It would appear that the plate bearing the CO information disappeared
sometime over the years. Also the numbers are not backwards. My HC at idle
is higher than at 2500 RM. I have always had trouble getting my carbs set
rich enough and I guess this confirms they are still too lean.
I have checked again and again for leaks and don't think there are any. I
guess I may resort to raising the floats to see if that'll effect a gross
adjustment.
I guess I can make myself feel better now that its baseball season.
Additional ideas welcome.
Jim Altman jaltman@altlaw.com Illigitimi non Carborundum
http://www.altlaw.com/metro/jaltman.html 69-TR6#CC28754L W4UCK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-triumphs@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-triumphs@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Bud Rolofson
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 3:55 PM
> To: Jim Altman; triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re:TR6 Emissions Test
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> Overall what it means is that your car is running pretty
> clean. Maybe even too
> clean and too lean at idle. If those numbers are right you
> might want to make
> your fuel mixture a tad richer because a too lean mixture can
> cause a burned
> valve. There should be a CO% number on a plate on the left
> wheel arch. It's
> the one with the static timing, etc. It should say something
> like 2% to 2 !/2%
> CO at 950 RPM or some such info.
>
> That means for optimum performance, economy, and emissions
> you want your exhaust
> gas to test at 2-2 1/2 % carbon monoxide levels when the
> engine is idling at 95O
> RPM. From what I could tell from your numbers (they get out
> of alignment by the
> time they've gone through Cyberspace and might even be messed
> up, so take all of
> this with a grain of salt) your car is putting out 0.47% CO
> at 950 RPMs which is
> low which means it's running lean, which you don't want. The
> HC (hydrocarbon)
> number for your car is 299 ppm (parts per million) which is
> low, but not too
> low. I have a 69 engine also and my last emsisions test
> showed it putting out
> about 400 ppm of HC (and that was after I leaned it up for
> the test). I run my
> CO level at about 7.00 % CO in summer and 8-9 % CO in the
> winter but remember
> I'm in Denver (5280 ft.and home of the World Champion Denver
> Broncos...sorry I
> couldn't help it since Jim is both a Falcons and long
> suffering Vikings fan) and
> the air is thinner so I generate more CO and HC than you do
> at sea level (Jim's
> in Atlanta) because the combustion process is not as
> efficient as those of you
> with that thick heavy air.
>
> It seems strange looking at the numbers (and I'm wondering if
> they got turned
> around) that at a higher RPM (2500) the HC went down and the
> CO went up....they
> usually track together....both pollutants higher at lower
> RPMs (idling usually
> produces higher emissions for all pollutants) and both
> pollutants lower at
> higher RPMS.
>
> The last thing...the CO + CO2 must be some sort of local or
> state standard...I
> don't recognize it.
>
> Hope this helps. If those numbers somehow got truncated then
> don't sweat the
> too lean business cause 2.44% CO at 950 RPM is right on the
> mark in (runner-up)
> Atlanta.
>
> Bud
> 71TR6 CC57365
> 71TR6 CC65446
> 66TR4A CTC57806
>
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: TR6 Emissions Test
> Author: jaltman@altlaw.com
> Date: 04/09/1999 4:02 PM
>
> This MIME message could not be processed so it has
> been imported into cc:Mail without conversion.
> The contents may be recoverable by saving the whole
> message to a separate file and editing it manually.
> You may wish to contacting the sender to inform them
> that the message was not sent in valid MIME format.
>
> The error encountered was:
>
> "mime-version:" field invalid. Invalid comment or continuation.
>
> My 69 is exempt from emissions testing, but I was curious about the
> readings, so I paid the guy $10.00 to do it in training mode.
> No reports to
> the state (BTW Georgia). It seems that had I been required
> to be tested I
> would have passed, but I am not sure what some of the numbers mean. I
> browsed through Bentley's looking for the CO numbers, but all
> its says is to
> make them normal without ever telling what normal is. Anyway,
> here are the
> results, comments desired.
>
> 2500 RPM 950 RPM
> Reading Allowed Reading Allowed
> HC-ppm 75 600 299 600
> CO% 2.44 6.00 .47 6.00
> CO+CO2% 15.7 6.00(min) 14.1 6.00(min)
>
> Of other interest was that the database did not have TR6 as a
> 6 cylinder, it
> insisted it was a 4 cyl.
>
> So what should CO be and what do the others mean?
>
>
> Jim Altman jaltman@altlaw.com Illigitimi non Carborundum
> http://www.altlaw.com/metro/jaltman.html 69-TR6#CC28754L W4UCK
>
|