Steve W. wrote:
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to
remove that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to
be done at a dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The
state can just flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in
the tester, and your VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete"
list. You don't get inspected. That has happened before for other recalls.
I'm betting the fix
will be to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then
run each one through the full EPA test regardless of registration
state. That because this if a federal law that was broken.

What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM.
VW could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the
systems so they should pay a fine as well".

When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle
owners?

Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.


VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the
cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them
crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before
under the "cars for cash" BS.

Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet
requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them,
since the resulting performance will be terrible.

mike posted for all of us...


OR we could just
Fine them billions and fritter it away wherever such fines
are frittered?


Just like all the fines imposed on Co's and people. Found money for the
gov't. Like the tobacco Co's the states get all this money and what exactly
do they do with it. If education is it having an impact? Should be for the
medical costs. Instead that is spread amongst the ratepayers or taxpayers
through third party payers. How to fix IDK...

--
Tekkie

In article ,
Ewald Böhm wrote:

Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM.../VW-Caught-Che
ating-on-EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...oftware-to-che
at-emissions-tests-forced-by-epa-to-recall-482k-vehicles
etc.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

The numbers WERE significant.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety

+1 My experience exactly.

PA had twice yearly inspections but now has yearly . I remember all the
uproar over what the garages had to buy, the 3 gas analyzers, dynamometers,
leased or privately owned... It was a circus. I think it was a politicians
dream. (It was in NJ).

I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing
blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters".

Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold.

Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups...
--
Tekkie

trader_4 posted for all of us...

Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.

Another loon. When has an emission issue ever had anything to do
with an auto insurer paying a claim? Emissions compliance doesn't
cause accidents.

+1 Huh?

--
Tekkie

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?

--
Tekkie

On 9/19/2015 4:15 PM, Tekkie® wrote:



PA had twice yearly inspections but now has yearly . I remember all the
uproar over what the garages had to buy, the 3 gas analyzers, dynamometers,
leased or privately owned... It was a circus. I think it was a politicians
dream. (It was in NJ).

I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing
blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters".

The original twice yearly was a safety inspection. That was a joke.
You could get inspected so easily or you could get scammed by shops
selling un-needed repairs.

The shop I went to was owned by an old guy that could not lift a wheel
if he had to. checking the brakes was pushing on the pedal while
scraping off the old sticker.

Before that, I took three cars to a shop in one day and every one needed
headlight adjustment for $2. Never mind that the ball joints they never
checked were loose. Quick easy money.


Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold.

Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups...

On 9/19/2015 1:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:34:45 -0500, "." wrote:
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners?

Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.

I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.

Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been
promised, and reported.

I must have missed that line. Where and when was that again?

Just because your car is registered as a 1927
model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it
has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails.

No kidding.

Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the
LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number).

You don't say.

On 9/19/2015 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

As is and would continue to be done innumerable times everyday
by mechanics despite any lack of vehicle safety testing as has
historically been required by the states. Personally, I cut back
turning wrenches considerably in '76 and by '80 had discontinued
the practice entirely (I still tinker) having landed an engineering
position with a distributor of major heavy equipment and industrial
engines.

Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness
of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power.

Pull off any number (EGR, PCV, Sensor ...) of wires, hoses,
or lines; one could also easily have multiple devices either
fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running)
and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the
pollution output, of the engine.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

I'm only surprised at the length of your run-on sentence.

I worked tune-up and electrical in '74-'76 at a Mopar dealer.
Remember the red, sometimes off white, idle mixture limiting,
plastic stops that covered the screw heads on Carter's (which
also had an issue with warping, requiring a retro-fit brace)?
Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars were sometimes
addressed by first subjecting such engines to a full Sun Scope
(on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove
them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required.
Never once had a comeback or complaint.

The numbers WERE significant.\

No they were not. "Cleaner air" evolved from unleaded fuel,
catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train
computer management of hundreds of millions, not the
hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads.

On 9/19/2015 3:15 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station.

Wow, you are remarkably uninformed, if not downright stupid.

