Honda Car Forum

"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18...
> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I say it is original. I think it is the original.
> > Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there
regular
> > service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2
sensor
> > being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the
**BIG**
> > service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers
escape
> > my memory)
> >
> > Oh well, time to start replacing stuff.
>
> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post?
>
> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was
LOTS wrong
> with the technician's actions durng the test.
> --
> Tegger
>
Hello Tegger,
yes i did read it.
steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what
i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do
not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on
the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes.

Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and
1/2 strike on my story.

I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.

I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?

Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have
to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
other wise i am out $50.

thanks for all the helpful advice,
robb

robb wrote:
> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18...
>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original.
>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there
> regular
>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2
> sensor
>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the
> **BIG**
>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers
> escape
>>> my memory)
>>>
>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff.
>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post?
>>
>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was
> LOTS wrong
>> with the technician's actions durng the test.
>> --
>> Tegger
>>
> Hello Tegger,
> yes i did read it.
> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what
> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do
> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on
> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes.
>
> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and
> 1/2 strike on my story.
>
> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.
>
> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?
>
> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have
> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
> other wise i am out $50.
>
> thanks for all the helpful advice,
> robb
>
>
>
>

what is smarter?

1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
result [retesting]? or

2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???

denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you money
or stop wasting electron on usenet!

jim beam wrote:
> robb wrote:
>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
>>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original.
>>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there
>> regular
>>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2
>> sensor
>>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the
>> **BIG**
>>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers
>> escape
>>>> my memory)
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff.
>>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post?
>>>
>>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was
>> LOTS wrong
>>> with the technician's actions durng the test.
>>> --
>>> Tegger
>>>
>> Hello Tegger,
>> yes i did read it.
>> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what
>> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do
>> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
>> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on
>> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes.
>>
>> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and
>> 1/2 strike on my story.
>>
>> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
>> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.
>>
>> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
>> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
>> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?
>>
>> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have
>> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
>> other wise i am out $50.
>>
>> thanks for all the helpful advice,
>> robb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> what is smarter?
>
> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
> result [retesting]? or
>
> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>
> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you money
> or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>

I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly
and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.

The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it
may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its
own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if
there is actually a problem.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>



snip


>>
>> what is smarter?
>>
>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>> result [retesting]? or
>>
>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>>
>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you
>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>>
>
> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly
> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.
>
> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it
> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its
> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if
> there is actually a problem.
>
> nate


Pay no heed to beam as he resides in his "special" corner of the world
having little to do with the rest of us free thinkers.

I agree that the test may have been botched. Beam's assertion that the
"machine" is infallible is, well, ah... fallible.

BTW, how's JP doing these days?

JT

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:YZidnfwOFeDqybzXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:


>>
>
> what is smarter?
>
> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
> result [retesting]? or
>
> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???



I have seen retests give significantly different numbers when absolutely
nothing was done to the car in between.

Paying for a re-test is cheaper than a new oxygen sensor. To me it's worth
the gamble.



--
Tegger

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:YZidnfwOFeDqybzXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>> what is smarter?
>>
>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>> result [retesting]? or
>>
>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>
>
>
> I have seen retests give significantly different numbers when absolutely
> nothing was done to the car in between.
>
> Paying for a re-test is cheaper than a new oxygen sensor. To me it's worth
> the gamble.
>
>
>

for sure, i'd make sure i took it to a "test only" station, but when the
op "witnesses" a number of things that are clearly wrong:

"i do not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on the dash"

"RPM............2718" vs. "i peeked in at the tach which up around
5000-6000"

i seriously doubt his story.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>>
>>> what is smarter?
>>>
>>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>>> result [retesting]? or
>>>
>>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>>>
>>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you
>>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>>>
>>
>> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done
>> correctly and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.
>>
>> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when
>> it may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop
>> with its own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and
>> find out if there is actually a problem.
>>
>> nate
>
>
> Pay no heed to beam as he resides in his "special" corner of the world
> having little to do with the rest of us free thinkers.

you're a "free thinker"??? on reflection, i suspect you probably are!


