In reply to Suprf1y :
Heh, I bet that drones a bit...
In reply to Suprf1y :
Heh, I bet that drones a bit...
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I guess it depends on if it is a declared emissions device or not?
Toyotas are the most common. My '02 Volvo had one too. I don't think Mazda ever got in on that game because it is kind of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, but every milligram helps I guess. (OTOH, Toyota has traditionally had horribad evap control/monitoring. And my '02 had a Chrysler NVLD unit, complete with Chrysler F.U. connector on it, although these systems aren't so bad for emisisons as they are bad for being a PITA to work on)
Interestingly, my '06 Volvo's factory radiator has a catalytic coating that reduces air pollution. I forget if it cuts HC/CO or if it reduces low-atmospheric ozone. Either way, technically speaking, replacing the radiator with a non-coated one is removing an emissions reduction device.
yupididit said:In reply to Trackmouse :
Ironic, Austin is the closest thing I've found to Southern California in regards to culture in the state of Texas!
Seeing as Californians are flocking to Austin in record numbers and turning it unto the very things they left California because of...
Harley Davidson got hooked on this, too, for "Screaming Eagle" parts.
Knurled. said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Interestingly, my '06 Volvo's factory radiator has a catalytic coating that reduces air pollution. I forget if it cuts HC/CO or if it reduces low-atmospheric ozone. Either way, technically speaking, replacing the radiator with a non-coated one is removing an emissions reduction device.
And, while reading a tech PDF this morning, it turns out that the radiator in "green states" IS considered to be an emissions reduction device, meaning that its status has to be monitored by the PCM. So Volvo had to install a sensor on the radiator that basically confirms to the PCM that the correct radiator is in the car.
IIRC, all Volvos past a certain year got the PremAir radiator.
racerfink said:yupididit said:In reply to Trackmouse :
Ironic, Austin is the closest thing I've found to Southern California in regards to culture in the state of Texas!
Seeing as Californians are flocking to Austin in record numbers and turning it unto the very things they left California because of...
That's not all bad!
In reply to Bob the REAL oil guy. :
Spoken like someone who NEVER lived through the bad days of poisonous smog ... which I have personally encountered in LA, NYC, DC, Atlanta, Pittsburg, etc.
Addressing issues like this is PRECISELY why we need a Federal Government.
Visit Mexico City, Jakarta, Beijing, Mumbai, and other places that DON'T enforce any standards, and then let's see how you feel?
As far as watching everything we do, ... welcome to the internet.
You DO realize that every single keystroke and mouse click is RECORDED, as well as every single page that you view, right?
Also, every single place you go with a cellphone, every word that you speak, and every single channel that you watch on cable TV?
Add to that the millions of video feeds public and private that record where you go, satellite imagery that can resolve individual faces, etc.
You are like a fish, swimming along, denying the existence of the water ...
Knurled. said:irish44j said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm talking about stock pickups, which put out way more emissions than a modified econo-box.
That's not really true, emissions is grams/mile and not percentages.
There are lots of reasons to hate trucks, but emissions is not one of them.
Light duty trucks get a higher g/mi than passenger cars. For example, in MY 2018, light duty trucks are allowed 41% higher g/mi of 'greenhouse gas' emissions than passenger cars.
How much if that do they take advantage of?
Driven5 said:Knurled. said:irish44j said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm talking about stock pickups, which put out way more emissions than a modified econo-box.
That's not really true, emissions is grams/mile and not percentages.
There are lots of reasons to hate trucks, but emissions is not one of them.
Light duty trucks get a higher g/mi than passenger cars. For example, in MY 2018, light duty trucks are allowed 41% higher g/mi of 'greenhouse gas' emissions than passenger cars.
Greenhouse gas emissions are not regulated in North America.
I spent time in China and Bangalore recently... I'm cool with EVERY single clean air action by california and our EPA after those trips...
China was like breathing truck exhaust constantly.. India was like breathing through a smoldering wet mildewed sweater.
Knurled. said:Driven5 said:Knurled. said:irish44j said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm talking about stock pickups, which put out way more emissions than a modified econo-box.
