Emissions help

Hi all. So my 67 dart failed emissions today because at idle the mixture is too rich anyone got any suggestions as to how I can fix this! I can't register the dang thing until I pass and I sure would like to be able to drive it! Its got the 225 slant six if that helps. Thanks!

I think you should sue Arizona. The only cars before 68 that were EVER DESIGNED to pass smog tests were 66 and 67 cars built SPECIFICALLY FOR California state

But on a more practical note, who set the idle mixture and how did you set it? Generally you want the car fully warmed up, and the idle mixture set "toward the lean side" (clockwise) from the vacuum/ RPM peak. 'Tarding the timing helps some, which is the very first thing all the manufacturers did in the 68-later era.

Also, "what shape" is the engine in? If it uses oil, or if the carb / ignition/ tune up is in generally bad shape, it won't pass.

Frankly I think expecting a car that old, and ESPECIALLY one which never was required when built to meet any smog specs is an insult to one's intelligence.

Don'tja think it's about time Arizona got onto the same planet as some as the rest of us?

I agree I think its a bit ridiculous that its required for a car that old at all. The engines not in the best shape but it doesn't burn oil or leak. I do believe the cylinder rings are worn as my plugs have a bit of oil on them but It runs pretty strong and passed the driving portion but apparently idles rich. I've been looking around trying to figure out how to adjust the carb but dont think I can pull it off so I may have to take it somewhere. I plan on doing plugs and air filter myself and hoping that helps?

It's a very lax test your '67 has to pass; if it fails, it is truly running ridiculously rich and not only stinkin' up the air but costing you a lot of expensive gasoline money. Fix it!
Tune-up parts and technique suggestions in this thread. Carburetor operation and repair manuals and links to training movies and carb repair/modification threads are posted here for free download.

Keep in mind that if the fuel pump diaphragm fails on a slant-6 engine, it'll shoot gas into the crankcase, which will then be sucked up into the intake tract via the PCV valve. Quick check for this: pull the dipstick and smell it. If it smells of gasoline, replace the fuel pump and change the oil.

pardon my ignorance, but are you serious that this 1967 car has to pass any kind of emissions? i find that extremely unreasonable. we have no emissions at all in colorado springs, and this place is big. FWIW, we used to screw the mixture screw in untill it barely runs and back it out 1/2 turn, and jack the idle up some. and a good tune up

73AbodEE said:

pardon my ignorance, but are you serious that this 1967 car has to pass any kind of emissions?

Click to expand...

I'm assuming he's not joking. Same is true not far from you in Denver. It's perfectly reasonable, too -- the limits are set such that only a serious pig of a gross polluter will flunk. Tune the car up and adjust everything correctly and it'll pass easily.

slantsixdan said:

. It's perfectly reasonable, too --.

Click to expand...

Uh...........

..............it's NOT "perfectly reasonable."

Judging from what I've seen in my travels, pre- 68 vehicles comprise a ridiculously small percentage of daily traffic. I dare say that it's so far below 1% of total traffic on the roads, that vehicles in this class have become insignificant.

And even if these old vehicles DID comprise as much as 1% of the total vehicles on the road, these cars are drive FAR FAR less miles than the typical 5 year old or newer car, meaning, that the pollution they "may" cause is also insignificant.

NOW let's compare that to a typical day in traffic, shall we? Hell I have had to educate myself such that when I see a typical full size pickup, I must wake up and stop my car AT LEAST 2-3 car lengths behind it in traffic, so that the driver of this irritating, chipped up soot machine does not deposit a huge black smelly cloud of wet oily carbon all over and inside my car.

i find it absolutely absurd that any 45 year old vehicle would have to comply with ANY smog standards, let alone have to pass an emissions test.

73AbodEE said:

i find it absolutely absurd that any 45 year old vehicle would have to comply with ANY smog standards, let alone have to pass an emissions test.

Click to expand...

Here I typed all that mess above, and you said it in just one sentence!!!

even my 1978 cordoba is emissions exempt in CO springs

Thanks everybody for the responses! I may try messing with the carb we'll see. Can anyone tell me the basic timing for the 225 slant six though I'd like to see if its out of whack

Factory spec for your '67 is 2½° BTDC unless it is a California car (with CAP) in which case it is 5° ATDC.

Don't "mess with" the carburetor. Inspect it, clean it, rebuild and adjust it as necessary.

73AbodEE said:

i find it absolutely absurd that any 45 year old vehicle would have to comply with ANY smog standards, let alone have to pass an emissions test.

Click to expand...

slantsixdan said:

Click to expand...

and once again the OMGauuewad of the www has spoken. I believe you are referring to yourself with that statement.

Jus' stay in Canada, mmmmmmmmmmmkay? I believe that's where a lot of the illegal R-12 is coming from

If you tell us what model carb, we might be able to give some tuning advice. Do you know if the engine and carb is from 1967? If a later engine, I think some regions require that you pass the emissions standards for the year the engine was made.

If you are getting oil on the plugs, that sounds pretty bad. I have had engines with low compression and never had that. Remove the oil filler cap, remove the PCV valve from the top of the valve cover and plug it with your finger so the carb doesn't suck in air, then look and feel for blow-by gases from the filler tube on the valve cover. If a lot of gas and puffing, that means bad ring wear. If that were the case, you would be burning a lot of oil and putting out blue smoke. My suspicion is that the "oil" you see on the plugs is actually black soot from running too rich.

