California and Nevada allow 1 incomplete monitor during emission testing, any monitor except catalyst.
The evap. monitor won’t run in temperatures above 95 degrees, I rarely see check engine lights for evap. leaks during summer months.
Manufactures use different strategies for natural vacuum testing. One example: if conditions are not correct to perform the test one hour after shut-off, the test is attempted again after 4 hours, then again after 7 hours.
That’s ironic. In Michigan, I have to wait til summer for the test to activate because it doesn’t test below 30 degrees F. Shops get surges in the springtime with check engine lights.
Thought I’d update my experience with my Innova 5610. The 1rst 5610 I received worked great, but the Bluetooth didn’t work. That’s no big deal, but I exchanged it for the 5160 RS. It works fine. The 5610, 5160RS and Harbor Freights Zurich ZR15 Scanners are all the same tool by Innova, they just have different numbers for rebranding. The only reason I’m happy with this scanner is because I only paid around half price or so ($175). It does the bare minimum for a DIYer that wants to do all his own services. Definitely not a professionals tool. But is sufficient for me. If I was going to pay over $300 or $350 for it I would be curious if Autel, Launch, Topdon or Foxwell would have more functionality. But I haven’t heard or seen these things work, so I have no idea. I got a good deal and it’s sufficient, so I’m happy.
Most of these scan tools charge for the updates. Some give you the first 1 or 2 years for free and can get pricey after that, but they will still function if you don’t update. Innova gives you free updates, but they only come every 2, 3 or more years. The longer they wait for updates the cheaper they get them for.
Well, every time I have had a vehicle with evaporative emissions trouble codes, I “solved” the problem by topping off the fuel, disconnecting the battery to clear codes, and keeping the fuel topped off while I drove around to get the other monitors to “set”, thus preventing the evaporative emissions monitor from running. Then, I took the car through emissions testing with the CEL off, and the evaporative emissions monitor showing “incomplete”. Of course, the codes would eventually come back, but it didn’t matter because I already got my emissions renewal.
On a 1996-1999 vehicle, you are allowed to have up to two monitors show “incomplete”, and on a 2000 or newer, you are allowed to have up to one.
I have heard that vehicles newer than a certain year (2009?) have the ability to store permanent trouble codes, which makes this trick more difficult. I don’t plan to buy anything that recent, so whatever.
Permanent faults can’t be manually erased; however, the faults will be removed by the PCM after confirming the failing condition no longer exists.
History and permanent faults should not result in an emission test failure. Permanent faults can give an indication to a technician or potential buyer that there is an unresolved problem.
Permanent fault codes shall result in a smog test failure for MY2010 and up vehicles, at least where I’m at
If you have all the readiness monitors, no current fault codes, etc. but you DO have a permanent fault code . . . for example P0455 . . . you shall fail the inspection, at least here
One of the reasons . . . imo, fwiw . . . permanent fault codes originated, is because people were “gaming the system” and clearing the mil due to evap fault codes, for example, topping off the fuel tank, driving the car until all readiness monitors EXCEPT evap ran to completion, got the car through the smog inspection and then the MIL and the exact same evap code would come on just a few days after the smog inspection
permanent fault codes are a more recent development and aren’t the same thing as current and history/stored fault codes
Getting rid of them is also different
I have the Innova 5610 and just did the update which said it would support transmission live data for the 09 Cobalt 2.2L, I went and checked and could not find anything showing trans LD,
So if I go to the Coverage Checker with the L4, 2.2L (VIN 8th = H) it shows that Trans LD is supported, but if I check with the L4, 2.2L; DOHC; 16V; MPFI it shows Trans LD is NOT supported… What the heck is up with that?? it is the same engine… ??
I just need to be able to read LD for a transmission without spending $$$$, or waiting for my friend and my schedules to match up so he can bring his Snap on scanner over…
There is a separate location in the scanner for trans. Temp. other than live data. Next time I get to the garage I’ll look it up and let you know. You may have it and not know it. That part is not good software. Also this problem about the manufacturers coverage claims being wrong seems to be common amoung these low level scan tools. Some can and will update as problems are reported, but Innova isn’t one of them to my knowledge.
