Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » California smogged coaches (Removal of smog equipment)
| California smogged coaches [message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 11:09  |
Scott Nutter
Messages: 782
Registered: January 2015
Location: Houston/San Diego
Karma: 4
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For those of us that have coaches equipped with California smog systems, but have the coaches in other states that don't require smog. What would be the items that could be taken off to improve efficiency and performance?
Are there any of the smog items that might actually improve performance? I don't have the smog pump on my 1977 455 but I do have the charcoal fuel canister. And opinions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Scott
Scott Nutter
1978 Royale Center Kitchen, Patterson 455, switch pitch tranny, 3.21 final drive, Quad bags, Dave Lenzi super duty mid axle disc brakes, tankless water heater, everything Lenzi. Alex Ferrera installed MSD Atomic EFI
Houston, Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271028 is a reply to message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 11:20  |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have been camping in Blythe California on the Arizona border a friend that is a California resident from Northern California is due for his smog check didn't want to do it till he got home. He went to the local DMV to get an extension he told them his coach was in Quartzite till April they gave him a 1 year exemption and told him to come back next year and they would give him another year exemption! They told him he could get an exemption each year if he so desired weird Huh.
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271037 is a reply to message #271028] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 11:46 |
Scott Nutter
Messages: 782
Registered: January 2015
Location: Houston/San Diego
Karma: 4
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, it is strange when it comes to California bureaucracies. If your car or coach is out of state, they will not require a smog check. As long as you keep your auto registered in California.
I guess the state is in desperate for money.....
Scott Nutter
1978 Royale Center Kitchen, Patterson 455, switch pitch tranny, 3.21 final drive, Quad bags, Dave Lenzi super duty mid axle disc brakes, tankless water heater, everything Lenzi. Alex Ferrera installed MSD Atomic EFI
Houston, Texas
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271039 is a reply to message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 11:55 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I >think< about the only difference on my '76, which was a CA coach originally, a second vapor cannister in series with the first one, and a thermo switch on the distributor vacuum plus a slightly different carb - it lists under a different number. I can't tell any difference in how it drives or the mileage from the 49 ones. After 76, there may be nore difference. Any of the gurus know of anything else different on a '76?
--johnny
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271049 is a reply to message #271039] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 15:24 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott,
I am of the opinion that if you removed all the California emissions control "stuff" you wouldn't feel any seat of the pants
improvement, you might see it on a dyno.
Johnny,
Also there are specific part numbers for California carbs.
http://gmcmotorhome.info/engine.html#carb
Regards,
Rob M.
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Bridges
I >think< about the only difference on my '76, which was a CA coach originally, a second vapor cannister in series with the first
one, and a thermo switch on the distributor vacuum plus a slightly different carb - it lists under a different number. I can't tell
any difference in how it drives or the mileage from the 49 ones. After 76, there may be nore difference. Any of the gurus know of
anything else different on a '76?
--johnny
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271050 is a reply to message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 15:32 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
As Roy said, in California you can file a REG 256 for smog exemption if the vehicle is out of
the state (except Nevada) and you cannot bring it back in time before the renewal is due.
If you're a AAA member you can do it at their office.
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271054 is a reply to message #271049] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 15:41 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There is no smog stuff with the possible exception of spark retard or lean
carb jets that will affect performance. The EGR valve mixes exhaust gasses
into the incoming fuel air mix and slows down the rate of combustion. Kinda
like a higher octane fuel might do. If you remove it, the engine will
probably have to have the spark advance retarded to keep it from pinging
when the engine is fully warmed up. There is no power robbing things like a
smog pump that is engine driven. The double charcoal canister system on the
California coaches just recycle gasoline vapors from the fuel tank and carb
float bowl back into the intake tract. Better to burn them there where it
might possibly make a tiny bit more horsepower than to vent them to the
atmosphere where we have to breathe them and have them help create smog.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Mueller
wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I am of the opinion that if you removed all the California emissions
> control "stuff" you wouldn't feel any seat of the pants
> improvement, you might see it on a dyno.
>
> Johnny,
>
> Also there are specific part numbers for California carbs.
>
> http://gmcmotorhome.info/engine.html#carb
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> The Pedantic Mechanic
> Sydney, Australia
> AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
> USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnny Bridges
>
> I >think< about the only difference on my '76, which was a CA coach
> originally, a second vapor cannister in series with the first
> one, and a thermo switch on the distributor vacuum plus a slightly
> different carb - it lists under a different number. I can't tell
> any difference in how it drives or the mileage from the 49 ones. After
> 76, there may be nore difference. Any of the gurus know of
> anything else different on a '76?
