On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

That shop would be shut down by the state if it was found that they were
passing cars without checking for pending codes.

On 9/19/2015 8:15 PM, wrote:

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.

That was the big problem in California. A significant number of
out-of-compliance vehicles were causing most of the pollution. Even
though percentage-wise the number of such vehicles was small, in
absolute numbers it was large enough to cause a problem.

The "catalytic converter test pipe" was popular for a while. But as you
said, in most cases, all the tampering with emissions controls did not
have any effect on mileage and/or power.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 9:36:38 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

NJ has exactly the same plan. Five years for new cars, two years after
that.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:15:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:

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.


"Many instances" in a country of 320 mil people and God knows how many cars
doesn't impress me. I say it's still an insignificant percentage
of the cars out there. All the people I know, not a single one has
done it. And if they can do it and are that determined, they can
surely undo it once every two years to get the car through the
inspection that is being advocated to prevent it.





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?

I'd like to see the proof for that. Changes in car/engine design
over decades has greatly reduced emissions. I've never seen anything
that shows that inspections made any significant or more importantly,
cost effective reduction.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:46:21 PM UTC-4, . wrote:


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.


It's especially silly given that people in those groups, that are
that determined, can surely undo what they did to get the car through
a test every two years. And like you say, they are such a tiny
fraction of the cars out there, it's like worrying about a fart in
a hurricane.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 7:23:35 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
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.

Show us some case examples. IF true, must be one screwed up legal
system, where if you don't change your oil or filter on schedule,
it has bearing on who's at fault in an accident.

sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

In some places they always use the scanner to make sure, for instance,
that the ECU wasn't reset immdiately before taking the car in for
inspection. In some places they do not.
--scott

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

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

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...0688/VW-Caught
-Che
ating-on-EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...ne-software-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

but otherwise it's okay?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:58:28 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

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
Which can only make the situation MUCH worse.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:18:01 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

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.
Why people would not remove the "bypoass boxes" to return the vehicle
to stock before submitting for E-Test is beyond me - - - . Same with
"power tuners". They have the capability of storing more than one tune
-

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 03:46:05 -0400, micky
wrote:

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.
Officially, all cars 1996 and newer must be OBD2 compliant, but most
jurisdictions using OBD2 for E-Testing only start at 1997 models
because some 1996 models were not fully compliant. Only a very few
1995 vehicles had OBD2 capability as 1995 was "pre-standard"

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:56:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

That shop would be shut down by the state if it was found that they were
passing cars without checking for pending codes.
In ontario the testers are directly connected to a central computer
and it is virtually impossible to go from stem 1 to step 3 without
completing step 2 first.

A number of years back, some crooks were running a "good" vehicle
through the test 5 or 6 times, entering the Vin for one that would not
pass. They made changes to the system that prevented that pretty
quick.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:00:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/19/2015 8:15 PM, wrote:

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.

That was the big problem in California. A significant number of
out-of-compliance vehicles were causing most of the pollution. Even
though percentage-wise the number of such vehicles was small, in
absolute numbers it was large enough to cause a problem.

The "catalytic converter test pipe" was popular for a while. But as you
said, in most cases, all the tampering with emissions controls did not
have any effect on mileage and/or power.
Didn't have any significant positive effect on mileage and or power.

And the "test pipe" stopped being an option in 1996 with OBD2 testing
pre and post cat O2 - unless you bought an O2 fake-out device that
generated a fake O2 signal (actually, 2 signals ----)- which caused
other problems (genrally a lot poorer fuel mileage and not much power
improvement, if any)

On 20 Sep 2015 12:12:31 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

Except "pending"codes don't turn on the CEL, and the CEL does not
indicate if monitors have been "set"

In some places they always use the scanner to make sure, for instance,
that the ECU wasn't reset immdiately before taking the car in for
inspection. In some places they do not.
--scott

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:12:31 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

That.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:54:12 -0700, sms wrote:

You said it yourself. You can't pass emissions with pending codes. They
have to run a scan to check this.

You have a good point.
I need to recheck my facts.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...agen/72436098/
The software code allows all of the car's emissions systems to work when the cars are taken in for clean-air testing. But as soon as the emissions tests are complete, the system reverts to spewing pollutants. The cars emitted nitrogen oxide at a level of up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA alleges.

On 9/20/2015 1:29 PM, Mitch Kaufmann wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...agen/72436098/
The software code allows all of the car's emissions systems to work when the cars are taken in for clean-air testing. But as soon as the emissions tests are complete, the system reverts to spewing pollutants. The cars emitted nitrogen oxide at a level of up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA alleges.


According to the LA Times:

"Rather than meet the standards, the EPA says VW sneaked in the defeat
device software to detect when the car is hooked up to a dynamometer, a
machine that measures emissions. When emissions are being measured, the
defeat device tells the car to operate at "dyno calibration," or full
emission control levels, to meet the standards."

"At all other times, however, the software sets the engine to run on
"road calibration," allowing the excessive emissions. How can the
program tell the difference? By noting the position of the steering
wheel, variations in speed and other data that suggest no one is driving
the car, and thus it is likely being tested."

On 9/20/2015 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

In some places they always use the scanner to make sure, for instance,
that the ECU wasn't reset immdiately before taking the car in for
inspection. In some places they do not.

Well in California they definitely check via the OBD-II port. I had
replaced a battery and there were no dashboard lights indicating
anything. The first thing they did was to do a scan for codes.

The number of pending codes that is allowable varies by year of
manufacture. A good shop will tell you the drive sequence to clear the
pending codes for each model. A bad shop won't even know this information.

On 9/20/2015 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:56:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

That shop would be shut down by the state if it was found that they were
passing cars without checking for pending codes.
In ontario the testers are directly connected to a central computer
and it is virtually impossible to go from stem 1 to step 3 without
completing step 2 first.

A number of years back, some crooks were running a "good" vehicle
through the test 5 or 6 times, entering the Vin for one that would not
pass. They made changes to the system that prevented that pretty
quick.

In California, one "smog check factory" in L.A. got caught because the
state checked registered addresses of the vehicles and wondered why so
many vehicles were being smogged at this one particular shop when their
registered address was so far away. Few people will drive 25 miles in
L.A. to get a smog check at a particular shop.

My brother-in-law regularly had inspectors come into his shop with test
vehicles to be smogged. They would reveal who they were after the test.
He did really well. He got one demerit for not telling the "customer"
that they had the option of getting the vehicle repaired at his shop or
any shop, even though he did ask if they wanted it to be repaired. But
he still passed the inspection.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:49:16 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/20/2015 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

In some places they always use the scanner to make sure, for instance,
that the ECU wasn't reset immdiately before taking the car in for
inspection. In some places they do not.

Well in California they definitely check via the OBD-II port. I had
replaced a battery and there were no dashboard lights indicating
anything. The first thing they did was to do a scan for codes.

The number of pending codes that is allowable varies by year of
manufacture. A good shop will tell you the drive sequence to clear the
pending codes for each model. A bad shop won't even know this information.
Actually it is not pending codes that are the issue. It is the
readiness monitors.. Can't remember how many readiness monitors there
are - but there's a catalyst monitor, a O2 sensor monitor, and EGR
monitors, and O2sensor heater and cat heater monitor on some vehicles.
These are the intermittent monitors that need to be "set" .

Setting the monitor just means they have been through one or more
test sequences and have aquired valid data..

The rest of the monitors are contimuous monitors - misfire,
component, and fuel system, nonitors.

The evap monitor, for instance, is only "valid" in a fixed temperature
range, and with the tank between something like 1/4 and 3/4 full (not
100% sure of the actual numbrs). If you reset the codes or replace
the battery on a vehicle with the tank full or almost empty you can
NOT set the readiness monitor for the evap system - so virtually ALL
OBD2 based emission test facilities will allow at least one monitor to
be un-set or not ready.

If you know what code is coming up, and want to "cheat" the system, if
you can avoid setting that particular monitor, while setting all the
others, you can sometimes get a vehicle to pass. You need to
understand the drive cycle and what can cause the monitor you want
dissabled to fail to set. (and it needs to be an intermittent or
non-continuous monitor. The usual culprits are Cat, evap, or EGR.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 7:58:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Actually it is not pending codes that are the issue. It is the
readiness monitors.. Can't remember how many readiness monitors there
are - but there's a catalyst monitor, a O2 sensor monitor, and EGR
monitors, and O2sensor heater and cat heater monitor on some vehicles.
These are the intermittent monitors that need to be "set" .

Setting the monitor just means they have been through one or more
test sequences and have aquired valid data..


I was thinking that too, ie that it's the monitors, not pending codes.
Pending codes would be fault conditions that have been detected but
haven't occurred enough to put activate the check engine light. The
emissions monitors are flags that are set on the critical emission
related systems. If you clear the computer, those flags get cleared.
When the car is driven, they get set again over time as the system
accumulates info that shows they are working. There are about 10,
I think. Most get set within minutes. The fuel evap system takes the
longest, probably takes multiple drive cycles to set.

Here in NJ with older cars you can pass inspection with two not
set. Newer cars, no more than one can be not set. Maybe some states
are concerned with actual pending codes, but I doubt it, because
they don't necessarily mean anything is wrong and would just create
a lot of drama for nothing.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:49:16 -0700, sms wrote:

The number of pending codes that is allowable varies by year of
manufacture. A good shop will tell you the drive sequence to clear the
pending codes for each model. A bad shop won't even know this information.

It's usually documented as the FTP.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 05:20:13 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I was thinking that too, ie that it's the monitors, not pending codes.

In California, they can refuse the test if the readiness monitors aren't
fully set, even if you'd still pass otherwise.

They get dinged on demerits for every readiness monitor not set, even if
it's within the limits of the law.

Such is bureaucracy.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:29:30 -0400, Mitch Kaufmann wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...agen/72436098/
The software code allows all of the car's emissions systems to work when the cars are taken in for clean-air testing. But as soon as the emissions tests are complete, the system reverts to spewing pollutants. The cars emitted nitrogen oxide at a level of up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA alleges.

That answers what.
But it doesn't answer HOW.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:03:08 -0700, Sofa Slug wrote:

How can the
program tell the difference? By noting the position of the steering
wheel, variations in speed and other data that suggest no one is driving
the car, and thus it is likely being tested."

Finally!

Someone who both understood the question, and who posited an answer!

Of all the posters, you're the ONLY one who understood the question!

Sofa Slug wrote in :

VW sneaked in the defeat
device software to detect when the car is hooked up to a dynamometer

What I'm surprised at is that each state can have a *different* procedure.

In California, they use the dyno, but in many less technical states, they
still use the dumb procedures.

This explains how they noticed there was testing going on.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...919-story.html
http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/

But that only works for the intelligent states.
How did they also fool the low-tech states like NJ, Kentucky & Kansas?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

The best answer to the question seems to be here, as noted by Sofa Slug:

http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...919-story.html

"How can the program tell the difference? By noting the position of the
steering wheel, variations in speed and other data that suggest no one
is driving the car, and thus it is likely being tested."

Apparently VW lied at first, & apparently they can no longer sell the cars:

"The cheating came to light when the California Air Resources Board and
the EPA pressed Volkswagen for an explanation for disparities found between
lab tests and road tests of its vehicle emissions. The agencies didn't
find the technical reasons offered by VW to be convincing and said they
would not issue certificates allowing 2016 models to be sold until the
automaker offered an adequate explanation. "Only then did VW admit it
had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles," the EPA
said. VW said it was cooperating with the investigation but otherwise
had no comment."

It's interesting that VW didn't fess up until they were forced to.

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:51:57 AM UTC-4, Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Sofa Slug wrote in :

VW sneaked in the defeat
device software to detect when the car is hooked up to a dynamometer

What I'm surprised at is that each state can have a *different* procedure.

In California, they use the dyno, but in many less technical states, they
still use the dumb procedures.


Show us your references and data that show using the OBD method is "dumb".
I guess the federal EPA must be dumb, because using the OBD is
acceptable to them. The car is constantly and closely monitoring
itself as the car is actually drive, so why exactly do we need
a dyno? We had the dynos here in NJ for a few years, the system
cost hundreds of millions, was a complete fiasco, there were huge
lines waiting for inspection because of the time it took, etc.
In just a few years they went to the scrap heap.




This explains how they noticed there was testing going on.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...919-story.html
http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/

But that only works for the intelligent states.
How did they also fool the low-tech states like NJ, Kentucky & Kansas?

I'd say the real fools are guys like you, who think you need
a dyno. And before you try to smear some states, realize that using
OBD is acceptable to the Feds now, while they required the dyno in
years gone by. And provide us a list of the states
that still do a dyno test. I think you'll find that it's not many.

