Well I feel kinda dumb now for having worried about the emmissions. In
case you just joining, I'm testing a 2000 non-cali 4.7L in California.
It is a cold and wet day here too, so the emmissions still could have
been better, but here they are:
------------|%CO2--|%O2--|HC (PPM)-----|CO(%)----------|NO (PPM)-----|--
Test---RPM--|Meas--|Meas-|Max-Ave-Meas-|Max--Ave--Meas-|Max-Ave-Meas-|Results
15mph--1708-|15.20-|0.02-|45--8---2----|0.57-0.02-0.00-|482-82--0009-|Pass---
25mph--1718-|15.13-|0.00-|28--6---3----|0.70-0.02-0.00-|735-74--0005-|Pass---
Jay W
505/287 Dakota
Robert Schultz wrote:
> ""Woodruff, Jason P"" <jason.p.woodruff@boeing.com> wrote in message
> news:9937FD518D6FC54887CB28EF103ED1E6099D26A8@xch-sw-07.sw.nos.boeing.com...
>
>>In the first 4.7L Dakota year they made a 49 state version and a
>
> California
>
>>version. I think the only difference was extra cats on the cali system.
>>Has anyone tried to smog a 49state 4.7L in California? I will be trying
>>tomorrow and wonder if I'm going to run into any problems.
>>
>>Jay W
>>505/287 Dakota(s)
>>
>
> Jason:
>
> I know the Canadian version (which I thought was the same as the 49 state
> version) qualified as a ULEV, which was what California required. So I never
> understood why there was a specific CA version.
>
> Let us know how it goes. Some day I may want to transfer to my head office
> in Costa Mesa. The Dak has to come with me.
>
> Rob S.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:45:50 EST