>
> --johnny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271057 is a reply to message #271054] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 16:17 |
Neil
Messages: 271
Registered: July 2007
Location: Los Angeles and Magalia, ...
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Two points:
In California you cannot legally change anything like add fuel injection that makes your coach run cleaner.
That REG 256 form appears to be to be an exemption for a smog certificate necessary to transfer title as opposed to the biannual certificate required for registration renewal. If anyone has boot on the ground experience with the 256 form allowing relief from inspection in the absence of a title transfer, I would be very interested to learn the particulars.
I attach a link to form 256 here:
http://www.smogtips.com/reg256.pdf
Neil
76 Eleganza now sold
Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271058 is a reply to message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 16:27 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
I have filed a REG 256 for several years on my 1999 Explorer, since my son took it to St. Louis.
It' very easy to file the form at a AAA office and renew the registration.
You simply check the box under section B and fill in the explanation under section G.
AAA will then give you the registration sticker on the spot.
And you save $$$ on the inspection fee.
Regards,
Bill
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271075 is a reply to message #271057] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 19:27 |
Guy Lopes
Messages: 499
Registered: April 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Actually you can do whatever you want to your vehicle in California IF it is
a 1975 model year or older. 76 and newer you have to comply with everything
and have it smogged every two years.
Guy Lopes
76 Birchaven "Orion"
Sacramento, CA
W6TOL
www.GMC-Guy.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Neil
Martin
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 2:17 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches
Two points:
In California you cannot legally change anything like add fuel injection
that makes your coach run cleaner.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Guy Lopes
76 Birchaven "Orion"
Sacramento, CA
W6TOL
www.GMC-Guy.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271076 is a reply to message #271026] |
Mon, 02 February 2015 19:38 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scutter wrote on Mon, 02 February 2015 10:09For those of us that have coaches equipped with California smog systems, but have the coaches in other states that don't require smog. What would be the items that could be taken off to improve efficiency and performance?
Are there any of the smog items that might actually improve performance? I don't have the smog pump on my 1977 455 but I do have the charcoal fuel canister. And opinions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Scott
Other than 2 charcoal cannisters, the only difference is the spark advance and lean carburetor settings. Our coaches do NOT have EGR so don't worry about that. I don't think any of it is worth fooling with other than running a little richer on the idle screws in order to stabilize the idle stability and remove any hesitation off idle (if you have any).
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271101 is a reply to message #271079] |
Tue, 03 February 2015 10:51 |
Neil
Messages: 271
Registered: July 2007
Location: Los Angeles and Magalia, ...
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Now that is very good news. My retirement house is in Butte County. Thanks. Check one problem off the list!
Neil
76 Eleganza now sold
Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271131 is a reply to message #271054] |
Tue, 03 February 2015 19:21 |
rickmike
Messages: 252
Registered: September 2011
Location: United States
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Minor correction on the EGR function.
The EGR introduces exhaust gases into the fuel/air stream to reduce the peak combustion temperature thus lowering the NOx production. It lowers the peak combustion temp by using the inert exhaust gases as a heat sink and reducing the amount of fuel/air sucked into the cylinder.
Not the same phenomena as using a higher octane fuel.
Rick M.
James Hupy wrote on Mon, 02 February 2015 16:41There is no smog stuff with the possible exception of spark retard or lean
carb jets that will affect performance. The EGR valve mixes exhaust gasses
into the incoming fuel air mix and slows down the rate of combustion. Kinda
like a higher octane fuel might do. If you remove it, the engine will
probably have to have the spark advance retarded to keep it from pinging
when the engine is fully warmed up. There is no power robbing things like a
smog pump that is engine driven. The double charcoal canister system on the
California coaches just recycle gasoline vapors from the fuel tank and carb
float bowl back into the intake tract. Better to burn them there where it
might possibly make a tiny bit more horsepower than to vent them to the
atmosphere where we have to breathe them and have them help create smog.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Mueller
wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I am of the opinion that if you removed all the California emissions
> control "stuff" you wouldn't feel any seat of the pants
> improvement, you might see it on a dyno.
>
> Johnny,
>
> Also there are specific part numbers for California carbs.
>
> http://gmcmotorhome.info/engine.html#carb
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> The Pedantic Mechanic
> Sydney, Australia
> AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
> USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnny Bridges
>
> I >think< about the only difference on my '76, which was a CA coach
> originally, a second vapor cannister in series with the first
> one, and a thermo switch on the distributor vacuum plus a slightly
> different carb - it lists under a different number. I can't tell
> any difference in how it drives or the mileage from the 49 ones. After
> 76, there may be nore difference. Any of the gurus know of
> anything else different on a '76?
>
> --johnny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
1974 26' Canyonlands
aka "The General"
Clinton, TN
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271137 is a reply to message #271131] |
Tue, 03 February 2015 19:49 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gee, I was only repeating what I was taught at GM Training School at Tigard
Oregon when I attended. They could have been wrong. Sure hate to think
after all these years that GM could have gotten it so wrong.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Richard Michelhaugh <
rick.michelhaugh@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Minor correction on the EGR function.
> The EGR introduces exhaust gases into the fuel/air stream to reduce the
> peak combustion temperature thus lowering the NOx production. It lowers the
> peak combustion temp by using the inert exhaust gases as a heat sink and
> reducing the amount of fuel/air sucked into the cylinder.
> Not the same phenomena as using a higher octane fuel.
>
> Rick M.
>
> James Hupy wrote on Mon, 02 February 2015 16:41
>> There is no smog stuff with the possible exception of spark retard or
> lean
>> carb jets that will affect performance. The EGR valve mixes exhaust
> gasses
>> into the incoming fuel air mix and slows down the rate of combustion.
> Kinda
>> like a higher octane fuel might do. If you remove it, the engine will
>> probably have to have the spark advance retarded to keep it from pinging
>> when the engine is fully warmed up. There is no power robbing things
> like a
>> smog pump that is engine driven. The double charcoal canister system on
> the
>> California coaches just recycle gasoline vapors from the fuel tank and
> carb
>> float bowl back into the intake tract. Better to burn them there where it
>> might possibly make a tiny bit more horsepower than to vent them to the
>> atmosphere where we have to breathe them and have them help create smog.
>> Jim Hupy
>> Salem, OR
>> 78 GMC Royale 403
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Mueller
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that if you removed all the California emissions
>>> control "stuff" you wouldn't feel any seat of the pants
>>> improvement, you might see it on a dyno.
>>>
>>> Johnny,
>>>
>>> Also there are specific part numbers for California carbs.
>>>
>>> http://gmcmotorhome.info/engine.html#carb
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rob M.
>>> The Pedantic Mechanic
>>> Sydney, Australia
>>> AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
>>> USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Johnny Bridges
>>>
>>> I >think< about the only difference on my '76, which was a CA coach
>>> originally, a second vapor cannister in series with the first
>>> one, and a thermo switch on the distributor vacuum plus a slightly
>>> different carb - it lists under a different number. I can't tell
>>> any difference in how it drives or the mileage from the 49 ones.
> After
>>> 76, there may be nore difference. Any of the gurus know of
>>> anything else different on a '76?
>>>
>>> --johnny
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
>
> --
> 1974 26' Canyonlands
> aka "The General"
> Clinton, TN
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271158 is a reply to message #271026] |
Wed, 04 February 2015 01:56 |
George Beckman
Messages: 1085
Registered: October 2008
Location: Colfax, CA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scutter wrote on Mon, 02 February 2015 09:09For those of us that have coaches equipped with California smog systems, but have the coaches in other states that don't require smog. What would be the items that could be taken off to improve efficiency and performance?
Are there any of the smog items that might actually improve performance? I don't have the smog pump on my 1977 455 but I do have the charcoal fuel canister. And opinions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Scott
As Jim Hupy said, the canister is a good thing. Doesn't hurt and in addition to capturing gas vapor it lets you burn it later.
One additional point is that it is a filter for when the tanks are cooling and sucking in air. The bottom of the canister has a filter to keep crud from being sucked into the tanks. IF you don't think there is crud, look at the bottom of the canister some time.
'74 Eleganza, SE, Howell + EBL
Best Wishes,
George
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271178 is a reply to message #271137] |
Wed, 04 February 2015 08:44 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James Hupy wrote on Tue, 03 February 2015 20:49Gee, I was only repeating what I was taught at GM Training School at Tigard Oregon when I attended. They could have been wrong. Sure hate to think after all these years that GM could have gotten it so wrong.
Jim,
That is probably what you were taught.
And Yes, They taught you wrong. And, many knew it at the time and the story behind is kind of interesting.
At the time Ed Muskie (Remember Him) had some power and was looking at running for president he had decided that the democrats would be "the environmental party" (a reverse from their prior stand) and he decided to make a name for himself by using the newly formed EPA as a weapon. He got rules issued to make automobiles cleaner. Unfortunately for us, they picked a sample of post EPA Rules 1 cars that were less than a year old and already 90% cleaner than pre-rule 1 cars. And set the target at 90% of that.
