either overfueling at idle, OR misfire. Check your PLUGS!!!
If the running results are ok, then it's probably not an o2 sensor. Why the large injectors idea? Is it an overbore/stroked engine? Anyway, the fueling is tough to fix, either smaller injectors as suggested, or a variable fuel pressure regulator turned down, but no so much as to affrect fueling at the top end. AND, you'd have to drive it for a while after the change so the ecm can resolve the new BLMs (Fueling constants) so don't change the stuff and run back to airscare right away, go for a long drive with varying engine load points to maximize your chances of success. Chay |
||
|
86 SE 3.4
|
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 October 2008 at 6:01pm |
|
|
Hey CFoss, thanks for the responce, The engine has large injecors because its been bored out, along with other mods. If it was a missfire wouldnt that be obvious by it not running well? Thanks, Ryan |
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 October 2008 at 6:05pm |
|
|
Oh, and I think im going to be doing a tune up, check the timeing and hopefully get a custom chip burned, (its still running on the stock chip). Hopefully that will fix the problem. BTW, any suggestions on what I should buy for the tune up? would high performance parts be of much benifit? if so what brands? Thanks |
||
|
||
|
CFoss
Senior Member
Joined: 13 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 580 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 October 2008 at 12:11am |
|
|
A new chip will definatley fix an overfuelling problem if that is the situation. You just have to get it right!
I agree, one would think that a misfire bad enough to cause that reading would be detectable. I had a car which would missfire inconsistently, and was hard to pick up by ear. Standard parts should fix your problem if it's ignition related. Their real limitation is supposed to be rpm related, not energy related, unless you're running a turbo, which you're not, and certainly not at idle. I'd do cap, rotor, high tension leads and plugs (Check gap!), and maybe ig. module. But, before wasting your money, do the custom chip/injector change. Sounds like that is the problem. I don't think the engine needs bigger injectors until it's a 3.4 at the very least. You have what you have though, and if you want to add a turbo later you're in good shape for a moderate charge. Anybody out there have a set of injectors they could lend out??? They're not that hard to get to. That would be the cheapest, quickest and easiest way to discriminate between the two issues. Chay |
||
|
86 SE 3.4
|
||
|
||
|
CFoss
Senior Member
Joined: 13 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 580 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 October 2008 at 12:21am |
|
|
One more thing I just thought of, it could be an injector stuck open. It doesn't quite fit the symptoms, so it should be last on the list of stuff.
But, if you get to the injectors, may as well check them out...It's simple. Get the plugs off then clip 12 volts across the 2 pins (battery charger or lead from the battery {carefull!}) for a short time, repeatably. It should click audibly. I've found the ones that aren't working will not click. If the fuel rail is intact and pressurized you can hear the residual pressure venting through the injector. Re pressurize by turning the key on, but not to start, the ecm will get the fuel pump to reprime the fuel rail. Chay |
||
|
86 SE 3.4
|
||
|
||
|
bill
Member
Joined: 12 February 2007 Status: Offline Points: 57 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 October 2008 at 6:04am |
|
Ryan, many people make the mistake of thinking about bigger injectors like they used to think about bigger carbs - if you improve the engine, you need bigger ones. But injectors aren't like carb jets, which only have one size of orifice. The injectors have quite a wide range, and if you fit too large injectors in an engine that can't use the fuel at minimum opening duration at idle, you get a rich condition that nothing can cure but going back to the correct injectors. FWIW, the Miller Woods turbo, which kicked the stock 2.8 from 135 BHP to about 210 BHP ran perfectly with stock injectors. I doubt that whatever you have done to the engine will require any greater air flow than a turbo would. OTOH, is surprises me a little that a fairly modest bump in size to 19 lb. would result in an incurable rich idle. The stock 3.4 ran 17 lb. with no such problem. So you might look to something else - get the thing on a diagnostic machine and look at what the opening period is to see exactly what the problem might be. And if you still have the smaller injectors, maybe put them back in, as the larger ones will be giving you no advantage whatsoever. |
||
|
||
|
Capt Fiero
Admin Group
Founding Member Joined: 12 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 4039 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 October 2008 at 1:17pm |
|
|
Ok just filling in a few blanks here. Ryan is running Ford 19# injectors, which are rated at a diffrent fuel pressure than GM rates there injectors. Ryans injectors are equal to GM 24# injectors. The stock chip in the Fiero is not programed to reduce the idle pulse width of the injector short enough. With a custom chip, it can and does work very well. I know I ran 19# Ford Injectors in my 85 2.9 GT which is pretty much the same build as Ryan has in his car. Bored out, big cam, mild porting, and other tweaks.