Educate yourself, if possible, by reading about Clair Patterson,
a scientist who was attempting to establish the true age of the
Earth and serendipitously, by the failure of his early attempts
to create a clean room, discovered the grave neurotoxin
danger poisoning us all.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 2:33:22 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Ewald Böhm wrote:

Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM.../VW-Caught-Che
ating-on-EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...oftware-to-che
at-emissions-tests-forced-by-epa-to-recall-482k-vehicles
etc.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack

Some boss at VW ****ed off an employee. Things like that happen all the time. If you own a company and you're doing something that may be illegal, don't mistreat your employees. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle BTDT Monster

Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...



The original twice yearly was a safety inspection. That was a joke.
You could get inspected so easily or you could get scammed by shops
selling un-needed repairs.

The shop I went to was owned by an old guy that could not lift a wheel
if he had to. checking the brakes was pushing on the pedal while
scraping off the old sticker.

Before that, I took three cars to a shop in one day and every one needed
headlight adjustment for $2. Never mind that the ball joints they never
checked were loose. Quick easy money.


True, but then again we had a reputable shop.

--
Tekkie

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 5:15:13 PM UTC-4, . wrote:
On 9/19/2015 1:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:34:45 -0500, "." wrote:
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners?

Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.

I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.

Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been
promised, and reported.

I must have missed that line. Where and when was that again?


And if there is any truth to it, it's a total waste of taxpayer
money. The number of cars involved is insignificant in the total
universe of cars.





Just because your car is registered as a 1927
model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it
has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails.

No kidding.

Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the
LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number).

You don't say.

Sounds incredibly dumb, even for what govt has become. Sending
inspectors out to see what engine is really in your model T?

On 19 Sep 2015 14:29:47 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

wrote:

Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

This is almost entirely the result of fuel injection combined with
accurate feedback control. Feedback control makes a huge improvement
in the efficiency of the engine and that means both lower emissions
and more power.

And, it's true that it took the emission control regulations to force
the car manufacturers to start thinking out of the box at new ideas to
try and improve efficiency back in the seventies. Had it not been for
the emission control regulations, we might never have got the engine
improvements that make engines so much more efficiency today.

BUT, it's true that many of the other tricks used to get emissions
numbers down have been at the expense of performance, and many of them
have been just plain attempts to game the system.

There is a very longstanding tradition of gaming the system, dating back
to air pumps back in the seventies which did in fact improve the efficiency
of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that
the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission
was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower.

The improvement in emissions was at least an order of magnitude more
than the "dilution" would have produced. This was in the days before
"storage" catalysts that can store oxygen (part of the reason mixtures
MUST oscillate around stoich - go rich, then lean, then rich) Air
needed to be added in order for the oxidizing catalist to function
effectively.

This current attempt on VW's part is not something new in isolation, this
is part of a tradition going back forty years now. It shouldn't surprise
anyone, and it's certainly not anything specific to VW.

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.

Odds are that instead they will take the route of just leaving the
controller in "low emissions" mode all the time, which probably will
affect performance. Part of how that will work out will depend on what
they were actually doing to bring the numbers down, and we don't know that
without actually measuring it or looking at the controller source.
--scott

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:48:50 -0400, Jan Alter
wrote:

On 9/19/2015 2:21 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:36 AM, Jan Alter wrote:

snip

I had one of the first VW Rabbits in 1978. After about 48,000 miles
and about 4 years later, I was noticing significant oil usage, about a
quart every 500 miles. VW told me it was acceptable. Finally, I couldn't
deal with that response and paid the $125 VW wanted to have new valve
stem seals installed when they gave me their diagnosis to what was
happening.

Was it a California Rabbit?

I had a 49 state Rabbit (1979) and never burned oil. I moved to
California and it seemed that everyone with a California Rabbit had
the oil burning problem. People driving around with cases of oil in
their cars.

As I recall, the issue was that VW did not change the valve stem seal
material when they went from leaded fuel to unleaded fuel. My Rabbit
used leaded gasoline. The lead apparently lubricated the valve stem
seals and prevented them from deteriorating.