These cars hit the streets in about 1970 and were terrible. The people were used to cars that actually ran. Pre-Rule 1 cars were tuned for performance. (In the industry they were often called gasoline cooled engines.) After rule 1, they had to effective control fuel and make engines cool better and not dump raw gas on the street. The manufactures made the 90% mark plus.
Then Rule 2 hit.....
HC had pretty well been managed, but NOx was still an issue because combustion processes were still too hot. So, EGR came along along with a whole new set of problems. Most notable was that these new cars ran like 5h1t. An Immediate Response was that effective mechanics were out there disabling the emission controls in a effort to have satisfied clients. The people in power were livid and made it know that they would seek stringent enforcement. So, and early response from the manufactures was to first tell the story that the emission controls were good for the engine's life (wrong) and then an effort push by the EPA called "Run Worse" that would hopefully make a vehicle that was out of tune or with hardware disabled to run less well than it would otherwise. This was a humorous failure all around. It lead directly to the terrible performance and fuel economy of the 70's catalytic cars.
I would love to go on with this, but I do have things to do today, like clear the new snow.
Matt
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] California smogged coaches [message #271180 is a reply to message #271178] |
Wed, 04 February 2015 09:47 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt, I really did not want to get into the whole NOX discussion, and that
was the reason for the "smart alec" response that I gave. After I read it,
I kinda wish that I had hit delete instead of send. But it's out there,
now. So, have at it. The time period from 1970 until about the time
electronic engine management took over was an embarrassment for American
manufacturing companies, and they still are struggling with the fallout
after letting the EPA CAMEL'S head under the tent flaps. There are bright
spots out there. But, the best selling American car is a truck? What's up
with that. Can't deny that the Corvette, Mustang, and Challenger have found
a way to performance despite restrictive rules, though.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Feb 4, 2015 6:45 AM, "Matt Colie" wrote:
> James Hupy wrote on Tue, 03 February 2015 20:49
>> Gee, I was only repeating what I was taught at GM Training School at
> Tigard Oregon when I attended. They could have been wrong. Sure hate to
> think
>> after all these years that GM could have gotten it so wrong.
>
> Jim,
>
> That is probably what you were taught.
> And Yes, They taught you wrong. And, many knew it at the time and the
> story behind is kind of interesting.
> At the time Ed Muskie (Remember Him) had some power and was looking at
> running for president he had decided that the democrats would be "the
> environmental party" (a reverse from their prior stand) and he decided to
> make a name for himself by using the newly formed EPA as a weapon. He got
> rules issued to make automobiles cleaner. Unfortunately for us, they
> picked a sample of post EPA Rules 1 cars that were less than a year old and
> already 90% cleaner than pre-rule 1 cars. And set the target at 90% of
> that.
>
> These cars hit the streets in about 1970 and were terrible. The people
> were used to cars that actually ran. Pre-Rule 1 cars were tuned for
> performance. (In the industry they were often called gasoline cooled
> engines.) After rule 1, they had to effective control fuel and make engines
> cool
> better and not dump raw gas on the street. The manufactures made the 90%
> mark plus.
>
> Then Rule 2 hit.....
> HC had pretty well been managed, but NOx was still an issue because
> combustion processes were still too hot. So, EGR came along along with a
> whole
> new set of problems. Most notable was that these new cars ran like 5h1t.
> An Immediate Response was that effective mechanics were out there disabling
> the emission controls in a effort to have satisfied clients. The people
> in power were livid and made it know that they would seek stringent
> enforcement. So, and early response from the manufactures was to first
> tell the story that the emission controls were good for the engine's life
> (wrong) and then an effort push by the EPA called "Run Worse" that would
> hopefully make a vehicle that was out of tune or with hardware disabled to
> run less well than it would otherwise. This was a humorous failure all
> around. It lead directly to the terrible performance and fuel economy of
> the
> 70's catalytic cars.
>
> I would love to go on with this, but I do have things to do today, like
> clear the new snow.
>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: California smogged coaches [message #271193 is a reply to message #271026] |
Wed, 04 February 2015 12:19 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A long time ago I bought a new 1981 F100 pickup, 300 cubic inch six with the Calif smog package and electronic feedback carb.
I blocked the EGR valve thinking it would improve performance. It pinged like crazy with regular gas.
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jul 02 22:10:21 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07719 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
