Date:         Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:13 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: Upon seeing bostig's handiwork
Comments: To: "Oxroad@aol.com" <Oxroad@aol.com>
In-Reply-To:  <c40.1c2cad29.33da3c56@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

You may be right about the pics... and I agree.. maybe it's just that
the shinier the object the more it break up the back of the van's
appearance. I bet if the cradle's were painted they would not be
nearly as "troublesome" looking. I need to update the whole website
and start again since it often times seems too muddled and there is
too much info presented and people miss lot's of it. That's my fault,
it has slowly been building for too long without a re-work.

As for CA legality. It is possible to have our conversion in CA
legally, however it is tenuous and somewhat risky at best. If you are
in an emissions zone 3 (no smogging) you won't have a problem until
you move to a zone 1 or 2, and if you go through the BAR smog
inspection process with full emissions gear you can get stickered...
but there is risk in doing either as technically the BAR can't allow
an OBDII vehicle a sticker without the transmission from the vehicle
going as well. Luckily some BAR refs are smart enough to know for
themselves when this is applicable or not, and is the reason that
Stephen can have a 1.8T stickered etc. It's doable, but isn't an easy
guarantee yet. We're working on it though, and I won't give up because
what we're doing is right.

Thanks,

Jim Akiba


On 7/26/07, Oxroad@aol.com <Oxroad@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/26/2007 7:48:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM writes:
> >>I've been thinking
> >>about ways to provide a better and more accurate way to measure/show
> >>ground clearance,
> Jim--
>
> Thanks for the info. FWIW I think your photo on the website of the
> behind/underneath picture of the conversion makes the engine look like it
> sits lower than it actually does because the shot is from such a low point
> of view. I get that you're showing the undercarriage. And it sure is clean
> and simple. But on a second look I see the shot is taken from the ground up.
> So it looks like the engine hangs maybe lower than it does. I've a feeling
> the conversion is a lot less noticeable from the rear of the bus when you're
> behind it in traffic or what have you.
>
> FWIW I've always thought the rear of the Vanagon, even with the stock set
> up, was poorly thought out from a visual standpoint. Having a view of the
> muffler and CAT seems so unnecessary--especially the view with the chrome
> rear bumper on the stock set up. (the fiberglass bumper somehow breaks it up
> a bit or maybe covers more?) Although from a visual standpoint the beauty of
> the Vanagon is more "German" design than say the Italian-designed Karmann
> Ghia or VW Fox. (Yeah, I said it.)
>
> And, is your conversion legal in California?
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
> 83.5 Westy
> LA, CA
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.