SInce the results are given in concentration (ppm=parts per million) doubling
the results is not correct. Averaging the results between the two tailpipes
would be better. If the results were in terms of grams per mile (you need the
cahssis dyno for that), then doubling would have been right.
The catalysts and electronics constantly improve, so the requirements also keep
on going up. In fact, may be it needs to be said the other way around. As the
government raises standards, the anti-polution technology improves.
D^2
Quoting William <mopar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi all,
> We had a voluntary (free) emissions test centre set up in Edmonton this
> week, presumably to gather data for some government initiative or other. On
> a lark, I took in the 83 to see how it was doing. I told them it was an 83
> dodge, (they had no idea what it was) with a 318 and 220K kms on it. The
> first problem was the dual exhaust, as they couldn't figure out what to do
> with only one probe. They finally decided to simply double the results. It
> was a very basic test, checking for HC and CO emissions, and it passed with
> flying colours. In fact, the tester seemed in somewhat of a daze. I am sure
> they spent the next hour trying to re-calibrate their equipment. I had 28ppm
> (330 fail) HC and 1.845% CO (3.8 fail). I decided to take in my 95 neon as
> well, and it fared slightly better in the HC at 16ppm but much lower CO at
> 0.016%. Looking at the allowable limits for emissions according to year, the
> CO limit dropped from 3.8% to 0.5% from 87 to 88. I assume that there was a
> particular piece of emissions technology responsible for this (different
> type of catalyst?). Anyone have any theories on that?
> Cheers,
> William
> 83 EFi
> Edmonton, Canada
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network