>
> I agree that the test may have been botched. Beam's assertion that the
> "machine" is infallible is, well, ah... fallible.
>
> BTW, how's JP doing these days?
>
> JT

Nate Nagel wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> robb wrote:
>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C1B605DEBBC2tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>>> "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in
>>>> news:LKydnT1nJZ2AubzXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I say it is original. I think it is the original.
>>>>> Does honda service ever replace O2 sensor in any of there
>>> regular
>>>>> service intervals ? I do not remeber ever seeing the O2
>>> sensor
>>>>> being replaced but i did take the car in for whatever the
>>> **BIG**
>>>>> service intervals were ( ? 90K / 120K / 150K ? the numbers
>>> escape
>>>>> my memory)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, time to start replacing stuff.
>>>> Did you even bother to read Steve W's post?
>>>>
>>>> There may be nothing at all wrong with your car, but there was
>>> LOTS wrong
>>>> with the technician's actions durng the test.
>>>> --
>>>> Tegger
>>>>
>>> Hello Tegger,
>>> yes i did read it.
>>> steve said it sounds like i need to find a new tester. Thats what
>>> i thought too but i do not think this was his first day and i do
>>> not remeber testers ever having trouble getting a good tach
>>> reading in the past. They always just plopped that paddle up on
>>> the dash and the test done in about 10 minutes.
>>>
>>> Then with (Ben and Jim) i have two strikes against the car and
>>> 1/2 strike on my story.
>>>
>>> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
>>> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.
>>>
>>> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
>>> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
>>> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?
>>>
>>> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ? Right now i have
>>> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
>>> other wise i am out $50.
>>>
>>> thanks for all the helpful advice,
>>> robb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> what is smarter?
>>
>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>> result [retesting]? or
>>
>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>>
>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you
>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>>
>
> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly
> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.

he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to
post, and which does not accord with the facts.


>
> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it
> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its
> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if
> there is actually a problem.

if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes.


>
> nate
>

On 5/30/09 12:13 PM, in article
QfudnbmPTPO39LzXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@speakeasy.net, "jim beam" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>>
>> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done correctly
>> and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.
>
> he's telling us a bunch of stuff which is inconsistent from post to
> post, and which does not accord with the facts.
>
>

What "facts"? Other than what he has related here, you don't actually know
any "facts" to be challenging.

>>
>> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when it
>> may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop with its
>> own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and find out if
>> there is actually a problem.
>
> if he can't do the usual pre-test prep, yes.
>
>

Once again, if Beam feels the least bit challenged, the accusations of
stupidity directed toward everyone and anyone start flying. Best bet is to
just kill-file him. Life is too short.

"robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote in news:8L-
dnY2qKZjT0rzXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:


<snip>


>
> I did not know it was standard practice to replace the O2 sensor
> every ~80K ? i know i have never done it.




It is NOT "standard practice". You replace the sensor once it stops
behaving as it should.

You're way high on HC and NOx on both years' tests, but the '09 CO of over
9% may be just a one-time glitch. It could simply be that the cat was
insufficiently warmed up for both tests.

You don't have EGR, so that won't be an issue. Have you ever checked the
basic ignition timing? How old are your plug wires/cap/rotor/plugs?





>
> I can and will test it (as i can) to see if it is suspect but
> according to those O2 comments and even some of your own posts
> about O2 sensors ... the O2 should probably be replaced ?
>
> Anyways what happens if you get failed twice ?




Don't know. In my area you can have it tested any number of times until it
passes. I think you have to pay for each retest.




> Right now i have
> to show proof of work done to get it tested again for free ?
> other wise i am out $50.




If you randomly replace parts with no success you'll be out at least that
amount anyway.

First thing to do is re-book the test, but at a different station. Make
sure you're the very first car on the machine for that day. Take the car
for a long drive (at least an hour) and time your arrival at the station
with just enough time to hand in your key. TURN THE ENGINE OFF; DO NOT
ALLOW IT TO IDLE. They should have the vehicle on the dyno within fifteen
minutes at the outside. This will ensure the cat is up to temp and as
efficient as it can be, which is critical.

IF the car fails again, even when properly prepped, THEN you start doing
troubleshooting. The results from this test, combined with the results from
the other tests, should be enough for a competent tech to daignose the car.


--
Tegger