F-You Colorado! more emission headaches, I may loose my registration Options

[Gint]

I just called - the year does not matter.
First of all, this is a state program, with state employees (no subcontractors). The inspection guys that will be looking at your car are master techs. The guy I spoke to was a Lotus and flat head V8 specialist. The guy who does the air cooled stuff has supposably been a PCA guy "forever" - he even asked me if this conversation came up while we were at the Parade. The limits set are passable by any correctly running car - at any RPM - from any era as far back as you can go. What they are doing is trying to keep us from doing what alot of us do - get the classic plate and then modify the motor into what they deem a gross polluter. If anyone falls outside of these limits, they must go get an inspection. If anything has been modified from stock - including the removal of airpumps and cats, we could be screwed. I asked him how he was sure that these inspectors know what they are looking at. He said they "we are not the minimum wage employees that work for the usual emissions testing stations". I did forget to ask about unobtainable/obsolete parts (like the airpumps). He was nice enough - but it was like talking to a cop.
Gints philosophy is what I will be adopting - turn around and go the other way. I am running a euro rear plate with my real one in the rear window. I may just pull it down if I ever get trapped.
I did ask him when they were going to start putting these testing stations at the entrances of car shows, that way they could both kill the hobby and make a pile of money all at once. He didn't find it funny.

One last thing, these machines are taking readings in a way that if you have a lawn mower or a gas can in the bed of a truck, or if your missing your gas cap (or even have a poorly sealing one) you will most likely get that letter. He said he has seen that on several occasions - but you will still need to get the inspection.

I figured that was going to be the deal. I do believe my 914 as rich as it runs will pass the roadside sniffer because I've gone by one before. But if I see the truck when I'm driving the 914 I go the other way and avoid it completely.

[banger]

You could always raise the compression, and run E-85. That would keep you clean and legal.

[Zundfolge]

So I'm left with a couple of questions.

Assuming you live and work OUTSIDE the Denver Metro area, in an area where testing is not required, will we still get letters? If so can we ignore them?

Also, what would happen if you saw the truck, slammed down on the clutch and just coasted by him at an idle?


Be interesting to see if they make "admin edit-political link removed" an annual report and if so where we are in the next few years.

This post has been edited by Gint: Jul 4 2009, 01:30 PM

[Gint]

I realize that it's difficult to discuss this without mentioning politics at all. But Mike you seem to quite frequently have to add some extremely political crap in your posts. I'm going to edit your last post and remove it. It's against the rules. Please cease and desist.

As for your question, why not call them and ask?

[Gint]

I knew this didn't sound right so I dug out some old emission testing reports.

The limits set are passable by any correctly running car - at any RPM - from any era as far back as you can go.

The guy you talked to Scott is obviously blowin smoke at least on this point because it simply isn't true.

From the letter Samson received:

Pursuant to 5 CCR 1001-13, Part G, Section IV.A, a vehicle’s emissions as measured by roadside testing units shall not exceed 3.0% carbon monoxide or 550 parts per million (ppm) hydrocarbons as hexane (1,075 ppm hydrocarbons as propane).

The test limits printed on the inspection sheet from my 1970 914/6 are:
CO% Limit 5.50 - Tested 3.55 at idle 8.66 at 2500 - This limit that my car passed is already above the spec in the letter, and not even performed on a dyno. It would no doubt fail the roadside test.
HC PPM Limit 1000 - Tested 397 at idle 535 at 2500 - The test measurement that the car ran and passed at testing is almost as high as the roadside letter limit indicated. And it was run at a standstill, not a dyno or on the road under load.

I have similar specs for my 72 Chevy truck and the 67 truck. The pass/fail limits for 67 or much higher than the 70 or 72 model year limits. I can't seem to find the report for my 74 914/4. But it passed testing as well... with carbs installed. But it would undoubtedly fail the roadside sniffer at the limits listed in Samson's letter. Not by much perhaps, but it would probably fail. So I amend my previous statement in an earlier post. But I remember going by the tuck at least once and I didn't get a letter. Maybe there is a tolerance or something built in.

[orthobiz]

Please explain: how does some roadside sniffer detect your emissions with a ?laser? And doesn't have to pull you over to go right to the tailpipe? How far away can they accurately do this?

Just seems beyond high tech.

Too bad that govt guy Scott met wasn't at the BBQ. We coulda swayed him over to the collector's side of things!

Paul

[Gint]

Please explain: how does some roadside sniffer detect your emissions with a ?laser? And doesn't have to pull you over to go right to the tailpipe? How far away can they accurately do this?

Something I dug up. I haven't even read it myself yet.
http://www.motorists.org/emissions/home/ho...-sensing-works/

[orthobiz]

Please explain: how does some roadside sniffer detect your emissions with a ?laser? And doesn't have to pull you over to go right to the tailpipe? How far away can they accurately do this?

Something I dug up. I haven't even read it myself yet.
http://www.motorists.org/emissions/home/ho...-sensing-works/

Thanks, Mike. Dang, this thing was even invented by someone in Colorado!!!

Paul

[ArtechnikA]

Something I dug up. I haven't even read it myself yet.
http://www.motorists.org/emissions/home/ho...-sensing-works/

I read most of it.
Salient points are - they claim they can test a car a second.

With "better than 10% accuracy." (The way I read that, it means it's right 10% of the time. maybe they mean each reading is within 10% of its actual value - but that's not what they say.) Any way you look at it, 10% accuracy is pretty sucky - but they also claim "Inspect & Measure" programs have the same "10% accuracy" rating, so something is wrong with the reported data...

Something I have an issue with is tailpipe height - I get the IR absorption spectrosopy. I don't see how they can sense a raised 4x4 with a tailpipe 3' off the ground one second and a lowered 914 the next.