Just the facts.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:57:34 -0500, Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

The best answer to the question seems to be here, as noted by Sofa Slug:

http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...919-story.html

"How can the program tell the difference? By noting the position of the
steering wheel, variations in speed and other data that suggest no one
is driving the car, and thus it is likely being tested."

Apparently VW lied at first, & apparently they can no longer sell the
cars:

"The cheating came to light when the California Air Resources Board and
the EPA pressed Volkswagen for an explanation for disparities found
between
lab tests and road tests of its vehicle emissions. The agencies didn't
find the technical reasons offered by VW to be convincing and said they
would not issue certificates allowing 2016 models to be sold until the
automaker offered an adequate explanation. "Only then did VW admit it
had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles," the EPA
said. VW said it was cooperating with the investigation but otherwise
had no comment."

It's interesting that VW didn't fess up until they were forced to.


That's pretty much human nature going back to the Garden of
Eden. The next trick is to blame someone else. A TV show from long
ago had comedian Flip Wilson on. His line was "The devil made me
do it".



--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

trader_4 wrote in
:

Just the facts.

OK. Just the facts Danno:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

I guess the federal EPA must be dumb, because using the OBD is
acceptable to them. The car is constantly and closely monitoring
itself as the car is actually drive, so why exactly do we need
a dyno? We had the dynos here in NJ for a few years, the system
cost hundreds of millions, was a complete fiasco, there were huge
lines waiting for inspection because of the time it took, etc.
In just a few years they went to the scrap heap.



this proves the EPA is not dumb.

They got their buddies selling dynos to be rich.

and now they are doing the same thing by "defining" CO2 as "pollution"

Dumb like a fox. Follow the money.

Mark

On 9/20/2015 4:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:49:16 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/20/2015 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:51 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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.

How did they check for pending codes if they did not use a code scanner?
You can't pass with more than two pending codes (one on some years).

They look for the light on the dashboard that indicates codes have been
logged.

In some places they always use the scanner to make sure, for instance,
that the ECU wasn't reset immdiately before taking the car in for
inspection. In some places they do not.

Well in California they definitely check via the OBD-II port. I had
replaced a battery and there were no dashboard lights indicating
anything. The first thing they did was to do a scan for codes.

The number of pending codes that is allowable varies by year of
manufacture. A good shop will tell you the drive sequence to clear the
pending codes for each model. A bad shop won't even know this information.
Actually it is not pending codes that are the issue. It is the
readiness monitors..

Yes, sorry, that's what I was referring to.

Can't remember how many readiness monitors there
are - but there's a catalyst monitor, a O2 sensor monitor, and EGR
monitors, and O2sensor heater and cat heater monitor on some vehicles.
These are the intermittent monitors that need to be "set" .

Setting the monitor just means they have been through one or more
test sequences and have aquired valid data..

The rest of the monitors are contimuous monitors - misfire,
component, and fuel system, nonitors.

The evap monitor, for instance, is only "valid" in a fixed temperature
range, and with the tank between something like 1/4 and 3/4 full (not
100% sure of the actual numbrs). If you reset the codes or replace
the battery on a vehicle with the tank full or almost empty you can
NOT set the readiness monitor for the evap system - so virtually ALL
OBD2 based emission test facilities will allow at least one monitor to
be un-set or not ready.

If you know what code is coming up, and want to "cheat" the system, if
you can avoid setting that particular monitor, while setting all the
others, you can sometimes get a vehicle to pass. You need to
understand the drive cycle and what can cause the monitor you want
dissabled to fail to set. (and it needs to be an intermittent or
non-continuous monitor. The usual culprits are Cat, evap, or EGR.

By the way, there's an excellent Android app for OBD-II called Torque
Pro. The app is $4.95, and a Bluetooth ELM327 OBD-II adapter is less
than $10 (I am using this one
http://www.dx.com/p/super-mini-elm327-bluetooth-odb2-v1-5-car-diagnostic-interface-tool-blue-142679).
The app does a lot more than just read or clear codes. It will display
electronic gauges based on the sensor readings (especially useful for
vehicles without temperature gauges or tachoometers). You can set alarms
for things like over-temperature. It's also a very accurate speedometer
(via the GPS), and it'll measure things like 0-60.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.prowl.torque&hl=en

There's no iOS version because Apple forgot to include the necessary
Bluetooth profile (SPP) in its devices. There are similar apps for iOS
but not nearly as good. This one is one of them
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/engine-link-obd-ii-vehicle/id591557194?mt=8
but you need to get a Wi-Fi ELM327 dongle, not a Bluetooth one.

I like having a 7" tablet with TorquePro and CoPilot (GPS). I made a
holder for the tablet using one of the Panavise mounting brackets
http://www.panavise.com/index.html?pageID=1&id1=30&startat=1&--woSECTIONSdatarq=30&--SECTIONSword=ww.
Just be sure the tablet has a GPS chip, since very low-end Android
tablets don't have one, nor do Wi-Fi only iPads. You can buy a decent
Asus 7" tablet with a GPS for $50
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9561735
just use a virtual credit card with a $1 limit and a one month
expiration date when you sign up with McAffee (required to get the
rebate). Intel, which owns McAffee, is trying to promote devices with
their processor inside, hence the large rebate.

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:10:42 AM UTC-4, Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
trader_4 wrote in
:

Just the facts.

OK. Just the facts Danno:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Thanks for providing the proof that you're wrong. You posted:

"In California, they use the dyno, but in many less technical states, they
still use the dumb procedures. "

And from the executive summary in the CA document you just provided:

"Available data and information indicate that Smog Check tailpipe testing of OBD II equipped vehicles significantly increases testing costs and inconvenience to California motorists, but provides only minimal emission benefits that are above and beyond those
that can be realized through OBD II-based inspections. The procedure for conducting an OBD-based inspection can be completed in 5 minutes or less, compared to 20 minutes for a tailpipe test, and the equipment required for the inspection can be purchased for as little as 10% of the cost for the analyzer and dynamometer needed for tailpipe testing."

Even CA agrees that there is little benefit to dyno testing, that it takes
4 times as long and that the eqpt costs 10x. If CA is still doing it, then
it's CA that's dumb, not the other states that used OBD.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:57:34 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm wrote:

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

The best answer to the question seems to be here, as noted by Sofa Slug:

http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...919-story.html

Staying on topic, this article says the cheat only worked when there was a
DYNO involved!
http://www.chron.com/business/energy...on-6520088.php

Here are the contiguous quotes:
(begin quote)
VW used secret software €” an algorithm that detects when cars are being
tested on treadmill-like devices called dynamometers, and stealthily
switches the engines to a cleaner mode.

Because *smog tests are almost always done on dynamometers*, VW got away
with the scheme for seven years, until the "clean transportation" advocates
went to West Virginia University, which tests emissions using equipment
that fits in car trunks.
(end quote)

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They got their buddies selling dynos to be rich.

Why is it called a dyno if it's spelled dynamometer?
Why not call it a dyna?

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:08:01 -0400, wrote:

Officially, all cars 1996 and newer must be OBD2 compliant, but most
jurisdictions using OBD2 for E-Testing only start at 1997 models
because some 1996 models were not fully compliant. Only a very few
1995 vehicles had OBD2 capability as 1995 was "pre-standard"

This article says the whole TDI Clean Diesel campaign is a fraud.
I don't drive a diesel.

What was the "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:30:19 -0700, Danny D. wrote:

This article says the whole TDI Clean Diesel campaign is a fraud.
I don't drive a diesel.

What was the "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?

Oopops. Forgot to include the url:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...l-controversy/

What was this "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?
And, what does that have to do with "urea" injection?

How does this UREA injection work?

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:34:46 -0500, Danny D. wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:30:19 -0700, Danny D. wrote:

This article says the whole TDI Clean Diesel campaign is a fraud.
I don't drive a diesel.

What was the "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?

Oopops. Forgot to include the url:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...l-controversy/

What was this "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?

Apparently a way to avoid the urea injection everyone else
used to get emissions down to the legal limit.

And, what does that have to do with "urea" injection?

Both are supposedly ways to meet emissions standards.
One works. The other is Wizard of Oz engineering apparently.



How does this UREA injection work?
A youtube explanation:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/pumvto8
I didn't watch it and ain't qualified to
say if it's correct.

Have you noticed signs at truck stops saying "DEF Sold
In All Lanes"? That's diesel exhaust fluid or urea.



--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 9/21/2015 8:27 PM, Alina Popescu wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They got their buddies selling dynos to be rich.

Why is it called a dyno if it's spelled dynamometer?
Why not call it a dyna?


Mechanics are unable to spell and can seldom pronounce words with more than one syllable?