Index
Home
About
Blog
From: John De Armond
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Feb 1992
Subject: Re: Legality of Modifications
>The column writer responded that yes, this was true. He quoted
>some law number and said that since 1 Jan 1992 it is illegal,
>even for an individual to alter the orginal configuration of
>the engine, emmisions, and electronics os an auto, with a
>possible $2500 fine.
>
>What is this? How can such an insane law exist? This is supposedly
>a clean air act law.
>Automotive enthusiasts have no unified voice to fight these repressive laws.
>Our cars, while built for high performance, our also well maintained.
>We don't allow our engines to run in a degraded state like the Toyota
Before we get our fretting machines revved to the redline, let's look
at the situation. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 91 did change things around
but in my opinion, for the better. It does transfer liability for
making modifications directly to the owner which is not good.
It's made it hard to buy out and out racing parts for your street engine.
BUT we now have a legal and easy way of doing high performance if it's clean.
First off, the CAA, along with an EPA ruling now specifically DOES allow
putting later model engines in earlier vehicles of the same type.
So if I want to take the wheezing 350 out of my 79 El Camino and drop in
a late model Corvette engine, I can now do it legally if I install
all the emission equipment. In the bad old days, I would have had to
go through the whole OEM emission certification test battery just like
GM does.
Secondly, the EPA had agreed to accept California Air Resources
Board Executive Orders and certification procedures as valid
for the whole US. What does that mean? CARB has had a
procedure for several years whereby an aftermarket manufacturer
could SELF-CERTIFY his high performance part as being as good
or better than OEM parts for a car or a line of cars. Once
certified, the vendor can supply a copy of the EO with the part
and emissions stations will pass the vehicle assuming it passes
the sniff test. Vendors of components not likely to affect
emissions such as aftermarket electronic ignition systems can
get blanket EOs which covers their entire line for all cars.
Jacobs Electronics had done this for their ignitions, for
example. The self-certification process is a small subset of
the OEM certification and involves not much more than a runup on
the dyno with a sniffer in the tailpipe.
Can you make clean horsepower? Sure as hell can. A quick purusual of
the catalogs shows things like high flow cat converters, EO'd carbs and
manifolds, cams and all the rest. Several aftermarket fuel injection
makers including EFI, NOS, and Electromotive either have or will soon
have EOs for many popular engines. Now you're not gonna be able to
hang a couple of 750 cfm carbs off your 350 small block and go lumping
down the road. But in my book, that's a plus.
Let's remember too, that a vehicle only has to meet specs for its model
year. So I could take my '79 El Camino, put an extensively modified
engine in it, hang a high performance cat off the back and meet the
79 emission specs.
Who can we thank for working all of this out? SEMA. SEMA has a nice
certification kit available to people who want to self-certify a
part. They also maintain a list of facilities that do the certification
testing.
We should all be happy at this point. EPA has given us a legal avenue
to high performance where none existed before. If anyone is in the
mood for writing letters, send one to the EPA asking that the current
procedures be made permanent (they are now provisional) and write to
SEMA thanking them for fixing things.
John
From: John De Armond
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Feb 1992
Subject: Re: Legality of Modifications
>
>> First off, the CAA, along with an EPA ruling now specifically DOES allow
>> putting later model engines in earlier vehicles of the **same type.**
>
> Certainly an improvement, but still not good enough.
Well the fact of the matter is that it is no longer permitted to make
uncontrolled modifications to a vehicle. I don't think that is bad at
all. One can make the same power but with a much cleaner emissions.
Given the anti-car sentiment arrayed against us, we ought to be happy.
The EPA COULD just flat ban non-OEM parts and quite frankly the hotrod
minority in this country would not have enough clout to stop 'em.
Remember that we've got the large new car companies against us too.
They'd lots rather see us have to buy new cars rather than modify or
even fix up our old one.
>Also
>it will be far far cleaner than any '71 510 as it came of the showroom!
>But since it is a Mazda engine going into a Nissan car, it is illegal.
If it is as clean as a new car then you can self-certify it. Contact
SEMA and get their package. There is a small charge. In return,
you'll get a practically unlimited license to modify as long as the
results are clean.
> What should decide legality is the snif test. If you can put
>10,000hp into a 1500lb car, that's fine, as long as it doesn't pollute any
>more then it did when it was new.
But the sniff test does NOT check emissions. Inspection-type sniff tests
are a sham designed to scare the general public into not modifying
emission controls. Specifically sniff testing does NOT test:
* NOX emissions - engine must be under load for that.
* Any emission at other than idle
* Transient emissions.
The self-certification process DOES run the engine on a dyno and DOES look
at all of these modes. The difference is that you will not be required to
do the durability testing required of OEMs. Sure you'll spend a couple
hundred dollars on the testing but that is a bargain compared to what it
lets you do.
John
From: John De Armond
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Apr 1992
Subject: RE: EPA & HEADERS
>What I'm wondering is when will the Feds come out with a Clean Air Act
>that will ban the original engines in pre-emissions era cars. I guess
>if that ever happens at least we can legally install the late model
>engine in our older cars.
I don't think that will happen. What would be likely is a requirement
that all street cars meet a minimum emission level. This is actually
fairly easy to do. For example, I have literature from a
company named Car Sound Exhaust Systems, Inc. They make a retrofit
emission control system that can be fit to any engine. It consists
of one or two cats, a lambda sensor, an ECU, and an air purge valve.
It works by observing the engine speed via an ignition pickup and
pulse width modulating the air valve in order to keep Mr. Lambda
happy. The air valve draws air from the air cleaner and meters it in
under the carb. The assumption is that the engine will be rich under
normal conditions. I am planning on writing it up fairly extensively
once I find out price and a few other things. Phone: 714 858 5900.
>Actually I've been hoping that someone would
>start a car company using the best of the styling of the 50's, 60's and
>70's, but with modern internals. It seems that all new cars today look
>like a Ford Taurus.
Already doing it. There is a company in Detroit that is buying up
50s and 60s cars, stripping them to the frame, installing a
Chevy 350 engine and TH400 tranny, installing modern running gear (disk
brakes and the like) and restoring the interior and body. The car is
then sold as new with a warranty for ~$20k. I forget the name but they
were written up in Car & Driver sometime in the last year. I'm saving
my pennies for a 57 chevy or 40 ford :-)
John
Date: Mon Jan 25 03:01:41 1993
From: Christopher Ice <iceman@camelot.bradley.edu>
Subject: Re: Air gallary and Smog Pump
To: z-car@dixie.com
> [A bit simpler on the Z-car. The air was injected into the exhaust manifold
> right on top of the valve under the theory that the additional air would
> oxidize some of the CO and HCs in the exhaust. JGD]
Ah yes, I do seem to remember something about this. I ALSO seem to remember
that if this pump were NOT there/working you would burn up your exhaust
valves. Anyone agree?
[No, nothing of the sort. About the only thing you'll notice with the
pump disconnected is a tiny bit more power gained by not driving the pump.
JGD]
From: hotrod@dixie.com
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Mar 1993
Subject: Re: Emmisions vs. Performance
X-Sequence: 4384
I've been through this procedure a few times, both in California
and Oregon, and perhaps the following will help:
It sounds like they are testing only idle emissions, since the CO and
HC are that high. In both states, idle is specified for all cars to
be below 1000 RPM. So when all is said and done, you've got to be able
to get the idle this low. The higher without going over, the better,
since you get faster airflow and better fuel vaporization. It would
be perfect if you could get the idle at a solid 950 RPM. You may want
to check your state's specs to see if they're any different.
For timing, retard it as much as possible. This will also affect the
carburetor mixture and idle adjustments. You'll have to juggle all
three to get it right. I've found that you must use stock timing or
less, and retarding timing will also help mixture burning and make up
for the radical cam. The cam may not be all that bad - if the overlap
is big enough to suck in more air, this may actually help things, but
then again, you may not be able to get it to idle that low, in which
case you're in trouble. Retarding the timing will also tend to make
the engine run hotter temperature-wise.
You want to lean out the mixture as much as possible, and still
maintain the idle set above. This depends on how adjustable your
carburetors are, and what other smog devices you have. Hopefully, you
still have the PCV valve operational, which contributes some inert air
to dilute the mixture. Lean out the mixture at idle until the engine
misses and then richen it until its on the verge of missing. I had a
Spitfire with dual SU's, and this worked to get it under spec, but it
ran pretty dismal performance wise.
Put in a hotter thermostat, 190 or better, since the hotter your engine
runs, the less it will pollute as well. When you have the test done,
make sure your engine is fully warmed up.
If you can add Air injection, so much the better - my 79 Dodge specs
at 1% CO, I forget the HC. I tried passing the Dodge without the Air
Injection, and it failed miserably (I had put headers on). I think the
CO was up around 4-5%, so it does make a significant reduction. This
is a band-aid fix, since it just helps burn the unburnt gas that comes
out the exhaust ports. The Dodge doesn't have a catalytic, by the
way, (It's a motorhome), so I doubt adding a cat will help much in
your case, also since they're not measuring NOx.
Cats became available in 1975, and allowed the mfr's to lean out the
fuel mixture. If the mixture is rich, CO and HC are high, and NOx is
low. If the mixture is lean, CO and HC tend to be low, but NOx is
high. Prior to 1975, fuel mixtures were rich to keep NOx production
low, but then there were all sorts of other devices (Retarded timing,
Air Injection, EGR, deceleration valves, etc..) added to cause complete
burning to reduce HC and CO. That and the bumper laws made the '74's
so doggy. When cats were added, the mfr's could lean out the mixture
again, since the cat would reduce the NOx output.
In retrospect, it's almost amusing. When they first started the smog
program back in the Sixties - I was living in the Los Angeles basin at
the time - the air was mostly a constant brown haze. When mfr's
started reducing HC and CO, the brown haze didn't seem to lessen any,
probably because there were just more and more cars on the road.
Then, when they got serious about HC and CO in 1971, all of a sudden
you got a serious grey haze, caused by excessive NOx in the air. Thus,
the mandate to lower NOx as well, and from 1971 to 74, we got
progressively worse performing engines. But then, from '75 onward, as
the technology became available, the mfr's were able to provide both
better performance and emissions.
Back to the subject at hand...
Like Dave said, run it through first; they won't arrest you if you
fail. You can do all or some of the above before and then see how it
goes - but at least you'll have some idea of where you are. I've found
that most places are pretty helpful in trying to make you pass. Here in
Oregon, you can test as many times as you have to without paying
anything; you only pay when you pass the test. Good Luck - hopefully
it won't be too painful an experience.
[With the specs he listed, though, he should not have to do much more
than install high flow cats. A good idle will almost meet 400 ppm
as it is. JGD]
From: emory!mars.lerc.nasa.gov!edwlt12 (Mike Jamison (ADF))
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Mar 1993
Subject: Re: Emmisions vs. Performance
X-Sequence: 4459
In article <gdbt#2#@dixie.com>, hotrod@dixie.com writes...
>|-> The motor is an 11:1 compression 2.8l six, the cam is "speced" at
>|-> 290 deg. o the lift is about .5". The carbs that are on it are 3
>|-> side draft Mikuni's with 37mm venturis.
>|
>| The cam is going to be the part the hurts. First off, you need to run
>|the car through and see what they're checking for and how badly it
>|misses spec. Some places, for example, only check HC and CO.
I hear checking for NOx is very difficult and expensive. In Cleveland, OH,
CO, HC and (believe it or not) CO2 are checked - the CO2 is just for a
reference.
[The CO2 check is to catch people who simply dillute the exhaust gas
with, for example, lots of air injection. That spoiled one of my
favorite tricks :-( JGD]
>OK Dave, I called and got the specs this morning. For a '74 they want
> 5% CO and 500ppm HC, and that's all that they test. I have no idea
That's interesting. For '80 and up, the spec. is 1.2% CO and 220 ppm HC.
Again, that's in Cleveland. Don't know what they want for '74 - '79 cars.
My '88 Mustang GT managed something like 0.2% CO and 71 ppm HC the last time
it was checked - with ~90,000 miles, dirty oil, etc. The cam isn't as hot
as yours, with ~0.450 lift and a shorter duration, but it's a reference
point, anyway.
>how difficult it is to meet these specs. What's it gonna take?
>
>Thanks
>Brandon
>bdd@cs.princeton.edu
>
>----------
>Posted by: Brandon Dixon <emory!Princeton.EDU!bdd>
Mike Jamison
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
From: emory!venus.lerc.nasa.gov!edwlt12 (Mike Jamison (ADF))
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Mar 1993
Subject: Re: Emmisions vs. Performance
X-Sequence: 4554
In article <1wkttap@dixie.com>, hotrod@dixie.com writes...
>Mike Jamison wrote:
>"I hear checking for NOx is very difficult and expensive. In Cleveland, OH,
>CO, HC and (believe it or not) CO2 are checked - the CO2 is just for a
>reference."
>
>And John followed up:
>"[The CO2 check is to catch people who simply dillute the exhaust gas
>with, for example, lots of air injection. That spoiled one of my
>favorite tricks :-( JGD]"
>
>The obvious answer then is to dilute with CO2. One of those
>welding-size bottles holds a lot of liquid which turns into
>even more gas. Add a regulator, solenoid valve, and some minor
>plumbing into the head pipes and you should be all set.
Now Mike Jamison writes:
Add still more plumbing, a few more valves, and use it as a Nitrous bottle
when you aren't trying to pass emissions :-)
The little ten pounders are good for about 6 or 7 runs, so I'd guess the
100 pound welding bottle would be good for a few weeks of racing...
[Only problem with this theory is you have to hit the CO/CO2 ratio
pretty closely. Hmmm, might be an idea to compress a tank full of
clean exhaust gas :-) Actually with good cats, it's easier just to
meet the standard. JGD]
Mike Jamison
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
From: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Mar 1993
Subject: Re: Emmisions vs. Performance
X-Sequence: 4575
-> clean exhaust gas :-) Actually with good cats, it's easier just to
-> meet the standard. JGD]
How you gonna do that with a 245 degree @ .050 cam and a non-computer
carburetor? How much raw gas can these convertors handle, anyway?
[Since that setup would never pass anyway, kinda beside the point. But
not completely. There is a company called Car Sounds Exhaust Systems
that makes a retrofit kit for such installations. consists of 1 or 2
cats, a lambda sensor, a controller and an air valve. The valve
admits air under the carb and is controlled by the controller to
keep things at stoich during idle and cruise.
This thing ain't gonna meet 1993 standards but it will take any reasonable
street engine and make it pass 70s or 80s specs. JGD]
From: <emory!remus.rutgers.edu!Schizophrenic-Jay>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Sep 1993
Subject: That Taboo Subject...
X-Sequence: 6463
It's that time of year again, the time of year when
politician's start playing hard at the game of "Ridiculous
Acts for Re-election".
Up here in New Jersey, where the air isn't so sweet
as it used to be, and oxygenated gas is already being pumped
into many gas tanks around the state (and you can be sure
my gas mileage will drop 3-5 MPG), there is a new state law
being proposed and tested, which is basically the following:
All state inspections will now test the dynamic
emissions of all vehicles, instead of static emissions,
and this will be accomplished with new emissions testing
dynometers. (But will they also give a free horsepower
and torque output reading as well, we wonder...)
The inspection, which is already being tested in
one or two areas, is a four minute test, where a car is
"driven" at 55MPH on the dynometer, and the emissions are
constantly monitored. If at ANY time the emissions go above
the targeted level, the car fails, and the test stops.
"This will be a great money-making scheme for
mechanics around the state, since it is estimated only
5% of the cars will make it to the end of the 4 minute
inspection." - Some adversary whose name I forgot.
In the past, it wasn't extremely difficult for
a hot rod to make it through inspection: you re-installed
your catalytic converters if you removed them, you got the
car nice and hot before inspection, played with the timing
a bit, adjusted the idle mixture screws super lean (since
only idle emissions were being tested), and voila! The
car ran like crap, but you made it for another year now.
A mechanic I know, who owns a large garage, has
this to say: "It probably will happen, but not for a
while. The government always moves extremely slow. But
when it does happen, I'm not doing state inspections
anymore. I charge $25 for a state inspection now. Half
of that is labour costs and equipment costs...that
Bear emissions tester is a $12,000 machine. But it makes
my customers happy. No inspection lines, and they can
get all their car's service work right here. However,
when it start's costing me $650,000 in inspection equipment,
my customers' happiness is not that important. If my
equipment costs jump over 5000%, so do my prices. Look
at this freon mess...I gotta buy freon recycling machines.
I need certification, my mechanics need certification, I
need a license. It's not worth it. Go into lawn mower
repair. Much easier. Lawnmowers belch burning oil smoke,
and nobody cares."
Being curious about the future, what's a hot-rodder
to do? As I said, now it's possible with some fiddling to
squeeze through inspections. If these new inspection laws
come to pass, how is it possible to get through? Will
'inspection preparation' require changing carburetor jets
and camshaft? (As well as re-installing that pair of
catalytic converters which are sitting outside next to
the garage.)
I'm not much concerned, because by the time this
comes to pass, who knows where I'll be. But my brother,
who is just finishing up 12:1 street engine with a
228/234 cam AND nitrous injection, is worried. He wants
to know if anybody has any tricks and tips for getting
through this new dyno inspection.
Me, I think the age of the true hot-rod is really
coming to an end around here, if it hasn't already (except
for the '68 GTO hidden in the back of the garage, which is
only driven after 2AM, when nobody will see.) Such a shame
that I'll actually be forced to drive a little import
econobox...
[Can't run away from it, unfortunately. Ga just announced a similar
program for Atlanta to take effect in a couple of years if nothing
happens to block them. Dyno-based test that runs a standard
EPA cycle while bagging the whole volume of emission. Then the bag
is composite sampled and analyzed. The worst part is the state is
going to build several (~25) inspection stations which will eliminate
the convenient on-every-corner inspection stations. The
really silly part, and something you might want to write your
congresslime about, is this whole thing is being forced based on a
new EPA rule that requires ozone levels to be below their spec
all but ONE DAY A YEAR. Atlanta exceeds the limit less than 5 days
a year. The econazis are out of control.
This thing can still be worked around for a hotrod but it will take
access to an emission analyzer. I guess the good part is all these
expensive current emissions analyzers become instant junk and should
be available surplus. JGD]
Jason
When people you greatly admire seem to be thinking deep thoughts,
they are probably thinking about lunch.
(jcborkow@remus.rutgers.edu)
From: Chuck Fry <emory!freud.arc.nasa.gov!chucko>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Sep 1993
Subject: That Taboo Subject...
X-Sequence: 6475
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 15:19 EDT
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
[Can't run away from it, unfortunately. Ga just announced a similar
program for Atlanta to take effect in a couple of years if nothing
happens to block them. Dyno-based test that runs a standard
EPA cycle while bagging the whole volume of emission. Then the bag
is composite sampled and analyzed. The worst part is the state is
going to build several (~25) inspection stations which will eliminate
the convenient on-every-corner inspection stations. The
really silly part, and something you might want to write your
congresslime about, is this whole thing is being forced based on a
new EPA rule that requires ozone levels to be below their spec
all but ONE DAY A YEAR. Atlanta exceeds the limit less than 5 days
a year. The econazis are out of control.
No shit, John. It's not the state legislators that are out of control,
it's the EPA. Consider what's happening here in the land of fruits and
nuts.
California's legislature just voted to beef up the independent
inspection program we're currently using. But the EPA says that's not
good enough, and wants to blackmail Cal. into enacting a centralized,
state-run program, under threat of losing 40% of our Federal highway
money. Previous experience with state-run centers in Cal. was
disastrous -- inept inspectors, long lines, long waits, and massive
inconvenience if the car failed the test. The legislators know that
voters don't want anything to do with that program. And while the
current program isn't producing the results the EPA wants, and is open
to abuse by independent garage owners, no one has proven that a
state-run program will clean the air either. But the EPA is insisting
on it.
[I say let 'em keep their damn federal money. We'll keep the gas
tax. Just about every new road built recently in Cobb County, GA (one
of the fastest growing counties in the state) has been built with a special
1% sales tax that goes specifically and directly to road construction.
Even without the federal gas tax money, the states could more than build
their own roads with such a mechanism. grrrrr JGD]
We all know the real problem is the poor guy who can't afford to rebuild
the smoking engine in his junker let alone buy a newer car, and the
moron who can't be bothered to do a tuneup every year or so. These cars
are cranking out an order of magnitude more crud than a well-maintained
car. But auto enthusiasts are picked on as the guilty parties because
we're an easy and highly visible target for the anti-fun hordes.
And while I have the soapbox, I don't understand why hotrodders are so
eager to pitch the catalytic converters and burn leaded gas in
street-driven cars. Don't they breathe the same air we breathe? I
lived too long in LA not to appreciate the improvement in air quality
over the years. The modern factory performance car would not be
possible without cats. If you want to run without cats, build a race
car and run it at the track. That's really the right place for all that
horsepower the leaded gas junkies seem to want.
[I'm in the same boat with you but I can understand where the practice
comes from, having bought a brand new 79 El Camino. That had to be
the era of the WORST possible emissions control. The truck ran vastly
better when that flower-pot-in-a-can was cut off. Today, one can't
tell the difference. The only bitch I have is EPA's saying one
can't legally add converter capacity. Given that people ARE going to
increase performance with larger exhausts, I'd rather see larger
cats on 'em than nothing at all. JGD]
Oh well, enough ranting for one day.
-- Chuck Fry Chucko@freud.arc.nasa.gov
From: emory!OAS.PSU.EDU!FBS3 (SZYMKOWSKI.FRANK)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Sep 1993
Subject: taboo stuff
X-Sequence: 6491
I'm not sure I believe that a car wit cats can run as good as one without.
Case in point- A friend with a 90 GT 5.0 with GT-40 heads, intake, bigger
injectors, 3.55 rear, long tube headers etc., removed the cats and ran
a 12.9. When the news about the dyno testing hit, he went out and purchased
a set of the Walker hi flow cats and installed em. The car with no other
changes ran 13.4's!! Needless to say, they came back off.
Frank
[I'd be interested in hearing the results after he retuned the engine
with the cats in place. Not doing so is no different than any other
bolt'n'pray modification. JGD]
From: emory!STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV!OADDAB (DIRK BROER)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Sep 1993
Subject: RE: That Taboo Subject...
X-Sequence: 6499
> All state inspections will now test the dynamic
> emissions of all vehicles, instead of static emissions,
> and this will be accomplished with new emissions testing
> dynometers. (But will they also give a free horsepower
> and torque output reading as well, we wonder...)
>
> The inspection, which is already being tested in
> one or two areas, is a four minute test, where a car is
> "driven" at 55MPH on the dynometer, and the emissions are
> constantly monitored. If at ANY time the emissions go above
> the targeted level, the car fails, and the test stops.
My understanding is it requires an engine load to see the difference
between a car with good vs bad catastrophic converters. I think we've
all heard the stories about cars actually doing better without cats on
the idle portion of an emission test.
So now, as long as I don't touch the evaporative controls, can I make
any changes as long as I pass the test? Sounds to me like I could build
my own closed loop fuel injection (perhaps one sensor per cylinder) and
pass any test they can think of. That of course assumes the sensor work
at the air/fuel ratio required for that particular emission test.
This all comes back to an earlier question. How does one get carb
certification. Could I build my own engine and get it certified as a
package? If so would I have to list every part number? And finally
what if I use a custom/ homemade intak manifold?
[The basic idea is to dilute the exhaust flow until the bad guys are
below the econazi trigger point. In the beginning this was easy -
just pump extra air into the exhaust system. I built a system for
a guy who was moving to Ca many years ago that did just that. An
AIR pump driven through an electric clutch pumped a bunch of air into
the exhaust whenever engaged. Best part is the flow is proportional
to engine speed so no controls required.
Then they went to the 4-gas system designed to catch this. The 4-gas
system has 4 analyzer channels, one of which is CO2. The analyzer looks
at the ratio of CO2 to CO and O to make sure no post-combustion
dilution is happening. This can still be fooled by simply introducing
a metered amount of CO2 in with the excess air stream. Now you see why
an analyzer will be necessary. I can envision a system whereby
the CO2 is metered through something similar to a propane carb.
It becomes a question of whether it is easier to do this or to simply
have a smog engine laying around to swap in for inspection. Since
Atlanta's inspection interval is going to be 2 years, it would certainly
be within the scope of what I'd be willing to do to swap a smog motor
in every two years. Heck, I have the motor out of my car more often
than that anyway :-) 'Course when you pull your slammed and tubed
Camaro into the booth with a 100 hp wheezer under the hood, the
inspection guy's gonna at least raise an eyebrow :-) JGD]
Would CARB certification mean It was legal through-out the states?
What about home-built cars. Last time I talked to the EPA/DOT they
just ignore home-built cars (I was asking in reference to Cobra Kit
Cars). In Maryland they would be registered as home-built 1993 (assuming
you completed it in '93). You simply build the car and trailer it to
the central MVA (after setting up an appointment). A couple of police
officers check to see if the car is safe (whatever that means - probably
a quick drive around town :-) and then they issue you a title/registration.
No one ever said anything about passing the bi-yearly smog check.
One last thing. Does anyone remember the story about a blown 427 '69
Comaro. Seems he could easily pass the sniffer test up to 1984 standards
but failed the underhood inspection until he proved that the engine was
a '67 and the swap was done sometime before 1984 (or whatever that drop
dead date was). It seems that the draw-through design mixed the air/fuel
mixture so well + the high energy ignition and tight sealing motor -
resulted in a very clean burn (at least at idle).
Wonder if you can sue the Californian government for enacting / enforcing
a law that leads to higher emissions and therefor
1) increases your health risk (just ask the EPA)
2) Risks federal funding - since the excess smog p*sses the EPA off.
Hey, how bout this
Unreasonable search and seizure: since they have external methods to
determine weather you are in compliance with EPA regulations - why should
they be able to look under the hood?
And how do all these cars that I see - belching god awful smoke - get by?
What we need is a cheap way to certifie hot rods. You know a local testing
station that can run the gambit of EPA test (appropriate for the year of
the car) and simply say pass or indicate where you failed. Then certify
your combination - whatever it maybe.
And one last thing
In Maryland they have a minumum HC level. So if I make my car super
efficient (ie. no unburnt HC - redundant I think) I fail.
OK one more thing
What if I convert to diesel. I'm then exempt from testing. And then I
convert back to gas. In Maryland once your alternative fuel you never
have to prove it again ( I almost bought an Olds diesel just for this
reason)
OK I'm done
Dirk
From: Larry Estep <emory!msuacad.morehead-st.edu!ljeste01>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Sep 1993
Subject: Re: That Taboo Subject...
X-Sequence: 6538
> > Well, I guess this is one advantage of living in the middle of nowhere.
> >Here in Kentucky there are no laws/regulations of this type.
>
> Unfortunately, you ain't gonna' hide from this one. The last Clean Air
> Act that Georgie signed before moving to his new house in Texas (is it
> built yet :-) requires that every state have an emission inspection
> that provides coverage to EPA standards. This means the expensive NOx
> analyzers and dynos.
Thanks...you really made my day. :(
[It's not going to be that bad. The new law requires states prove
compliance. Only nonattainment (how's that for bureaucratese?)
areas will have to take draconian steps such as dyno-based testing.
Rural areas can prove compliance by virtue of air monitoring. If the
air is clean (as defined by EPA of course), no further steps are
required. Areas that fail one or more days a year will have to take
further steps. The first step will be tailpipe sniffing.
What really pisses me is the EPA is making cars take it in the throat
in areas where most of the pollution is natural. Fer'instance,
here in Atlanta, as with all the Smokey Mountains region, most of
the photochemical smog comes from natural sources, mainly pine trees.
That's what makes the Smokeys smokey. I forget the exact figures
but the EPA was quoted somewhere recently that if all the cars were
removed from Atlanta streets, the ozone and HC levels would only
drop about 30%. This is really just another shot from the hate-the-
car brigade. JGD]
> By the way, I am all for clean running cars. I figure that if it is
> not running clean, there is more power to be made, and more frequent
> stops at the gas pump. I just want to make sure that passing an
> emission test is just that, not a test to see that you still have your
Well, as long as they don't expect my cars that were made in the 60's
and early 70's to meet the emission levels of a 90's car, I shouldn't have
any problem passing their tests. But just the same, I'm still going to
keep an eye out for this lunacy. I'm already screwed as far as AC goes.
How long before they force me to sell my "junk" and buy an econo-box?
And I agree about the factory gizmos. As long as you can pass the
emissions levels set for your car, they shouldn't need to check under
the hood.
Larry
Date: Sat Oct 2 10:05:59 1993
From: george@mech.seas.upenn.edu (George Jefferson)
Subject: Re: Hydro Carbons again...
"2-gas meters (HC and CO) could be had used in the $500 range as mechanics
trade them in for 4 gas models."
What is the operating princple of these machines? I'm wondering if they
simply employ some kind of (replacable) sensor ( similar to an O2 sensor ),
so that maybe one could be constructed on the cheap. After all, we
could get by without the precision calibration, etc needed on a inspection
station type machine.
I guess if it were simple, there would be CO and HC metering done on
the car...
[Uses a principle called NDIR - Non-Dispersive InfraRed analysis. IT
works on the principle that many compounds have sharp absorption bands
in the IR range. CO and HCs (referenced to methane) are two that
have well characterized absorption lines. The instrument
involves passing infrared light through a sample of the gas and then
measuring how much IR is absorbed. It is typically done by allowing
the IR light from the unknown cell to fall on a cell filled with the
gas of interest. The IR beam is chopped (usually mechanically) and a
sensitive pressure sensor detects the pressure change caused in the
reference cell by the heat from the IR expanding the reference gas.
The output of the pressure sensor is a square wave whose amplitude is
inversely proportional to the concentration of the gas in the unknown
cell.
Another method for HC determination is Flame Ionization analysis.
This involves feeding a stream of the unknown gas into a hydrogen-oxygen
flame. A pair of electrode are inserted in the flame. A pure hydrogen
flame is non-conductive. It becomes conductive when carbon atoms are
introduced. The conductivity is proportional to the concentration of
carbon. This is typically an emissions lab instrument though one
company - Cambustion in England - makes a portable instrument. The
advantage of FI is the speed. The response is very fast and is mainly
dependent on the transit delay of the sample from the sample tip to
the flame. A FI analyzer is something someone with a little bit
of engineering ability can build at home. The signals aren't low level
and a hydrogen-oxygen flame is easy to manage.
The 4 gas analyzers typically use NDIR for CO2 and an electrochemical
cell for oxygen. JGD]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: How to pass emissions
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 20:47:16 GMT
sjohnson@frx193.intel.com (Steve Johnson) writes:
>In article <93286.142049GDG104@psuvm.psu.edu> <GDG104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Amen!
>>
>>I did not ask for a lecture. The only thing I asked for was advice on
>>how to pass the emissions test. Much of the emissions equipment was
>>missing from this car when I purchased it and since I am a student at
>>Penn State I can not currently afford to put the equipment back on the
>>car. Since this is my only car and it is my sole means of commuting
>>back and forth to school I will need to get it to pass the emissions
>>test when the time comes. So why don't you take your comments to
>>rec.ethics.greenpeace.liberal-environmentalist where you might be
>>appreciated.
>
>My, my testy aren't we?
>
>How come you seem to have the money to make the modifications but not for
>the environment?
>
>I hope someday you have to explain to your grand children why the planet
>was left in the shape it's in.
Not testy at all. Probably as tired as I am, however, of the air-headed
bleating eco-nazis who know the chants and mantras but have no idea
about what they are advocating. Especially when he posted specific
questions looking for specific answers.
Let's try a little thought experiment. George is at PSU
which I assume means College Station, PA. Nice rural area. Consider the
following table:
Allowable Allowable limit as As percent of
Year Limit(gm/mi.) % of limit in 1965 limit in 1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Nox ***
1965 4.4 100 220
1971 4.0 90.1 200
1973 3.0 68.2 150
1975 2.0 45.5 100
1979 1.5 34.1 75
1983 1.0 22.7 50
1990 0.4 9.1 20
1995 0.4 9.1 20
1998 0.2 4.6 (22 times less) 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** HC ***
1965 11 100 1220
1971 3.2 29.1 356
1975 0.9 8.2 100
1979 0.41 3.7 46
1983 0.41 3.7 46
1990 0.41 3.7 46
1995 0.25 2.3 28
1998 .075 0.7 (147 times less) 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's look at NOx since your oral masturbation was about the EGR valves,
the device that limits NOx. Let's compare 1973 vs 1983 limits. The
1973 limits were generally achievable without EGR and the 1983 limit
is what his car would have to conform to. That is 3 gm/mile vs
1 gm/mile. In other words, an almost un-controlled engine may emit
about 3 times one controlled to the 1983 standard. BFD.
But let's think about this a little deeper. Steve, I see you work
for Intel which probably means Silicon Valley. Whattya figure, maybe
oh, 100 times as many cars there as in College Station? Now we know from
the above table that an almost uncontrolled [*] vehicle emits about
3 times as much NOx as a 1983 controlled engine. Therefore 3 1983
cars emits the same amount of NOx as one uncontrolled vehicle.
Knowing that, we (don't you just LOVE that great socialist "we") can
draw some conclusions. One is, for the auto population in College Station
to have the same impact on "the environment" as heavily emission
controlled population of Silicon Valley, each car in College Station would
have to emit (100/3) 33 times more NOx than one in Silicon Valley.
Since you have such an extreme concern for "the environment", Steve, the best
thing you could do to "save the environment" would be to do whatever
you can including sacrificing some of your income to get three cars
off the road out there. Buy 'em up and junk 'em. You will have done as
much for the "environment" as any amount of worrying about the Pa car.
[*] I say "almost uncontrolled" because even though he removed the EGR
valve, other NOx reducing design features such as the combustion
chamber design remain.
That out of the way, we may now proceed to answering George's original
question.
George, you have a couple of options. Among them is NOT any of the
screwy suggestions such as unhooking random hoses, proposed to date in
this thread.
First, let's look at making that moter pass. This assumes you don't have
to pass a visual inspection.
First off, buy a high performance catalytic converter and install it.
It will not hurt your performance and it will go a LONG way toward making
your car pass the sniff test. It'll cost maybe $100 but will likely
solve the problem.
Next, you're going to have to gain access to some sort of emissions analyzer.
Trying to tune to arbitrary specs (which is what emissions sniff specs are)
without some sort of instrument is folly and is like shooting in the dark.
PSU has an active automotive engineering section so you likely can find
an analyzer on the campus. Failing that, find a friendly garage that
will let you sniff your car. Failing that, you can try to tune using
a lambda sensor. Summit Racing sells a readout device for about $30 and
the sensor costs about $50. All it gives you is a rich/lean indication but
it's better than nothing.
You would tune for a stable idle that gives the closest to
stoichiometric mix. Generally this will involve retarding the timing,
opening the throttle to compensate and leaning the mixture. Run as high
an idle as the emissions inspection will permit (generally 1100 rpm).
Install as hot a thermostat as you can find and make sure the car is
fully warmed before going to the inspection station. Do not sit at the
station idling. If there is a line, come back later. You want to drive
right into the stall and get sniffed before the engine has a chance to
start loading up and while the cat is still very hot.
2nd alternative and perhaps the only one if you have to pass a visual
inspection. Get another stock engine from a wreck and install it
long enough for the inspection. While this at first might seem outlandish,
upon a closer look, it is not. If you have the proper tools (should be
available at your university car club), you can swap a motor in a long
afternoon. That means that in return for a couple of afternoon's work,
you get to drive your car the rest of the year or two years if your
inspection is semi-annual. A motor can be had for as little as $500.
Not cheap but it is better than having to park the car. You might even
be able to find a friendly junkyard operator who would rent you a motor
for a week.
John
From: mrozek@pms062.pms.ford.com (Paul Mrozek)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Gross emitters!
Date: 31 May 1994 14:30:06 GMT
If you believe all vehicles meet emissions standards, then you can see the
reduction in the following summary:
Federal Tailpipe Emission Control Standards for Automobiles
Model Year HC CO NOx
---------- -- -- ---
pre-control* 10.6 84 4.1
1972-74 3.0 28 3.1
1975-76 1.5 15 3.1
1984-87 0.41 3.4 1.0
1988-93 0.41 3.4 1.0
1994** 0.25 3.4 0.4
* Pre-control emmisions estimated by the Motor vehicle Manufactures
Association (now AAMA).
** This may not be the latest standards. These are also just Tier 1
standards.
paul mrozek
From: mrozek@pms062.pms.ford.com (Paul Mrozek)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Gross emitters!
Date: 2 Jun 1994 16:16:41 GMT
In article <Cqop1r.7z2@rsinc.com>, dan@rsinc.com (Dan Carr) writes:
> mrozek@pms062.pms.ford.com (Paul Mrozek) writes:
>
> > Federal Tailpipe Emission Control Standards for Automobiles
>
> > Model Year HC CO NOx
> > ---------- -- -- ---
> > pre-control* 10.6 84 4.1
> > 1972-74 3.0 28 3.1
> > 1975-76 1.5 15 3.1
> > 1984-87 0.41 3.4 1.0
> > 1988-93 0.41 3.4 1.0
> > 1994** 0.25 3.4 0.4
>
> What are the units of measurement on these numbers ?
> Under what conditions do these standards apply (idle, 2500 RPM, under load) ?
> These numbers look bogus.
Sorry about not including that info. The above Standards are in grams/mile
and are measured by running the EPA city test schedule. These are the numbers
all auto manufacturers must meet in order to sell any vehicle. All vehicles
must below below these standards up to 50,000 miles. The EPA routinely
performs audits on public vehicles in L.A., Denver, and Ann Arbor to make sure
that a modified 75k version of the standards are being meet.
paul mrozek
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Why cars vs. transit
gilesm@bird.uucp (Giles Morris) writes:
>I see two common themes in this thread:
>
>a An unwillingness to accept that we have gone wrong somewhere, and we
> are screwing things up for ourselves.
>
>b Even if this were to be true (which, perhaps, it is) there is nothing
> we can do about it - we're stuck with what we have.
>
>I have bad news for you, people. The era of the auto is of finite length. We
>did without them before, and we have no option to continue using them
>indefinitely. The longer we put off doing anything (I do not consider chatting
>about it here) the harder it will be.
Didya ever notice that when one of these leftist back-to-
the-farm-with-a-pick-and-shovel granola heads shows up, it's always "we
have to do this" and "we have to do that". In the immortal words of
Tonto, "What's this WE shit, whiteman"? And what's this not willing
to chat about it? Are you so insecure in your convictions that you're
afraid to hear anyone else's opinions? Hmm, maybe this fruitcake's
not beyond salvage. Maybe if the rest of us bombard him with
truth, happiness and the American way, he'll heal himself.
I have bad news for you, person. YOU (singular) may not like the way
you see the US today but a whole lot of people do. A whole lot of people
are not happy with the damage already done to the US economy by the
agrarian fruitcakes under the guise of "environmentalism" and are ready to
do something about it.
I (note the singular case) am going to continue voting at the ballot box
for rational environmental policies and I'm going to continue voting
with my wallet, avoiding "green" (the ultimate oxymoron)
products like the plague. Hmm, I think I'm getting inspired enough
to drop that small block in my Z-car. Hell, I make enough money.
Who needs 25 mpg when I can have speed? I can afford the gas.
>I am not optimistic, given that (with a few notable exceptions) the Usenet
>community is _far_ superior to the general population in terms of education,
>intelligence etc.
Yes we are. And in this forum, we can talk back. That's why you can't
get away with your Greenie newspeak, quite unlike the mass media.
Back in your hole, son.
John
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Why cars vs. transit
bsmg9810@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bhaskar S. Manda) writes:
> Probably son, you read latest issue of Popular Mechanics where they
> talk about American cities proposals to have MASS TRANSIT RAIL
> systems, steel-wheeled or maglev. Then maybe, just maybe, you talk
> more sense.
Nope. I try to limit my reading of fiction to those publications that
identify themselves as fiction.
> You see, the question is not as simple as you having cash to burn
> or the poster you were screwing being Greenie or something ; it
> is more related to the overall economy, less congestion(on roads) of
> is more like how much less consumption per million people, or how
> much less congestion on the roads. Certainly no one can ban cars
> with 400 bhp(and infinitely small mpg), but commonsense says that the
> era of the auto as a means of commuting is certainly of finite length.
Actually no, common sense does not say that. Personal transportation
is the foundation of our free society. Americans will never give
up that freedom. One would think the greenies and bureaucrats would
learn that after a few decades of being sent the message very plainly
that mass transit will NEVER FLY IN THIS COUNTRY.
The issue is not conservation or congestion or the environment or any
of the stuff the greenies throw up as smoke screens. If they were
issues, the proposed solutions would be more in line with what people
demand. The issue within the US is the desire of some to force others
to conform to their view of the way things should be. Why else
would the "elite" want to cram the proletariat into cattle cars?
External to the US it is pure jealousy of the American lifestyle.
After all, the theory seems to go "if I can't have it and I can't
take it away from the Americans, I'll try to find ways to prevent
them from enjoying the wealth." Good try but no bananna.
> I won't give more details here, because I have already given a
> reference. However, statements like "agrarian fruitcakes doing
> damage to US economy" or the contempt for "Greenies", etc. which
> you freely use , should only be made if you can give authoritative
> references or facts to support your claims. As it stands, everything
> you say sounds total BS.
Hmm, another trick of the havenot/cannots. Demand one to cite others.
Sorry, again, no bananna. I'm the authority in this discussion. You
can try to find other authorities to support your argument if you'd like
but this is all you get from me.
John
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Pollution *has* increased was Re: Why cars vs. transit
bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
>>Why have we gone wrong? Pollution now is lower than it was 20 years ago,
> ^^^^^
>This is bat puckey. If you burn more gasoline, you will produce
>more pollution. We are burning more gasoline today than ever, thus
>we are creating more pollution. The only thing that has changed
>is the type of pollutants being emitted by autos.
Where did this guy come from? Were you by any chance around in the
60s when one could barely see down a city block in many cities?
I can remember when it was impossible to see Chattanooga, Tn when
descending Missionary Ridge. Now one can see all the way to
Alabama. Don't even talk about any major northeastern city or
places like Birmingham.
Tell me something, trickle dick. If one car is tuned such that
it's exhaust contains, oh, say 12% CO, 500 ppm HC and 1200 ppm NOX
and is idling right next to another car with twice the engine
capacity and gas consumption but emits no measurable CO or HC and
the NOX is in the 10s of PPM, which car do you suppose pollutes more?
I'll give you a hint. The one with the least fuel consumption.
BTW, I'm describing a mid 60s VW beetle sitting beside my wife's
fairly new Camry that baselined both HC and CO in this year's
sniff the pooter pipe test.
Aha but the econazis try to redefine the terms so they can continue to
monger fear. NOW the pollution is INVISIBLE and it does not smell.
Nasties such as carbon dioxide. You can't smell it, you can't taste
it, you can't see it, it does not make you wheeze or cause disease,
you have to use mass spectrometers to measure it but it's still
there. Really. Trust us. Bullshit. Today's cars emit essentially
clean air. What we really have is audio pollution. We need to
shut these people up and let 'em go get real jobs. Like building
more cars.
>Oh, and John De Armond is a perfect example of the "Crier Havot"
>(call to pillage) attitude of exploitation in this thread.
*Yawn* Perhaps. Wonder how much traction a pillager provides?
John
From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Defining and quantifying "pollution"
jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>As Joshua Levy stated, pollution *has* decreased in the Bay Area
>over the last 20 years. Several trends are at work:
>
>1) Fleet-average mileage is higher than 20 years ago. It would be even
>higher if the Reagan and Bush administrations hadn't suspended CAFE
>standards progress past 27 MPG. And cars have much better pollution
>controls, the most significant being the catalytic converter.
No. Emission limits are specified in terms of grams per mile of
each pollutant. The catalytic converter is so good that specific
fuel consumption has little to do with emissions. Normal operating
emissions are so low that a properly tuned car will baseline
a normal emission tester. That is, the HC and CO will register 0.0.
The overwhelming source of pollution as far as the EPA is concerned
is during startup. This is mainly an artifact of the EPA test
cycle. Most work that I'm aware of is going toward addressing
this 15 second to 2 minute period. Here are some of the things being
done.
