Date:         Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:10:15 -0400
Reply-To:     Scott Norville <kr2no@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Scott Norville <kr2no@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: emission ethics

Selling my Westy and spending more money for a non-Westy that will not do
the same things is not a compromise I would choose.
I was "dictating" to no one, just reminding you, and anyone who choses to
read, that when you choose to be untrue to yourself, your van and the law,
there are consequences.
And as far as being a gross pollluter, I don't know how your van does, but
mine passes quite handily at idle: NO 677 (pass 2457), HC 90 (179), CO 0.30
(2.22) and at 15mph: NO 815 (2638), HC 61 (183), CO 0.31 1.65.



On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:54:14 -0700, gary hradek <hradek@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>Scott and Joy,
>             Get off your high horse and sell your
>vangons as they are gross polluters when compare to
>the eurovan.   I drive my vanagon for camping only but
>I feel no need to dictate when and how other should
>drive their vanagons.   I offer help on how to keep
>them working not spirtual help on the ethics of
>smogging them.   Sound to me that retarding the
>vanagon a bit will drop the NOX.   I hope this is the
>conclusion of this thread.   I would know very little
>about shooting police as this is so far off base from
>what this list is about I would not think of such a
>thought.   But if my NOX was a little high I might
>want to retard my engine just a bit and sleep a little
>better a night knowing that someone on the list was
>smart enough to make this suggestion.
>              many thanks to the list and everyone has
>a right to their sense of ethic, just don't force it
>on others please.   Joy and Scott to the world, gary
>Date:    Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:39:46 -0400
>>From:    Scott Norville <kr2no@EARTHLINK.NET>
>>Subject: Re: emission ethics
>>
>>Similarly, we should offer no guidance if someone on
>the list were
>posting
>>queries or instructions for shooting cops while
>stealth camping in a
>Walmart
>>parking lot.
>>This is an issue that has more ramifications than
>just flauting unfair
>laws.
>>On an legal level you are beraking laws if you make
>"temporary"
>changes to
>>pass emissions; on an ethical level you are not being
>honest with
>yourself
>>or your fellow humans; on a moral level you are
>contributing to the
>more
>>rapid decline in the habitability of this planet; and
>on a practical
>level
>>you are contributing to the more rapid decline of
>your beloved van.
>>As others have said, not passing emissions (or any
>part of the safety
>>inspection) is usually a sign that something is wrong
>with the van (or
>the
>>testing equipment), not a sign of intrusive
>government. Yes, the
>things that
>>go wrong without you knowing it are often expensive,
>annoying and
>>aggravating to fix, but better now than when you drop
>a valve from the
>lean
>>mix or get stranded in the mountains with a clogged
>cat.
>>If you want to live where there is less "intrusion"
>by government you
>have a
>>wide sheaf of choices. Look at some of the places Joy
>works: the
>lovely
>>clear air of Cairo, for instance. Or you could just
>move to the less
>urban
>>areas of the US. Oh, you like living in the congested
>areas with lots
>of
>>other people? Then you have to learn and play by the
>rules that have
>been
>>developed to allow humans to live close together.
>>Everything a rational human does is a compromise.
>Some of us choose to
>drive
>>our buses from a preference for its utilitarian
>Teutonic style,
>capacity and
>>endurance, but I doubt if many on this list drive
>theirs because it is
>the
>>only vehicle they can afford--there are many cheaper
>vehicles to
>acquire and
>>maintain, even many other VWs, within legal limits.
>Like Joy, I drive
>mine
>>when I need two portable bedrooms with a kitchen and
>use something
>more
>>efficient for other running around.
>>
>>So, I'll stop my rant here with a summation: we are
>members of a
>>civilization, with the privileges and
>responsibilities that entail, or
>we
>>are barbarians.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:15:49 -0700, gary hradek
><hradek@YAHOO.COM>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Joy,
>> >   We need no ethical guidance on this list when it
>> >comes to emission checks.    If you really push
>this
>> >issue you would not be on the vanagon list at all
>but
>> >you would be on the low polluting eurovan list.
>> >There are many reasons people choose to handle a
>> >vanagon problem the way they do.   We need to take
>> >care not to judge them on this action.   Two
>hundred
>> >dollars may make the difference whether they get
>> >enough to eat or not.
>> >   I for one would like to know if advancing the
>> >engine or retarding the engine will decrease NOX?
>> >I thought an engine runs hotter when it is retarded
>> >and thus NOX would be higher?   So what do you
>think?
>> >                   regards, gary
>> >Date:    Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:25:39 -0400
>> >From:    Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
>> >Subject: Re: Failed Emissions Check
>> >
>> >Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail