1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:18:27 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I presume you are not in the uk as over here we do not require cat
>testing on cars manufactured before 1993.

I'm in Canada.

>Other than that have a
>compression/leak down test done to check condition of engine.

Just bought a compression gauge - will test this week.

>to the perameters of the ecu and all engine sensors. I presume you
>don't have an engine check light?

I have a "FUEL 26" code showing on VCM (but NOT "CHECK ENGINE" light,
which seems a little odd???). I will test all fuel related items and
clean things like airflow meter, etc.

I also bought a fuel pressure gauge, but I have to fart around to find
the right fitting adapter - my kit has Ford & GM only, which also fits
many others but not Jag ( I think).

Once I clear whatever the problem is that is causing the code 26, I
will then test it again. If it still doesn't pass, and there is
nothing mechanical wrong with the engine, I can try changing my
address, on my driving license only, to a rural part of the province
where this test cert. is not required, or shelve the car for another 2
years till it is not required here either, being 20+ years old.

I can get recertified, used cat-cons, but a whole replacement set is
over $C1000, and that still leaves me with used items, not new!
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

Thought I'd better drop you this bit of info I unearthed on the
jaguarlovers site.

Fuel fail 26 is . As the engine gets partly warmed up, it stumbles and
sets the code. The code will clear when the trouble does, on the next
restart.

Possible faults for a FF26 are :

- Low fuel pressure (plugged filter, weak pressure regulator on fuel
rail, plugged system)
- Intake manifold air leak (vacuum hoses, intake manifold gasket, evap
system hose rot, egr pipe rusted out, problem with air injection
system (leaking valve).
- Ignition misfire, (bad plug, wires, cap, rotor)
- Purge valve stuck open (vacuum leak in evap system)
- Oxy sensor fault (not common)
- Bad maf sensor or connections.

Best to start with the ignition system : If the wires, cap, rotor are
old, replace them, along with spark plugs.

The catalytic converters may eventually MELT, plugging the exhaust if
the car is ran with the FF alarm on, so don't ignore it just because
the engine runs ok.


Hope yours are ok!

Mr Smooth.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:57:13 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Thought I'd better drop you this bit of info I unearthed on the
>jaguarlovers site.
>

Hi,

Thanks - that's the document I am working from already, hahaha.

I got lucky.

Since the code 26, and the result of my emission test, and anything
else, all pointed toward a lean running condition from low fuel
pressure, air leak, etc., I was outside this afternoon checking out
where to tap in with my new fuel pressure gauge and the vacuum gauge I
haven't bought yet.

I saw a rubber elbow coming out of the manifold towards the rear and
go to a tubing that runs across the top of the firewall to the other
side of the car, behind the battery.

I fished the other end of it out from under the battery and - you
guessed it - an open tube, sucking wind like nobody's business!

I plugged it up, disconnected the battery to reset the ecu (idle speed
etc), and now it runs perfectly with no code showing after about 15
minutes idle.

It's still up on stands waiting for a couple of suspension parts, but
I think I'm a long way towards getting the NOx emissions down under
the limit.

Best regards,

- Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

Great stuff Tom, nice when that happens!

As a note on cats, new from cats direct over here for around £150,
copy that link below to see.

If you email them they might be able to quote for international
delivery. If you end up needing one...

http://www.cats-direct-shop.co.uk/two-year-catalytic-converter.php?recordID=749

Cheers, Mr Smooth.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:55:02 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Great stuff Tom, nice when that happens!
>
>As a note on cats, new from cats direct over here for around £150,
>copy that link below to see.
>


I'll keep it in mind if I do need one, however the ones shown at that
link are only the back 2 cats. There are another 2 smaller ones on
the joined pipes immediately after the manifold that are not shown
(and presumably not included ??? ) in that item.

Best regards,

- Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Nov 4, 11:19 pm, Happy Trails <nom....RemoveThis@myplace.com> wrote:

> I'll keep it in mind if I do need one, however the ones shown at that
> link are only the back 2 cats.  There are another 2 smaller ones on
> the joined pipes immediately after the manifold that are not shown
> (and presumably not included ??? ) in that item.
>
> Best regards,
>
>  - Tom

Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there
to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with
californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction)
will not impare the emissions on a warm engine.

Just my two penneth on the subject.

Cheers, Mr Smooth.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 00:41:39 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there
>to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with
>californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction)
>will not impare the emissions on a warm engine.