Thank you, that helped a lot believe it or not, I went out to the 04 Infinity and spent some time and figured it out (trans LD), now tomorrow sometime I will mess with the Cobalt and hopefully remember how to get to it, pretty simple if you know where it is at… I would do it today but I killed the battery yesterday and got even more irritated with the car, and just didn’t/don’t feel like getting in the trunk and find the charger to charge the battery back up, thanks auto head lights, and I forgot to turn them off… 
BTW, I was able to see the turbine shaft speed, cross our fingers I can on the Cobalt tomorrow… lol
You have to use/buy a “mini USB type B data cable” A charging cable will not work, has to be a data cable… Also have to download the update app to your computer/laptop to be able to do the update, it took a while for the update to finish…
Go to the web site and scroll down to the Available Updates and look for the 5610 updates and go from there… link below should get you close…
Just curious, is there a reason you don’t want to just solve the cause of the evap system problem? Is it b/c you’ve found that the diagnosis can become very expensive b/c of how time-consuming it is?
I’m asking b/c it seems like the goal of emissions testing should be to reduce air pollution, and if car owners are avoiding fixing known problem b/c of the labor cost for the diagnosis, that isn’t reducing air pollution. If there’s a built in problem in the emissions testing scheme that’s resulting in more air pollution, emissions testing methodology should be improved.
Not long ago you were in favor of having half the vehicles exempt from testing requirements due to vehicle age or being owned by senior citizens. How does that align with reducing air pollution?
I’m definitely in favor of providing some emissions-testing exemptions for 25 + year old vehicles. For example, ending the roller-tread-mill tail-pipe tests. But I’d still favor requiring a visual inspection to insure all of the original emissions equipment was still installed and connected. I think that would catch most of the problems for the low % of cars on the road that are that old. I’m definitely a pro-ADA advocate, and favor reasonable accommodations be made for the disabled. I think you are referring to my recommendation that drivers 65+ should not be required to allow emissions testing staff to enter & drive their cars if they are concerned about Covid infections. I continue to believe that is a reasonable accommodation.
That would be a waste of time, looking for missing equipment would remove race cars from the road, but those are generally not daily drivers. Common problems for ageing vehicles are misfires, failing catalytic converters and fuel tank vapor leaks. A visual inspection will have no affect.
Someone that is that paranoid of catching Covid should carry a spray bottle and wipes of disinfectant and disinfect their car to clean it after getting it tested, sounds more reasonable to me.
Airborne COVID-19 loses 50% to 60% of its effectiveness instantaneously. On surfaces, it could last a bit longer. Studies I’ve seen quoted say it’s all gone in 20 minutes or more for porous surfaces. Those surfaces comprise most of a car or truck’s interior. You could ask the test tech to wear exam gloves like vinyl or nitrile, and even provide a pair if it means that much to you. You could also wear the gloves driving away to a spot where you could use disinfectant wipes on the steering wheel and gear shift. If they wear an N95 mask properly then they can’t spread COVID-19.
hmmm… well, maybe. I believe the Calif DMV staff refused to give in-car driving tests during the initial pandemic phase, citing studies showing how contagious the virus is. They said there’s a danger of it spreading through the air inside the car, from the driver taking the test to the DMV staff conducting the examination. And remember some folks are high risk, much more likely to contract the virus than others. And if they contract it, more likley to have serious health consequences. Those 65+ are considered high risk by the CDC.
Covid is so, like, 2019. Next up- bird flu
The real pandemic are these freaking Cicadas!!! Glad they are almost gone in my area…
But is sure was funny when the dog would do his thing marking bushes and then rub up against the wifey and her scream out when she felt one crawling on her… 
If the USA’s current Covid death rate is much lower than the car-accident death rate, then I’ll grant that Covid is no longer a concern as far as the Covid risk due to emissions testing .