Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know much about the tests that you get done at Botany or Penrith?

Mine is booked in for Botany in the morning and I was wondering if leaning the PFC off heaps would make it better or worse... Anyone have a Idea?

Would using different fuel make a difference? Should i use BP98 or Mobil Synergy or Optimax 100 or even the E10 fuel thats available?

Has anyone passed this test with a Power FC with huge injectors and a topmount gt35r or something similar?

Would be good to see how bad or close my car is before i go spending lots of money to get it right.

I got stock cams and cam gears and just put a Xforce highflow 3" cat on it

Any ideas welcome!

Edited by Guilt-Toy
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/155081-emission-testing-modified-skylines/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Depending on what year it was made, emissions change , you will have to pass the emission test for the time your car was made .

If its post 95 my guess is you will not pass unless its very close to stock .

Edited by wrxhoon
any ideas what fuel to use Jerry ?

I would use the 100 ron from Shell, because it has ethonol and it may help.

The last time I took a car for enissions test , this fuel wasn't available so I used normal 98 ron.

If you can get your hands on a new ( or near new) compliance cat , i would use that as well .

To be honest with you , I dont like your chances with your current set up. If I remember correct your car is 95 model and that mekes it harder, earlier models would be slightly easier to pass.

Good luck and let us know how you go. Give me a buz if you like as I have a tip fpr you but I dont want to put it on here for obvious reasons .

This is just the first step to see how much my car is out before changing anything to pass for engineers certificate.

No defects or anything so im being pro-active instead of re-active atm

Give Matt (aka Hitman) a call. I think he helped Mona sort out an emissions test last time.

Are you going for a test just to check, or is it for engineering cert / EPA?

it kinda makes sense to use a better burning fuel.. maybe even advance the timming abit so that it burns all the fuel? retarding the timming would be the reverse? this makes sense in my head duno bout on paper.

well the question for me now is should i use the optixmax 100octate fuel thats 5% ethenol or use this e10 blend stuff that is available thats 10% - the 10% will burn a better emission but its only 95 octate and i wont be able to run it as lean with the same amount of timing.

What to do...

This is what i found about e10

Emissions outcomes for E10

In general, E10 can be expected to yield reductions in the following emissions:

carbon monoxide (CO);

exhaust hydrocarbons (HCs);

particulates;

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), (in some circumstances);

greenhouse gases, depending on the ethanol production process; and

known carcinogens, such as benzene.

However, some increase in other known carcinogens, such as formaldehyde, can be expected.61

So it does decrease nox which is one emission they test for.. now to look on the site to see if they test for formaldehyde - whatever that is...

This is what i found about e10

Emissions outcomes for E10

In general, E10 can be expected to yield reductions in the following emissions:

carbon monoxide (CO);

exhaust hydrocarbons (HCs);

particulates;

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), (in some circumstances);

greenhouse gases, depending on the ethanol production process; and

known carcinogens, such as benzene.

However, some increase in other known carcinogens, such as formaldehyde, can be expected.61

So it does decrease nox which is one emission they test for.. now to look on the site to see if they test for formaldehyde - whatever that is...

This is what they test: THC, NOX, CO and CO2. They will do 2 runsa the first is a warm up run , most cars will fail this and then they do another run.

Cheers Jerry..

Thanks for your advice its all sorted... and i decided im going to run the shell 100 because its the best of both worlds.. its got 100 octane and 5% ethenol.

I really dont think there is much chance of passing but i need to start somewhere.

So no one here has passed there modded skyline with intercooler / plenum / top mount and 700ish cc injectors with a power fc and gt35r before?

Found this on the gov emissions site. which basically says that the NOX level is increased which is what most skylines fail on. So i am going to run normal BP98 fuel or Synergy 8000 after i do more research on the 2 i will decide.

Hydrocarbon emissions decreased as higher percentages of ethanol were added to the fuel:

at 10% ethanol, HC emissions decreased by about 18%;

at 20%, HC emissions decreased by about 22%; and

at 40%, HC emissions decreased by 45%.

CO emissions were consistently lowered as higher levels of ethanol were added to the fuel:

at 10%, CO was reduced by about 18%;

at 25%, CO was reduced by over 30%; and

at 40%, CO was reduced by over 40%.

NOx emissions increased substantially with ethanol volume:

at 10%, the NOx emission increase was about 10%;

at 20%, the NOx emission increase was about 14%; and

at 40%, the NOx emission increase was about 20%.

It should be possible to get it to pass, P.S. make sure your closed loop is enabled on the hand controller. They dont do power runs or anything like that, its all mid/low throttle stuff. you will need to have the cold start/warm up enrichments well calibrated to pass though. When i had a car tested, they practically made it pass by telling me where to make the adjustments, and then did the second test. PS when i worked at chiptorque, we got the horsepower hero VK commodore with 440 rwhp to pass, although the cats almost killed the motor.

Closed loop on my car made the thing run rich as all hell!!! it was running into the 13's etc etc

This is a good idea though if it does fail i will ask them for a run with closed loop on.

It should be possible to get it to pass, P.S. make sure your closed loop is enabled on the hand controller. They dont do power runs or anything like that, its all mid/low throttle stuff. you will need to have the cold start/warm up enrichments well calibrated to pass though. When i had a car tested, they practically made it pass by telling me where to make the adjustments, and then did the second test.

I was going to suggest the higher ethanol content, run low and fill up with an emergency 5 bottles of Recochem metho 95% ethanol. Do the test, pass with flying colours, quickly get to a servo and fill up with 10L of fuel, run it down to dilute the ethanol, then fill the tank up per norm.

I can't see it hurting if done over the course of a couple of hours, I've done this with a corolla with a 4AGE, I ran close to pure ethanol in an emergency and it actually ran beautifully.

failed! but it was a good result for the first run - its not even twice over the limit for nox - nox was 3.45 which should be no more then 1.93 and the THC was 0.99 when the limit is 0.93 and CO was 2.4 where the limit was 9.3

So the engine is running too lean and its very close to passing. I am thinking about doing some more tweaks and give it another go or get my mates dad to tune it with his 5 gas sensor

ohhh and my car gets 11.9 litres per hundred economy!!! thats pretty good for 400rwhp!

Edited by Guilt-Toy

He also said that my car has some kind of vapor leak - and you can smell it too so i gotta get a smoke test done to fix that because in the room it was reading 23 where when there is no car in the room it should read 0 and a total new stock car reads 1 - 2 so something is leaking vapor somewhere

Very interesting....

And great to hear. :laugh:

I can often smell a little vapour from mine. I have no idea where its coming from.

Possibly from the seal in the boot where you remove/install the fuel pump as it has been out a couple of times.

Maybe old fuel hose near the petrol tank? If I place my nose up against mine I can smell fuel. :S

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...