|
||
|
Capt Fiero
88 Fiero GT 5spd V6 Eight Fifty Seven GT V8 5spd. |
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 October 2008 at 1:12pm |
|
|
well I think I found out why my emissions may have gotten worse. Got a check engine light the other day and when I pulled my codes it was
(BTW Thanks for showing me how to pull the codes at the tech session Patrick, came in very handy!!!) Which may explain how it passed approx a year ago when Stuart took it in (with same injectors etc) but fails now. So I think I'll start trying to track that down and swap the injectors for now to see how that does. Thanks, Ryan |
||
|
||
|
Patrick
Newbie
Joined: 19 April 2008 Location: Vancouver Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 October 2008 at 1:15am |
|
I just took my '86 GT through AirCare (and failed The first readings are for '86, the second for '87 (according to Ryan's post). Maximum Allowable Readings Driving test: Hydrocarbons: 218 - 226 Carbon monoxide: 1.53 - 1.64 Oxides of Nitrogen: 2226 - 2378 Idle test: Hydrocarbons: 380 - 301 Carbon Monoxide: 4.32 - 3.54 Why would all but one of the readings for '87 be more lenient than for '86? I would've expected the opposite, or perhaps the same allowable readings for these years. Ryan, are you sure your figures are correct?
|
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:52am |
|
|
just saw that you posted this, i'll recheck my aircare paper when I get home to confirm the values. I had always thought the aircare values were the same up untill the 88 when they got more strict. but i guess we'll see when I get home. Edit: well this is odd, looking on the forum i saw where the capt posted the 85's emmission requrements and its a little different again. Driving test HC: 226 CO: 1.6 NOx: 2327 Idle test HC: 385 CO: 4.38
Edited by 88FormulaFiero |
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 November 2008 at 5:08pm |
|
|
went to aircare again today to see if the tune up made any changes, and to see how the solenoid would change things once installed and was rather surprised by the results, in a bad way Several of my readings were worse this time, though all passed again except the idle hydrocarbons. The surprising part is that the idle hydrocarbons were significantly worse than the last test. before they were 1178 and this time 1523. only differences made are that i was running 89 rather than 87 octane and the timing was bumped from 8 to 12 degrees advance. the car seems to be running the same as far as I can tell. going to swap the solonoid and try a few of tricks i've heard the capt mention next time, bump the idle up, 94 octane and the fuel additive, this is after the solonoid, any other suggestions? Oh yeah, Capt, that test at the meeting you did to check if the EGR was working, did that just check if it was there, or if the EGR was actually working properly (minus the solonoid)? BTW, I've been looking for a new EGR solonoid, Lordco quoted 250 something and the fiero store is 150, anyone know where a good place to buy these is? Thanks, Ryan edit: forgot to add, was my first time personally witnessing how bad the air care employees can be Oh and then when giving me the results told me I should fix my car because it kept stalling when he tried to get it moving! Thanks for all the advice so far you guys, and sorry about so many posts in TQ and D Edited by 88FormulaFiero |
||
|
||
|
Dr.Fiero
Senior Post God
Joined: 12 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1726 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 November 2008 at 6:48pm |
|
|
You're not failing on NOX - why are you attacking the angle of EGR solenoid, etc? Sure, they might be causing some issues... but not what you're failing on.
High hydrocarbons at idle is TOO MUCH FUEL. Can't say for sure why you have too much (far to many possibles to say 'this is it for sure') - but your EGR solenoid doesn't even come into play until you're moving, and a whole bunch of other things. |
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 November 2008 at 7:17pm |
|
|
oh ok, I thought the EGR solonoid was related to this too. I was going to change it because I got a check engine light and a code 32, which from reading jazzman's post on that code seemed like the solonoid was the most likely culprit. oh, i see. I knew the injectors were too big but I didnt think that they would be the primary cause of the high HC readings, Though there was something else wrong i should fix before tackling that issue. thanks for clarifying this, so for next time i'll lower the fuel pressure some, roughly how low do you think it should be? BTW, patrick, or anyone else did you go to the surrey aircare yet? and if so did they just do the idle test like for the capt? not to eager to let any of them try driving my car again after today... Edited by 88FormulaFiero |
||
|
||
|
Capt Fiero
Admin Group
Founding Member Joined: 12 February 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 4039 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 November 2008 at 9:49pm |
|
|
As I said in my first reply in this thread, the reason you are failing on HC is the injectors are too big. If you drop the fuel pressure down to around 30psi the over fueling will be better. Don't worry about spray patterns as the 19# mustang Injectors were designed to run at a lower pressure than the Fiero injectors they are quite happy at 30psi.
Edited by Capt Fiero |
||
|
Capt Fiero
88 Fiero GT 5spd V6 Eight Fifty Seven GT V8 5spd. |
||
|
||
|
88FormulaFiero
Member
Joined: 06 February 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 83 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 November 2008 at 11:02pm |
|
|
sorry david, totaly forgot about you saying 30psi. my mind has been a little fryed lately. Thanks again everyone |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
88FormulaFiero wrote:
), but I'm surprised the maximum "allowable" readings appear to be different for the '86 and '87 Fiero V6.
. First the guy gets in the car and stalls it trying to start the driving test, ok not much of a problem. then cant start the car. So I go out and restart it, this time I watch what he is doing. He puts the car in third and tries to start it, stalls again.... I again restart it and tell him to make sure its in first, that it looked like it was in third. so he gets in and before I could get out there again revs it way up, puts it in third and gets the car going.... I could smell burning clutch for a while after leaving aircare!!!! 