That's not really true, emissions is grams/mile and not percentages.
There are lots of reasons to hate trucks, but emissions is not one of them.
Light duty trucks get a higher g/mi than passenger cars. For example, in MY 2018, light duty trucks are allowed 41% higher g/mi of 'greenhouse gas' emissions than passenger cars.
Greenhouse gas emissions are not regulated in North America.
Somebody better tell that to the EPA:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF
Appleseed said:How much if that do they take advantage of?
this is a big part of the SUV boom
wspohn said:Maybe someone can explain this to me.
I've never understood why California fastens on originality of equipment when they are supposed to be worried about emissions. Why isn't the test one of emission level alone. As long as you pass the level set by a stock rated example of your car, they shouldn't look at what you may have done to the equipment - no harm, no foul?
Because money
Driven5 said:Knurled. said:Driven5 said:Knurled. said:irish44j said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm talking about stock pickups, which put out way more emissions than a modified econo-box.
That's not really true, emissions is grams/mile and not percentages.
There are lots of reasons to hate trucks, but emissions is not one of them.
Light duty trucks get a higher g/mi than passenger cars. For example, in MY 2018, light duty trucks are allowed 41% higher g/mi of 'greenhouse gas' emissions than passenger cars.
Greenhouse gas emissions are not regulated in North America.
Somebody better tell that to the EPA: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF
Yes, CO2 is now regulated. And is regulated based on the footprint of the vehicle.
But on the flip side, light trucks (up to 8500lb, which is most of them) have the exact same regulations with regard to NMOG, NOx, CO, and PM. Identically the same. Diesels also share the same standards.
racerfink said:yupididit said:In reply to Trackmouse :
Ironic, Austin is the closest thing I've found to Southern California in regards to culture in the state of Texas!
Seeing as Californians are flocking to Austin in record numbers and turning it unto the very things they left California because of...
I feel as if that's with every state they flock to. Both the good and the bad.
Keith Tanner said:Cost will depend on the tests you run. A 2017 car will be a lot more expensive than a 1990 and the required tests vary depending on the type of part. For the 2017 turbo, we had to run a cold 505, US06, FTP-75 and SC03. Plus a non-logged US06 and SC03 to make sure everything was cool before we did the official. I'll let people google those, you can actually view the drive profile
That's about $6500 worth of testing. I'm not sure what paperwork costs were entailed, or the costs to get the car to/from CA for the testing.
Thank you - the numbers I'd seen batted around were about five times that high.
If your car is borderline or you show up unprepared it can get expensive quickly. That's the cost assuming you show up with a car that's clean and just needs the tests for confirmation. Guys who have to do multiple runs for tuning will pay a whole lot more.
Our NC supercharger EO cost us a lot more because we bought a car specifically for the testing, then we had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it clean enough. As I noted, I'm not sure the car would have passed the tests in stock form. Took us forever to get it clean, and we were losing money on the car the whole time - never mind the cost of doing the development.
Keith Tanner said:If your car is borderline or you show up unprepared it can get expensive quickly. That's the cost assuming you show up with a car that's clean and just needs the tests for confirmation. Guys who have to do multiple runs for tuning will pay a whole lot more.
Our NC supercharger EO cost us a lot more because we bought a car specifically for the testing, then we had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it clean enough. As I noted, I'm not sure the car would have passed the tests in stock form. Took us forever to get it clean, and we were losing money on the car the whole time - never mind the cost of doing the development.
We should talk sometime. I can give you an idea for development before you go testing. For some time, it will save you a lot of money.
Ooooo. I'll drop you a line.
Our ND turbo emissions testing was a lot more affordable because
1) it's a clean car to start with and not an old one that's been bandaided out the wazoo to meet emissions standards that are 10 years newer than the design of the car and
2) we had to buy one anyhow for R&D so the cost of the car is spread over several projects.
That $6500 quote was taken from the bill for the ND tests. Call it a best case for a significant upgrade to a modern car.
You'll need to log in to post.
