Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:32:28 -0500 From: "J. Harris" <insectonopsamspring.com> Subject: Re: '88 9000T Emission Dilemma
Keith, Thanks for the reply. All tests failed the NO-ppm. Test #1: 2786 (1121 allowed; no repairs) Test #2: 1971 (after new Cat.) Test #3: 1741(after chemical/gas treatment, fluids-n-filters) Test #4: 2670 (after misc./plugs...). Question: AMM is an acronym for what? Also, there isn't any oil burning. Regards, Jack E. Harris '88 9000T '97 900SE KeithG <noonenopsamhlink.net> wrote in message news:a660fn$pdr$1nopsam.atl.mindspring.net... > J, > > Do you know HOW it failed? Which values? My first thought at a possible fix > would be an adjustment to the AMM, but without knowing HOW, it is tough to > say. The car should pass easily as long as it is not burning excessive oil, > head gasket leak, etc. > > KeithG > "J. Harris" <insectonopsamspring.com> wrote in message > news:a65vth$120$1nopsam.atl.mindspring.net... > > It's time for my 1988's annual emissions test. And like prior years, I > > suspect this gem of a car will fail. Anyone have any ideas on how to "pass" > > this fresh-air shake down? > > > > Last year the following "repairs" were done (and the 9000T still failed > [in > > fact it got worse with each "improvement"]); new cat. converter, new spark > > plugs, chemical/gas treatments, all filters replaced & oil too, high > octane > > gas and 40 minutes of highway riding/driving before each test (3 total)! > > > > Thanks for your ideas. > > J.E. Harris > > '88 9000T > > '97 900SE > > > > > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
