>
>
>While I agree with the "should'nt be right" part, the fact is that cars
>in
>california have been tested this way for years, and yes, they have been
>failed for both idle and high speed emmisions.
Well, I think you are partially wrong on this one Jarrid. I was pretty
sure high RPM was not previously a graded part of the test. I checked
around and here is the scoop as I was told it...
Up until June 1997 (possibly 1996?) there was no high RPM pass or fail
criteria for older cars. Older cars have been tested at high RPM for the
last five years or more as part of a screening program to establish
standards for these old vehicles. That data was used to establish new
standards which older vehicles are now being tested to as part of smog II.
This seems consistant with what I remember and what I have heard going on
and the fact that older smog tests do not indicate pass or fail for higher
RPMs. So it is very possible that Pauls car didn't change but the smog
test did.
This sucks and is very unfair.
The part that confuses me is that I thought we got a reprieve on smog II a
while back. Anyone have any info on this?
>There is new legislation that will sort of fix the unloaded part.
>There was a bill that passed a few years ago, that required 100%
>of all California vehicle to be tested on a chassis dyno, using
>a defined load profile. I believe that this bill set inot motion
>what is now called ODV2, which forces very strict emmisions
>conformance from the car manufacturers.
Perhaps this is what I heard we got a reprieve on.
>
>
>Hope, and pray that SB42 passes and protects us from this.
>
AMEN BROTHER!
>
>Jarrid Gross.
>
>
Frank Marrone MK I Tiger B9471116
marrone(at)wco.com 1966 LTD
'79 Spitfire
Yamaha Seca 900 (aka XJ900RK)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 09:49:59 CDT