Discussion:
Car Emision tests as part of the WF, is this for Real..???
(too old to reply)
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-06 07:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..


Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.


And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..

Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..

And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.

I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?

A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-06 11:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
You obviously are involved in running the country then....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
Wrong. Modern cars with engine management systems require regular checks to
ensure, at a bare minimum, that the emissions control geear is functioning
correctly.
MORE CRAP, are you the toilet man..?
Older cars with adjustable carburettors and ignition need to be checked. If you
want to get a clue, check out what emissions control systems are required
on cars in Europe, Japan, and the USA.
What utter CRAP you do not know a thing, I run a alder car and their are NO
Adjustments at all, go talk to a real car mechanic, plus I do my own servicing
and sdo know some thing about cars.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
It's to stop pollution, especially in major cities. Various cities have
pollutant excursions above the recommended maximum for human health. The
idea is to start fixing major problems ( vehicle emissions in high population
areas ), rather that worry about harder-to-fix emissions that have little
effect on many people or the national emissions inventory.
So all 5 years old cars will be put off the road..?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
It depends which pollutants are exceeding the recommended limits.
2 STROKES are banned in some parts of the US, so no more trees can be cut down
here..
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
The USA systems include:-
- maximum emissions levels on all new cars since the 1970s, measured during
city and urban driving cycles, firstly when new, and then at 50,000-100,000
after only recommended servicing. The requirements outlawed carburettors in the
1980s, adding exhaust catalysts in the 1970s, and full engine management
systems in the 1990s.
- on-board diagnostics for the emissions system on mew cars, so if an emissions
device malfunctions the owner is notified by a warning that can't be easily
disabled.
- regular emissions checks as part of their equivalent of the WoF.
- reformulated fuels in areas where pollutants exceed recommended limits - thus
reducing smog and pollutants.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
Actually, NZ is so far behind the first world in vehicle pollution controls
that we have a long way to go to even reach where they were in the 1980s.
Bruce Hamilton
And have you ever been to any third world countries and seen the pollution
from the Cars, like Bangkok for one..
Pete
2003-09-06 12:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
You obviously are involved in running the country then....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
Wrong. Modern cars with engine management systems require regular checks to
ensure, at a bare minimum, that the emissions control geear is functioning
correctly.
MORE CRAP, are you the toilet man..?
Older cars with adjustable carburettors and ignition need to be checked. If you
want to get a clue, check out what emissions control systems are required
on cars in Europe, Japan, and the USA.
What utter CRAP you do not know a thing, I run a alder car and their are NO
Adjustments at all, go talk to a real car mechanic, plus I do my own servicing
and sdo know some thing about cars.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
It's to stop pollution, especially in major cities. Various cities have
pollutant excursions above the recommended maximum for human health. The
idea is to start fixing major problems ( vehicle emissions in high population
areas ), rather that worry about harder-to-fix emissions that have little
effect on many people or the national emissions inventory.
So all 5 years old cars will be put off the road..?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
It depends which pollutants are exceeding the recommended limits.
2 STROKES are banned in some parts of the US, so no more trees can be cut down
here..
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
The USA systems include:-
- maximum emissions levels on all new cars since the 1970s, measured during
city and urban driving cycles, firstly when new, and then at
50,000-100,000
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
after only recommended servicing. The requirements outlawed carburettors in the
1980s, adding exhaust catalysts in the 1970s, and full engine management
systems in the 1990s.
- on-board diagnostics for the emissions system on mew cars, so if an emissions
device malfunctions the owner is notified by a warning that can't be easily
disabled.
- regular emissions checks as part of their equivalent of the WoF.
- reformulated fuels in areas where pollutants exceed recommended limits - thus
reducing smog and pollutants.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
Actually, NZ is so far behind the first world in vehicle pollution controls
that we have a long way to go to even reach where they were in the 1980s.
Bruce Hamilton
And have you ever been to any third world countries and seen the pollution
from the Cars, like Bangkok for one..
Waitakere Testing Station (see:
http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/vt/index.asp is already doing exhaust
testing on vehicles and if the tester isn't happy with what he reads coming
outta our car's tailpipe he hands you a brochure with contacts to his mates
that do tuneups, and you are promised a 10% discount!

[I always thought Testing Stations were totally impartial....]!!!!

The statement that more Auckland region people are dieing from exhaust fumes
than car smashes sounds FAR FETCHED. Where is the proof? Give me the details
of every dead person's postmort (in a year say) and the reason for death...
how many have smoked all their lives?, how many have abused their body and
died of cancer? how many died from disease attributed to bad life style
choice? Obviously the air they were breathing had nothing to do with why
they died.

Without genuine proof making these kinds of statements is just total
scaremongering and is pading up the excuse to continue ripping off the poor
bugger who has to drive a car in Auckland because the public transport
system is such a pathetic entity.

Pete
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-06 19:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
Wrong. Modern cars with engine management systems require regular checks to
ensure, at a bare minimum, that the emissions control geear is functioning
correctly.
MORE CRAP, are you the toilet man..?
I was just trying educate you, clearly futile.

For others, who may be interested, there are plenty of sites about
the reasons why onboard diagnostics are now used to monitor engines,
and any search on OBD-II should provide plenty of information.
http://www.obdii.com/background.html
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Older cars with adjustable carburettors and ignition need to be checked. If you
want to get a clue, check out what emissions control systems are required
on cars in Europe, Japan, and the USA.
What utter CRAP you do not know a thing, I run a alder car and their are NO
Adjustments at all, go talk to a real car mechanic, plus I do my own servicing
and sdo know some thing about cars.
Anonymous, and clearly kind to clues ( they don't like to
associate with stupidity ).

If you have an older car, and haven't found the carburetter
adjustments and timing adjustments, you presumably just wash
outside and leave the forecourt attendant to add the petrol
and check the oil and water. Keep being nice to your mechanic,
your cars need him.

I've spent several years of my working life measuring several
emissions from NZ vehicles using a wide range of fuels - LPG,
Diesel, CNG, Petrol, methanol, ethanol, petrol-alcohol blends,
and the data I produced has been reviewed and published.

I've worked in research teams that road tested and
dyno-mapped calibrated engines as different fuels were
researched. I've also pulled apart and modified more engines
than I care to remember, and I post under my own name.

None of the above means my opinion is of any more value
to readers than yours, or that it is correct, but seeing
you wanted to list your "expertise" in defence of some
stupid claims....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
So all 5 years old cars will be put off the road..?
Did I say that?. You really should consider learning English
comprehension as a career choice - it will keep you occupied
for decades.

Even in the US, older cars that meet the reduced severity
emissions limits as they age are allowed to stay on the road.
Cars that haven't been correctly serviced and tuned, or have
defects ( such as worn rings or broken emissions control
equipment ) are required to be repaired. They are usually
crushed when the cost of repair exceeds the cost of
alternative transport that complies.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Actually, NZ is so far behind the first world in vehicle pollution controls
that we have a long way to go to even reach where they were in the 1980s.
And have you ever been to any third world countries and seen the pollution
from the Cars, like Bangkok for one..
I've spent a year travelling around Asia, and seen pollution much worse than
Bangkok, but that's no reason for NZ to not implement rational and
cost-effective pollution control on vehicle sources, especially if health
data shows people are adversely affected.

NZ needs to realise that relying on the wind to blow pollution away isn't
acceptable when we are increasing our urban fuel usage. Modern NZ cars are
more fuel efficient only because the USA, Europe, and Japan have demanded
that vehicles pollute less. It's time we started to catch up with them.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 04:03:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:25:08 +1200, Brian Harmer
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you have an older car, and haven't found the carburetter
adjustments and timing adjustments, you presumably just wash
outside and leave the forecourt attendant to add the petrol
and check the oil and water. Keep being nice to your mechanic,
your cars need him.
What a load of Bolloks their is NO DJUSTMENT and it uses Electronic Ignition,
you do not have a clue do you, Troll boy.
I wonder why I can find so many sets of instructions on how to adjust
them then? And why there are complete text books on the adjustment of
electronic ignition http://www.autodata.ltd.uk/pages/eim-2300.htm
More utter Crap, Their is NO Adjustments full stop, it only has the main
block setting, and that is bolted down.

I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him some
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to replace
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
I do know some thing about the dual choke carburetor that is fitted as I
replaced it my self recently.
Post by Bruce Hamilton
I've spent several years of my working life measuring several
emissions from NZ vehicles using a wide range of fuels - LPG,
Diesel, CNG, Petrol, methanol, ethanol, petrol-alcohol blends,
and the data I produced has been reviewed and published.
Another TROLL, and full of bull.
clue: the cri in Bruce's address stands for Crown Research Institute
Bruce is the editor of the sci.chem FAQ
and the maintainer of the Autos/gasoline FAQ
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.



Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 05:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him some
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to replace
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that are
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long term
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying just
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.

Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).

If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 08:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him some
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to replace
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that are
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long term
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying just
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).
So post the Facts and tests that you have carried out or Shut up, as you just
do not have a clue at all.

So a Oil burning ship or train has no Pollution, you talk utter Crap..
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.
Bruce Hamilton
Not its you that is so full of bull, you end up believing in you own lies..
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 18:50:27 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions.
So post the Facts and tests that you have carried out or Shut up, as you just
do not have a clue at all.
You definitely have all the defining characteristics of Woger:-

1. Total inability to comprehend eg " aren't a major source " does not
equal " do not pollute at all " .
2. Abusive - last time I seriously encountered your whining and
abuse was at Actrix, and that was more than a decade ago. Can't recall
whether you got booted off it, but you whined a lot.
3. Consistently wilful ignorance. People offer information, yet you
perversely continue to repeat the same old ignorant twaddle - even
though a quick Google search shows you are wrong. 10 years on the
Internet and you still can't discriminate between fact and ficton.

I don't have to carry out the tests, the data is readily available on
a government website. I'd offer a clue, but that would be unfair for
the clue.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 09:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him some
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to replace
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that are
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long term
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying just
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).
Funny how they Closed that Oil burning Power Station due to Pollution and are
no thinking of bringing it back on line..

Ships and Trains use Oil burning, plus Diesel that is well know to be
carsegenic...

So why just pick on the Private Motorist..?

