Coc or nox of nissan skyline

[drifter17a]

live in the UK, and London has introduced a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) that requires individuals to pay £13 if their car doesn’t meet the required emissions standards.

 

The standard specifies that NOx emissions must be less than 0.08 g/km (i.e., the vehicle must meet Euro 4 standards or better, which generally results in NOx levels of around 0.08 grams per kilometer).

 

I reached out to Nissan UK, and they advised me to contact Nissan Japan directly. Does anyone have contact details for Nissan Japan or any certifications of conformity that show the emission details or NOx levels for the RB25DET engine?

 

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

[GTSBoy]

3 hours ago, drifter17a said:

Does anyone have contact details for Nissan Japan or any certifications of conformity that show the emission details or NOx levels for the RB25DET engine?

No, but they will be WAAAAAAY too high. You will never get your ticket.

[soviet_merlin]

I presume it would take more than just slapping a big modern catalyst on the exhaust?

It's interesting though, looking at the old sales brochures and listings it does not mention anything about emissions. No one cared.

[MBS206]

If you're driving something like an R32 through to R34, no chance of meeting Euro4.

Euro4 came out in 2006, and car manufacturers back then were complaining how hard it would be to meet those regulations. Not a chance a vehicle 10 years earlier is going to be compliant.

[Kinkstaah]

Well, I have my IM240 results with a cammed LS1...

My Nox was 0.11 and my CO g/km was 0.2.

Euro4 is 0.08 and 0.1 respectively. I'm gonna say for a stock RB this is actually plausible, BUT in Australia they were complied pre-Euro2, so the limits were:



Which as you can see, is way higher. I'd say a stock RB with a new OEM Cat could? actually pass Euro4 for NOX but you'd probably have to do a hell of a lot of testing to prove it, and getting a car emissions tested and carrying a certificate of emissions when/if you get pulled over may be cost prohibitive if it's even allowable to get your car tested and re-classified.

You'd have to find out what the UK Govt is using as reference material. It may be non-negotiable.

[MBS206]

2 hours ago, Kinkstaah said:

Well, I have my IM240 results with a cammed LS1...

My Nox was 0.11 and my CO g/km was 0.2.

Euro4 is 0.08 and 0.1 respectively. I'm gonna say for a stock RB this is actually plausible, BUT in Australia they were complied pre-Euro2, so the limits were:



Which as you can see, is way higher. I'd say a stock RB with a new OEM Cat could? actually pass Euro4 for NOX but you'd probably have to do a hell of a lot of testing to prove it, and getting a car emissions tested and carrying a certificate of emissions when/if you get pulled over may be cost prohibitive if it's even allowable to get your car tested and re-classified.

You'd have to find out what the UK Govt is using as reference material. It may be non-negotiable.

Having a read online, need to get the emission standard from their logbook, or the manufacturer as to what Euro it meets.

If it doesn't meet it, you can modify the car to meet it, and then go through a big government process.

 

As vehicle is pre Euro4, it won't be meeting it.

 

I'd honestly doubt anything but the NEO motors have a chance of getting near the EURO4.

NEO is specifically for getting better emissions.

[Murray_Calavera]

Would it be possible to meet these emission standards on e85?

[GTSBoy]

41 minutes ago, MBS206 said:

I'd honestly doubt anything but the NEO motors have a chance of getting near the EURO4.

Nah, for the Neo. The Neo met the then-current Japanese LEV numbers, which were only a small step change better than what the vanilla RBs were doing. And.... I strongly suspect that the only Neo RBs that actually met the LEV rules were the NA ones. It seems hella unlikely that any late 90s turbo engine could meet the CO limits. NOx and fuel consumption maybe - the turbos were lower CR so stood a chance of being OKish on NOx, and if the testing regime didn't require running at enough load to make a lot of boost, then the specific fuel consumption could have been OK. But really, as soon as any significant boost was on board the mixtures get quite rich, CO inevitably has to go up, and fuel consumption goes to hell.

The amount of ECU required to meet Euro4 was substantially higher than what was in those things too. Lots of modelling. It's probably mainly the reason why there were no real turbo offerings from Nissan, even in the Skylines, in the 2000s, because they just couldn't make them meet the standards. So we got that pox-ridden French V6 instead.

35 minutes ago, Murray_Calavera said:

Would it be possible to meet these emission standards on e85?

Maybe, but there's no that many pineapples in the UK, so I don't think they get to even know what burnt E85 smells like. And I'd be pretty sure that you'd have to jump through even more hops to get a certification of some sort that was limited to a specific fuel.

[Kinkstaah]

I was just working on the assumption that a cammed V8 is significantly less polluty than a Japanese I6 turbo was at the way they tested it in an IM240. Perhaps I'm wrong! Perhaps cutting one of the readings I got in half is a tall order.

I don't know too many people who actually got their cars emission tested with a RB to really compare the data.

[Murray_Calavera]

33 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

I don't know too many people who actually got their cars emission tested with a RB to really compare the data.

I'm one of them.

I wasn't trying to game the system when I had this test done, the tune was as I drive it every day. 

[Murray_Calavera]

Forgot to add, this was on pump 98, stock turbo @ 10psi, stock injectors, Haltech pro plugin ECU. 

[soviet_merlin]

43 minutes ago, Murray_Calavera said:

I'm one of them.

I wasn't trying to game the system when I had this test done, the tune was as I drive it every day.

Had a good chuckle because it is listing THC g/km. Though it is not tetrahydrocannabinol but total hydrocarbons.

Interesting how the numbers seem so much worse compared to Greg's big V8.

[Murray_Calavera]

11 minutes ago, soviet_merlin said:

Interesting how the numbers seem so much worse compared to Greg's big V8.

I'm not surprised, I favour a bit of a richer tune which for sure isn't helping the emission numbers.  

[GTSBoy]

Let's face it. 90s turbo 6 with 80s tech in it is not going to be the thing that runs as clean as a whistle.

[Kinkstaah]

46 minutes ago, Murray_Calavera said:

I'm not surprised, I favour a bit of a richer tune which for sure isn't helping the emission numbers.  

The way they do the test you would be very lucky to ever hit any cell that isn't aiming at 14.7



This was my result... Really not sure what's going on there!