VW finally was forced to fix the problem but the feds got them because
the excessive oil burning was putting the vehicles out of compliance
with emissions standards, not because of the oil burning per se. I
didn't get new valve stem seals since my car never burned oil.

Mine was a Pennsylvania Rabbit. I don't recall that the government was
suing because of out of compliance emission standards, but your
description sounds plausible.
From what I have seen of the practices of many car companies I
would say maybe it would be a good practice to buy our cars used, wait a
few years to see if any problems develop or what secrets that the
company new about become revealed.
Part of the reason the last NEW vehicle I've ever owned was built in
1976.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:28:20 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

As is and would continue to be done innumerable times everyday
by mechanics despite any lack of vehicle safety testing as has
historically been required by the states. Personally, I cut back
turning wrenches considerably in '76 and by '80 had discontinued
the practice entirely (I still tinker) having landed an engineering
position with a distributor of major heavy equipment and industrial
engines.

Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness
of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power.

Bigger injectors will just be dialed back by the computer as the O2
sensors report a richer than optimum mixture. Too big and the engine
will go into "limp mode" because the engine remains too rich even with
the calibration at lean limit. Power will suffer.

Pull off any number (EGR, PCV, Sensor ...) of wires, hoses,
or lines; one could also easily have multiple devices either
fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running)
and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the
pollution output, of the engine.
Yes, but it will turn on the CEL and in many cases prevent the engine
from starting, even if it will run after starting. ANd it will run
like crap when it runs. NO incentive to do it.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

I'm only surprised at the length of your run-on sentence.

I worked tune-up and electrical in '74-'76 at a Mopar dealer.
Remember the red, sometimes off white, idle mixture limiting,
plastic stops that covered the screw heads on Carter's (which
also had an issue with warping, requiring a retro-fit brace)?
Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars were sometimes
addressed by first subjecting such engines to a full Sun Scope
(on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove
them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required.
Never once had a comeback or complaint.

Used to remove the limit caps, adjust to spec (or modified spec) and
then replace the caps, as required by law. We did the adjustment using
the exhaust gas analyzer that was part of the Sun, Allen, Marquette,
or Rotunda diagnostic scope I was using at the time. Quite a few were
off spec from the factory. AMC,Chrysler, Mazda and Toyota
dealershipsduring that time period, as well as independent repair
shops

The numbers WERE significant.\

No they were not. "Cleaner air" evolved from unleaded fuel,
catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train
computer management of hundreds of millions, not the
hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads.
It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know
anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to
"solve" problems. - some real and some immagined.

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but
the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health
in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking
any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big
deal.

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its
own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away,
it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog
in New York turns into smog in New Jersey.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 19 Sep 2015 21:08:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but
the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health
in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking
any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big
deal.

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its
own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away,
it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog
in New York turns into smog in New Jersey.
--scott
And smog in the Ohio Valley slides up and sits on top of Central
Ontario - - - -

On 9/19/2015 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:28:20 -0500, "." wrote:

Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness
of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power.

Bigger injectors will just be dialed back by the computer as the O2
sensors report a richer than optimum mixture. Too big and the engine
will go into "limp mode" because the engine remains too rich even with
the calibration at lean limit. Power will suffer.

You questioned how one could simply defeat emission controls.
You were provided with effective examples.

Pull off any number (EGR, PCV, Sensor ...) of wires, hoses,
or lines; one could also easily have multiple devices either
fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running)
and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the
pollution output, of the engine.
Yes, but it will turn on the CEL and in many cases prevent the engine
from starting, even if it will run after starting. ANd it will run
like crap when it runs. NO incentive to do it.

Again, you questioned how one could simply defeat emission
controls. You were provided with effective examples.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

I'm only surprised at the length of your run-on sentence.

I worked tune-up and electrical in '74-'76 at a Mopar dealer.
Remember the red, sometimes off white, idle mixture limiting,
plastic stops that covered the screw heads on Carter's (which
also had an issue with warping, requiring a retro-fit brace)?
Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars were sometimes
addressed by first subjecting such engines to a full Sun Scope
(on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove
them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required.
Never once had a comeback or complaint.

Used to remove the limit caps, adjust to spec (or modified spec) and
then replace the caps, as required by law. We did the adjustment using
the exhaust gas analyzer that was part of the Sun, Allen, Marquette,
or Rotunda diagnostic scope I was using at the time. Quite a few were
off spec from the factory.

"Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars ..." I knew I heard
that somewhere. After verifying everything else was within
spec, and given that emission testing was not mandatory, the
scope, a vacuum gauge, and a tach was all that was really
necessary for an experienced mechanic to adjust the idle
mixture.

AMC,Chrysler, Mazda and Toyota
dealershipsduring that time period, as well as independent repair
shops

The numbers WERE significant.\

No they were not. "Cleaner air" evolved from unleaded fuel,
catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train
computer management of hundreds of millions, not the
hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads.

It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know
anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to
"solve" problems. - some real and some immagined.

Laughable ignorance. No, what led to cleaner air was unleaded
fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel injection and overall
drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT ... sensors,
among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance,
coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based
carbureted engines. Sad that you don't seem to know and
understand something that fundamental.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?

I'm pretty sure VW will be required to put some kind of "code" in
their "fixed" system's computer. If you don't get it fixed they will
know at the inspection station that it's not fixed and will fail you.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:46:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 8:40 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, mike wrote:

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their
cars?

Will you have any choice?
If the test procedure for those cars is changed to test the "real"
emissions, they will FAIL.
If you care about air quality, you have to do that.
Here in Oregon, you don't get your license plates renewed if you fail.

Some cut.

Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
states with no testing.

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.


Safety checks on light cars and trucks are nothing but revenue
generators for the state and repair shops. The number of accidents
prevented by them is essentially zero. Emissions testing of relatively
new cars is also almost pointless but as cars age there are
undoubtedly many people who would just let the CEL blink and the car
pollute forever as long as it kept running. AZ has allowed cars to
skip the test for the first 5 or so years and then tests every other
year. Seems like a reasonable approach. Thank god we don't have
those stupid safety inspections so beloved of the anal retentive nanny
states back east.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:35:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

Yet somehow all those dangerous cars had been driving around just fine
for the weeks and months before you and the state forced them off the
road.

Here's a typical article. Note that there is not a shred of EVIDENCE
presented that all these safety inspections do anything to improve
safety. Just the usual lip flapping by the people who rake in the
money.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...r-inspections/

But if you like these safety inspections for cars, how about we
institute mandatory gvt safety inspections of everyone's home. After
all, many people get hurt or killed in their homes every year.
Shouldn't we be mandating that you be forced to allow a gvt approved
inspector to come into your home once a year, paw thru all your stuff
and demand you throw out anything they think is dangerous, fix
anything they think is "substandard and potentially dangerous" and
otherwise conform to the gvt's standard of how a home should be?



Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

The numbers WERE significant.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.

Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private
passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:35:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

Yet somehow all those dangerous cars had been driving around just fine
for the weeks and months before you and the state forced them off the
road.

Here's a typical article. Note that there is not a shred of EVIDENCE
presented that all these safety inspections do anything to improve
safety. Just the usual lip flapping by the people who rake in the
money.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...r-inspections/

But if you like these safety inspections for cars, how about we
institute mandatory gvt safety inspections of everyone's home. After
all, many people get hurt or killed in their homes every year.
Shouldn't we be mandating that you be forced to allow a gvt approved
inspector to come into your home once a year, paw thru all your stuff
and demand you throw out anything they think is dangerous, fix
anything they think is "substandard and potentially dangerous" and
otherwise conform to the gvt's standard of how a home should be?



And make you pay for the service.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but
the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health
in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking
any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big
deal.

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its
own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away,
it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog
in New York turns into smog in New Jersey.
--scott
--

Was that battery plant in Leads, Alabamastan? That place was closed years ago and I think is one of those Superfund sites. I searched a little for it but didn't find the information online. I do remember that horribly polluted neighborhood, "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. It was all over the news yyears ago. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Lead Monster

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:26:34 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:28:20 -0500, "." wrote:

Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness
of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power.

Bigger injectors will just be dialed back by the computer as the O2
sensors report a richer than optimum mixture. Too big and the engine
will go into "limp mode" because the engine remains too rich even with
the calibration at lean limit. Power will suffer.

You questioned how one could simply defeat emission controls.
You were provided with effective examples.

Pull off any number (EGR, PCV, Sensor ...) of wires, hoses,
or lines; one could also easily have multiple devices either
fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running)
and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the
pollution output, of the engine.
Yes, but it will turn on the CEL and in many cases prevent the engine
from starting, even if it will run after starting. ANd it will run
like crap when it runs. NO incentive to do it.

Again, you questioned how one could simply defeat emission
controls. You were provided with effective examples.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

I'm only surprised at the length of your run-on sentence.

I worked tune-up and electrical in '74-'76 at a Mopar dealer.
Remember the red, sometimes off white, idle mixture limiting,
plastic stops that covered the screw heads on Carter's (which
also had an issue with warping, requiring a retro-fit brace)?
Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars were sometimes
addressed by first subjecting such engines to a full Sun Scope
(on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove
them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required.
Never once had a comeback or complaint.

Used to remove the limit caps, adjust to spec (or modified spec) and
then replace the caps, as required by law. We did the adjustment using
the exhaust gas analyzer that was part of the Sun, Allen, Marquette,
or Rotunda diagnostic scope I was using at the time. Quite a few were
off spec from the factory.

"Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars ..." I knew I heard
that somewhere. After verifying everything else was within
spec, and given that emission testing was not mandatory, the
scope, a vacuum gauge, and a tach was all that was really
necessary for an experienced mechanic to adjust the idle
mixture.

AMC,Chrysler, Mazda and Toyota
dealershipsduring that time period, as well as independent repair
shops

The numbers WERE significant.\

No they were not. "Cleaner air" evolved from unleaded fuel,
catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train
computer management of hundreds of millions, not the
hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads.

It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know
anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to
"solve" problems. - some real and some immagined.

Laughable ignorance. No, what led to cleaner air was unleaded
fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel injection and overall
drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT ... sensors,
among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance,
coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based
carbureted engines. Sad that you don't seem to know and
understand something that fundamental.
Exactly what are you trying to say??? My reply was to say there were
many instances of people - hobbyists and mechanics alike, screwing
with emmission controls in an attempt to defeat them and get better
mileage and power, and getting (usually) neither.

Nowhere did I even suggest any of that had any positive effect on
emmission reductions. What "laighable ignorance" are you talking
about???
Of course it was " unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel
injection and overall drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT
.... sensors, among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil
choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines"
that made the difference. Where did I ever suggest otherwize??

Or are you saying the emission control inspections were not
instrumental in reducing emmissions? They WERE for a short period of
time, partly by catching the vehicles that were "screwed with" by
hobbyists and "hack mechanics" - but they have become virtually
redundant today because the sophisticated engine management systems
can pretty well tell you if the vehicle is running within design specs
with a cheap OBD2 code reader - or even your cell phone with the
proper software and OBD2 code reader adapter.

No idea who or what you are since you hide your identity.
I was a carreer proffessional mechanic for years, as well as an
automotive technology instructor at both secondary and post-secondary
(trade) level.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but
the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health
in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking
any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big
deal.

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its
own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away,
it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog
in New York turns into smog in New Jersey.
--scott
--

Was that battery plant in Leads, Alabamastan? That place was closed years ago and I think is one of those Superfund sites. I searched a little for it but didn't find the information online. I do remember that horribly polluted neighborhood, "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. It was all over the news yyears ago. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Lead Monster
Look up Kabwe Zambia and the Broken Hill Mining Company.
I almost ended up posted there in the early seventies - lead and zinc
mining has decimated the population.

On 9/19/2015 10:15 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:26:34 -0500, "." wrote:

It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know
anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to
"solve" problems. - some real and some immagined.

Laughable ignorance. No, what led to cleaner air was unleaded
fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel injection and overall
drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT ... sensors,
among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance,
coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based
carbureted engines. Sad that you don't seem to know and
understand something that fundamental.
Exactly what are you trying to say??? My reply was to say there were
many instances of people - hobbyists and mechanics alike, screwing
with emmission controls in an attempt to defeat them and get better
mileage and power, and getting (usually) neither.

And as I've stated multiple times now, they comprised an
insignificant component of the problem.

Nowhere did I even suggest any of that had any positive effect on
emmission reductions. What "laighable ignorance" are you talking
about???
Of course it was " unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel
injection and overall drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT
... sensors, among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil
choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines"
that made the difference. Where did I ever suggest otherwize??

Any claim that hobbyists, racers, lack of or incompetent
maintenance or what have you, constituted a noticeable effect
on air quality in general suggests a misreading of the problem.

Or are you saying the emission control inspections were not
instrumental in reducing emmissions?

Evolved and more effective emission controls resulting in
lower emissions? Yes. Less emissions due to inspections?
Of course not in any significant measure.

They WERE for a short period of
time, partly by catching the vehicles that were "screwed with" by
hobbyists and "hack mechanics" - but they have become virtually
redundant today because the sophisticated engine management systems
can pretty well tell you if the vehicle is running within design specs
with a cheap OBD2 code reader - or even your cell phone with the
proper software and OBD2 code reader adapter.

No idea who or what you are since you hide your identity.
I was a carreer proffessional mechanic for years, as well as an
automotive technology instructor at both secondary and post-secondary
(trade) level.

Sad.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 10:18:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 8:08:29 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but
the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health
in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking
any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big
deal.

My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?

Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its
own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away,
it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog
in New York turns into smog in New Jersey.
--scott
--

Was that battery plant in Leads, Alabamastan? That place was closed years ago and I think is one of those Superfund sites. I searched a little for it but didn't find the information online. I do remember that horribly polluted neighborhood, "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. It was all over the news yyears ago. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Lead Monster


Look up Kabwe Zambia and the Broken Hill Mining Company.
I almost ended up posted there in the early seventies - lead and zinc
mining has decimated the population.

Now the Chinese have moved into Africa to rape the land and strip the country of it's resources. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Mine Monster

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:12:41 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?

You can feel good that the spotted owl is not choking on your fumes.
The only way to force you to get the fix is if the car will no longer
pass unless it was done. I don't know if the eqipment doing th testing
will be able to tell.
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection.
Not any more. The ECU is linked to the VIN, and the OBD2 tester reads
the VIN directly from the ECU

That's hit/miss here in NY. The software looks but depending on the ECM
it may not work. Then you grab the scan gun and see if the old
inspection tag has the correct VIN in the matrix.


IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove
that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a
dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The state can just
flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in the tester, and your
VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete" list. You don't get inspected.

That has happened before for other recalls. I'm betting the fix will be
to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then run each one
through the full EPA test regardless of registration state. That because
this if a federal law that was broken.

What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM. VW
could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so
they should pay a fine as well".



--
Steve W.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.
If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

I still fail cars for being rolling junk.


Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)
It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

Power tuners and pass through devices that alter the signals from
sensors. See them all the time, and frequently fail the vehicle they are
on.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

The numbers WERE significant.

Yep, Still happens today. EGR bypass kits, tuner bricks, fake O2 sensor
signal generators, and more.


With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.
Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private
passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario.

It is in NY as well.

--
Steve W.

Bob F wrote:
Steve W. wrote:
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to
remove that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to
be done at a dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The
state can just flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in
the tester, and your VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete"
list. You don't get inspected. That has happened before for other recalls.
I'm betting the fix
will be to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then
run each one through the full EPA test regardless of registration
state. That because this if a federal law that was broken.

What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM.
VW could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the
systems so they should pay a fine as well".
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle
owners?
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.


VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the
cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them
crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before
under the "cars for cash" BS.

Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet
requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them,
since the resulting performance will be terrible.



I doubt they will be able to sue. The "normal" EPA test numbers for
these vehicles have alwas been "low" compared to the ones outside the
lab. I hear folks all the time bragging how their VW gets 45 mpg but the
sticker says it should be getting 38 mpg. VW can re-flash the ECM and
simply say the the TEST (remember the tests would have been with the
emissions systems working)mpg is the correct number and their 45 mpg was
a fluke.

--
Steve W.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:30:45 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

How do you figure that "almost no states use OBD" testing. In fact most
of the states do not use a dyno any longer.

I just had mine tested, in California, and they used a dyno.
No OBD hookup whatsoever.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:44:13 -0700, sms wrote:

Can't speak for all states, but in California one of the first steps in
an emissions test is for the codes to be read via the OBD-II port.

I know this intimately not to be true, in the truest sense of what you say.

While many stations will certainly do a courtesy OBD scan, since you can't
pass CA emissions with a given number of pending or set codes or unset
monitors (the numbers of each are depending on the year of the vehicle),
it is absolutely NOT a requirement to run the OBD scan.

Look it up. I did.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 9/18/2015 8:19 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...-482k-vehicles
etc.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?


I found that interesting for two things. I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

Many corporations have no morals these days, and like most criminals,
they think they won't get caught. Do you remember Bank of America,
how when it got several checks whose total exceeded the money in
someone's checking account, regardelss of the order they came in, they
would process the biggest ones first, so as to empty the checking
account so that all the little checks bounced, giving them as much
insufficient funds fees as possible. That was outright stealing by the
Bank of America. They only changed because the government caught them
and made them.

I had occasion to be in a Wells Fargo branch, and I was telling the bank
officer why I despised Bank of America and he was telling me I should
change to Wells Fargo, and 6 months later, 2 or 3 years afer the
incident with Bank of Am. and I reed in the paper that Wells Fargo is
doing the same thing, and they didn't even stop after Bank of Am got
caught. They are also thieves and if they don't steal more often, it's
because they think they'll get caught, not because those in charge have
any morals.

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?

Only with half of what you say. They will do t he same on the
emissions test, and continue to pass unless something is broken.

But yes, that means they'll get lower mileage, not just during the test.

Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?

VW should pay them for the extra gas they will have to buy, and pay them
for the time it takes to go to the gas station and get it.

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:45:38 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.

Maryland used OBD on cars new enough. That includes my 2000 car, but I
don't think included my 1995 car.

(For the 1995 it used the dynamometer and tailpipe stick) I think when
I turn 70, if I don't drive too much, I won't have to be tested. Or
my car.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:45:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil
change? Dirty air filter?

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the position I set out is that under
English law and other jurisdictions will no doubt differ.

.. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 3:15 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not
but that train has left the station.

Wow, you are remarkably uninformed, if not downright stupid.

Educate yourself, if possible, by reading about Clair Patterson,
a scientist who was attempting to establish the true age of the
Earth and serendipitously, by the failure of his early attempts
to create a clean room, discovered the grave neurotoxin
danger poisoning us all.

Thank you for that little bit of education.

On 9/19/2015 10:54 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:44:13 -0700, sms wrote:

Can't speak for all states, but in California one of the first steps in
an emissions test is for the codes to be read via the OBD-II port.

I know this intimately not to be true, in the truest sense of what you say.

While many stations will certainly do a courtesy OBD scan, since you can't
pass CA emissions with a given number of pending or set codes or unset
monitors (the numbers of each are depending on the year of the vehicle),
it is absolutely NOT a requirement to run the OBD scan.

Look it up. I did.

You said it yourself. You can't pass emissions with pending codes. They
have to run a scan to check this. That's why before they even stick the
exhaust gas analyzer into the tail pipe they read the codes. No point
proceeding with the test if there are unset codes, though if you're
paying for the test they will complete it to check for other failure
modes as well.

At least that's the procedure for the four vehicles I have had smogged
every two years for the past 20 or so years. Also the procedure at the
repair shop my relative operated until he sold it last month, and he
probably did 3000 or so smog checks per year.

I guess you could claim that it is not a requirement to run a scan, it's
just a requirement that you can't pass with pending codes and the only
way to check for pending codes is to do a scan. If there is another way
to check for pending codes other than doing a scan you would be correct,
but I don't think that there is.