Is it because its a easy target..?
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.
Bruce Hamilton
Warrick
2003-09-07 09:52:47 UTC
Permalink
I think it is pretty obvious why the suggestion has been made why cars
should be tested:

1. Quantity - there are more than a million private motor vehicles in the
country. There are nowhere near that many trains, planes, ships, or power
stations
2. Proximity - motor vehicles stream past homes, work places, parks,
cafes, schools, hospitals... Boats are generally out at sea. Except for
Wellington - where they are electric - trains are practically non-existent.
3. Unchecked - there are no real regulations at the moment covering
vehicle emissions. The law past last year allowing police officers the
power to issue infringements for driving a smokey vehicle seems to have had
no noticable impact on car emissions. I believe that power stations are
subject to resource consents, which cover their emissions. I would also
guess that power stations run many times cleaner than the 10% of worst cars
on our roads.

Your main argument, Puss, is that the government is just trying to pick on
the poor car drivers. This argument seems rather weak to me - laughable
even - given nearly every household in the country owns and drives a car.
To suggest that motorists are some picked-on and rejected lot, is basically
saying our whole population has picked-on itself. Rather, I would say that
introducing emission testing would eliminate free-riding by the negligent
few. Externalities - they're real.

Warrick.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him some
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to replace
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that are
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long term
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying just
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos is so
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).
Funny how they Closed that Oil burning Power Station due to Pollution and are
no thinking of bringing it back on line..
Ships and Trains use Oil burning, plus Diesel that is well know to be
carsegenic...
So why just pick on the Private Motorist..?
Is it because its a easy target..?
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.
Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 11:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warrick
I think it is pretty obvious why the suggestion has been made why cars
1. Quantity - there are more than a million private motor vehicles in the
country. There are nowhere near that many trains, planes, ships, or power
stations
This is ware you are totally wrong, the emission from a Train or Ship would =
10,000 cars, so get the facts correct, you do need to total the total power
out put.
Post by Warrick
2. Proximity - motor vehicles stream past homes, work places, parks,
cafes, schools, hospitals... Boats are generally out at sea. Except for
Wellington - where they are electric - trains are practically non-existent.
3. Unchecked - there are no real regulations at the moment covering
vehicle emissions. The law past last year allowing police officers the
power to issue infringements for driving a smokey vehicle seems to have had
no noticable impact on car emissions. I believe that power stations are
subject to resource consents, which cover their emissions. I would also
guess that power stations run many times cleaner than the 10% of worst cars
on our roads.
Your main argument, Puss, is that the government is just trying to pick on
the poor car drivers. This argument seems rather weak to me - laughable
even - given nearly every household in the country owns and drives a car.
To suggest that motorists are some picked-on and rejected lot, is basically
saying our whole population has picked-on itself. Rather, I would say that
introducing emission testing would eliminate free-riding by the negligent
few. Externalities - they're real.
Warrick.
What I an stating that ALL Modes of Transport MUST BE TESTED that use
Hydrocarbon fuels..
Post by Warrick
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him
some
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to
replace
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that
are
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long
term
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying
just
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current
cars at
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent
publication
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and
Lubricants
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing
methods
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos
is so
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).
Funny how they Closed that Oil burning Power Station due to Pollution and
are
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
no thinking of bringing it back on line..
Ships and Trains use Oil burning, plus Diesel that is well know to be
carsegenic...
So why just pick on the Private Motorist..?
Is it because its a easy target..?
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.
Bruce Hamilton
Warrick
2003-09-07 13:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Warrick
I think it is pretty obvious why the suggestion has been made why cars
1. Quantity - there are more than a million private motor vehicles in the
country. There are nowhere near that many trains, planes, ships, or power
stations
This is ware you are totally wrong, the emission from a Train or Ship would =
10,000 cars, so get the facts correct, you do need to total the total power
out put.
I just had a look at the Ministry of Transport's July 1999 report "Impacts
Of Rail Transport On Local Air Quality". Every year, rail transport is
responsible for 300 tonnes of hydrocarbon emissions. In total, 65,621
tonnes of hydro-carbons emissions are released by vehicles each year. Rail
is also responsible for 196 tonnes of particulate matter ("local air
pollutant") emissions per year, while the total vehicle emissions are 6,211
tonnes...

I haven't found a similar comparison with shipping, but it is probably fair
to say ships produce more pollution annually than rail. That said,
thousands of ships aren't streaming past my home or work every day. Even in
the viaduct, or at Gulf Harbour, I would think the risk of inhaling
cigarette smoke was greater than inhaling any maritime emissions.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Warrick
2. Proximity - motor vehicles stream past homes, work places, parks,
cafes, schools, hospitals... Boats are generally out at sea. Except for
Wellington - where they are electric - trains are practically
non-existent.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Warrick
3. Unchecked - there are no real regulations at the moment covering
vehicle emissions. The law past last year allowing police officers the
power to issue infringements for driving a smokey vehicle seems to have had
no noticable impact on car emissions. I believe that power stations are
subject to resource consents, which cover their emissions. I would also
guess that power stations run many times cleaner than the 10% of worst cars
on our roads.
Your main argument, Puss, is that the government is just trying to pick on
the poor car drivers. This argument seems rather weak to me - laughable
even - given nearly every household in the country owns and drives a car.
To suggest that motorists are some picked-on and rejected lot, is basically
saying our whole population has picked-on itself. Rather, I would say that
introducing emission testing would eliminate free-riding by the negligent
few. Externalities - they're real.
Warrick.
What I an stating that ALL Modes of Transport MUST BE TESTED that use
Hydrocarbon fuels..
If that is what you want, then I am really in agreeance with you. Although
I would question why you were criticising the introduction of WOF testing,
as this seems to be a reasonable means of covering most (perhaps more than
75%?) of the hydrocarbon burning vehicles in the country. Also, road
transport looks like the most effective place to begin as engine care in
this sector is mostly on an ad-hoc basis (unlike rail, air, and
non-recreational marine). Without any checks in place, the
ignorant/unconcerned few produce most of the pollution. As stated earlier,
the proximity of road emissions to where people spend their time, and thus
the concentration of pollutants inhaled, seems to leave other transportation
modes for dead.

Given emission testing cannot be introduced to all modes of transportation
at once (because of the international air treaty, mentioned by Bruce
Hamilton, for instance) - would you be able to suggest a better place to
start than with road transport?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Warrick
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:04:11 +1200, Bruce Hamilton
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I all so talked to my Car Mechanic mate, fully trained and asked him
some
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
months back of tuning modern cars, he stated that all you can do it to
replace
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
the Air Filter and the Plugs..
Well, Brian's already pointed you to one of the many publications that
are
Post by Bruce Hamilton
available. Manufacturers have to show that there vehicles can meet long
term
Post by Bruce Hamilton
50K - 100K tests without major emissions component replacement, relying
just
Post by Bruce Hamilton
on regular maintenance and tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango, he know nothing about the state of current
cars at
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent
publication
Post by Bruce Hamilton
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and
Lubricants
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing
methods
Post by Bruce Hamilton
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
Almost all vehicles have tuning options but - because maladjustment would
affect the emissions, manufacturers will usually only permit authorised
service centres to access the necessary tuning parameters. There are
plenty of sources of information and equipment for people who do want
to tune modern engines - but, for cars produced after 1990, it's often no
longer shadetree mechanic territory. For people who do want to, there is
a signifiacnt cost involved - you can't just listen to the idle speed
and measure intake vacuum.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Plus how many Trains/Ship/Planes has he tested for Pollution, None cos
is so
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
easy to pick on the Private motorist..
Trains aren't a major source of NZ emissions, ships aren't a major source
of NZ emissions. Planes are, however they are covered by international
fuels and technology agreements ( Jet-A1, Avgas 100 ) and can't be
regulated by NZ. Avgas 80, with high lead, was replaced in NZ by 96 Mogas
a couple of decades ago ).
Funny how they Closed that Oil burning Power Station due to Pollution and
are
no thinking of bringing it back on line..
Ships and Trains use Oil burning, plus Diesel that is well know to be
carsegenic...
So why just pick on the Private Motorist..?
Is it because its a easy target..?
Post by Bruce Hamilton
If you aren't Woger, you must be a close relative - NZ shouldn't be so
unlucky as to have two families of abusive and wilfully stupid posters.
Bruce Hamilton
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-07 20:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warrick
Given emission testing cannot be introduced to all modes of
transportation at once (because of the international air treaty,
mentioned by Bruce Hamilton, for instance) - would you be able to
suggest a better place to start than with road transport?
Speaking of international treaties on air transport, fuels etc.

Aviation Weekly recently carried a series of articles on new fuels very
recently. It seems that the current crop of JP fuels is going to be
chopped due to pollution issues in Asia, Europe and North America. Several
existing alternates are being tried out, along with some other formulation
changes, with an eye to dealing with both NoX and unburnt hydrocarbon
emissions (CO is negligable), as well as reducing contrail formation(*)
(which is mainly crystalised by the unburned hydrocarbons, apparently)

This is likely to add around 3-5% to fuel prices, so is being watched
closely by carriers.

Engine manufacturers say that they can handle anything thrown at them with
no real changes, plus that most proposed formulation changes will actually
improve fuel lubricity (how freely it flows in the pipes and thuse wears
them), result in better fuel economy and due to lower hi temperature NoX
emissions, result in lower overall maintenance costs - likely more than
enough to offset the higher fuel costs.

(*) The grounding of everything over the USA in 2001 showed that contrails
seem to affect weather conditions far more than was previously thought.
--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud
insider
2003-09-07 10:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
More info please - how much? where can we get it? who would find it useful?

Ta
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 19:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by insider
Post by Bruce Hamilton
What's "a retied Gov quango "? - sounds painful. My most recent publication
is as a co-author of the Gasoline chapter in the ASTM Fuels and Lubricants
Handbook, published in 2003. The ASTM fuel specifications and testing methods
are used extensively in the US, so I've a reasonable idea of current
technology.
More info please - how much? where can we get it? who would find it useful?
www.astm.org

Fuels and Lubricant Handbook ....

" Manual 37 is a comprehensive, in-depth, well-referenced handbook
that provides a detailed overview of ALL of the important ASTM and
non-ASTM fuels and lubricants test procedures. Readers will get a
thorough overview of the application-related properties being tested
and an extensive discussion of the principles behind the tests and
their relationship to the properties themselves. "

US $358

I would recommend most people buying 10 favourite music CDs - that
would improve their life more :-). It's a specialist publication
that would only be of significant use to people producing, regulating,
or monitoring petroleum fuels.

