Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:04:24 -0800
Reply-To: Donna Skarloken <dskarloken@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Donna Skarloken <dskarloken@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Calif 2008 emissions fuel tank pressure testing?
In-Reply-To: <ac1f198b0803030900j7c7d669tc24c1611fc9837c1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I was just going to say that really what this is about is getting rid of
older vehicles. And it's working - I have really thought about just giving
up on my van since it is a hobby anyway. Smogging is a hassle and we're
always stressed about it. My commute car is diesel so I'm not hassled with
smog (yet) but frankly I get tired of the whole game. I feel like my entire
life is regulated by what the government wants from me and my family, not
what I want. My husband doesn't want to move, and I don't blame him, but at
the same time if it were left up to me I think I would seriously consider
leaving California. Of course, that doesn't get us away from the federal
govt. unless we just leave the country. Frankly that option seems
attractive too. I can tell you why my cars have such high mileage - I can't
afford nor want to buy a new car. I have no interest in doing so. And
there are whole lot of people who make much less money than I do that have
to make do with their high mileage cars too, plus cars last longer anyway.
Donna
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:
> This is one of the regulations that is being introduced to help force
> fleet overturn in CA. It has very little if anything to do with
> controlling emissions directly, but it must appear so. The idea is to
> make it expensive and difficult to maintain an older vehicle in CA.
> Japan and Germany both do this already, and it is going to proceed
> with more intensity in CA unless something changes.
> CA needs to force old vehicles off the road for multiple reasons, and
> it does make sense in the context of their goals and resources. The
> CARB had figures of 17% of CA registered vehicles being over 150K
> miles in 1995. The number then jumps to an astounding 41% over 150K
> miles in 2000... more than double in less than 5 years. It is easy to
> see the panic that this trend would cause them, since older vehicle do
> pollute more than newer vehicles even if one was simply comparing two
> identical vehicles one new, one over 150K.
>
> As a secondary problem, or potential benefit is that as CA forces
> overturn, some of those will purchase new vehicles.. which is
> essential in order to appease the OEMs which will otherwise launch
> further efforts and lobby to stifle CARB anti-pollution regulation. If
> CA is going to demand really strict pollution limits and durability
> requirements, they must also sell cars for the OEMs to offset the
> burden of compliance.
>
> In the end it does makes sense to do this, but it is the particular
> way they are going about it that might be a problem, and unfortunately
> guys like us that love our older vehicles will be caught in the tide
> regardless of our individual efforts or intent. This is exactly the
> condition that prevents us from selling conversion into CA.. why would
> they extend any extra effort to exempt a small set of vehicles if they
> don't have to? Which is why they don't anymore. Much has changed in
> their understanding of the urgency of their situation, which is why
> the OBDI engine conversion can still get a CARB EO since the exemption
> potential was established a while ago.. and it's also why on last
> check there is not a single legal OBDII CARB EO'd(exempted) engine
> conversion of any kind for any vehicle in CA.
>
> Keep an eye out, as the trend should continue over the next few years.
> Luckily this isn't a real show stopper for CA vanagon owners.. but
> that isn't to say there won't come a time when it'll make more sense
> to either leave CA or sell your van. I think they will continue to
> ramp this kind of legislation up to the limits of the current
> political situation. If it turns out that too many people protest
> their attempts and make it dangerous for politicians to support, they
> will be scaled back in pace, but they are very unlikely to stop what
> has already started.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
> On 3/3/08, John Bange <jbange@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, California Vanagon owners: anyone here on the list had any
> experience
> > > getting smogged in 2008? They pump your fuel tank up and did you pass
> or
> > > fail miserably (as I expect my '84 will)?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I had mine smogged last month, and yes indeed, that was officially part
> of
> > the test. Thing is, the whole scheme is ludicrous and generally a waste
> of
> > time, according to the guy who ran the test only station I was at. It's
> > simply pointless feel-good regulation burdening the test shop owners
> with
> > another mandatory equipment purchase and returning little in the way
> of
> > results. The trouble is that whoever made up the new regs was a
> suit-wearing
> > bureaucratic drone and not an automotive engineer. The intent was to
> extend
> > the integrated evap system test for OBD-II vehicles to non-OBD
> vehicles. The
> > "test" is easy on an OBD-II system as the ECU monitors the evap system
> > automatically and stores an error code if there's a problem. The test
> > station need only check for error codes and do a quick seal check on
> the gas
> > cap. Gas caps are largely standardized now, so fitting it to the
> pressure
> > tester is no trouble.
> >
> > Enter the asinine evap test for pre-OBD2 vehicles. This consists of an
> > expensive system to pressurize (or maybe evacuate?) the fuel tank vent
> > system through the fuel filler hole, keep it at pressure(vacuum?) for
> 15
> > minutes or so, and rate it based on how much leakage there is. The
> problem?
> > Prior to OBD2, manufacturers made gas caps and filler pipe openings
> just any
> > old way they felt like. The expensive pressure system has a half dozen
> > adapters to fit some of the more common makes of cars, but according to
> the
> > guy at the test place, more than half of the pre-OBD cars he sees
> cannot be
> > hooked up to the system for lack of a suitable adapter, and the sheer
> > variety makes it unlikely that any such adapters will be made. The
> "rubber
> > stopper with locking lugs" cap on my 90 Vanagon is one of those.
> > Subsequently, the test guy just put "NA" in the box that asked for the
> test
> > results and sent me on my way, as per CARB instructions. Maybe the 84
> > filler/cap system is different and WILL fit the machine, but I very
> much
> > doubt it. Worst case scenario, you could replace your old filler neck
> with a
> > late model one, and never have to take the test. I'd be surprised if
> they
> > had an adapter that fit though.
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Bange
> > '90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"
> >
>
| 
