Date:         Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:47:06 -0800
Reply-To:     Kim Springer <kimspringer@ASTOUND.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Springer <kimspringer@ASTOUND.NET>
Subject:      Re: Bostig, CARB EO,
              the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties] Washington state...changes
              in vehicle licensing rules..
In-Reply-To:  <AANLkTinN30TfVAyeJa+PfO0p_w-jBCYgPd8j0yMHmDYq@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

C'mon Volks,

Actually, California is driving most of the effort to reduce emissions in
the US and probably North America, and has been for a long time: Low Carbon
Fuel Standard, Higher MPG Vehicle, even in electricity generation with its
Renewable Portfolio Standard.

A 2.2 Subaru is OK, so that must have had to go through some kind of
"proving" with CARB.

At the time that our T3's were being built, VW wasn't exactly a leader in
either fuel efficiency or low emission vehicles. They have made a lot of
headway since that time. Volvo and Honda were leading the pack in the late
80's, I'm pretty sure. CARB created new classifications for these two
manufacturers low emissions vehicles (ultra low, super ultra low, etc.). I
assure you VW was not driving that.

CARB knows, as many of those on the list do, that tailpipe emissions aren't
the only sources of emissions on vehicles. T3's tend to have a lot of fuels
leaks, especially from the tank crossover.

CARB would probably rather see these vehicles retired than modified, simply
because that's part of what they are betting on to make progress on reducing
vehicle emissions in the state.

Face it, no matter what engine is in a T3, if you are using it for a daily
driver and not as a work truck or to haul 4+ humans in, you can do a lot
better in terms of mileage and therefore emissions generation. If you are
really concerned about the planet, (not just about "freedom") then you have
to do your part to be part of the solution.

My two cents to those who blast CA and CARB.

Kim, driving CA and Federal Legal Tristar #7 with solid fuel tank fittings
and no grommets, approximately 1 day/week and walking and taking the train
the rest of the time, or using the other family car on the weekend, a 97
Honda Civic HX that get about 36 mpg, mostly with 2-3 people in the car.

Love my Tristar, but it's joke to say that folks upgrade to a 2.5 Subie or a
Ford VTec to reduce emissions. Face it, most do it because of HP and/or
reliability. Spend $8000 to get two more MPG? I don't think so.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Don Hanson
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:42 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: Bostig, CARB EO, the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties]
Washington state...changes in vehicle licensing rules..

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jake de Villiers <
crescentbeachguitar@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great essay Jim, as usual!
>
> I'm happy to be living in BC where tailpipe emissions are what matter,
> rather than the Republic of California where governmental (emphasis on
> 'mental') decree holds sway.
>
> It absolutely amazes me that it is okay to drive an inefficient WBX but
not
> okay to replace it with a newer and much more efficient 2.5 Subaru or 2.0
> Ford Zetec engine.
>
> Jake
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:
>
> >
>

   Yes, the actual amount of emissions does seem like the most important
thing for helping the air quality.  But it seems that California isn't
really that concerned with simple stuff like that with many of their regs.

   The amazing thing is that the citizens 'buy into it' and go along with
really nutty rules and regulations without a question... but no politics on
this list is the rule so ....shhhhh!

  Don Hanson