Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:27:23 -0800
Reply-To: "Mike \"Rocket J Squirrel\" Elliott" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Mike \"Rocket J Squirrel\" Elliott" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: California law (smog)
In-Reply-To: <5d903de80702010905k1546c41fi4ace6d4c4f2931c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Automobile ads in British magazines are required to list CO2 emissions,
in g/km, along with fuel consumption. The ad on the the back cover of
the latest issue of New Scientist, for example, describes the Subaru
Tribeca this way:
B9 Tribeca fuel consumption in mpg (L/100km): Urban 16.5 (17.1). Extra
Urban 29.7 (9.5). Combined 23.0 (12.3). CO2 emissions 291 g/km.
I reckon that requiring the same information in the ads here in the
States would be entirely too socially-conscious.
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott
71 Type 2: the Wonderbus
84 Westfalia: Mellow Yellow ("The Electrical Banana")
74 Utility Trailer. Ladybug Trailer, Inc., San Juan Capistrano
KG6RCR
On 2/1/2007 9:05 AM Raymond Paquette wrote:
> I've always thought that a smog test should measure TOTAL emissions
> instead
> of parts per million. As it is your Hummer may well pass the smog test
> while emitting more than a smaller vehicle, simply because the total
> exhaust
> volume is higher.
>
> Raymond
>
>
> On 2/1/07, Joseph Fortino <fortino1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> I feel its all about Money not air.. bottom line is they want you to
>> buy
>> a new car
>> plain and simple i feel.. ok HUMMER?? what a useless car.. lol what
>> will
>> it be like
>> for them on 25 years smog'n that crap?? hehe
>>
>> Peace,
>> Joe
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
>> >Sent: Feb 1, 2007 6:29 AM
>> >To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> >Subject: Re: California law (smog)
>> >
>> >Well here's where it gets even more complex. Actually we could easily
>> put
>> >all of the emissions gear into the vanagon, the stock cat, the
>> differential
>> >pressure sense EGR, the evaporative emissions system and leakdown gear,
>> the
>> >canister and purge gear, and have all readiness codes set. It doesn't
>> >matter. In such a case the vanagon would achieve and be able to comply
>> with
>> >SULEV vehicle status, but because of the stock transmission carryover
>> >requirement, it makes it all for not. Lot's of CA guys would love an
>> SULEV
>> >vanagon with more power, we've lost more than a dozen sales already
>> because
>> >of these arbitrary restraints.
>> >
>> >Tuner cars are legal so long as the aftermarket equipment has an
>> executive
>> >order from the CARB. A turbo kit for a honda may well have an EO, as
>> all
>> >they need to do is apply and then go through a round of testing to show
>> that
>> >it does not adversly affect emissions beyond applicable limits. CARB
>> has
>> >issued Eos to conversions as well, but is now taking the stance that it
>> is a
>> >BAR matter, and despite our submission of a full application and our
>> >readiness to do the lab testing, refuses to go any further with us
>> because
>> >it is much easier to say no to a company of 3 guys with no lawyers
>> and no
>> >resources to disrupt their bureacratic iso-chamber. And BAR as you
>> recall
>> >says no tranny, no swappy, so we can only convert folks registered in
>> zone
>> >3(rural) in CA.
>> >
>> >Absolutely air quality has improved everywhere... But imagine what it
>> would
>> >be like if it was done well.
>> >
>> >Jim Akiba
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jeffrey Schwaia [mailto:jeff@VANAGONPARTS.COM]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:40 PM
>> >To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> >Subject: Re: California law (smog)
>> >
>> >Yep. California is a little pyscho when it comes to their emissions
>> laws.
>> >
>> >Engine swaps are okay, but only if you take everything emissions
>> related
>> >from the donor vehicle and put it in the swap vehicle. That's why late
>> >model engines that are OBD-II are nearly impossible to put in a Vanagon
>> >(sorry Bostig). Oh yeah... the donor engine must be the same year or
>> newer
>> >than the swap vehicle, and the swap vehicle must then meet the emission
>> >standards for the donor engine.
>> >
>> >"Tuner Cars"??? Forget it.
>> >
>> >A lot of the tuner folk, and street racers, will swap their old engines
>> (or
>> >parts) back in every two years to pass the emissions test.
>> >
>> >I know it's stupid and could be handled much better, but I will concede
>> that
>> >California's air quality has improved greatly in the last 20 years.
>> >
>> >Kanpai,
>> >
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On
>> Behalf Of
>> >Benny boy
>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 4:01 PM
>> >To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> >Subject: Re: California law (smog)
>> >
>> >
>> >Ok, so let say i have a modified car (engine wise), lets say a Honda
>> Civic
>> >SI Tuner... now with a Turbo, Frankinstein engine, improved FI, maped
>> ECU...
>> >modified exhaust? i have to put back a stock engine every 2 yers!
>> >
>> >Or, lets take a Ford Mustang with a modified engine with... just for
>> fun,
>> >let say 8 carbs! something like that!!!!
>> >
>> >What you guys are telling me is that NO "tuner" style car are
>> allowed in
>> CA?
>> >
>> >I understand an engine swap with everything that belong to this
>> engine is
>> >kind of ok, but no crasy Nitro modification... at least at the time of
>> the
>> >test!
>> >
>> >What i find bit crasy about that is an "offset" (not well tune)
>> economic
>> >4cyl Honda may fail that test but a big Hummer in shape will pass!!!
>> tell
>> me
>> >what is the logic in that!!!!!!!!!!! when i travel in the US, you guys
>> are
>> >scaring me with your big SUV/cars.... Navigator style monster.... where
>> not
>> >to get close to the Kyoto Protocol with those big big big vehicles!!!!!
>> >think big :-))))
>> >
>> >Ben
>>
>
| 
