Emissions failure rate up to 5 times higher (Arizona)

AZ Republic ^ | Mary Jo Pitzl

[hsmomx3]

Arizona's new emissions test is failing cars at three to five times the rate of the old test, an Arizona Republic analysis shows.

Cars built in the 1996 model year failed the new computer-based test at a rate of nearly 15 percent last year, the first year it was used. That's almost five times the failure rate of the 1996 cars under the former test, which relies on actual measurements of a car's tailpipe emissions.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Emissions failure rate up to 5 times higher"

Thought this was a report on condom testing.

[Montfort]

I suspect emissions tests cause some people to buy new (or newer cars) sooner than they otherwise would. I'll bet car manufacturers love them, but would never publicly admit this.

I would imagine that emissions test hit the working poor pretty hard. I wonder why liberals don't complain.

Funny thing is that the big diesel trucks and diesel city buses chucking out clouds of black smoke don't have to undergo these emissions tests.

[jiggyboy]

I'm guessing they're pushing this "astonishing failure rate" and "high repair costs" a little more than it really warrants. In CA, you can "fail" the test if you don't have a gas cap, for example.

A bunch of these failures are probably like mine last year. I "failed" the test, checked my plug wires, found one that was marginally bad and replaced the whole set for 20 bucks, and passed the next time. What makes me a little indignant about the matter is that I was getting the same (great) gas mileage after the new wires.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

A good dose of Everclear in the gas tank will get you through an emissions inspection (at least it did when Minnesota had this inspection routine).

[kaktuskid]

And the vehicles with MEXICAN and CANADIAN plates!

[bruinbirdman]

overall failure rate three times greater than the former test: 9.9 percent compared with 3.2 percent.

It only cost you $20 to pass the test? Only 9.9% failed the test?

Time to tighten those EPA regs even more.

yitbos

[nightdriver]

"(It) fails more cars, it's true, but it also saves pollution and it saves the consumer time and money," said Nancy Wrona, manager of the air-quality division at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

I'll just bet!

It also ensures this bureauocrat's job security.

The pollution-checking biz is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American public and there is never any credible evidence that it does a bit of good.

[jimt]

The new car computer control systems monitor everything from fuel-air ratio to ignition misfires to gas cap integrity. They are very comprehensive and accurate.

While the article is right about the "codes" that show up on the test, any decent shop should be able to tell you exactly what those codes mean.

Your local library probably has a book listing the codes meaning as well.

What the article didn't say is that if you wanted to cheat, there's a method that will clear all codes - until the malfunction reoccurs.

[saminfl]

The pollution-checking biz is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American public and there is never any credible evidence that it does a bit of good.

I have to agree with you. Some of this is caused by zealots. I remember when I lived in Tucson, Pima county and the city were sued by a local lawyer from an organization called "The Center for Law in the Public Interset," or something like that. The newspaper articles would say, "If this suit is won, people may not be able to drive to work everyday. Did this jerk lawyer care? Nope.

[rudypoot]

"Emissions failure rate up to 5 times higher"

I thought I heard this on a Beano commercial.

[nightdriver]

"The newspaper articles would say, "If this suit is won, people may not be able to drive to work everyday. Did this jerk lawyer care? Nope."

Of course not. Their attitude is "Get off the planet."

They are total tyranical despot-types, using their old hippie buddies that they get through law school on the judicial benches to further their agendas.

[jiggyboy]

The 9.9% is the AZ number; I'm in CA and I don't know what our numbers are offhand.

Yep, just some new plug wires did the trick; my point was that you can fail for any number of reasons and it's not always an engine overhaul as this article implies.

[jiggyboy]

Ah, now I get it. Tougher to detect sarcasm in print sometimes.

[discostu]

Makes me want to hang on to mine. At 20 or 25 years (I forget) your car becomes a "historical vehicle" and you don't have to do the test anymore. That's given me a goal. Really as long as you keep your car's maintenance up the emissions tests are no biggy. Now we had a car that would have failed the new test, but that's because the diagnostic part of the computer had fried (check engine light was on, the code the computer was sending translated to "computer malfuntion") the car ran like a champ until 1 too many accidents (not me, I'm better at avoiding accidents, my wife is better at avoiding tickets).

The working poor by and large skip the tests (even the EPA says most vehicular polution comes from vehicles that aren't being tested), usually illegally. Diesel vehicles don't emit anything AZ tests for, no matter how nasty the smoke they are garaunteed to pass the test.

[discostu]

no it costs $20 to TAKE the test. The only punishment for failing the test is you can't get new tags which can eventually result in a $300 fine (driving an unregistered vehicle).

[bvw]

When I was building auto emissions test systems a few years ago, I had people from the major contractor in that field (MCI) as well as a director of one big state's program tell me that emission levels were set each year or two to achieve a set failure rate on cars of, say, ten years old.

There also seem to be problems with the NOx sensors most everybody uses in their equipment that appear right around the pass limits -- the sensors have bad accuracy in that range. Theoretically if your car is tuned well you should be way under, or if something is wrong -- way over. In any case, if you are close try again. On a second try, go either on a day of different weather and/or a different end of the week. As I recollect, nearly everybody in an area calibrates once a week, same day of the week.

[bruinbirdman]

Same in NV for diesel but there are only two stations in the state that certify. You take your truck in so they can verify the weight.

I lived in CA when they went to this new system. If you failed twice you had to go to a certified failure mechanic station and you couldn't drive your car til it was fixed. Or some such whacko law.

I would be interested in how it works in other states.

My sarcasm isn't that subtle although some don't recognize it even after it is pointed out in the thread.

yitbos

[I got the rope]

What I don't understand is how you can calibrate once a week and get an accurate test. EPA Regulations found in CFR 40 Part 60, Method 7e, require that you do a three point calibration and that you correct for bias and drift between test runs.

Do auto emissions testers do this? You are also required to do a NOX converter check. If I was required to do this I would get a lawyer and tear these people to pieces.

By the way, the cooler the ambient temperature the lower the NOx values.

[bvw]

There's the quick pre-test cal, as you say. There's a longer weekly cal that you have to use calibrated air for -- that's the three point. As I recollect, you have zero (clean) air, cal air and propane. Replenishing cal tanks, or even the zero air tanks is a field service pain. Some units and states use an air scrubber to get the clean air. As I recollect the pre-test uses ambient. There is also a daily cal at system start up -- that varies state to state, Some states require a two point, others the full three, again, per my recollection. Most states derive from CA-BAR -- California standards. California has more muscle than the EPA -- that is everybody dances to the jig played by the CA-BAR, including the EPA. NY tried it's own thing but they were out in nanu-nanu land technology wise. One reason among others that in NY cheating is *rampant*.