I tried to find the actual emission numbers on the web somewhere for
the Ontario, Canada test to compare with the California, USA ones, but
all I have to go on are the nmers on my test sheet from last week, and
I think they are different for different vehicles/years because other
test sheets posted in forum discussions on the topic show different
numbers. I didn't actually get around to looking for the Cal. numbers
when I couldn't find Ont. ones.

I suspect our controls here are just about as strict as Cal., so I'd
probably need those front ones as well, or at least to give a margin
for a bad test day. The results seem to vary considerably with the
same car at different times, even on the same day!

Some parts suppliers have the rear ones, with or without the pipes,
and suggest you cut and paste "universal" ones into your manifold for
the fronts! Sure thing!

I'll see how I do with the manifold leak plugged before I start
spending all that money - it's only $C17.50 to retest.

- Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

>
> I suspect our controls here are just about as strict as Cal., so I'd
> probably need those front ones as well, or at least to give a margin
> for a bad test day.  The results seem to vary considerably with the
> same car at different times, even on the same day!

Yes Tom, the best way to achieve lowest emmisions for a test is to
give the car a good run at highway speeds 55mph or above for 5-10mins
immediatly prior to the test. Hopefully it will give you the edge to
pass the test. It is certainly recomended for cars over here that are
close to the limit.

All the best, Mr Smooth.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:58:47 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>All the best, Mr Smooth.

Oh poop!

The car runs immensely better than before, but I got a worse score on
NOx emissions than when it was running lean enough to detect it on the
O2 sensor (code 26).

I guess my only option now is to buy some new cat-cons and try again.

Prices for new parts in N. America vary from $500 - $1500, with I
suppose the more expensive ones being metal not ceramic.

I looked at that web site you mentioned, but they show only shipping
options within UK. I have sent them an email to ask about DHL or
other delivery to Canada. At GBP125 (= C$232) they seem too cheap - I
hope they are up to standard and have enough material in them to pass
our requirements here.

If I do get them, I will install them for the test, then pull them and
store them till next test, to keep them fresh and useable for many
years. I will need one every 2 years. That way a engine problem or
rusty exhaust pipe won't screw up my good cat-cons.

Have you got any recommended way of separating the cat-con section
from the tail pipes without destroying anything other than copious
heat from a cutting torch? My last efforts to loosen these just
caused a rust-weakened pipe to break clean at the joint with one of
the mufflers. It was hard enough just to brute-force the broken pipe
piece out of the enlarged entrance to the muffler. There are times
when you'd rather not have stainless - it will weaken and break at a
joint, but the bits sleeved together are very difficult to separate if
there is rust formed between the layers.

BTW, what are your emission limits there that these cat-cons are okay
to handle?

Here we have (for a 4 L Jag), at 40kph, HC 50 ppm (I got 10 and 14),
CO% 0.28 (I got 0.00 and 0.01), and NO ppm 548 (I got 1081 and 1735).

I just noticed something screwy on the test, however as I typed this
out. The recorded RPM for 40kph on the first test was 505 - that is
wrong - it idles at 800! It was 1555 for the second test.

If their machine calculates ppm based on actual amount from their
sensor vs. theoretically calculated total volume from RPM, then the
first test NO reading was really skewed against me in the first test.

I'll have to look into the Province's testing/calculation methods a
little deeper.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 00:41:39 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Tom, those smaller ones i would call pre-cats and really are there
>to help emissions at initial start up only and to comply with
>californian regs. On most cars the removal of these (or malfunction)
>will not impare the emissions on a warm engine.

From Wikipedia article on cat-cons:

For spark ignition engines, the most commonly used catalytic converter
is the three-way converter which converts the three main pollutants of
concern — CO, HC, and NOx— to less-toxic substances. The control of
NOx involves a reduction process that releases oxygen and the control
of CO and HC involves an oxidation process that consumes oxygen.
Therefore, a 3-way converter contains two catalyst-coated stages: The
first catalyst stage encountered by the exhaust is for reduction of
NOx, which produces oxygen employed by the second stage to oxidize CO
and HC.

So it may be that I really need the first-stage cat-cons replaced
because my emission problem is with the NOx.

Maybe I should be looking to get the EGR setup off an 89 Jag engine.
EGR specifically addresses the NOx emissions problem also.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

> So it may be that I really need the first-stage cat-cons replaced
> because my emission problem is with the NOx.
>
> Maybe I should be looking to get the EGR setup off an 89 Jag engine.
> EGR specifically addresses the NOx emissions problem also.

Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport)

22 CO emissions (mixture) At the time of writing, for vehicles first
used between 1st August 1975 and 31st July 1986 (P to C registration),
the CO level must not exceed 4.5% by volume. For vehicles first used
between 1st August 1986 and 31st July 1992 (D to J registration), the
CO level must not exceed 3.5% by volume. Vehicles first used after 1st
August 1992 (K registration) must conform to the manufacturer's
specification. The MOT tester has access to a DOT database or
emissions handbook, which lists the CO and HC limits for each make and
model of vehicle. The CO level is measured with the engine at idle
speed, and at "fast idle". The following limits are given as a general
guide: At idle speed - CO level no more than 0.5% At "fast idle" (2500
to 3000 rpm) - CO level no more than 0.3% (minimum oil temperature
60ºC) If the CO level cannot be reduced far enough to pass the test
(and the fuel and ignition systems are otherwise in good condition)
then the carburettor is badly worn, or there is some problem in the
fuel injection system or catalytic converter (as applicable).

23 HC emissions With the CO within limits, HC emissions for vehicles
first used between 1st August 1975 and 31st July 1992 (P to J
registration) must not exceed 1200 ppm. Vehicles first used after 1st
August 1992 (K registration) must conform to the manufacturer's
specification. The MOT tester has access to a DOT database or
emissions handbook, which lists the CO and HC limits for each make and
model of vehicle. The HC level is measured with the engine at "fast
idle". The following is given as a general guide: At "fast idle" (2500
to 3000 rpm) - HC level no more than 200 ppm (minimum oil temperature
60ºC)
Excessive HC emissions are caused by incomplete combustion, the causes
of which can include oil being burnt, mechanical wear and ignition/
fuel system malfunction

Obviousy our test doesn't cover 1990 emissions but as the exhaust
system is the same for jags upto 1995 you can use the post 1993
levels.

Looks like it doesn't cover NOx levels.

If you fancy some downpipes there are some second hand ones as wel as
new on ebay uk from £60 to £350.

That website with the cats for sale will do them with steel cores as
well as ceramic for not to much money.

Cheers, Mr Smooth.
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:04:49 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
<cheekyshmi.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport)
>
Thanks for the info - the UK approach to emission controls for old
vehicles makes much more sense than the "flat rate" rules here. It's
like the Ontario Gov't wants to stab the consumer in the back
retoractively, probably with the support if not collusion of the local
auto industry.

I got htis short note back from my inquiry regarding the cat-cons you
pointed me to :

"
Hi, sorry we only ship within the UK.

Best Regards
Nathan Nichols
Autospares-Sutton Ltd
"
Don't know what I can do to get their stuff now - it's many hundreds
of dollars cheaper than anything available this side of the Atlantic.

- Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:50:59 -0500, Happy Trails <nomail RemoveThis @myplace.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:04:49 -0800 (PST), Mr Smooth
><cheekyshmi RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Tom, according to our MOT (ministry of transport)
>>
>Thanks for the info - the UK approach to emission controls for old
>vehicles makes much more sense than the "flat rate" rules here. It's
>like the Ontario Gov't wants to stab the consumer in the back
>retoractively, probably with the support if not collusion of the local
>auto industry.
>
>I got htis short note back from my inquiry regarding the cat-cons you
>pointed me to :
>
>"
>Hi, sorry we only ship within the UK.
>
>Best Regards
>Nathan Nichols
>Autospares-Sutton Ltd
>"
>Don't know what I can do to get their stuff now - it's many hundreds
>of dollars cheaper than anything available this side of the Atlantic.
>
> - Tom


Make a friend in GB who will reship them to you?

OK, I'm not sure this is the 'right' part, but my CarQuest terminal
comes up with:

1 CARQUEST/AP EXHAUST 602214 Universal
Converter 90-92 $156.23 00.0 2
FRONT
UNIV. CONVERTER

1 CARQUEST/AP EXHAUST 609004 Universal
Converter 90-92 $286.22 00.0 2
REAR
UNIV. CONVERTER

Now, these are 'universal' type converters so you'd have to adapt/weld
on flanges as needed. And, I'm not 100% sure they are the correct
converters, but they probably will work OK in your application. Just a
thought!
 >> Stay informed about: 1990 xj40 exhaust - Cat-cons