The most likely cause for a carb to run rich is that its fuel bowl is over-flowing. That is due either to a sunk float or debris in the inlet that blocks the float needle from closing. Both are common and easy to fix. However, many other possible causes, as SlantSixDan stated.

=slantsixdan;1791919

Click to expand...

that was not meant to be an argument or to start one, only a statement that i believe it is absurd that any 45 year old vehicle should need an emissions test and i dont see an argument here. it has nothing to do with validity. where i reside, my 35 and 40 year old cars do not have to meet any emissions requirements to be registered or tagged.

here is VA its a 25yr rolling... thank goodness.

73AbodEE said:

that was not meant to be an argument

Click to expand...

Neither was my reply. Srsly: it's a cat. Rolling a watermelon. Out of a lake. Y'don't really think I was seriously trying to start a pissing match, do ya?


Back to the topic at hand: There really isn't anything worth complaining about here. The limits in place in Arizona for 1967-'71 cars with more than 4 cylinders are 450 ppm HC and 5% CO at idle, 450 ppm HC and 3.75% CO at loaded cruise. Those are lax enough standards to drive just about anything through, as long as it's got an engine in reasonably decent shape and it's tuned up reasonably well.

When I lived in Denver, my 1965 Valiant with 225/auto and high miles had zero difficulty passing the emission test. Limits at that time for a 1965 model were 550 ppm HC and 5% CO; the Valiant blew 168 ppm HC and 1.2% CO, and that was at high altitude which tends to worsen emissions from carbureted cars. No tricks, no magic mouse milk poured in the gas tank, no misadjusting the idle mixture so the engine would run extra-lean, no hours of time spent doing a tune-up right before the test...just plain old ordinary keeping it in reasonably good tune.

Whether or not the car was originally designed to comply with Federal emission standards is totally irrelevant; no matter if we're talking about a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old car, state emission standards have little or nothing to do with the Federal standards every make-model-year-engine-transmission vehicle package has to meet in order to be legal for first sale. Some states require an emissions test from vehicles regardless of year to keep the gross polluters off the road til they're fixed. I don't see anything wrong with that, any more than I would object to a vehicle being "grounded" for broken lights, worn-out brakes, or bald tires via a periodic safety inspection. We all gotta breathe what comes out of every vehicle's tailpipe, and while the population of old cars is so tiny that immediately deleting them all from the roads would have no measurable effect on air quality, all it takes is one stinker or smoker to get a whole bunch of well-meaning but ignorant people behind laws restricting the use of old cars.

So let's review --

WITH a basic emission test that will flunk only a genuinely faulty vehicle, you get incentive to repair and tune up your car, thus saving you a lot of gas money, and you prevent public opinion from turning against your choice of automobile. Win-win.

WITHOUT such a test, you go carelessly about your miles and days pouring gas money out the tailpipe and into the noses of a general public who can and will legislate against your ability to drive your old car. Lose-lose.

H'mm. Tough decision!

LOL of course not, there would be no validity in it...

slantsixdan said:

Y'don't really think I was seriously trying to start a pissing match, do ya?..................There really isn't anything worth complaining about here........... The limits in place in Arizona for 1967-'71 cars....................... are lax enough standards to ..............!

Click to expand...

So, the all knowing Wiz of Oz (Ignore that old man behind the curtain) wants to claim that someone who is arguing AGAINST these "standards" is about as relevant as a cat rolling a watermelon

BUT HE the DAN the GAWIAAWWWWWAAAUD of all information, can come along and------------- DECIDE ---------------- that since these requirements are "lax enough" that NO ONE SHOULD argue against them!!!!!

Ha ha its getting a little tense here fellas I do really appreciate the help and I just ordered a digital timing light with tach so I can adjust and check both my carb and timing which probably hasn't been done in years as I believe it sat outside unmaintained for quite sometime before I bought it.

The carb I have on it I don't think is original as its a 1945 Holley and I think the 67 had the 1920 so any tuning tips would be great.

And Dan thanks for the links and the timing answer and 67Dart thanks for feeling my pain with the whole situation.

My Co2 at idle was 5.4% so .4 over the limit hopefully a good tuning and I'll be ready to roll

speed up the idle to the max allowed

Even Commiefornia doesn't require your car to be smogged. What the hell is wrong with Arizona.

Lean it out or the test.

Amazing how many smoke belching f-d up vehicles pour over the boarder into AZ, CA, (I have only witnessed the plethora of CA ingress) daily, following no law of any kind, much less emissions friggin law, yet AZ has to harass the .01% that drive a car older than 70, or 75, or even 80. Sucks and is total bull shi$.

There is no way the percentages make any sense to even worry about old cars.

I hope you get your machine up to spec.. The entire hobby will be taken away soon enough by the same bullshi4 fear based pseudo scientific justification.
I am going outside to pour some oil on the ground and light it.

.

I can't resist entering this topic but I'll probably catch flack from both sides! I too think it's ridiculous to make a '67 model pass an arbitrary emmission test when they were never designed to do so. That being said, it seems to me, that as an owner, you would want it to run more efficiently for better gas mileage and longer engine life. You're close enough on the readings that you should be able to tweak things to get under the limits. As for Dan's analogy to a safety inspection, it has about the same relevance. Accidents caused by preventable equipment failure is next to nothing in likelyhood....about the same as '67 model car causing air pollution.....like pissing in the ocean causing water pollution. If your right next to it....an annoyance maybe, but hardly anything to get anal over. Certainly nothing bad enough to force people to spend (waste) the kind of money needed to fund these programs.