------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/8LmulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. 300F smog test
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
2. Re: 300F smog test
From: "D. Moore" <dintym@xxxxxxxxx>
3. 300F smog test correction
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
4. Sending Unit Values
From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
5. 1957 300c
From: legbrkar@xxxxxxx
6. Re: 300F smog test
From: "Laurence G. Johnson" <laurence_g_johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
7. Sending Unit Values - reply
From: John Hertog <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
8. Re: Re: 300F smog test
From: <smopar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
9. Re: Sending Unit Values - reply
From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
10. Re: 300F smog test
From: moparpjf@xxxxxxx
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:48:48 EDT
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
Subject: 300F smog test
Hi all:
If any of you are interested, out of curiosity, I took my 300F down and got
it "smogged." Below is a comparison of the results as compared with my '76
NYer with the emission controlled 440. The tester said the F tested very good
considering what was under the hood and that it had no emission controls on it.
15 mph '76 NYer 300F
%CO2 13.6 12.2
%O2 2.0 1.2
HC (PPM)
Allowed 175
Measured 36 153
%CO
Allowed 1.17
Measured 0.03 1.50
NOX (PPM)
Allowed 1215
Measured 223 1465
15 mph '76 NYer 300F
%CO2 13.5 12.6
%O2 2.0 0.9
HC (PPM)
Allowed 142
Measured 34 138
%CO
Allowed 0.97
Measured 0.02 2.10
NOX (PPM)
Allowed 1075
Measured 279 1156
Just FYI. Hope the columns line up when received. In AOL they sometimes do
not.
Dan Reitz
Northridge, CA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. Moore" <dintym@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 300F smog test
Was this required by law? Give me a break, our cars (and others below early 70's) aren't driven enough to kill any birds. Gotta thank the tree hugging environmental waco's for this one. Out here, nothing tested (yet) prior to '71.
Dave Moore
Connecticut, where we make sure car emissions don't kill any birds. But we allow our citizens to operate "torpedoes" and drive 90 on our highways, lose a ball joint or half-shaft, fly over the median and hit a family of 5 head-on. You guess the rest.
dan300f@xxxxxxx wrote:
Hi all:
If any of you are interested, out of curiosity, I took my 300F down and got
it "smogged." Below is a comparison of the results as compared with my '76
NYer with the emission controlled 440. The tester said the F tested very good
considering what was under the hood and that it had no emission controls on it.
15 mph '76 NYer 300F
%CO2 13.6 12.2
%O2 2.0 1.2
HC (PPM)
Allowed 175
Measured 36 153
%CO
Allowed 1.17
Measured 0.03 1.50
NOX (PPM)
Allowed 1215
Measured 223 1465
15 mph '76 NYer 300F
%CO2 13.5 12.6
%O2 2.0 0.9
HC (PPM)
Allowed 142
Measured 34 138
%CO
Allowed 0.97
Measured 0.02 2.10
NOX (PPM)
Allowed 1075
Measured 279 1156
Just FYI. Hope the columns line up when received. In AOL they sometimes do
not.
Dan Reitz
Northridge, CA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
My VistaPrint Electronic Business Card
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:40:30 EDT
From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
Subject: 300F smog test correction
Hi all again:
Just a small correction on the information I sent recently. The second set
of figures should be at 25 mph and not 15 mph. The 2 tests were run at 15 mph
and 25 mph.
Sorry for the confusion.
Dan Reitz
Northridge, CA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:25:24 -0400
From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Sending Unit Values
Thanks to all who responded to my email last week. In troubleshooting my fuel gauge problems on my '64 this weekend I put a variable resistor where the fuel sending unit would normally go. This allowed me to verify that I do indeed have a bum sender, but it also allowed me to note the various resistance values that it took to drive my fuel gauge to various settings.
Full = 5.5 Ohms
3/4 = 12.5 Ohms
1/2 = 19.5 Ohms
1/4 = 29 Ohms
Empty = 57 Ohms
I don't know how typical this will be for other Mopars, but that's what it is on my '64 300.
Terry Lynch
St. Petersburg, FL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:59:33 EDT
From: legbrkar@xxxxxxx
Subject: 1957 300c
hi group ..gotta question for anybody..... on my data plate next to
..so/fo..there's the number 2 now below the the number 2 there's a 6 and a 5 like
this so/fo 2
6
5
can anybody tell me what this is a code for?
i know the car was made on 2-13-57 thanks bob mundo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:26:17 -0400
From: "Laurence G. Johnson" <laurence_g_johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 300F smog test
This serves to point out that the 60's high performance and muscle cars
weren't the big offenders with regard to air pollution. Their engines were
fairly efficient and had good combustion characteristics, thats why they
made a lot of power. They took the rap while the real offenders were the
millions of six cylinders and low compression V-8's that powered grocery
getters and family sedans.
