Date:         Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:46:47 -0800
Reply-To:     Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Subject:      Re: got to get ready for emission testing
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

The guy I take my vehicles to for the smog check advises changing the oil,
at least a few days or so beforehand, which I do, and so far they've always
passed (this goes along with doing a basic tune-up, and I usually run some
MMO in the oil and a decent fuel treatment on the tank before the test and
oil change). He also says to get 'em piping hot before you bring them in,
and leave them running when you get to the appointment. My latest success
was my '78 Chevy van. If that thing can still pass I would think that a
properly tuned and operating Vanagon still has hope.

Apparently in Cali the standards are different for each vehicle,
particularly the older ones. Your vehicle is tested against its own
technology, in a sense- it's not held to any standard to which a newer car
would be held. You get a printout showing where your vehicle tested against
the allowed parameters for it, and it also shows the averages in the state
for other vehicles of the type and age.

I had thought that the test was taking an average over the time it was
running, but another smog guy told me it just takes a 'snapshot'. You could
watch the screen and see the numbers change (sometimes drastically)
throughout the test. The method struck me as both inaccurate and
inequitable, but what can you do...? During this test of the same van (I had
to take it to a different guy for some reason), the guy failed me on the
visual check, saying something was wrong with my charcoal canister setup.
The van had always passed visual and I've never messed with the smog
equipment so I made him show me his manual so I could see what he was
reading for myself. It turned out he was reading a footnote 'backwards',
that is he was interpreting it to mean my van needed something when it was
actually saying it didn't. This was one of those places where there's no
charge for the re-test, and he had failed my on the visual and the sniff
test. (So many things in life come down to the sniff test, eh?) Anyway I got
to thinking about the 'snapshot' thing and I insisted he re-take the test on
the spot, as the visual failure item had been 'corrected'- sort of a
technicality, but he went with it. It passed that time- guess I got lucky on
the snapshot.

Basically I keep my engines running as close to spec as I can and I've had
no other problems, as that seems to be what they're being tested against.
Tricks will only get you so far- probably helps to have a good relationship
with the tester, I dunno. : )

Good luck,
Robert

p.s.: I wonder what the smog guy is gonna think of your 'head gasket
repair'. For that matter, I wonder if you could or might fail a visual for
not 'having' a head gasket... if they even knew what they were looking at...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sudhir Desai" <sudhir.desai@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: got to get ready for emission testing


I run on alcohol/gas mix when I need to go get emissions.
Just remember to drain the tank and put in good gas afterwards.

also, don't change your oil before the test or do any maintenance
other than plugs/wires/cap/rotor.

Sudhir

On 1/18/06, roger sisler <rogersisler2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Funny,this is the first time for me in a vanagon.Got my first tags and no
> notice for a emission test 3 years ago. I have since purchaced tags again,
> for 2 more years,Now, out of the blue, I get the notice to come on in.One
> time I went, the printout said 0 percent CO,and I passed. I protested the
> zero percent as an inaccurate test and said"your test says I can stick my
> nose to the tail  pipe and breath without any concequnces". The tester
> actually admitted an inacurate test.However, his confidence remained.He
> gave me a new test, and it showed CO to the point where I needed a new
> catalytic converter. I protested again saying this test was inacurate
> too.I mean how can you go from zero to mucho in 15 minutes and say each,or
> either is correct?Got lots of red tape after this,and the origional zero
> CO test disappeared.What a scam these tests are.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Well, I saw a post here a few months ago about emission testing. I think
> it had some clever techniques to evade getting pinched again.What are the
> chances of a well tuned 1.9 with 189K passing? Slim to none, I,d say.The
> WBX has few emission controls on it.The catalytic convertor,charcoal
> canister, and fuel injection system, is about it.Since the 70's,other
> cars have had catalytic converter,pvc,air injection,egr,detuneing,charcoal
> canister,and more.How can this 1.9 ever pass?The state of Maryland
> provides for vehicles that fail by issuing a waver. Costs $425 last time I
> checked 5 years ago.Of this amount, I can do it myself and buy $350 in
> parts and qualify.Saving $75 in labor. If my vehilce fails, what parts are
> most helpful as far as getting something out of them besides  just
> cleaning the air? AFM? Secondary ignition parts? A new catalytic
> converter? I think this will make $375. Anything other I should buy that
> will qualify that will give me a better return?
>
>   I think I will do  these preperations : First, I bought a qt. of
> acetone. I'll put about 5 ounces in every tank ful for a few months ,as I
> hear it will clean out any carbon and give a smooth idle.I'll time it
> correctly.fuel injector cleaner a week before testing(same as
> acetone?).Cant think of any other preps.What did you do to evade the
> Fed?s.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
>  Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
> whatever.
>