Much of the information that would be of use to people wanting to
learn general information about fuels is readily available for free on
the WWW.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 08:52:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:48:06 +1200, Brian Harmer
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes a retied Gov quango,
A crown research institute is a retied(whetever that is) government
quango?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
he know nothing about the state of current cars at
all, or even my 17 year old car that has NO Tuning options at all.
Bruce provides expert advice to the industry on occasions you dork.
You really are "Woger" aren't you. I have heard about you but refused
to believe it up till now. And just a few weeks ago you were equally
convincing on the subject of digital cameras. No wonder you have to
keep changing your nick.
Did they train you at being a Dork..??
Tim Hogard
2003-09-07 09:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Brian Harmer (***@paradise.net.nz) wrote:
: On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:36:41 +1200, ***@purrpurr.com wrote:
: >What a load of Bolloks their is NO DJUSTMENT and it uses Electronic Ignition,
: >you do not have a clue do you, Troll boy.
:
: I wonder why I can find so many sets of instructions on how to adjust
: them then? And why there are complete text books on the adjustment of
: electronic ignition http://www.autodata.ltd.uk/pages/eim-2300.htm

He could be right. But I don't think so.

For example an 1986 VW Golf will be about that age. The service
manual (which you could buy www.rb.com) only makes mention of one
adjustment and its under a tamper proof seal. They only mention
it to say "don't mess with this" when they describe something else.

There are a few adjustments. They are hard to spot but they do
exist. For example the idle speed adjustment on the throttle cable.
There is another adjustment on the air mixture. Cut enough costs
and these may not even look adjustable. Inside the injector computer
there are a few adjustable parts but I have never seen any info
what they do. Most of them appear to adjust the gain on the O2
sensor or knock sensor.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 11:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Hogard
: >What a load of Bolloks their is NO DJUSTMENT and it uses Electronic Ignition,
: >you do not have a clue do you, Troll boy.
: I wonder why I can find so many sets of instructions on how to adjust
: them then? And why there are complete text books on the adjustment of
: electronic ignition http://www.autodata.ltd.uk/pages/eim-2300.htm
He could be right. But I don't think so.
I am 300% right, this is a point less electronic system, the Ignition coil
is in the distributer, with NO Adjustments at all, only the main static timing
that is when to distributer is fitted to the main block.
Post by Tim Hogard
For example an 1986 VW Golf will be about that age. The service
manual (which you could buy www.rb.com) only makes mention of one
adjustment and its under a tamper proof seal. They only mention
it to say "don't mess with this" when they describe something else.
There are a few adjustments. They are hard to spot but they do
exist. For example the idle speed adjustment on the throttle cable.
There is another adjustment on the air mixture. Cut enough costs
and these may not even look adjustable. Inside the injector computer
there are a few adjustable parts but I have never seen any info
what they do. Most of them appear to adjust the gain on the O2
sensor or knock sensor.
Their are no mixture adjustments on this dual choke carb..
Post by Tim Hogard
-tim
http://web.abnormal.com
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 22:29:21 UTC
Permalink
I am 300% right, this is a point less electronic system, the Ignition coil
is in the distributer, with NO Adjustments at all, only the main static timing
that is when to distributer is fitted to the main block.
The timing static adjustment IS the adjustment for owners - assuming
there is no crankshaft position sensor - which also may have an
adjustment facility. Hardly any owners adjusted the vacuum advance or
centrifugal advance on cars after 1970, cheaper to replace the
distributor with a new or refurbished one, and spend the time working
on the carb ( $1100 trade price for the Rochester used on some 1980s
Holdens ).

Owners don't need any more adjustment than the static adjustment for
any OEM electronic system, provided it is functioning correctly. If it
isn't, specialist equiqment is needed to assess and reset the
parameters. Mechanics may choose to use the manuals, or they may point
owners to a specialist or franchised dealer.

The emissions regulations require manufacturers to ensure critical
adjustments are only made by trained staff with the correct emissions
or tuning gear. Thus the home owners manual doesn't contain details of
any adjustments that would comprise the emissions equipment. Such
information is provided in the factory manuals used by authorised
dealers, and the adjustments are usually sealed or tamperproof against
shadetree mechanics.
Their are no mixture adjustments on this dual choke carb..
Not true. Manufacturers offered various means of adjusting the
mixture, ranging from various sizes of needles and jets to solenoid-
driven adjustments. The owner-adjustments also suffer from the above
limitation with regard to having no adjustments that would adversely
affect emissions equipment functions, and only being serviced by
people with the correct emissions gear, service kits, and/or factory
manuals and training.

It's seems inordinately difficult to get you to understand that
adjustments are available, and vehicles aren't trashed just because of
a fuel or ignistion system goes out of adjustment. Many enthusiasts
purchase the adjustment equipment and options from performance shops
when dealers won't provide it.

The automakers provide adjustment ability ( older cars via service
training and different parts, modern cars via programming ) for their
vehicles. The information on later models controlled by emissions
regulations ( 1970s USA, 1990s Europe ) is restricted to ensure
vehicles will comply with regulatory requirements after any
adjustment.

However, all across the world are enthusiasts who have accessed
the factory data for performance reasons, and there are plenty of
publications for those who wish to modify their engine ignition and
fuel systems on almost any vehicle from 1950 to 2003.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-08 07:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
I am 300% right, this is a point less electronic system, the Ignition coil
is in the distributer, with NO Adjustments at all, only the main static timing
that is when to distributer is fitted to the main block.
The timing static adjustment IS the adjustment for owners -
No it is NOT as these are Just boltS into the engine block, THIS CAR HAS NO
AJUSTMENTS AT ALL.
Post by Bruce Hamilton
assuming
there is no crankshaft position sensor - which also may have an
adjustment facility. Hardly any owners adjusted the vacuum advance or
centrifugal advance on cars after 1970, cheaper to replace the
distributor with a new or refurbished one, and spend the time working
on the carb ( $1100 trade price for the Rochester used on some 1980s
Holdens ).
Owners don't need any more adjustment than the static adjustment for
any OEM electronic system, provided it is functioning correctly. If it
isn't, specialist equiqment is needed to assess and reset the
parameters. Mechanics may choose to use the manuals, or they may point
owners to a specialist or franchised dealer.
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
Post by Bruce Hamilton
The emissions regulations require manufacturers to ensure critical
adjustments are only made by trained staff with the correct emissions
or tuning gear. Thus the home owners manual doesn't contain details of
any adjustments that would comprise the emissions equipment. Such
information is provided in the factory manuals used by authorised
dealers, and the adjustments are usually sealed or tamperproof against
shadetree mechanics.
Their are no mixture adjustments on this dual choke carb..
Not true. Manufacturers offered various means of adjusting the
Bollocks there is NO MIXTURE ADJUSTEMENTS, can't you read..??
Post by Bruce Hamilton
mixture, ranging from various sizes of needles and jets to solenoid-
driven adjustments. The owner-adjustments also suffer from the above
limitation with regard to having no adjustments that would adversely
affect emissions equipment functions, and only being serviced by
people with the correct emissions gear, service kits, and/or factory
manuals and training.
Please you are referring to 1950 type cars, this was made here in 1986..
Post by Bruce Hamilton
It's seems inordinately difficult to get you to understand that
adjustments are available, and vehicles aren't trashed just because of
a fuel or ignistion system goes out of adjustment. Many enthusiasts
purchase the adjustment equipment and options from performance shops
when dealers won't provide it.
No it seems that you just can't read, I have contacted my Mechanic Friend, and
his reply was that their are NO ADJUSTMENTS at ALL.
Post by Bruce Hamilton
The automakers provide adjustment ability ( older cars via service
training and different parts, modern cars via programming ) for their
vehicles. The information on later models controlled by emissions
regulations ( 1970s USA, 1990s Europe ) is restricted to ensure
vehicles will comply with regulatory requirements after any
adjustment.
However, all across the world are enthusiasts who have accessed
the factory data for performance reasons, and there are plenty of
publications for those who wish to modify their engine ignition and
fuel systems on almost any vehicle from 1950 to 2003.
Bruce Hamilton
Me thinks you are so very old and way out of date, so go and talk to a Real
Garage mechanic and find out, as you do need too update your old ways and
conceptions..

Also Please go check on a Toyota 1986 1.8L Corona Amon, and then come back
to me and apologise for you misconception..

As to me you just do not have a clue at all.
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-08 09:55:15 UTC
Permalink
***@purrpurr.com wrote:
....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
OEM = Original Equipment of Manufacturer, meaning OEM is only used
to describe the equipment supplied by Toyota. If it's the system
supplied by Toyota, it MUST be OEM!. Your sentence is nonsense.

I can't be bothered checking the data files, but a 1986 Corona Amon
with Dual Fuel system may be OEM, but alternatively it could be a
locally-approved aftermarket system either added at the assembly
plant or franchise - often for commercial customers like taxis.
It's not worth the effort to check further - if you can't find the
adjustments, it's not my problem.

BrUce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-08 23:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
OEM = Original Equipment of Manufacturer, meaning OEM is only used
to describe the equipment supplied by Toyota. If it's the system
supplied by Toyota, it MUST be OEM!. Your sentence is nonsense.
I can't be bothered checking the data files, but a 1986 Corona Amon
with Dual Fuel system may be OEM, but alternatively it could be a
locally-approved aftermarket system either added at the assembly
plant or franchise - often for commercial customers like taxis.
It's not worth the effort to check further - if you can't find the
adjustments, it's not my problem.
BrUce Hamilton
I have given you replies to a local Mechanic and he thinks you are a utter
Joke, just trying to defend your job.


I WILL STATE AGAIN THE DUAL FUEW HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE IGNITION
SYSTEM AT ALL, I SHOULD KNOW AS I DO DO MY OWN SERVISING..


Yes the CNG System is a add on, but has nothing at all to do with the Ignition
system..

I am still waiting for you to apologise to me..?
k***@clear.net.nz
2003-09-09 00:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
OEM = Original Equipment of Manufacturer, meaning OEM is only used
to describe the equipment supplied by Toyota. If it's the system
supplied by Toyota, it MUST be OEM!. Your sentence is nonsense.
I can't be bothered checking the data files, but a 1986 Corona Amon
with Dual Fuel system may be OEM, but alternatively it could be a
locally-approved aftermarket system either added at the assembly
plant or franchise - often for commercial customers like taxis.
It's not worth the effort to check further - if you can't find the
adjustments, it's not my problem.
BrUce Hamilton
I have given you replies to a local Mechanic and he thinks you are a utter
Joke, just trying to defend your job.
I WILL STATE AGAIN THE DUAL FUEW HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE IGNITION
SYSTEM AT ALL, I SHOULD KNOW AS I DO DO MY OWN SERVISING..
Yes the CNG System is a add on, but has nothing at all to do with the Ignition
system..
Since when? Dual fuel systems *all* need some way of
advancing/retarding the spark.