>From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
>To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [Chrysler300] 300F smog test
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:48:48 EDT
>
>Hi all:
>
>If any of you are interested, out of curiosity, I took my 300F down and got
>it "smogged." Below is a comparison of the results as compared with my '76
>NYer with the emission controlled 440. The tester said the F tested very
>good
>considering what was under the hood and that it had no emission controls on
>it.
>
>15 mph '76 NYer 300F
>%CO2 13.6 12.2
>%O2 2.0 1.2
>HC (PPM)
> Allowed 175
> Measured 36 153
>%CO
> Allowed 1.17
> Measured 0.03 1.50
>NOX (PPM)
> Allowed 1215
> Measured 223 1465
>
>15 mph '76 NYer 300F
>%CO2 13.5 12.6
>%O2 2.0 0.9
>HC (PPM)
> Allowed 142
> Measured 34 138
>%CO
> Allowed 0.97
> Measured 0.02 2.10
>NOX (PPM)
> Allowed 1075
> Measured 279 1156
>
>Just FYI. Hope the columns line up when received. In AOL they sometimes
>do
>not.
>
>Dan Reitz
>Northridge, CA
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:54:12 -0400
From: John Hertog <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Sending Unit Values - reply
Hi Terry,
Here is copy of an e-mail rec'd from Jeff Carter, re: resistance values for
fuel tank senders:
"You might try checking the sending unit you just removed with an ohm
meter-- it should
read approximately 10 ohms resistance at the full limit, and about 73 ohms
at the empty stop."
Just for the heck of it, I just measured the resistance in a good, original
sender. I came up with 10.8 Ohms full, and 74.5 at empty with an accurate,
digital meter
John
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "300 List Posts" <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "62-65 Mopar List"
<1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: [Chrysler300] Sending Unit Values
> Thanks to all who responded to my email last week. In troubleshooting my
fuel gauge problems on my '64 this weekend I put a variable resistor where
the fuel sending unit would normally go. This allowed me to verify that I do
indeed have a bum sender, but it also allowed me to note the various
resistance values that it took to drive my fuel gauge to various settings.
>
> Full = 5.5 Ohms
> 3/4 = 12.5 Ohms
> 1/2 = 19.5 Ohms
> 1/4 = 29 Ohms
> Empty = 57 Ohms
>
> I don't know how typical this will be for other Mopars, but that's what it
is on my '64 300.
>
> Terry Lynch
> St. Petersburg, FL
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 0:42:40 -0400
From: <smopar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: 300F smog test
> Keep in mind that the emission limits on the smog check test that was run in CA are designed to catch gross polluters, and even then they don't catch the cars with high cold start emissions since the test is run warmed up. The official test is the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and it is a cold start test with speeds up to about 55 mph. When the older cars are run on this test, the HC and CO numbers from the cold start are sky high and NOx levels at the higher speeds with high compression efficient engines are also sky high. The smog check test doesn't tell much about overall emissions, and is just an inexpensive screening test. I had my 1970 Chrysler run on the FTP test, and it was out of sight on all pollutants - and it is correct and runs great. I also ran competitive vehicles from the early 70s and they weren't any better. The new cars are really much much cleaner. Citing smog check tests is misleading. That said, though, CA is generally leaving alone the pre-73 cars since they are not used that much and collectors keep them in good condition.
> From: "Laurence G. Johnson" <laurence_g_johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2003/08/25 Mon PM 10:26:17 EDT
> To: dan300f@xxxxxxx, Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] 300F smog test
>
> This serves to point out that the 60's high performance and muscle cars
> weren't the big offenders with regard to air pollution. Their engines were
> fairly efficient and had good combustion characteristics, thats why they
> made a lot of power. They took the rap while the real offenders were the
> millions of six cylinders and low compression V-8's that powered grocery
> getters and family sedans.
>
>
> >From: dan300f@xxxxxxx
> >To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [Chrysler300] 300F smog test
> >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:48:48 EDT
> >
> >Hi all:
> >
> >If any of you are interested, out of curiosity, I took my 300F down and got
> >it "smogged." Below is a comparison of the results as compared with my '76
> >NYer with the emission controlled 440. The tester said the F tested very
> >good
> >considering what was under the hood and that it had no emission controls on
> >it.
