Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 01:21:22 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Emissions, Was: AC While Camping
In-Reply-To: <4C110CFA.3020000@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Mark,
I have some data, both two stage idle and I/M 240. I will pull some
together for you. The changes to the ECU that I make don't affect
emissions very much when things are running right.. I'm not sure how
it would compare when things are not running right however, in that
case the OEM setup should theoretically have more wiggle room than our
setup, esp in NOx but this has never been tested, and the EGR setup on
the zetec never worked well in the original application either... but
it was still SULEV. I'm not touching spark, base fuel, or cold fuel
tables, nor am I changing cranking fuel, coldstart enrichment nor
coldstart enleanment(yes there are tables for both ha) or adaptive
strategies. It is either a tribute to the calibration, or a snub to
the pointlessness of the stock EGR system and massive close coupled
cat. The biggest impact on emissions we've seen so far was using a
ceramic core cat in the early v2.0... it was worse than stock, but
with the metallic core cats we've used ever since, it's been no
trouble at all, and in I/M 240 testing on a customer van in CO both
the stock OEM massive close coupled cat and our(really can-mex's)
metallic spun cat were tested and our setup blew cleaner which really
shocked me actually. I've always "understood" that OEM cats always
have more surface area, and always have more active substrate, and
therefore are always cleaner, and always worth more as scrap ha. As
far as it being cleaner than the stock boxer.. that's easy.. you have
to remember even if they were to put out identical emissions in I/M
240 rolling road for instance(which they don't from what I've seen),
the Bostig will "smoke" the boxer in actual emissions because with the
close coupled cat, the cat light off is much much faster than the wbx
with the cat so far away. Our cat is 150-200 mm from the exhaust
valves.. the wbx you can almost measure in feet, all that time until
cat light off you're essentially gushing, and even though state tests
always have you warm it up for the test, every time you start from
cold you're going to be gushing for a bit till light off.
Jim Akiba
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, mark drillock <mdrillock@cox.net> wrote:
> I would hope the newer Ford engine conversion has better emissions but
> have not seen any emissions test results to back that up. Since my
> waterboxers generally passed CA tests by considerable margins I would
> need actual facts to convince me that the Zetec conversion does better
> by default. I'm sure that the native Zetec does better, just not so sure
> about the conversion after the reprogramming of the ECU that goes along
> with it. Any test results you know of by certified testing stations of
> Bostig setups?
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Jay lefstein wrote:
>>
>> I have been trying to hold back and not say anything to this thread.
>> I think a generator and AC are getting rediculous!! no wonder the
>> weather is so ****** up these days.
>> The ford engine in my van puts out less emissions then a stock water boxer
>> ..............
>
|