Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:53:24 -0800
Reply-To: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Legal swaps Was: Re: Audi 5 Cyl Swap: Alert! Possible Trouble
In-Reply-To: <199901262352.SAA23269@microwave.comp-sci-yale>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In the lower mainland of BC the smog rules are not quite as strict.
If you car had a cat - it must have a cat. Stick the tester in the pipe
and revv it up on the rolling road. If the emmissions are within spec (or
lower) you pass. Sounds quite fair to me! The mechanic told me someone
with a 1969 Bus came in with a 1987 VW 16Valve in there. Passed!
I wonder what would happen if you put an electric engine in your car un Utah?
At 18:52 26/01/1999 -0500, Martin Jagersand wrote:
>> From: Gary Shea <>
>>
>> It's actually a bit more complicated than Mark suggests, unfortunately.
>> I recently talked to a smog guy here in Utah state gov't, who informed me
>> that federal law requires that the engine not only be of the same or newer
>> vintage, but must also have been available as standard equipment for
>> the vehicle that year or in later years in the US. Thus the 5 cylinder
>> Audi CANNOT satisfy federal reg's, as I understand them. My
>> understanding is that the underlying rule is that engine/vehicle combo
>> must already have been certified by the gov't as passing smog tests,
>> and of course that implies the above restrictions.
>
>I wonder how exactly the engine equivalence is determined. For instance
>the VW 1.6l Diesels are very similar regardless of what vehicle
>(ie Vanagon, Jetta, Gold, Dasher, Quantum and many others) they
>were mounted in. Yet small differences exist (ie the injection pump)
>and hence they have different engine codes. (Like CV, JX and 10
>or 20 more distinct ones. These are listed on the fiches to help
>you identify what engine could have come with the vehicle)
>
>So would this minor difference technically be a violation? In
>principle one could also use a turbo block to build a non turbo engine,
>that except for the engine block code would be absolutely identical
>to the Vanagon Diesel. (using a vanagon injection pump, manifolds
>and other accessories etc) Still illegal?
>
>> So you can legally stick a 2.1L engine in your 1.9L 83.5 vanagon, stick
>> a 1.9L or 2.1L in your pre-83.5 air-cooled van, or switch to a normally
>> aspirated 1.6L diesel (but not a TD diesel), and
>> that's about it, if one wishes to be within the letter of the law.
>
>Another variation would be to build a turbo engine on a Vanagon
>block. (entails minor machining to fit the oil cooling jets, use
>turbo pistons and bearings etc). Now we have a turbo engine that
>has an allowed engine code, with the only visible (and significant
>difference) that a turbo is mounted under it. (Not even visible
>if the bottom pan is on, and you can run the std vanagon inj
>pump). Is the action of putting a turbo on an engine in itself a
>violation?
>
>One can go further and ask what about performance exhaust?
>K&N airfilter...
>
>> On the other hand, I have every intention of putting a 1.9 TD into
>> my van, unless of course I find a TDI in the meantime. Here in Utah
>> the pollution testing authorities are getting pickier all the time,
>> but not picky enough to detect this particular illicit change.
>
>Practically you will be ok unless they actually start reading numbers
>and punch them into computers. The number is on the cylinder casting,
>which is what ,akes a 1.9 an 1.9.
>
>There ought to be a top level rule that allow swaps that
>reduce emmissions and a set of precedents on what should be
>reasonably allowed. For example I can't see how adding a
>turbo changes the emmission characteristics of an engine
>for the worse, so should be allowed. Likewise swaps between
>engines with identical technology (such as the 1.6 to 1.9l
>Diesel) don't change anything.
>
>Frankly I don't see the rationale at all why engine swaps
>would be bad for the environment so long the new engine
>meets the same or better emmissions standards.
>
>Gary, or anyone else, do you have contact info or email
>addresses to people involved in the rulemaking and
>interpretation/enforcement? Maybe if 800 vanagon owners
>voice concern they start thinking rationally. And I'm
>sure lots of other auto clubs would be happy to lobby
>as well.
>
>/Martin
>--
>Westy 1.9l Turbo Diesel
>Quantum 1.6l Turbo Diesel
>
>Martin Jagersand email: jag@cs.yale.edu
>Computer Science Department jag@cs.rochester.edu
>Yale University
>
> Slow down and visit the VW diesel Westy page:
> WWW: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/jag/vw
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-- David Marshall - Vanagon List Admin - Quesnel, BC, Canada --
-- 78 VW Rabbit, 80 VW Caddy, 87 Audi 5KSQ, 85 VW Cabriolet --
-- 88 2.0L VW Syncro Double Cab, WANTED: VW / Bombardier Iltis --
-- David's Volkswagen Home Page http://www.volkswagen.org --
-- Fast Forward Autobahn Sport Tuning http://www.fastforward.ca --
-- david@volkswagen.org (pmail) or vanagon@volkswagen.org (list) --
| 
