1985 CA emission 617 owners, You NEED This: - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Maximan1 · #61 01-25-2019, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by durzigl

1. If the vehicle is currently registered and retrofitted and it becomes subject to emissions inspection where it is registered (e.g., an anonymous tip made to the agency that conducts vehicle emissions inspections), the owner would be found to be in violation of federal regulations and may be in violation of state regulations. Among other things, this would result in the vehicle's registration being immediately revoked.

2. If the vehicle is retrofitted and the owner attempts to register the vehicle, the vehicle will be subject to emissions inspection. Due to the very significant and obvious indications of the retrofit that will very likely be observed, the vehicle will fail the emissions inspection.

3. If the vehicle is retrofitted and sold, it would be required to be re-registered and go through an emissions inspection - see 2. above

There are no emissions inspections on diesel vehicles older than 1997 in CA. From what I could find, the reason for the diesel smog starting in 1998 was an EPA lawsuit that forced manufacturers to tighten the previous regulatory standards and specifies how the industry will regulate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

It is unlikely that any of our old, pre emission regulation diesels will ever need an emissions test done again.

5cylinder · #62 01-25-2019, 03:20 PM

People I know in Oregon had to have their 1983 diesel go through emissions when they moved there last year.

Maximan1 · #63 01-25-2019, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5cylinder

People I know in Oregon had to have their 1983 diesel go through emissions when they moved there last year.

I was referring to CA smog. Only CA had the trap oxidizer on the OM617s IIRC. In the other 49 states, a car with this trap oxidizer bypass would theoretically pass because they didn't have a trap oxidizer anyway.

5cylinder · #64 01-25-2019, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximan1

I was referring to CA smog. Only CA had the trap oxidizer on the OM617s IIRC. In the other 49 states, a car with this trap oxidizer bypass would theoretically pass because they didn't have a trap oxidizer anyway.

Hmmm...hadn't thought about that. Interesting.
So, thinking out loud...Using Oregon as an example since I mentioned it...

If I went to register my 1985 CA model (trap ox.) in Oregon (1 of 49 states that had the Federal model) and the bypass was on it, Oregon would say (in theory) that they don't care if the bypass is on because Oregon originally (for the 1985 model year) accepted the Federal model without the trap ox. and all that. Huh. Sounds right. 'Course who knows what happens when you actually pop the hood at the DMV...

Volvo Diesel · #65 01-25-2019, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5cylinder

So my friends' 1983 is a CA model (trap ox.)

Was the engine replaced at some point? I have always been under the impression that only the 1985 W123 diesels (and maybe a few late production year 1984 models) were manufactured for sale in the California market with the trap ox. I've been driving these cars as daily drivers since the mid-1990s and I've never seen a 300D with a trap ox/trap cat that wasn't a 1985 model....

5cylinder · #66 01-25-2019, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volvo Diesel

Was the engine replaced at some point? I have always been under the impression that only the 1985 W123 diesels (and maybe a few late production year 1984 models) were manufactured for sale in the California market with the trap ox. I've been driving these cars as daily drivers since the mid-1990s and I've never seen a 300D with a trap ox/trap cat that wasn't a 1985 model....

My bad and my apologies.
You are correct.
Their '83 *is* a CA model *but* it does not have the trap ox. because it is not a '85 as you correctly explained.

I'm going to blame my error on the inferior coffee I have recently been drinking.

Volvo Diesel · #67 01-25-2019, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5cylinder

My bad and my apologies.
You are correct.
Their '83 *is* a CA model *but* it does not have the trap ox. because it is not a '85 as you correctly explained.

I'm going to blame my error on the inferior coffee I have recently been drinking.

No need to apologize! I thought maybe I was wrong all these years!

ROLLGUY · #68 02-11-2019, 12:02 PM

A customer has a broken pipe, and I am wondering what caused it to fail. I have my suspicions, but have no way to prove them either way. I am going to replace the pipe only as a gesture of goodwill. However, I will not do it again. I feel that this is a quality product, and should last the life of the car if installed (and maintained) correctly. My feeling is that one or more of the braces or fasteners were not installed, or loosened, which allowed excessive vibration, causing failure. I can't imagine any other scenario could cause that kind of damage. Parts like this don't just break on their own accord- allowing them to move (vibrate) is the only cause of failure in my opinion. Any and all other opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rich

carock · #69 02-14-2019, 09:38 PM

Can you please PM me? I would like to buy one of these for my 1985 300CD.

hercules · #70 02-14-2019, 11:18 PM

my guess,metal is brittle,fractured. Too hard of metal when made or metal running
hot and cooled fast over many cycles. All braces must be in place,work hardening
can also happen with vibrations or movement.

ROLLGUY · #71 02-15-2019, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hercules

my guess,metal is brittle,fractured. Too hard of metal when made or metal running
hot and cooled fast over many cycles. All braces must be in place,work hardening
can also happen with vibrations or movement.

The pipe is stainless steel, and TIG welded. I don't know if stainless is "too hard". The pipe is before the turbo, and I can't imagine these Diesel turbochargers getting anywhere near as hot as a turbo in a high performance situation with tubing made of the same material (I watch many youtube videos of performance car/turbo builds). I have a hard time believing that the OM617 manifold and turbo could ever get hot enough (and cool fast) to cause it to crack, even after many cycles. There are MANY of these pipes in use today, and this one is an anomaly. Again, I can't prove it, but I can only assume a brace was left off or one or more fasteners loosened.

regreen61 · #72 02-27-2019, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLLGUY

Yes, pm for details

hello are you still building your bypass pipes? Thanks, regreen61@gmail.com

ROLLGUY · #73 02-27-2019, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regreen61

hello are you still building your bypass pipes? Thanks, regreen61@gmail.com

Yes!

regreen61 · #74 03-14-2019, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLLGUY

Yes, I hadn't thought of that. That would be a good time to install this test pipe, when your starter goes bad= "kill two birds with one stone". Thanks, Rich

Has anyone confirmed a Fed starter will work on an 85 CA OM617 once there is clearance from removing the trap oxidizer and using your bypass pipe?