The test procedures and standards were changed in 2010 with Assembly Bill 2289.
I doubt it
I donāt think there was a mistake at all
We all know the state would prefer the older, higher polluting, cars to just disappear from the roads
My gut feeling is the maximum allowable pollution standards were purposefully lowered, with the knowledge that some vehicles would fail and no longer be on the road
I looked up that legislation and read through it. There is nothing in it that I could find that specifically authorizes making the test more strict for any particular vehicle.
I just read through that test legislation as well.
I didnāt see anything in there indicating the state is requiring cars to have lower emissions than they were designed to emit when they were new (built and shipped from the factory).
The long version of AB 2289 refers to Health and Safety code section 44012:
Untitled (ca.gov)
44012 refers to 44013 which reads:
The department, in cooperation with the state board, shall prescribe maximum emission standards to be applied in inspecting motor vehicles under this chapter.
AB 2289 does not offer specific information on testing standards, too much information might have prevented the bill from passing.
This was one of the āselling pointsā:
āThis new and improved program will have the same result as taking 800,000 old cars off the road, also resulting in a more cost effective program for California motorists,ā said ARB Chairman, Mary D. Nichols.
State testing standards have generally allowed 5 to 10 times greater tailpipe emissions than federal test standards. It would be impractical to set up thousands of test stations capable of performing the federal test procedure of collecting all emissions and measuring pollutants by weight.
The Health and Safety code assures that the standards will not be more stringent than federal/factory standards.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum emission standards and test procedures prescribed in subdivisions (a) and (b) for a motor vehicle class and model-year shall not be more stringent than the emission standards and test procedures under which that motor vehicleās class and model-year was certified. Emission standards and test procedures prescribed by the department shall ensure that not more than 5 percent of the vehicles or engines, which would otherwise meet the requirements of this part, will fail the inspection and maintenance test for that class of vehicle or engine.
1 Like
No, not really. I can adjust a carb to be over the CO limit and you would never be able to tell by looking at a spark plug. There are also so many other things that can lead to HC failure that looking at one spark plug isnāt really much help. Like perhaps a small vacuum leak, like youāve already found.
Most people donāt understand that federal emissions standards are in grams/mile and state testing measures % or ppm.
Funny, I said this a while back at the beginning of a tread and got slapped around for my statement that Cali hates older carsā¦ lolā¦ I just worded it a little differentā¦
At the smog shop. Drove about ten miles on the freeway and got taken right in.
1 Like
I presume you mean āCali politicosā, and apparently you are right about that. While the change in the law might result in 800,000 cars taken off the road, one has to wonder how many votes for these same politicos were (& will be) taken ?
The change is to lower emissions. The result being the same as removing 800000 cars , not actually rempving the cars.
The test got aborted before it began. The guy who owns the shop told me I needed to fix a gas leak first. The 5/16" rubber gas line coming down from the top of the tank under the bed of the truck had a hole in it just before connecting to a metal line running up front to the carb. I cut it out and and took the Ford to Napa to get a barbed fuel hose union. Had some gas line. Spliced a piece on and back in business. Going back tomorrow morning.
Strange looking hole. Looks like the other side of where the BB hit the plate glass window. Canāt imagine what done it. It was in a very protected space, between the sidewall and the gas tank. There is no pressure in the line.
After I finished fixing it, I began to wonder how I was able to run the truck at all. The mechanical fuel pump on the engine was sucking gas from the tank. The hole in the hose is almost an eighth of an inch in diameter. I would think the pump would have been sucking air. Maybe there was some sort of Venturi effect created that was strong enough to suck gas up from the tank bottom. 
Congrats on passing the Calif emissions test! Even more challenging b/c they keep changing the rules ā¦ lol ā¦ . wondering if that hose might have been part of the evap system, doesnāt normally contain liquid fuel? Did the tech spot liquid gasoline dripping from the area, or did they just notice the hole? Had they started the evap system test? This is where they connect a machine with a special adapter to where you normally refill the tank? They might do that first as a matter of policity, to avoid having to repeat the treadmill part of the test. If so, they might have noticed the evap system wasnāt air tight like it should be so they went looking for an obvious problem. Retarding the timing might be the explanation for the 93 to 87 HC decrease. Donāt forget to put it back to spec.
Does the price of fuel hose surprise you? And not in a good way? ā¦ lol ā¦
Thanks! I wish the results were better, but I passed on the first try, so Iāll take it!
Good question, the tech spotted gas dripping right away and pointed it out. The test never got started. I smelled gas outside the truck before setting out that day, but shrugged it off. After reading your post this far I crawled back under the truck and traced the metal fuel lines. There are two rubber fuel lines coming off the top of the tank. They attach to two metal lines that run up to the front. One metal line is slightly larger than the other. The small one had the the damaged rubber line from the top of the tank attached to it. The larger metal line that had the undamaged rubber hose from the top of the tank attached to it connected to the mechanical fuel pump. The smaller metal line that had the damaged rubber hose from the top of the tank attached to it, connected to the center of the fuel filter, and is the return line to the gas tank for fuel that the pump delivers, but the carb cannot acceptā¦ This explains why I was able to run the engine. The supply line was undamaged, but some of the gas returned to the tank was dribbling out the hole. Neither line is involved with the vapor canister, as far as I can tell.
When I moved here I was happily surprised to learn that the test to determine if the evap system is leaking is not done here. I failed it once where I lived previously and had to drop the gas tank to repair the leak.
That was my thought as well, but unless I have free access to a dyno and sniffer I will probably never know. I also swapped out the jets for ones that were .005 inches larger in diameter.
That was the first thing I did when I returned from the test, then checked the idle speed. There was no discernible change.
Fortunately I did not have to buy any. I had a piece in the hose drawer in the garage, probably left over from the time I dropped the tank and replaced the original rubber supply and return lines.
Does your familiarity with the smog test come from having worked as a mechanic or is it born of the necessity of getting marginal vehicles to pass to the strict California standards?
The latter, esp my early 90ās Corolla and the HC limit. Definitely not a mechanic.
In my experience here you have a very good problem solving mind that is very familiar with automotive emissions systems. Your comments have helped me on several occasions.
1 Like