Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:46 -0700
Reply-To:     Aristotle Sagan <killer_jupiter@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Aristotle Sagan <killer_jupiter@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: 82 Failed CA Smog Test- help!
Comments: To: tomyoung1@ATTBI.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

All this stink about octane, etc.

If you don't have an exhaust gas analyzer, take it to a VW shop that has
access to one. They will get the van in spec and then tested. It beats the
heck out of playing with it yourself and getting a "gross polluter" label on
your van. That's the one thing you don't want to happen in California.
If you were in the South Bay Area, I would recommend Bugformance over on
Capitol and Alum Rock. They did a good job getting my 84 through this mess.

I am sure others in CA could give you local shops that do this type of
service.

tim in san jose



>From: Tom Young <tomyoung1@ATTBI.COM>
>Reply-To: Tom Young <tomyoung1@ATTBI.COM>
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: Re: 82 Failed CA Smog Test- help!
>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 06:53:46 -0700
>
>I don't think so.  It couldn't burn "easier" or high octane gas would be
>pre-detonating in the engine.  It *might* burn "hotter", but that's got to
>be a result of the higher compression of the engine this gas is designed to
>be used in, not the gas itself.  Same argument for the claim of "cleaner."
>It still makes no sense that pouring high-octane gas into an engine
>designed
>for low-octane fuel means squat when it comes to passing smog.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom Young                       '81 Vanagon
>Lafayette, CA 94549         '82 Westfalia
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mike boland" <westy@mvboland.com>
>To: "Tom Young" <tomyoung1@ATTBI.COM>
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:40 PM
>Subject: Re: 82 Failed CA Smog Test- help!
>
>
> > higher octane fuel will burn easier , hotter and cleaner..
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > At 09:56 PM 4/14/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Frankly, that sort of advice makes absolutely no sense to me.  Higher
>octane
> > >allows a car to run at a higher compression ratio without pinging.
>But,
>if
> > >the vehicle isn't pinging, what's the point of running High Octane, and
>what
> > >could that possibly do to help a vehicle with a high idle CO pass the
>smog
> > >test?  What's the logic here?
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Tom Young                       '81 Vanagon
> > >Lafayette, CA 94549         '82 Westfalia
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Richard Brassaw" <sendmeanemail@EARTHLINK.NET>
> > >To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> > >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:14 PM
> > >Subject: Re: 82 Failed CA Smog Test- help!
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've had several mechanics tell me to run a couple of tanks of High
> > > > Octane before getting smoged.  Also, when was the last time a new
>Cat
> > > > was put on--it might be time.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
>Behalf
> > > > Of S.Harrison
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:03 PM
> > > > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > > > Subject: 82 Failed CA Smog Test- help!
> > > >
> > > > I passed all aspects of the test but the CO% at idle -- I was at
>5.56%,
> > > > with
> > > > a maximum allowable of 2.00. The CO% at 2500 RPM measurement was
>fine,
> > > > about
> > > > 0.62%.
> >


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail