CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
No more smog on an 88?
- Thread starter 88K5Jimmy
- Start date
shaun89
1/2 ton status
i would imagine so, as long as theres not a wire going back to the computer or it creates a vacuum leak. if u have an air pump, i no u can take that off no problem.
Why? The emissions stuff on an 88 isn't much and it doesn't hurt performance any. I'm assuming that you don't have emissions testing where you live? Also keep in mind that it is a federal crime to remove emissions equipment from any vehicle regardless of the year even if it doesn't need to be tested.
Kenny78
1/2 ton status
No testing in OK. Research before you remove everything. For example, I think its better to leave evap. fuel emissions. Also Egr is supposed to help highway cruising. How different were emissions setups on 88 TBI than say a 94 1/2 ton 350. Cause, if similar, isnt too complex unless you swap intakes or something like that.
My .002 cents
My .002 cents
I'm in the process of repacing head gaskets and the tubes that run around the back of the motor and connect into the exhaust manifolds are hard plumbed and boted to the backs of the cylinder heads. Needless to say the bolt that hold the brackets and misc stuff to the back of the cylinder head are very difficult to get to. Therefore when putting the heads back on it would be way less complicated if I didn't have to worry about those tubes "smog stuff" getting in the way, etc. My question is if it would disrupt any electrical/computer related things.
Removing EGR SHOULD be the only thing that causes real problems, as the ECM is supposed to run a diagnostic test on it essentially every time the vehicle is driven, and throw a code when it finds that problem.
EVAP is the other one, but that won't throw a code. It's just a very good way to vent the gas tank, as it's a bit of a preventive measure from keeping condensation out of the fuel tanks, and a good way to get rid of the gasoline vapors, which is difficult to do.
EVAP is the other one, but that won't throw a code. It's just a very good way to vent the gas tank, as it's a bit of a preventive measure from keeping condensation out of the fuel tanks, and a good way to get rid of the gasoline vapors, which is difficult to do.
GsxrMike
1/2 ton status
It may not hurt it that bad but how can you say it doesn't hurt it ANY? Would it be a federal crime to swap an engine that was non emissions into a emissions vechicle?
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
It's not the engine that matters so much as the smog equipment it originally came with. If you drive it on the street you're technically not allowed to remove any of that stuff.
Unless the EPA has changed their regulations, it's not legal no matter WHERE you drive it. You still see it in catalogs, but last time I looked (granted, been a couple of years) there was absolutely no EPA exemption for "offroad only" and as a matter of fact, they specifically stated there was no such thing when it came to emissions.
Whatever the real deal, it's extremely unlikely (except in CA I think) that someone is actually going to pull you over and do a roadside emissions inspection. Properly running there is no reason to pull any of it, especially on an injected motor. It's just plain lazy to do so. Besides, if you like the way the truck runs with the motor the way it is now, why in the WORLD would you start messing with it by removing components GM spent billions developing and ensuring worked correctly on YOUR vehicle? That's all opinion, but it's formed from fact...when people start second guessing the factory on things like this, they are usually wrong.
Whatever the real deal, it's extremely unlikely (except in CA I think) that someone is actually going to pull you over and do a roadside emissions inspection. Properly running there is no reason to pull any of it, especially on an injected motor. It's just plain lazy to do so. Besides, if you like the way the truck runs with the motor the way it is now, why in the WORLD would you start messing with it by removing components GM spent billions developing and ensuring worked correctly on YOUR vehicle? That's all opinion, but it's formed from fact...when people start second guessing the factory on things like this, they are usually wrong.
GsxrMike
1/2 ton status
I know GM spends alot of money on development but it doesn't mean you can't get better performance by removing or upgrading things. Look at an intake manifold for example. I am all for clean running vechicles but a well tuned nonemission vechicle can have less impact on the enviroment than a poorly running emission vechicle.
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
In reality your probably right, but I was making the distinction for special use applications, (think Nascar, monster trucks, etc). I'm really only guessing that those cars aren't running air pumps or other on-road systems.
IMO there is a huge double standard, but don't get me started on "NASCAR"...if I remember correctly, "Stock" is part of that acronym. They should drive the same junk they foist on the public. All cars made after cat converters should be required to run them, whether on the track or not. Or the EPA needs to pull their head out, and change their regulations. The rules apparently don't apply to kit cars and the like, so I suspect most racing and off-road only vehicles are considered to fall into that category. But I figure if it's got a VIN, and it's newer than '73(? whenever converters were required by law) it still falls under EPA regs, whether or not it's actually enforced. Might see some of that with a new administration, who knows?