"There are several things that must be taken care of when
doing a conversion - all important. The cooling system must
be in good order and clean on the water side and the radiator
clean on the air side. The engine ignition timing must be
correctly adjusted (usually advanced) for gas - which tends to
burn more slowly and you have to avoid gas still burning as it
passes through the exhaust system. These are some of the
important issues.'
http://www.iangv.org/html/sources/qa.php
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-09 08:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@clear.net.nz
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
OEM = Original Equipment of Manufacturer, meaning OEM is only used
to describe the equipment supplied by Toyota. If it's the system
supplied by Toyota, it MUST be OEM!. Your sentence is nonsense.
I can't be bothered checking the data files, but a 1986 Corona Amon
with Dual Fuel system may be OEM, but alternatively it could be a
locally-approved aftermarket system either added at the assembly
plant or franchise - often for commercial customers like taxis.
It's not worth the effort to check further - if you can't find the
adjustments, it's not my problem.
BrUce Hamilton
I have given you replies to a local Mechanic and he thinks you are a utter
Joke, just trying to defend your job.
I WILL STATE AGAIN THE DUAL FUEW HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE IGNITION
SYSTEM AT ALL, I SHOULD KNOW AS I DO DO MY OWN SERVISING..
Yes the CNG System is a add on, but has nothing at all to do with the Ignition
system..
Since when? Dual fuel systems *all* need some way of
advancing/retarding the spark.
Must system use the cars basic ignition and just advance the timing a little.
Post by k***@clear.net.nz
"There are several things that must be taken care of when
doing a conversion - all important. The cooling system must
be in good order and clean on the water side and the radiator
clean on the air side. The engine ignition timing must be
correctly adjusted (usually advanced) for gas - which tends to
burn more slowly and you have to avoid gas still burning as it
passes through the exhaust system. These are some of the
important issues.'
http://www.iangv.org/html/sources/qa.php
This was installed with out a dual curve Ignition and when I tried to get one
fitted they were no longer available..

Plus it was not installed by me at all.
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-09 19:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by k***@clear.net.nz
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Yes the CNG System is a add on, but has nothing at all to do with the Ignition
system..
Since when? Dual fuel systems *all* need some way of
advancing/retarding the spark.
Must system use the cars basic ignition and just advance the timing a little.
But you keep telling us your car has no adjustment!.

Make up your mind. It's either running with the OEM standard petrol
timing ( unlikely - but with you and your "expert" mechanical friend,
anything's possible ), or it's been adjusted.

Contrary to what you say above, "most" systems don't just advance the
timing. Those shadetree systems went out in the 1970s - as the power
( driveability ), fuel economy, and emissions are compromised.

The systems in use in NZ tend use electronics to provide different
timimg and stoichiometry for each fuel, with modern one carefully
modifying the inputs to the engine management system.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-08 23:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
This is NOT a OEM electronic system, its the system fitted by Toyota.
OEM = Original Equipment of Manufacturer, meaning OEM is only used
to describe the equipment supplied by Toyota. If it's the system
supplied by Toyota, it MUST be OEM!. Your sentence is nonsense.
I can't be bothered checking the data files, but a 1986 Corona Amon
with Dual Fuel system may be OEM, but alternatively it could be a
locally-approved aftermarket system either added at the assembly
plant or franchise - often for commercial customers like taxis.
It's not worth the effort to check further - if you can't find the
adjustments, it's not my problem.
BrUce Hamilton
Just to shut you up I will take some photos of the Ignition system and post
them here, you can then apologise to me..
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-09 09:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Just to shut you up I will take some photos of the Ignition system and post
them here, you can then apologise to me..
Don't post photos to the group. I've already decided
you're not worth wasting time on, and I wouldn't
believe *any* photos you provided.
And no one on this earth believes a thing you say, I have all ready proven
that, you are a, has been as they say.
I've no intention of apologising to you. Your car apparently has
an aftermarket dual fuel system. How the system acts will depend
on the conversion kit, and whether the engine manufacturer
supplied a ignition and fuel system that was intended to be
retrofitted before delivery - as for bulk orders for taxis.
No because you will just confirm what a fool you are and I have been right all
along, you have not back up you statements at all, or to the fact that my card
has no Adjustments.
The NZ Liquid Fuels Trust Board investigated some of the issues of
dual-fuel, detailed in LFTB reports:-
1224 Ignition timing and the performance of a duel fuel CNG/petrol
engine.
1225 Ignition system performance and requirements for dual fuel
CNG/Petrol operation.
Yes any one can quote from stuff they find on the Internet, it sort of makes
all of us Professors etc.
Depending on the vehicle standard ignition system, some engines
needed additional spark energy and different timing maps, and there
were dual curve electronic ignition systems used to maximise
performance on each fuel in some NZ conversions.
Yes I know and it was never fitted in this case and when I tried to get one
from the Main and only dual fuel firm here they were no longer made.
Bruce Hamilton
MorrisTheCat
2003-09-10 06:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
I am 300% right, this is a point less electronic system, the Ignition coil
is in the distributer, with NO Adjustments at all, only the main static timing
that is when to distributer is fitted to the main block.
The timing static adjustment IS the adjustment for owners -
No it is NOT as these are Just boltS into the engine block, THIS CAR HAS NO
AJUSTMENTS AT ALL.
**<snippage>> **
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Also Please go check on a Toyota 1986 1.8L Corona Amon, and then come back
What (i just have to ask) is why a FUCK WIT would bother to put a CNG
conversion into an OLD BOMB of a 4 cylinder car that could be returning
pretty reasonable fuel consumption figures (provided the engine is in good
condition) on petrol, and when the number of CNG supply outlets is down to
about 2 in the whole of NZ!!!!!

Major weirdness here folks....

Morris

Very
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-10 09:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
I am 300% right, this is a point less electronic system, the Ignition
coil
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
is in the distributer, with NO Adjustments at all, only the main static
timing
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Bruce Hamilton
that is when to distributer is fitted to the main block.
The timing static adjustment IS the adjustment for owners -
No it is NOT as these are Just boltS into the engine block, THIS CAR HAS
NO
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
AJUSTMENTS AT ALL.
**<snippage>> **
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Also Please go check on a Toyota 1986 1.8L Corona Amon, and then come
back
What (i just have to ask) is why a FUCK WIT would bother to put a CNG
conversion into an OLD BOMB of a 4 cylinder car that could be returning
pretty reasonable fuel consumption figures (provided the engine is in good
condition) on petrol, and when the number of CNG supply outlets is down to
about 2 in the whole of NZ!!!!!
Major weirdness here folks....
Morris
Very
What a idiot you are, it was put in back in 1986, I am the 3rd owner, did I
say I put it in, seems like I am the only one with brains here..
Keith
2003-09-10 10:08:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
***@purrpurr.com says...

...snip...
Yes and this car will fail any emissions test, not due to failed worn Rings
but some thing that is cause by using CNG, that is worn valve guide seals..
I have all ready replaced the carb because of this..
Worn valve guide seals required you to replace the carb?
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-10 12:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith
...snip...
Yes and this car will fail any emissions test, not due to failed worn Rings
but some thing that is cause by using CNG, that is worn valve guide seals..
I have all ready replaced the carb because of this..
Worn valve guide seals required you to replace the carb?
No Please READ AGAIN, CNG was the cause as i does not lubricate..
MorrisTheCat
2003-09-10 20:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Keith
...snip...
Yes and this car will fail any emissions test, not due to failed worn Rings
but some thing that is cause by using CNG, that is worn valve guide seals..
I have all ready replaced the carb because of this..
Worn valve guide seals required you to replace the carb?
No Please READ AGAIN, CNG was the cause as i does not lubricate..
Do us all a favour ***@purrpurr.... take the old bomb to a crusher. I can't
believe anyone is still piddling around with a gutless 1986 wreck of a car
that's been dual fuelled for CNG. That thing must be a joke to drive....
gutless as hell on CNG and on petrol running rich as hell BECAUSE YOU CAN"T
TUNE IT since as you say you can't buy the proper electronics now.

LPG is the only way son.... dedicated. On a good engine, V8 or 6. Lots of
power, but the cost of +$1000 for a modern kit remains a large investment,
and the grand buys quite a bit of that shitty pump petrol we have now. (i
even use race gas/avgas at $2.45 a liter every now and then for the hell of
it, and i haven't been caught yet).

Stop pissing around with CNG is a 4 banger. I can't believe that you are
bothering to.....
insider
2003-09-11 03:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MorrisTheCat
believe anyone is still piddling around with a gutless 1986 wreck of a car
that's been dual fuelled for CNG. That thing must be a joke to drive....
gutless as hell on CNG and on petrol running rich as hell BECAUSE YOU CAN"T
TUNE IT since as you say you can't buy the proper electronics now.
LPG is the only way son.... dedicated.
Ethanol anyone?
Post by MorrisTheCat
On a good engine, V8 or 6. Lots of
power, but the cost of +$1000 for a modern kit remains a large investment,
and the grand buys quite a bit of that shitty pump petrol we have now. (i
even use race gas/avgas at $2.45 a liter every now and then for the hell of
it, and i haven't been caught yet).
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-11 15:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by insider
Ethanol anyone?
In NZ, it's not economic to produce and the way alcohol burns gives some
nasty corrosives in the exhaust. (Methanol is worse, formic acid is the
most common problem)


NZ has been fooling round with methanol/ethanol for 20+ years. It can
work, but you have to take cost of production into account too.

In the USA, corn-fed ethanol is a farmer subsidisation rort. It costs
more in diesel/petrol on the farm and in corn transport than the value of
the ethanol rolling out the end of the process.
Joe
2003-09-11 14:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:15:39 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by insider
Ethanol anyone?
In NZ, it's not economic to produce and the way alcohol burns gives some
nasty corrosives in the exhaust. (Methanol is worse, formic acid is the
most common problem)
NZ has been fooling round with methanol/ethanol for 20+ years. It can
work, but you have to take cost of production into account too.
In the USA, corn-fed ethanol is a farmer subsidisation rort. It costs
more in diesel/petrol on the farm and in corn transport than the value of
the ethanol rolling out the end of the process.
Think of the speed record of Bob Burns and Russell Wright if they had
had this stuff in 1955 on the Tram Road in Christchurch.
The local cop in his V* wouldn't have had a chance.
Ah the good old days, I remember them well.
Cheers *
insider
2003-09-12 06:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:15:39 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by insider
Ethanol anyone?
In NZ, it's not economic to produce and the way alcohol burns gives some
nasty corrosives in the exhaust. (Methanol is worse, formic acid is the
most common problem)
Odd ... Fonterra seem to think it is ... in fact they have been
producing it as a byproduct of whey for some years now at Reporoa.
Not economic as a fuel - costs about twice the price as petrol - but
economic as a vodka constituent.
Brian Harmer
2003-09-12 07:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by insider
Post by Joe
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:15:39 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by insider
Ethanol anyone?
In NZ, it's not economic to produce and the way alcohol burns gives some
nasty corrosives in the exhaust. (Methanol is worse, formic acid is the
most common problem)
Odd ... Fonterra seem to think it is ... in fact they have been
producing it as a byproduct of whey for some years now at Reporoa.
Not economic as a fuel - costs about twice the price as petrol - but
economic as a vodka constituent.
Ahhh good point.
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-12 17:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
In NZ, it's not economic to produce and the way alcohol burns gives some
nasty corrosives in the exhaust. (Methanol is worse, formic acid is the
most common problem)
Odd ... Fonterra seem to think it is ... in fact they have been
producing it as a byproduct of whey for some years now at Reporoa.
rephrase: "not economic to produce as motor fuel"

Milk Curd Ethanol has been the base of most NZ spirits for 20+ years.

Very little was actually imported, it's mostly filled here and given a
squirt of syrup to flavour - particularly true for cheap "whiskeys" and
suchlike.

Things have been changing recently.
--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-11 15:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MorrisTheCat
(i
even use race gas/avgas at $2.45 a liter every now and then for the hell of
it, and i haven't been caught yet).
Huh?

Last time I bought avgas it was 44c/litre.

Admittedly that was 2 years ago, but it hasn't moved _that_ much since
then.
p***@clear.net.nz
2003-09-12 05:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by MorrisTheCat
(i
even use race gas/avgas at $2.45 a liter every now and then for the hell of
it, and i haven't been caught yet).
Huh?
Last time I bought avgas it was 44c/litre.
Admittedly that was 2 years ago, but it hasn't moved _that_ much since
then.
BP Gas station Kumeu NorWest Aklnd sells race-gas $2.42 a litre.
MorrisTheCat
2003-09-13 07:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@clear.net.nz
BP Gas station Kumeu NorWest Aklnd sells race-gas $2.42 a litre.
I assume that's for road use, not track use. The extra taxes would account
for the rest.
It's called MotoX what ever that is. The attendant said it's hi octane only
for off-roading or racing with. Couldn't give me any further info though,
not even octane rating or what happens if the cops catch you using it on the
highway...

Wouldn't farm petrol be the same crap they sell at a gas station, ie lead
free and of a lo octane?
Avgas for aircraft is _cheap_. So is farm petrol, but don't get caught
with it in your car's tank on the roads.
--
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription
request.
2: Fraud
geoffm
2003-09-14 07:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:53:36 +1200, "MorrisTheCat"
Post by MorrisTheCat
It's called MotoX what ever that is. The attendant said it's hi octane only
for off-roading or racing with. Couldn't give me any further info though,
not even octane rating or what happens if the cops catch you using it on the
highway...
It is (IIRC) 100 octane with lead. Overpriced given there shouldn't
be any taxes on it. I heard that it was in fact time expired aircraft
gas, but I don't know the truth of that.
Geoff

p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-14 03:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Keith
...snip...
Yes and this car will fail any emissions test, not due to failed worn
Rings
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Keith
but some thing that is cause by using CNG, that is worn valve guide
seals..
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by Keith
I have all ready replaced the carb because of this..
Worn valve guide seals required you to replace the carb?
No Please READ AGAIN, CNG was the cause as i does not lubricate..
believe anyone is still piddling around with a gutless 1986 wreck of a car
that's been dual fuelled for CNG. That thing must be a joke to drive....
gutless as hell on CNG and on petrol running rich as hell BECAUSE YOU CAN"T
TUNE IT since as you say you can't buy the proper electronics now.
Any why would it be running Rich on Petrol..?


Do you know any thing about cars or CNG, very little it seems from the
comments here, the US CNG Systems are as good as Petrol..


My CNG system works great as I am not a Hoon like you, and do not need to go
burning other cars off the road.
LPG is the only way son.... dedicated. On a good engine, V8 or 6. Lots of
power, but the cost of +$1000 for a modern kit remains a large investment,
and the grand buys quite a bit of that shitty pump petrol we have now. (i
even use race gas/avgas at $2.45 a liter every now and then for the hell of
it, and i haven't been caught yet).
Stop pissing around with CNG is a 4 banger. I can't believe that you are
bothering to.....
And are you going to pay me to convert to a decent car, and you are Joking
about V6/8's hoon cars, so it seem that you are nothing but a Hoon..?
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 11:28:01 UTC
Permalink
: >>>Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do
: >>>real is to dump the car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it
: >>>not worth it, Modern card do not need tuning as what is being pushed,
: >>>except to replace the spark plugs.
With very old cars, (with carbs) you need to clean out the car, replace
the needles and make sure they are mixure is set right for how the
car is driven.
: >>Wrong. Modern cars with engine management systems require regular checks to
: >>ensure, at a bare minimum, that the emissions control geear is functioning
: >>correctly.
: >MORE CRAP, are you the toilet man..?
Modern cars need air filters replaced, O2 sensors repalced, mass flow
sensors calibrated. A modern car shouldn't need much done other than
an oil, spark plug, air fitlers for the 1st 30 000km. Modern O2 sensors
last about as long as water pumps and timing belts. Most other
sensors will work about 10 years on average. That means some will
last 5 years and other 15.
: >>Older cars with adjustable carburettors and ignition need to
: >>be checked. If you want to get a clue, check out what emissions
: >>control systems are required on cars in Europe, Japan, and the USA.
: >What utter CRAP you do not know a thing, I run a alder car and their are NO
: >Adjustments at all, go talk to a real car mechanic, plus I do
: >my own servicing and sdo know some thing about cars.
I have a 1974 mgb that is in the US. It has to be checked every
year. Its a real pain and there are very few cars of that age on
the roads in the US. The MG has a specail carb on it for that year
since it was the start of the new emssions. The problem is that
the car never met the standards. The story I've heard is the cars
sat on the dock while MG tried to solve the problem. At some point
someone in the House of Lords got the the idea that if the UK
couldn't export cars to the US, maybe there should be a law that
limited Fords sales in the UK to the same numbers as Rover sales
in the US. The result was all the cars got approved. 18 years
latter the US required all cars to meet the orignal requirements
and made it illegal to modify the emissions stuff. The result is
it cost me somewhere between $600 and $1200 per year to get the car
approved but that is a "worst case". A US built car from that time
would cost far less to get cleaned up. As the car approaches 30
years old, I can register it under a diffrent class which will let
it run with less strict emissions but I'll still keep it tuned
right. It works better when its tuned right. It uses 15% less
fuel than it did when it was new and has better performance. That
MGB runs cleaner than most 10 yr old cars in NZ.
NZ needs to do something about car pollution. Its bad. Even Chch
doesn't have clean air. Its far cleaner than Melb and Sydney but
for a tiny town, it got a nasty smog problem and most people that
live there don't even know it. Smog creaps up on you till it get
so bad people start having problems.
As far as smog killing people, in 1998 685 people died from Asthma
in Australia. Thats about the as the number that died in car
accidents. I don't have numbers for NZ but I'm sure they aren't
too hard to find. Most of the ones in Aus lived in the major cities.
Keep in mind that Syd and Melb are now bigger than all but two
cities in the US. Auck is bigger than all but 10 US cities and all
of them have had emissions for decades. NZ has less of a problem
with smog than Aus because there are fewer cars per area and the
newer cars that get imported from Japan help quite a bit.
-tim
http://web.abnormal.com
Asthma has nothing at all to do with Pollution, I should know as I am one..
Jason M
2003-09-07 11:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Asthma has nothing at all to do with Pollution, I should know as I am one..
You're pollution?
Well, if you say so...
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-07 20:27:42 UTC
Permalink
NZ needs to do something about car pollution. Its bad. Even Chch
doesn't have clean air. Its far cleaner than Melb and Sydney but for a
tiny town, it got a nasty smog problem and most people that live there
don't even know it. Smog creaps up on you till it get so bad people
start having problems.
CHCH is 10 times cleaner than it was in the 1970s. You didn't live there
then, obviously.

I used to sit on the hillside at St Martins at 10am and _watch_ the
gasworks smoke rise to the inversion layer, spread out and start coming
down. By 3:30pm you couldn't even see the chimnies anymore. Coal fires
starting up at 4-5pm added to the problem.

The gasworks is gone and coal fires are banned, but chch will always have
pollution problems because it's in an airtrap, just like Los Angeles has
always had air pollution problems, even when there were only indians
living there.
--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud
insider
2003-09-09 01:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
NZ needs to do something about car pollution. Its bad. Even Chch
doesn't have clean air. Its far cleaner than Melb and Sydney but for a
tiny town, it got a nasty smog problem and most people that live there
don't even know it. Smog creaps up on you till it get so bad people
start having problems.
CHCH is 10 times cleaner than it was in the 1970s. You didn't live there
then, obviously.
I used to sit on the hillside at St Martins at 10am and _watch_ the
gasworks smoke rise to the inversion layer, spread out and start coming
down. By 3:30pm you couldn't even see the chimnies anymore. Coal fires
starting up at 4-5pm added to the problem.
The gasworks is gone and coal fires are banned, but chch will always have
pollution problems because it's in an airtrap, just like Los Angeles has
always had air pollution problems, even when there were only indians
living there.
Chch's problems are home fires compounded by geography. Cars make minimal impact.
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-06 11:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
You obviously are involved in running the country then....
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
Wrong. Modern cars with engine management systems require regular checks to
ensure, at a bare minimum, that the emissions control geear is functioning
correctly.
Older cars with adjustable carburettors and ignition need to be checked. If you
want to get a clue, check out what emissions control systems are required
on cars in Europe, Japan, and the USA.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
It's to stop pollution, especially in major cities. Various cities have
pollutant excursions above the recommended maximum for human health. The
idea is to start fixing major problems ( vehicle emissions in high population
areas ), rather that worry about harder-to-fix emissions that have little
effect on many people or the national emissions inventory.
So you are saying only the Private Motor cars pollute and all other forms
transport does not, as this is the way you are pushing it and also the
Government, this is the biggest load of bollocks I have ever heard.

Like the other Bad law, cars can't smoke but all busses and trucks & trains
can.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
It depends which pollutants are exceeding the recommended limits.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
The USA systems include:-
- maximum emissions levels on all new cars since the 1970s, measured during
city and urban driving cycles, firstly when new, and then at 50,000-100,000
after only recommended servicing. The requirements outlawed carburettors in the
1980s, adding exhaust catalysts in the 1970s, and full engine management
systems in the 1990s.
- on-board diagnostics for the emissions system on mew cars, so if an emissions
device malfunctions the owner is notified by a warning that can't be easily
disabled.
- regular emissions checks as part of their equivalent of the WoF.
- reformulated fuels in areas where pollutants exceed recommended limits - thus
reducing smog and pollutants.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
Actually, NZ is so far behind the first world in vehicle pollution controls
that we have a long way to go to even reach where they were in the 1980s.
Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 08:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
So you are saying only the Private Motor cars pollute and all other forms
transport does not,
Ah, how about walking, running, cycling, horseback etc ;-)
Yes Horses fart don't you..??
Barry Lennox
2003-09-06 21:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
Bollocks, a friend in the USA has a 66 beetle, and it always easily
passes the CA smog test, one of the toughest in the country.

I had an 88 Camry, drove it from 120,000 to 243,000 miles, never did a
damm thing to it, and it still passed 2 smog tests.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
geoffm
2003-09-06 22:20:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:22:02 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
However, this is also changing, with incoming emmissions tests (in
bot the US and Europe) applying to small engines. It is one reason why
outboards are going to 4 stroke, as well as off road bikes,
snowmobiles and so on.
G
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-06 23:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoffm
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:22:02 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
However, this is also changing, with incoming emmissions tests (in
bot the US and Europe) applying to small engines. It is one reason why
outboards are going to 4 stroke, as well as off road bikes,
snowmobiles and so on.
G
But this government is run by a bunch of brain dead quangoes, that go
overboard with stupid regulations..



Like Why did I have to get my CNG tank painted White and rubber bands put
around the mounting rings..?


This tank is Inside the boot, not out side in the Sun or Rain.
Gary
2003-09-07 01:43:08 UTC
Permalink
I just took the cats out of my legacy. Would it still pass an emmision test?
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 04:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
I just took the cats out of my legacy. Would it still pass an emmision test?
Not in Europe, Japan, or North America. The whole engine management
system is predicated on a functioning catalyst - which is very effective
at reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions. You're not
alone in taking them out, that's why emissions tests are used overseas.

The ORB-II systems on new US cars will identify when a cat fails, so
I suspect they will also notice if the cat has disappeared :-).

It's quite likely that NZ will eventually have emissions testing systems
where the vehicle will be compared against the manufacturer's new and
aged data for the model.

It is unlikely to happen for a while, as initial rule was going to be
for vehicles entering NZ as of 01-Jan-04 ( light - petrol or diesel
new model or used vehicles ), 01-Jan-06 ( heavy - diesel existing models )
and 01-Jan-05 for all other vehicles. The limits would be those of
Australia, Japan, Europe or US. Details of the draft are at
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/vehicle_exhaust_emissions_2003.shtml

Some regional councils will probably lobby quite hard for retrospective testing
of the vehicle fleet at WoF time, but it's going to be difficult to implement.

Bruce Hamilton
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 08:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by Gary
I just took the cats out of my legacy. Would it still pass an emmision test?
Not in Europe, Japan, or North America. The whole engine management
system is predicated on a functioning catalyst - which is very effective
at reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions. You're not
alone in taking them out, that's why emissions tests are used overseas.
The ORB-II systems on new US cars will identify when a cat fails, so
I suspect they will also notice if the cat has disappeared :-).
It's quite likely that NZ will eventually have emissions testing systems
where the vehicle will be compared against the manufacturer's new and
aged data for the model.
It is unlikely to happen for a while, as initial rule was going to be
for vehicles entering NZ as of 01-Jan-04 ( light - petrol or diesel
new model or used vehicles ), 01-Jan-06 ( heavy - diesel existing models )
and 01-Jan-05 for all other vehicles. The limits would be those of
Australia, Japan, Europe or US. Details of the draft are at
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/vehicle_exhaust_emissions_2003.shtml
Some regional councils will probably lobby quite hard for retrospective testing
of the vehicle fleet at WoF time, but it's going to be difficult to implement.
Bruce Hamilton
And what about Buses,Trucks, Trains Ships and Planes, Its all utter Crap
unless these are all included..


And of course Power Stations..

Stop just picking on the Private motorist..
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-07 20:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Post by Gary
I just took the cats out of my legacy. Would it still pass an emmision test?
Not in Europe, Japan, or North America. The whole engine management
system is predicated on a functioning catalyst - which is very effective
at reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions. You're not alone
in taking them out, that's why emissions tests are used overseas.
Not to mention the major tuning changes from the reduction in back
pressure.

I thought it had made been illegal in NZ to remove a cat if it was
originally factory fitted.


My Volvo's cat is pretty much dead. Even so, tailpipe emissions are down
at 0.6% CO (supposed to be 0.3% on a new cat)- I don't have to replace it
because the car is old enough that the emission threshold is the 3% for
uncatted vehicles. 6 months newer and I'd be looking at paying half of the
purchase price to replace the cat.

Newer Volvo emissions systems measure the CO levels before and after the
cat, plus have electrical heating to bring it onstream as quickly as
possible.


There are some seriously funky emissions control systems out there and
most of them will be rendered overkill by the widespread use of hybrid
cars - most of the smarts has to do with the engine running at widely
varying speeds and loadings - something which isn't as much of an issue if
the engine is charging batteries.
Barry Lennox
2003-09-07 08:28:48 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Sep 2003 17:20:12 -0500, geoffm
Post by geoffm
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:22:02 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
However, this is also changing, with incoming emmissions tests (in
bot the US and Europe) applying to small engines. It is one reason why
outboards are going to 4 stroke, as well as off road bikes,
snowmobiles and so on.
G
Will it also apply to model aircraft engines? How exactly are they
going to test them, For instance, the Cox .049 used by the millions,
has no exhaust pipe that can be connected to.

Is this realistic, or just some govt idiots' wet dream?
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 09:01:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:28:48 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
On 6 Sep 2003 17:20:12 -0500, geoffm
Post by geoffm
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:22:02 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
However, this is also changing, with incoming emmissions tests (in
bot the US and Europe) applying to small engines. It is one reason why
outboards are going to 4 stroke, as well as off road bikes,
snowmobiles and so on.
G
Will it also apply to model aircraft engines? How exactly are they
going to test them, For instance, the Cox .049 used by the millions,
has no exhaust pipe that can be connected to.
Is this realistic, or just some govt idiots' wet dream?
And uses Caster oil as a lubricant, so get real, I have played with models
engines for some time, even BP research uses a Rotor one I was told by the
Model shop that sold it, this was in the UK not here, and the BP research was
local to me..
Barry Lennox
2003-09-08 07:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:28:48 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
On 6 Sep 2003 17:20:12 -0500, geoffm
Post by geoffm
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:22:02 +1200, Barry Lennox
Post by Barry Lennox
More bollocks, there's a lower limit of around 50cc, otherwise
chainsaws, not to mention tiny model aircraft engines, would be
affected.
However, this is also changing, with incoming emmissions tests (in
bot the US and Europe) applying to small engines. It is one reason why
outboards are going to 4 stroke, as well as off road bikes,
snowmobiles and so on.
G
Will it also apply to model aircraft engines? How exactly are they
going to test them, For instance, the Cox .049 used by the millions,
has no exhaust pipe that can be connected to.
Is this realistic, or just some govt idiots' wet dream?
And uses Caster oil as a lubricant, so get real,
Errr, what's the lubricant got to do with emissions? And wtf does the
"get real" directive have to do with the debate?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I have played with models engines for some time,
I have been using them for around 40+ years. But "playing" does not
come to mind.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
even BP research uses a Rotor one I was told by the
Model shop that sold it,
Sure, I'd believe every word of an unidentified pommy model shop
owner. I guess you may be referring to the OS/Graupner Wankel engine.
I know it very well. But what does it have to do with emission testing
on small engines?
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
this was in the UK not here, and the BP research was
local to me..
So, your point is? Knowledge is not acquired by being "local"
Otherwise the folk living near a University would be very clever.
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-07 02:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to
dump the car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it,
Modern card do not need tuning as what is being pushed, except to
replace the spark plugs.
US and UK tests have repeatedly shown that a well maintained 10-20 year
old car will produce fewer unwanted emissions than a 3-4 yo one with
catalyser which hasn't been tuned -p this is real world results from their
testing stations.

They still need tuning.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
Diesel is clean if the fuel is clean. NZ fuel is so foul that most new
eurodiesels won't even run on it, meaing that we have to have old spec
engines (Similar to the situation with japanese engines prior to the
intriductions of unleaded fuel.)
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
They're banned in California, mainly because of the pollution in Los
Angeles. If you've ever been there you'd understand why, especially if
you've flown in from Chicago over the Sierra Nevadas during daylight with
a window seat. The estimate 10
years ago was that 2 stroke mowers accounted for around 1/4 of the smog
haze there
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also
the US has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their
petrol is better grade..?
Their fuel is mostly _lower_ octane than NZ.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
That summarises your post perfectly. Emissions testing has been publicised
as being on the planning board for 10 years. IIRC it was slated to start
around 2004-2005 as far back as 1995.

I take it for an encore you're going to rant about the restrictions on
import of LHD cars and our crashtest requirements?
--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 04:13:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 02:02:48 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to
dump the car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it,
Modern card do not need tuning as what is being pushed, except to
replace the spark plugs.
US and UK tests have repeatedly shown that a well maintained 10-20 year
old car will produce fewer unwanted emissions than a 3-4 yo one with
catalyser which hasn't been tuned -p this is real world results from their
testing stations.
They still need tuning.
My 17 year old card HAS NO TUNING OPTIONS AT ALL..

I asked a Local mechanic friend and all he stated was to replace the Air
Filter and the Plugs..

Most garages to no have the computer tuning equipment that is used on some
high speced cars, you need to go to the franchised ones, and if you do not
like dealing with the one or two here, its tuf luck..
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
Diesel is clean if the fuel is clean. NZ fuel is so foul that most new
eurodiesels won't even run on it, meaing that we have to have old spec
engines (Similar to the situation with japanese engines prior to the
intriductions of unleaded fuel.)
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
They're banned in California, mainly because of the pollution in Los
Angeles. If you've ever been there you'd understand why, especially if
you've flown in from Chicago over the Sierra Nevadas during daylight with
a window seat. The estimate 10
years ago was that 2 stroke mowers accounted for around 1/4 of the smog
haze there
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also
the US has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their
petrol is better grade..?
Their fuel is mostly _lower_ octane than NZ.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
That summarises your post perfectly. Emissions testing has been publicised
as being on the planning board for 10 years. IIRC it was slated to start
around 2004-2005 as far back as 1995.
And will that Include Busses. Train/Planes and Ships..??

These will pollute more than any millions of Family cars..

So why not get real and TEST THEM ALL.

Or is it because it so easy to pick on the Familay car..?
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
I take it for an encore you're going to rant about the restrictions on
import of LHD cars and our crashtest requirements?
Yes because they are using Jap standards and this will ban all EU cars..
geoffm
2003-09-07 08:30:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:32:03 +1200, Johnny B Goode
well then tell us all what the make and model your car is and then we can all
see what maintenance free wonder car you drive. BTW I'm a fully qualified A
Grade mechanic with 16 yrs experience in franchise and independent workshops.
I'd love to know what wonder car it is that you drive
Not a Wodger, but what about a 1988 Toyota Corolla (4AGE red top
motor). The injection system is amazingly crude. The only adustment
seems to be the throttle stop and overall fuelling. I wanted to change
the fueling as it leans out at the top end. (decked and seriously
ported head, adjustable cam gears, cold air box with S&B filter, 4-2-1
extractors, etc give a power increase ~15%).
Geoff
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 08:51:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:32:03 +1200, Johnny B Goode
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
My 17 year old card HAS NO TUNING OPTIONS AT ALL..
I asked a Local mechanic friend and all he stated was to replace the Air
Filter and the Plugs..
Most garages to no have the computer tuning equipment that is used on some
high speced cars, you need to go to the franchised ones, and if you do not
like dealing with the one or two here, its tuf luck..
well then tell us all what the make and model your car is and then we can all
see what maintenance free wonder car you drive. BTW I'm a fully qualified A
Grade mechanic with 16 yrs experience in franchise and independent workshops.
I'd love to know what wonder car it is that you drive
Johnny B Goode
the tuba guy
86 Toyota Corona Amond, Dual Fuel..
Warrick
2003-09-07 08:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Personally I cannot believe we have no form of emission testing at all.

The current situation:

1. Private and fleet vehicles are serviced on an ad-hoc basis. Some
vehicles are never tuned. While most vehicles may be fine, there are many
vehicles that pollute rediculously.
2. The smoke coming from the worst cars, buses, and trucks is offensive
to say the least.

How testing could help:

3. Some vehicles are in need of servicing. It would be fair to say that
some of the owners of these vehicles are not aware (the exhaust hits the
windscreen behind them, not their own) or possibly do not care. They would
have to address the situation. The expense of this may be minimal, with
ignition, fuel system, etc. looked at. A lot of cheap diesel cars/4x4s seem
to belch smoke - is this their fuel filter? Some cars may only need their
air filter and spark plugs replaced.
4. There are some vehicles on the road that are in a terrible state, and
these cars may need scrapping or motor overhaul. Just like chronic rust
takes old vehicles off the road and knock their value, it is fair that
engine wear should too. I followed a 1980s Peugeot up Hobson Street
(Auckland) this evening and it was belching out what smelt like burning
engine oil. Is it fair that the owner of this car drives around poisoning
everyone?

Why cars, buses, and trucks are most important to test:

5. Cars, buses, and trucks drive everywhere in the country, with some
pumping out smoke into homes, work-places, restaurants, parks, etc. Boats
tend not to intrude so far into our lives, generally stopping at the
coast/wharf.
6. There are many, many more cars/buses/trucks than boats and planes.
7. When walking along footpaths or road sides, some cars/buses/trucks
blow their smoke right into your face, with great concentration. It would
be fair to say that people do not inhale the smoke of boats and planes in
such great concentrations, even if they are actually pumping out more of the
stuff.

For the record, I live in Auckland, work in the central city, drive an old
car (1967, Triumph), and ride my bike when it is not raining. To keep my
old car running well, I check most of the crucial parts often (timing, point
gaps, etc. - simple out-dated technology!). I also get it serviced
regularly by specialists, since my mechanics are much better and faster at
adjusting the carbueretor than I ever care to be. I often see 1980s cars
that seem to be running much worse than my car - which is reasonable given
they have probably covered a lot greater distance and with a lot less
servicing.

There seems to be a lot of support from people for testing to take place. I
have been in Bangkok, and would guess that nearly every kiwi would object to
the thought of us having to wear masks in our towns like they have to there.
Given the most-recent research conducted by the ARC suggests the worst 10%
of vehicles produce more than half of the pollutants, why should 90% of the
population have to put up with their crap?

Warrick.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 02:02:48 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to
dump the car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it,
Modern card do not need tuning as what is being pushed, except to
replace the spark plugs.
US and UK tests have repeatedly shown that a well maintained 10-20 year
old car will produce fewer unwanted emissions than a 3-4 yo one with
catalyser which hasn't been tuned -p this is real world results from their
testing stations.
They still need tuning.
My 17 year old card HAS NO TUNING OPTIONS AT ALL..
I asked a Local mechanic friend and all he stated was to replace the Air
Filter and the Plugs..
Most garages to no have the computer tuning equipment that is used on some
high speced cars, you need to go to the franchised ones, and if you do not
like dealing with the one or two here, its tuf luck..
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
Diesel is clean if the fuel is clean. NZ fuel is so foul that most new
eurodiesels won't even run on it, meaing that we have to have old spec
engines (Similar to the situation with japanese engines prior to the
intriductions of unleaded fuel.)
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
They're banned in California, mainly because of the pollution in Los
Angeles. If you've ever been there you'd understand why, especially if
you've flown in from Chicago over the Sierra Nevadas during daylight with
a window seat. The estimate 10
years ago was that 2 stroke mowers accounted for around 1/4 of the smog
haze there
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also
the US has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their
petrol is better grade..?
Their fuel is mostly _lower_ octane than NZ.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
That summarises your post perfectly. Emissions testing has been publicised
as being on the planning board for 10 years. IIRC it was slated to start
around 2004-2005 as far back as 1995.
And will that Include Busses. Train/Planes and Ships..??
These will pollute more than any millions of Family cars..
So why not get real and TEST THEM ALL.
Or is it because it so easy to pick on the Familay car..?
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
I take it for an encore you're going to rant about the restrictions on
import of LHD cars and our crashtest requirements?
Yes because they are using Jap standards and this will ban all EU cars..
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 11:30:11 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Warrick
4. There are some vehicles on the road that are in a terrible state,
and
Post by Warrick
these cars may need scrapping or motor overhaul. Just like chronic rust
takes old vehicles off the road and knock their value, it is fair that
engine wear should too. I followed a 1980s Peugeot up Hobson Street
(Auckland) this evening and it was belching out what smelt like burning
engine oil. Is it fair that the owner of this car drives around poisoning
everyone?
One strategy for dealing with the oilburners would be to ban the $10
oil-change packs. That cheap oil seems to have a high sulphur content & it
really stinks. It would maybe encourage owners of oilburners to scrap them
or fix them, if the cheapest 4-litre pack cost $40.
What utter CRAP you spout..

I buy top grade oil and its only $10, more fool you if you wish to pay $40.
<snip>
Post by Warrick
7. When walking along footpaths or road sides, some cars/buses/trucks
blow their smoke right into your face, with great concentration. It would
be fair to say that people do not inhale the smoke of boats and planes in
such great concentrations, even if they are actually pumping out more of
the
Post by Warrick
stuff.
Indeed. Makes me wonder why anyone likes sitting at a cafe table on the
footpath of Ponsonby Road or Tamaki Drive.
<snip>
Post by Warrick
There seems to be a lot of support from people for testing to take place.
I
Post by Warrick
have been in Bangkok, and would guess that nearly every kiwi would object
to
Post by Warrick
the thought of us having to wear masks in our towns like they have to
there.
Post by Warrick
Given the most-recent research conducted by the ARC suggests the worst 10%
of vehicles produce more than half of the pollutants, why should 90% of
the
Post by Warrick
population have to put up with their crap?
Hear hear.
MorrisTheCat
2003-09-07 16:58:16 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Warrick
4. There are some vehicles on the road that are in a terrible state,
and
Post by Warrick
these cars may need scrapping or motor overhaul. Just like chronic rust
takes old vehicles off the road and knock their value, it is fair that
engine wear should too. I followed a 1980s Peugeot up Hobson Street
(Auckland) this evening and it was belching out what smelt like burning
engine oil. Is it fair that the owner of this car drives around poisoning
everyone?
One strategy for dealing with the oilburners would be to ban the $10
oil-change packs. That cheap oil seems to have a high sulphur content &
it
really stinks. It would maybe encourage owners of oilburners to scrap
them
or fix them, if the cheapest 4-litre pack cost $40.
<snip>
'oilburner' is a common name for a diesel engine. A DIY owner that puts a
$10 pack of sump oil into his diesel engine crankcase at oil-changetime
would be insane. That engine is not going to last long as the carbon
particlates buildup in the oil will not flow as a proper diesel sump oil
provides.

I must agree though, general to this thread.... that there is nothing more
revolting in having to...

1.) follow an old car irrespective of model that puts out an awful stench
simply because the piston rings are so tired and blow-by so bad the
crankcase emmisions are being vented directly to atmosphere. (The driver
must notice this because the car has gutless acceleration).

2.) while crawling in motorway 'rush-hour' traffic to have a truck belch
exhaust straight into your open window, filling your car with a mixture of
black dust and blue vapour. Choke!
Matthew Poole
2003-09-07 19:16:17 UTC
Permalink
*SNIP*
Post by MorrisTheCat
2.) while crawling in motorway 'rush-hour' traffic to have a truck belch
exhaust straight into your open window, filling your car with a mixture of
black dust and blue vapour. Choke!
Diesel truck engines will always smoke a little bit when starting or
under load. It's relative to the size of the engine, obviously, but
it's basically a given for trucks. Not sure with cars, but I don't see
why it would be any different.
Trucks will also spit smoke when they start changing down gears to
engage their exhaust brakes. Again, not much can be done about it.
They do it as they're driven from the factory, even.
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-09-08 02:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Poole
Diesel truck engines will always smoke a little bit when starting or
under load.
A well-tuned diesel will only smoke when it's overloaded.

If a modern truck is smoking on the road, especially on a hill then the
cops should be pulling it over and weighing it.

The stupid thing is, an overloaded engine consumes FAR more fuel than one
which isn't on the same load, so economising by putting a smaller engine
in than is required only results in higher running costs (plus higher
maintenance costs)
insider
2003-09-07 23:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warrick
<snip>
Post by Warrick
4. There are some vehicles on the road that are in a terrible state,
and
Post by Warrick
these cars may need scrapping or motor overhaul. Just like chronic rust
takes old vehicles off the road and knock their value, it is fair that
engine wear should too. I followed a 1980s Peugeot up Hobson Street
(Auckland) this evening and it was belching out what smelt like burning
engine oil. Is it fair that the owner of this car drives around
poisoning
Post by Warrick
everyone?
One strategy for dealing with the oilburners would be to ban the $10
oil-change packs. That cheap oil seems to have a high sulphur content &
it
really stinks. It would maybe encourage owners of oilburners to scrap
them
or fix them, if the cheapest 4-litre pack cost $40.
<snip>
'oilburner' is a common name for a diesel engine. A DIY owner that puts a
$10 pack of sump oil into his diesel engine crankcase at oil-changetime
would be insane. That engine is not going to last long as the carbon
particlates buildup in the oil will not flow as a proper diesel sump oil
provides.
I must agree though, general to this thread.... that there is nothing more
revolting in having to...
1.) follow an old car irrespective of model that puts out an awful stench
simply because the piston rings are so tired and blow-by so bad the
crankcase emmisions are being vented directly to atmosphere. (The driver
must notice this because the car has gutless acceleration).
2.) while crawling in motorway 'rush-hour' traffic to have a truck belch
exhaust straight into your open window, filling your car with a mixture of
black dust and blue vapour. Choke!
There's an old laser near me painted red with a green door and the
Greens logo on it and some slogan saying turning NZ Green. Blue more
like it - it spews out smoke on the hill. Typical Green - Do as I say
not do as I do.
Sue Bilstein
2003-09-08 00:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warrick
<snip>
Post by Warrick
4. There are some vehicles on the road that are in a terrible state,
and
Post by Warrick
these cars may need scrapping or motor overhaul. Just like chronic rust
takes old vehicles off the road and knock their value, it is fair that
engine wear should too. I followed a 1980s Peugeot up Hobson Street
(Auckland) this evening and it was belching out what smelt like burning
engine oil. Is it fair that the owner of this car drives around
poisoning
Post by Warrick
everyone?
One strategy for dealing with the oilburners would be to ban the $10
oil-change packs. That cheap oil seems to have a high sulphur content &
it
really stinks. It would maybe encourage owners of oilburners to scrap
them
or fix them, if the cheapest 4-litre pack cost $40.
<snip>
'oilburner' is a common name for a diesel engine. A DIY owner that puts a
$10 pack of sump oil into his diesel engine crankcase at oil-changetime
would be insane. That engine is not going to last long as the carbon
particlates buildup in the oil will not flow as a proper diesel sump oil
provides.
"Oilburner" is maybe more often used for an old petrol car which is
burning oil. The sort where it's more likely to run out of oil than
petrol. That's the sense in which I was using it.
Post by Warrick
I must agree though, general to this thread.... that there is nothing more
revolting in having to...
1.) follow an old car irrespective of model that puts out an awful stench
simply because the piston rings are so tired and blow-by so bad the
crankcase emmisions are being vented directly to atmosphere. (The driver
must notice this because the car has gutless acceleration).
2.) while crawling in motorway 'rush-hour' traffic to have a truck belch
exhaust straight into your open window, filling your car with a mixture of
black dust and blue vapour. Choke!
You don't have to have a windo open to get those diesel particulates
deep into your lungs, where they form little cancer clusters. When
you follow a bus or truck at a normal following distance, the
particulate count in your car goes up forty-fold - from like 2000
parts per million to like 80,000.
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-08 02:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by MorrisTheCat
'oilburner' is a common name for a diesel engine. A DIY owner that puts a
$10 pack of sump oil into his diesel engine crankcase at oil-changetime
would be insane. That engine is not going to last long as the carbon
particlates buildup in the oil will not flow as a proper diesel sump oil
provides.
"Oilburner" is maybe more often used for an old petrol car which is
burning oil. The sort where it's more likely to run out of oil than
petrol. That's the sense in which I was using it.
It may be the sense you wanted to use, but "oilburner" traditionally
is used to describe something that burns oil, whether the fuel is
diesel or fuel oil. The term can apply to any CI high speed diesel
engine, furnace, or large engine ( including gas turbine ) burning
diesel or fuel oil.

Old names for diesel fuel were " diesel oil" and " automotive gas oil"
( AGO - which was the name used on the NZ petroeluem industry
specification for automotive diesel fuel until the specifications were
defined in the regulations around 1990 ). Oil was included in the name
because diesels could run on a range of solid, liquid, and gaseous
fuels.

Usage is changing, especially as diesels have their own lubricating
oils, so diesel oil often now refers to the lubricant, but
"oilburner", when talking about vehicle engines, still only describes
a diesel engine.

Bruce Hamilton
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-07 05:38:35 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Uncle StoatWarbler
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also
the US has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their
petrol is better grade..?
Their fuel is mostly _lower_ octane than NZ.
It's hard to generalise, because the US has significantly
different regional octane requirements - mainly due to
regulations and altitude.

The US uses AntiKnock Index ( AKI ) for their retail fuel
octane quality. AKI is:-
( Research Octane Number + Motor Octane Number )/2.

NZ uses Research Octane Number, and our Premium
fuel has a RON of around 96.3 and MON of 86.4, giving an
equivalent AKI of 91.4. The Regular fuel has a RON of 91.6
and MON of 83.3, giving an equivalent AKI of 87.5.

The US has regular ( AKI 85-88 ), midrange ( AKI 88-90 ),
and premium ( AKI 90+ ) grades. Regular makes up about 80% of
the market in the US, and premium about 15%.

Bruce Hamilton
Geoff Rait
2003-09-07 17:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hamilton
The US uses AntiKnock Index ( AKI ) for their retail fuel
octane quality. AKI is:-
( Research Octane Number + Motor Octane Number )/2.
NZ uses Research Octane Number, and our Premium
fuel has a RON of around 96.3 and MON of 86.4, giving an
equivalent AKI of 91.4. The Regular fuel has a RON of 91.6
and MON of 83.3, giving an equivalent AKI of 87.5.
The US has regular ( AKI 85-88 ), midrange ( AKI 88-90 ),
and premium ( AKI 90+ ) grades. Regular makes up about 80% of
the market in the US, and premium about 15%.
Excellent - thank you for that information.

I see after a quick web search that AKI is more commonly referred to here in
Canada as Road Octane Number (or simply octane number), and that it's this
that's listed on the pumps (with some less than honest exceptions,
apparently). Furrin manufacturers, though, typically state their vehicles'
fuel requirements in RON - a trap for young players (e.g., me).

Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
p***@purrpurr.com
2003-09-07 04:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
You are however in the minority. A poll on stuff had those who
favoured the tests leading the poll 2:1.
Yes a Fake Poll so easy to produce..
That's one in the eye for all those who believe that people favour
less legislation.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Enkidu
2003-09-07 06:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
You are however in the minority. A poll on stuff had those who
favoured the tests leading the poll 2:1.
Yes a Fake Poll so easy to produce..
See my sig.
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Cheers,

Cliff
--

The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
insider
2003-09-07 10:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Seems like the country is now being run by a bunch of idiots..
Most older cars have emission problems, and all you can do real is to dump the
car, as the cost of a re bore etc makes it not worth it, Modern card do not
need tuning as what is being pushed, except to replace the spark plugs.
And what is the point of these test, is it to reduce emissions, if so all
Hidrocarbon fuel transport, Must included, Buses, Trains, Planes and all
farm vehicle..
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your trains..
And NO MORE 2 Stokes, they are banned in some parts of the USA.
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the US
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a clue.
You are however in the minority. A poll on stuff had those who
favoured the tests leading the poll 2:1.
That's one in the eye for all those who believe that people favour
less legislation.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Did it give the cost? i think that will be the killer in NZ especially
for the pollies. it will be a hard sell for a relatvely poor country
when people realse they might be facng extra car bills of hundreds or
thousands of $$ and when the pollution issues are comparitively
marginal
Bruce Hamilton
2003-09-08 04:02:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:30:53 +1200, "Supergoof"
Meanwhile we're STILL waiting for them to do something about the amount of
sulphur in diesel ...
What do you want?.

Recent changes ( 23-July-2002 ) to the regulations for sulphur in
diesel fuel ( in mg/kg ) included:-

01-September-2002
1,000 maximum pool average and
1,400 maximum cap for Auckland and Northland;
2,200 maximum pool average and 3,000 maximum cap for rest of country

01-January-2004
500 maximum pool average and 600 maximum cap (effective 1 August 2004)

01-January-2006
50 maximum

The limit for sulphur does not apply to sale for marine use. Diesel
sulphur content to be reviewed by mid-2005; 10-15 ppm maximum sulphur
content to be required no later than 2009-2010.

I'm not involved in the regulation side, but I assume the above are
still in force.

Bruce Hamilton
Supergoof
2003-09-11 03:48:28 UTC
Permalink
"Bruce Hamilton" wrote ...
Post by Bruce Hamilton
Recent changes ( 23-July-2002 ) to the regulations for sulphur in
diesel fuel ( in mg/kg ) included:-
01-September-2002
1,000 maximum pool average and
1,400 maximum cap for Auckland and Northland;
2,200 maximum pool average and 3,000 maximum cap for rest of country
01-January-2004
500 maximum pool average and 600 maximum cap (effective 1 August 2004)
01-January-2006
50 maximum
I didn't know they'd progressed beyond their trial in Auckland - thanks!

That's good to know.

-rachel-
insider
2003-09-08 05:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
Diesel is one of the worse polluters, so Auckland good by all your
trains..
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
I do not think that this have even been given any thought at all, also the
US
Post by p***@purrpurr.com
has lover emissions, is it because cars are not so old and their petrol is
better grade..?
A knee jerk action by a bunch of useless idiots that does not have a
clue.
Meanwhile we're STILL waiting for them to do something about the amount of
sulphur in diesel ...
-rachel-
law was changed a year ago dear. Do keep up.
Supergoof
2003-09-11 03:49:03 UTC
Permalink
"insider" wrote ...
"Supergoof" wrote ...
Meanwhile we're STILL waiting for them to do something about the amount of
sulphur in diesel ...
law was changed a year ago dear. Do keep up.
D'OH!


:o)


-rachel-
Loading...