Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:31:48 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Calif 2008 emissions fuel tank pressure testing?
In-Reply-To: <m11w6qpi06.fsf@cs.indiana.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
>
| 