> >
> >15 mph '76 NYer 300F
> >%CO2 13.6 12.2
> >%O2 2.0 1.2
> >HC (PPM)
> > Allowed 175
> > Measured 36 153
> >%CO
> > Allowed 1.17
> > Measured 0.03 1.50
> >NOX (PPM)
> > Allowed 1215
> > Measured 223 1465
> >
> >15 mph '76 NYer 300F
> >%CO2 13.5 12.6
> >%O2 2.0 0.9
> >HC (PPM)
> > Allowed 142
> > Measured 34 138
> >%CO
> > Allowed 0.97
> > Measured 0.02 2.10
> >NOX (PPM)
> > Allowed 1075
> > Measured 279 1156
> >
> >Just FYI. Hope the columns line up when received. In AOL they sometimes
> >do
> >not.
> >
> >Dan Reitz
> >Northridge, CA
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>
>
>
> To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:14:11 -0400
From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Sending Unit Values - reply
Hmmm...
I wonder why the difference? I assumed that removing the sending unit from
the circuit and replacing it with the variable resistor (one lead to the
wire at the tank and the other to a good ground) would be an accurate way to
sort things out to get the various resistance values. I had a nice steady
5.0 Volts at the wire going into the sending unit (the pulsing type
regulator has been replaced with a solid state 5 volt one.).
I talked to Fremans in Montana yesterday and they have a used sending unit
that they'll part with for $50. So I guess I'll get one from them, it'll be
interesting to see what values it has and how it works with my gauge. Maybe
the few days I drove around with the fuel needle pegged hard right did some
damage to the fuel gauge and shifted it's readings?
Terry Lynch
'64 300 Sport
St. Petersburg, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hertog" <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "300 List Posts"
<Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "62-65 Mopar List"
<1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: [Chrysler300] Sending Unit Values - reply
> Hi Terry,
>
> Here is copy of an e-mail rec'd from Jeff Carter, re: resistance values
for
> fuel tank senders:
>
> "You might try checking the sending unit you just removed with an ohm
> meter-- it should
> read approximately 10 ohms resistance at the full limit, and about 73 ohms
> at the empty stop."
>
> Just for the heck of it, I just measured the resistance in a good,
original
> sender. I came up with 10.8 Ohms full, and 74.5 at empty with an
accurate,
> digital meter
>
> John
>
>
> John
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hertog" <crossram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "300 List Posts"
<Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "62-65 Mopar List"
<1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: [Chrysler300] Sending Unit Values - reply
> Hi Terry,
>
> Here is copy of an e-mail rec'd from Jeff Carter, re: resistance values
for
> fuel tank senders:
>
> "You might try checking the sending unit you just removed with an ohm
> meter-- it should
> read approximately 10 ohms resistance at the full limit, and about 73 ohms
> at the empty stop."
>
> Just for the heck of it, I just measured the resistance in a good,
original
> sender. I came up with 10.8 Ohms full, and 74.5 at empty with an
accurate,
> digital meter
>
> John
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry Town" <terrytown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "300 List Posts" <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "62-65 Mopar List"
> <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:25 PM
> Subject: [Chrysler300] Sending Unit Values
>
>
> > Thanks to all who responded to my email last week. In troubleshooting my
> fuel gauge problems on my '64 this weekend I put a variable resistor where
> the fuel sending unit would normally go. This allowed me to verify that I
do
> indeed have a bum sender, but it also allowed me to note the various
> resistance values that it took to drive my fuel gauge to various settings.
> >
> > Full = 5.5 Ohms
> > 3/4 = 12.5 Ohms
> > 1/2 = 19.5 Ohms
> > 1/4 = 29 Ohms
> > Empty = 57 Ohms
> >
> > I don't know how typical this will be for other Mopars, but that's what
it
> is on my '64 300.
> >
> > Terry Lynch
> > St. Petersburg, FL
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> > Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > For list server instructions, go to
> http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:23:06 EDT
From: moparpjf@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 300F smog test
In a message dated 8/25/2003 10:33:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
laurence_g_johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> This serves to point out that the 60's high performance and muscle cars
> weren't the big offenders with regard to air pollution. Their engines were
> fairly efficient and had good combustion characteristics, thats why they
> made a lot of power. They took the rap while the real offenders were the
> millions of six cylinders and low compression V-8's that powered grocery
> getters and family sedans.
>
>
New Jersey is getting closer and closer to California as far as
emissions go, but I have refused to register my cars as historical because if you
do, the state only allows you 3,000 miles a year. I'm still not sure how they
can legally limit your dirving outside of the state, but they do.
In any event, because I have regular plates, the cars have to pass
inspection every year. While they do have somewhat lower standards for older
cars, both the G and the K go right through without a problem. I don't know what
the actual numbers are, but both cars have gone through without any playing
with the fuel system to make them lean. Of course, the G is still a fairly new
engine (maybe 6,000 miles) but the K engine has been around for a while. I
guess these things are better than we thought.
Pete
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap