Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:44:55 -0800
Reply-To: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Subject: Re: [vanagon] Re: TIICO vs. CA
In-Reply-To: <f2.125894a5.292d5db3@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
They should make the system like is in southern British Columbia...
- Look at vehicle determine year, make and model (88 VW Vanagon)
- Look at the chart to see what the vehicle is supposed to do (X% CO and Y%
NOX at such an RPM on the dynometer).
- Check for a catalytic converter - if missing fail. If present continue.
- "Drive" vehicle on the dynometer. Check to see if the CO and NOX are at
or below the limits on the chart. - If yes then pass, if no then fail.
This test makes perfect sense to me... have a polluting pig and make it
better - you pass! Let's also look at it like this. Compare a 5.8L 2001
Chev Suburban to a 2.0L 2001 VW Golf CL - I think (don't know for sure) that
it would take 5 Golfs to equal the pollution per 100km that one Suburban
produces... If you really want to get down to politics and "fairness" why
does the Suburban and Golf get looked at the same way if they fail the
test... A Golf can fail by quite a bit and still not be at the same level as
a Suburban.
David Marshall
Fast Forward Automotive Inc.
4356 Quesnel Hixon Road
Quesnel BC Canada V2J 6Z3
mailto:info@fastforward.ca <mailto:info@fastforward.ca>
http://www.fastforward.ca <http://www.fastforward.ca>
Phone: (250) 992 7775 FAX: (250) 992 1160
. Vanagon Accessories and Engine Conversions
. Transporter, Unimog and Iltis Sales
. European Lighting for most Audi and Volkswagen models
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
Of Frank Grunthaner
Sent: November 21, 2001 11:43 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: [vanagon] Re: TIICO vs. CA
In a message dated 11/21/01 10:38:52 AM, KENWILFY@AOL.COM writes:
<< They looked under the lid and saw the evil non-stock engine
configuration and didn't pass it. I mean who cares if the engine in there
now is cleaner burning than the waterboxer ever was? The only thing that
matters is that all of the proper hoops were jumped through and that the
proper palms are greased. Give me a break!!! >>
I think it is worth putting this in context. This is all a part of the
general CA (and EPA-US-Federal) policy for local enforcement and the
technical limitations of that policy. In essence, the local enforcement
policy is aimed at ensuring that certain benchmark numbers are met to ensure
that the powertrain in question is meeting its generic specification.
Because
of time limitations, financial limitations, and the number of humanoid base
pairs incorporated in the operator's DNA (often 10 to 20 less than normal
sentient beings), these test benchmarks are far less than the full cycle
testing that qualified the powertrain emissions in the first place. During
fevered testimony by engineering politicos in the many year legislative
drafting process, many scenarios were presented about how unscrupulous
aftermarket equipment vendors could sell equipment that could give proper
numbers for the published benchmark tests while severely increasing
pollution
levels (while increasing power, drivability, etc.). This lead first to the
"touch anything and your busted, $5,000 to $25,000 please" rule. When SEMA
fought back, a compromise was reached - "Validate your modification with a
full test sequence, have it certified by a qualified engineer (not
bureaucrat) and then a bureaucrat will issue an exemption showing
compliance". Under California law, change any powertrain component from the
air cleaner to the tailpipe, by substituting a non factory part and the
financial exposure can be breathtaking.
Of course, in this society, largely populated by high school survivors with
5th grade reading ability and a sense of overwhelming confusion when faced
with the daunting task of mathematically converting from inches to feet,
ignorance is the standing defense. When such mods are found, the offender is
told to return the vehicle to stock and return for a retest (that is, the
ability to assess harsh penalties is generally waived for the first
attempt).
However, hardcases who have chosen to joust with the system have been
treated
to a full measure of the power of said system. I have seen two cases of
confiscation plus $25,000 fine and costs.
So to summarize, to sell a powertrain in CA, full testing is required to
verify emission performance. A minimal benchmark test with mass produced
test
equipment in the hands of technicians (many of whom have dropped out of law
school) has been set up to verify the continued performance level of the
factory system. The test includes verification that the factory system is
complete and unmodified. The emission test system cannot function with an
unrecognized powertrain. So the powertrain must be qualified and entered
into
the data base.
The approach is not an unreasonable one in the pursuit of a solution to a
very complex and unwieldy problem. And for those of you sitting on your
porch, sipping moonshine while enjoying the smell of fresh cut grass, I can
only say "you have seen the future and its coming soon".
Frank Grunthaner