As to "bettering performance"...if you think you can do better than GM, go for it. I know I personally don't have the background nor the tools and instruments to prove I have gained more power with lower emissions. There are certainly many times I wished I had the resources available to see what kind of difference minute changes make overall. I know that the public in general, overall, likes the way the stock vehicles drive. The stuff wouldn't be there if it wasn't what it took for GM to make the power they were making, and keep emissions where the EPA wanted them. Whether or not they can be removed without affecting how it runs, well, that's personal choice if someone wants to risk changing how the vehicle runs.
If we can't measure our results, unfortunately we can't authoritatively say it's better in any way, be it emissions or power...when talking injection and/or emissions, small changes in one place cause problems in the system everywhere else, even if we can't "see" the new problems, and it "feels" better. I'm absolutely certain my new motor/injection setup makes more power, gets the same economy, and has the same or lower emissions than the gas engine available the year of the vehicle, but I can't back that up with any real proof.
As to "bettering performance"...if you think you can do better than GM, go for it. I know I personally don't have the background nor the tools and instruments to prove I have gained more power with lower emissions. There are certainly many times I wished I had the resources available to see what kind of difference minute changes make overall. I know that the public in general, overall, likes the way the stock vehicles drive. The stuff wouldn't be there if it wasn't what it took for GM to make the power they were making, and keep emissions where the EPA wanted them. Whether or not they can be removed without affecting how it runs, well, that's personal choice if someone wants to risk changing how the vehicle runs.
If we can't measure our results, unfortunately we can't authoritatively say it's better in any way, be it emissions or power...when talking injection and/or emissions, small changes in one place cause problems in the system everywhere else, even if we can't "see" the new problems, and it "feels" better. I'm absolutely certain my new motor/injection setup makes more power, gets the same economy, and has the same or lower emissions than the gas engine available the year of the vehicle, but I can't back that up with any real proof.
emmisions
yes your motor will run fine without egr hooked up. no codes thrown or anything. as to performance no noticable change. as to longevity of motor it will increase w/o egr sending hot carbon through your intake and gumming everything up. i have a 366 carb motor converted to a 350 tbi system that works great w/o the egr. don't know about emissions.
just my .02
yes your motor will run fine without egr hooked up. no codes thrown or anything. as to performance no noticable change. as to longevity of motor it will increase w/o egr sending hot carbon through your intake and gumming everything up. i have a 366 carb motor converted to a 350 tbi system that works great w/o the egr. don't know about emissions.
just my .02
Kenny78
1/2 ton status
Im going to go with Dyeager on throwing a code unless: You have a custom chip burn, or you got tired of that check engine light and removed the bulb
trailblazr81
1/2 ton status
The A.I.R. injection tubes should be able to be safely removed. Just take off the pump and run a smaller belt and throw on some headers. I would keep stuff like EGR and cat since they could possible throw a code and pretty much dont hurt performance if functioning properly. Maybe just switch cat to a high flow from like Magnaflow.
Actually yes it would be a federal crime. It's also a federal crime to install a light duty engine into a heavy duty truck and vice versa. Emission stuff is federally mandated and then California goes adding more stuff on top of that.
EGR actually helps by lowering cylinder temps and keeping it from pinging.
Someone with the applicable year GM manual needs to look it up.
Per the '91 manual, the EGR is tested by the ECM for proper operation essentially every time the engine is run and if it fails, check engine.
A few have said they have not seen a check engine with disabled EGR, it would seem very odd for GM to be inconsistent in it's operation since it didn't change, but anything is possible.
Very hard for something else to be causing the light not to trigger, since the MAP voltage is what is watched by the ECM when the test is run. The MAP voltage changes when EGR is commanded, as it's a vacuum leak, if the engine vacuum doesn't change, the code is triggered.
Per the '91 manual, the EGR is tested by the ECM for proper operation essentially every time the engine is run and if it fails, check engine.
A few have said they have not seen a check engine with disabled EGR, it would seem very odd for GM to be inconsistent in it's operation since it didn't change, but anything is possible.
Very hard for something else to be causing the light not to trigger, since the MAP voltage is what is watched by the ECM when the test is run. The MAP voltage changes when EGR is commanded, as it's a vacuum leak, if the engine vacuum doesn't change, the code is triggered.
lak2004
1/2 ton status
If you do get a check engine light with the egr not hooked up will it be in "limp" mode?
I doubt it. You have to really analyze how the ECM/PROM is setup to see what happens.
As I understand it, even on the earlier systems like this, there isn't just one "limp home" mode...there are different "levels" of failure, which result in different results.
Since EGR is not even used short of cruise, if I was to guess, I'd say it probably does nothing other than set the code.
As I understand it, even on the earlier systems like this, there isn't just one "limp home" mode...there are different "levels" of failure, which result in different results.
Since EGR is not even used short of cruise, if I was to guess, I'd say it probably does nothing other than set the code.
