Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 2008, week 1)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:05:35 -0800
Reply-To:     VW Doka <vw.doka@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         VW Doka <vw.doka@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Calif 2008 emissions fuel tank pressure testing?
In-Reply-To:  <ac1f198b0803041231p29ccd904s32f83c8ff57ccfed@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

You just need to know the system to get it legal. Over the past few years, I've had the opportunity to experience California ARB, DMV & BAR bureaucracy up close and personal because of all the vehicles we have imported from Germany. This is the extact same bureaucracy that is in place for emissions testing.

At this point, I'm confident that I can get any "clean" engine that has been swapped into a Vanagon smogged in California. Some may cost a little more than others, but it can be done.

You just have to know where to go, who to talk to, and how to speak California-eeze. It is very important to be humble...

Cheers,

Jeff

-----Original Message----- From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf Of Jim Akiba Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:32 PM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: Calif 2008 emissions fuel tank pressure testing?

Exactly. I think it's silly too. It works fine here in MA(which follows the same CARB emissions requirements).. and if they would allow us to sell into CA they would all pass the smog tests with flying colors... but that's not what's important apparently.

Jim Akiba

On 3/4/08, Allan Streib <streib@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > Maintaining vehicles is one thing, but to thwart the IMPROVEMENT of a > vehicle such as a Vanagon with a WBX (or even worse an air-cooled > motor) by replacing the motor with a modern, MUCH CLEANER motor is > silly. > > I guess, though, that the number of people who actually do this is so > small (relative terms) that it is not going to get the attention of > the bureaucrats -- more likely they never thought about this in the > first place, and even if brought to their attention they will think > it's such a fringe case that it's not worth the trouble to change the > regs. > > What if you just took your Vanagon with the Zetec or Subaru motor to > the sniffing station and had them test it? Would they even realize it > doesn't have a factory motor if you didn't tell them? Slap a VW > sticker over that Ford logo on the valve cover.... > > Allan > > > > Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM> writes: > > > I hear that.. and agree it's not a conspiracy. For it to be a > > conspiracy it needs to have malignant intent if I remember what > > qualifies as a conspiracy. I believe this is well intentioned and will > > serve to meet their goals which is to try to clean up CA air. And it's > > not unreasonable to expect people to maintain their cars, and it's > > great when their laws both make sense and achieve their goals. But > > the trouble is that it does not make this much sense across all of the > > regulations. I think part of the problem is that the pollution that > > CA has to work against isn't all it's own.. but it's residents feel > > the bite from both sides(the pollution and the regulations). And as > > silly as it may sound to be upset that they are passing laws to > > enforce proper maintenance of vehicles, it is a burden that folks > > aren't used to, so you can't be surprised that they will encounter all > > kinds of conspiracy theories... the selling of new cars is a required > > result of most of the legislation that is being passed. I don't think > > it's not a bad thing intrinsically either(although that's a debatable > > issue too), but don't dismiss its presence in the equation just > > because the legislation seems to make sense... that could be a > > dangerous habit to form. > > > > Jim Akiba > > > > On 3/3/08, John Runberg <jrunberg@mac.com> wrote: > >> I get a real kick out of people saying this is a conspiracy to get > >> everyone to buy a new car. Read that on a bunch of other blogs today. > >> Maybe that's an outcome, but to me it sounds like CA just wants cars > >> to work correctly (within prescribed tolerances). If it fails a > >> pressure test it's because gas fumes can get out -- when they were > >> clearly designed to be retained - right? So the real deal is that CA > >> is asking people to maintain their cars?! Doesn't sounds like a lot > >> to expect. > >> > >> What amazes me is that friends in CA say that no safety inspection is > >> required -- just pass emissions and you're fine. In VA they'll fail > >> you for torn boots or worn bushings or a pit in the windshield. > >> > >> > >> john > >> > > > > > -- > 1991 Vanagon GL >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.