Saab has a heat battery that stores engine heat in a phase change
salt that is then used to warm the engine before cranking.
GM is considering an electrically heated Cat converter for
earlier lightoff.
Ford is about ready to deploy a gas-heated cat converter.
A flame would be ignited in the exhaust upstream of the
cat in order to warm it faster. This is an example where
CAFE plays against emission reduction. The CAFE hit for
burning the heater for 10 seconds or so is major.
Emission standards are way past the point of diminishing returns.
The numbers are now strictly driven by politics.
>It's also worth noting that pollutants are measured at the tops of
>buildings, not at street level. On some streets where I ride now and
>then, the fumes are the pits. I think there's both the technology
>and the need to reduce the allowable limits further, simply for
>public health reasons.
Uh no. Sampling is done in a variety of places including but not
exclusively at high elevations.
>I think
>weight reduction (yes, it can be done without sacrificing safety,
>contrary to what the big 3 would like you to believe) and alternative
>drives (electric and hybrid), plus aggressive enforcement of the 10% that
>pollute worst, hold more hope.
Only if you figure out how to repeal physics. When an 80,000 lb
truck runs over a 1000 lb flims-mobile, the occupants will be
splat regardless of the number of air bags, energy absorbing structures
or arm waving. Same thing if the collision involves a 4000 lb car or
truck. CAFE is a political bogosoty that does nothing except drive up
the price of cars and makes them less safe.
John
From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Pollution *has* increased was Re: Why cars vs. transit
neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams) writes:
>If this is the case, then why is the US being such a pain in the
>a*s when it comes to committing to holding pollution at the
>current level? I'm referring to whatever that worldwide bill
>is called which every other industrialized nation has subscribed
>to, except for the US.
Because that treaty has nothing to do with real pollution. It is trying
to get everyone on the radical chic, cause'd'celebre of the day,
GREENHOUSE gas. In other words, CO2. This is just another trick by
the third world and some of Europe within the UN to try to catch up to the US
by pulling the US down to their level in terms of industrial growth.
Bush is quite right in refusing to go along. One of the few, very few
notable things he's done. The second point Bush makes that is quite right
is that each country must control real pollution according to its own
standards and capabilities. What the UN tried to do is simply mental
masturbation for the benefit of the media cameras.
I'd like to talk to anyone who really believes that CO2 is a
pollutant. I have some nice ocean-front land here in Atlanta
I'd like to sell 'em. They'll buy anything. Oh, but don't take
just my word for it. Contact the World Envrionmental Defence
Fund. According to their own poll of environmental scientists
(selected, obviously, according to their agenda) 72% of those
polled agreed with the statement that the CO2 "greenhouse
effect" is not and never will be a problem. This little nugget
came out last night on CNN's Crossfire. The WEDF representative
did not like to talk about this fact but he did not deny it
either. He also acknowledged that the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere
is not going according to the econazi's doomsday plan. In fact it
remains fairly constant. This is consistent with the theory that most
CO2 is consumed by ocean-borne algae and the algae population grows
or shrinks as needed to keep the CO2 population in check.
John
From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Pollution *has* increased was Re: Why cars vs. transit
cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas) writes:
>Carbon dioxide is not a poison, but what do you plan to do when the sea
>level rises because of the melting of the polar caps? Florida will go
>under. I guess you don't live there...
since it will only happen in your imagination, it does not affect me and
therefore I shall not worry about it.
"Greenhouse gases" do serve a purpose. They provide people who need
crisis in order to survive something harmless to worry about.
John
From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Defining and quantifying "pollution"
naze@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Daniel J Naze) writes:
> Of course this is ridiculous! As much as I love cars, they are quite bad
>for air quality. If new cars are so clean, why emissions testing? The most
>current EPA standards I have are this:
I'd guess that you've never actually operated an emissions testing station.
I have. Why don't you go to your nearest station and watch for awhile.
It would be a tremendous education. Watch how almost every < 5 year old
car baselines the machine.
> The problem here is that there is not one car on the road, there are
>millions. If cars were as clean as you claim, photochemical smog would
>almost be a thing of the past. I don't know, in the summer I see an
>awful lot of brown sky in Milwaukee, and the primary contributor is
>cars. In addition, the lower Lake Michigan basin is a severe ozone
>non-attainmment area, and the reason again is primarily HC and NOx from
>cars. Don't forget transportation related activities such as gas
>stations. Without vapor recovery, a huge amount of HC and VOCs are
>introduced to the air.
According to the EPA itself, cars are only a minor contributor to the
atmospheric concentration of HC and only a bit more for NOX. In this
area PINE TREES are given credit for over 70% of the airborne HC.
In Atlanta, the EPA was rattling its sabers to force NOX testing which
would have forced emissions stations to install chassis dynos. When
pressed about it, they admitted that this very costly program, at best,
might result in an 8-10% decrease in NOX emissions. Best I can tell
this one died on the vine.
> Catyl converters have changed little since tho 70's as well. Most new
>gains are coming from engine design, electronic management systems, and
>reformulated fuels.
I can see your ability to read anything automotive related is very limited.
Today's class assignment: Learn about ReDox (three way) catalysts.
Extra points: Learn about lambda sensors and their applications.
According to SAE papers on the subject, oxygenated fuels will have the
major effect on OLD cars that do NOT have the modern engine
management systems.
I'm going to say it again, this time typing very slowly so you can read
every word. The major source of pollution in today's automobile is
during cranking and warmup. During this time the cat and the lambda
sensor are cold and thus the engine runs open loop. Thus the ways I
listed before that you apparently missed are being considered to
cut this warmup time.
OEMs make engines emit essentially zero emissions for very simple
reasons. First off, the EPA emission cycle requires composite sampling
of all exhaust emission over the entire test cycle. That is, the
total flow is bagged and representative samples are taken (or more
modern composite sampling techniques are used.) Thus if the car can
be made perfectly clean over a significant portion of the test cycle,
more leeway exists for cold start, transient throttle and other
difficult to control situations. Secondly, the emission system must
be warrantied to perform for 50k miles (soon to be 100k). Even
a system degraded by age and neglect must perform. Third, if a
significant number of cars of a given model require emission warranty
work, the entire model run may have to be recalled for rework.
If the OEM spends the extra money up front to make the exhaust lilly clean,
YOU get to pay as part of the purchase price. If the OEM takes a chance and
just meets specs and the system later fails, HE gets to pay. Who do you
think gets to pay?
John
Index
Home
About
Blog