[ericread]

There have been a number of threads regarding different states that seem to echo the following:

...What they are doing is trying to keep us from doing what alot of us do - get the classic plate and then modify the motor into what they deem a gross polluter. If anyone falls outside of these limits, they must go get an inspection. If anything has been modified from stock - including the removal of airpumps and cats, we could be screwed...

Given that the participants of this BBS are pretty darned smart, I don't really understand the uproar. We know that in some states our cars (1975 and older) have been exempted from annual smog testing. We also know that although we may be exempted from annual testing, we have not been exempted from meeting specific smog requirements. The argument is that once the car has been licensed, then we are free to do what we want, beacuse the states don't have any way to find out what we've done. Now that the states may have found a way to see if we cheated, we may be caught. What's the problem?

If you've made any significant changes to your smog system, or if you happened to put a different engine into your 914, and if your 914 doesn't meet smog requirements, you're may end up having to follow the law, like a lot of us do every day.

The technicality of not needing an annual test, or of getting a "classic" plate was never intended to provide you with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. That some people here interpreted it as such poses significant risk to them.

If you are planning a "track" car, then use it at the track. Otherwise, it appears we will all have to follow the law.

Flame on.....

Eric Read

[newto914s]

There have been a number of threads regarding different states that seem to echo the following:

...What they are doing is trying to keep us from doing what alot of us do - get the classic plate and then modify the motor into what they deem a gross polluter. If anyone falls outside of these limits, they must go get an inspection. If anything has been modified from stock - including the removal of airpumps and cats, we could be screwed...

The technicality of not needing an annual test, or of getting a "classic" plate was never intended to provide you with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. That some people here interpreted it as such poses significant risk to them.

If you are planning a "track" car, then use it at the track. Otherwise, it appears we will all have to follow the law.

Flame on.....

Eric Read

I get it, I'm not looking for a "get out of jail free" card. My car is essentially stock. running D-jet with a slightly tweeked MPS. Gint makes a great point, the limits are set below what our cars came from the factory to emit. And honestly, if I had a suby swap my car would be running cleaner.

[ericread]

There have been a number of threads regarding different states that seem to echo the following:

...What they are doing is trying to keep us from doing what alot of us do - get the classic plate and then modify the motor into what they deem a gross polluter. If anyone falls outside of these limits, they must go get an inspection. If anything has been modified from stock - including the removal of airpumps and cats, we could be screwed...

The technicality of not needing an annual test, or of getting a "classic" plate was never intended to provide you with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. That some people here interpreted it as such poses significant risk to them.

If you are planning a "track" car, then use it at the track. Otherwise, it appears we will all have to follow the law.

Flame on.....

Eric Read

I get it, I'm not looking for a "get out of jail free" card. My car is essentially stock. running D-jet with a slightly tweeked MPS. Gint makes a great point, the limits are set below what our cars came from the factory to emit. And honestly, if I had a suby swap my car would be running cleaner.

I agree that the owners of '76 models are in a particular bind. Am I correct in understanding that you are being held to a stricter standard than the original specs required? That seems blatently unreasonable. Since a lot of the '76 models have been modified, isn't there anybody out there that has a cat or any of the other pieces that you may need to pass the visual inspection???

My (uneducated, at best) understanding is that you have to detune your car to the point it really doesn't run very well to get emission numbers that are acceptable to the state.

On a lighter note, I am a bit dissapointed in that whenever I post a message such as I did, I usually get seriously flamed as being everything bad up to and including un-American. The flamers must be out driving this weekend...

Please keep us up to date on your issue. As I have a '74, I don't have any smog pieces that you can use. But if you need any particular parts, please post your request. I'm sure anyone that can assist will step up to the plate.

Eric Read

[ArtechnikA]

...My car is essentially stock. running D-jet with a slightly tweeked MPS. Gint makes a great point, the limits are set below what our cars came from the factory to emit.

So there ya go, no problem.
The 'road test' sensor can't know the standards are required to meet - it only knows total emisions. This is why the human-intervention inspection is required - to compare the actual vehicle against the standards it is required to meet. Since your car can meet those standards with flying colors (yes?) you have no problem.

Edited because I re-read the original post...

My car is essentially stock.

Minus the required cat and air pump...

Worst-case, you have been inconvenienced. [pithy comment about the nature of government omitted, but this is where it'd go...] Best-case, your car has developed an engine-management malfunction, and you have been alerted to this fact before it caused any serious damage.

[Gint]

I get it, I'm not looking for a "get out of jail free" card. My car is essentially stock. running D-jet with a slightly tweeked MPS. Gint makes a great point, the limits are set below what our cars came from the factory to emit. And honestly, if I had a suby swap my car would be running cleaner.

That's not exaclty what I said. The CO limit the roadside tester is using is lower or more strict than the limit the state imposed for my 1970 914/6 to meet during non-dyno or standing testing at a state sanctioned faclilty. I believe the roadside limit for CO is more strict than the Colorado state testing specification for a 1974 model year also. 1976 may have a even stricter limit, but I can't speak to that.

I was reading the tech spec booklet this morning and it states that a stcok 914 will actually meet a much stricter CO limit. Left it in the garage, be right back.

Edit: According to the 914 VWPorsche Technical Specification booklet (which doesn't list a 914/6):

CO content specifications
1.7 MPC - 850-900 rpm 1-3% volume
1.8 AFC - 800-900 rpm 2-3% volume
2.0 MPC Engine code GA 850-900 Max. 1.5(max .3 from 1974 mod.)

This post has been edited by Gint: Jul 5 2009, 02:31 PM

[ghuff]

There have been a number of threads regarding different states that seem to echo the following:

...What they are doing is trying to keep us from doing what alot of us do - get the classic plate and then modify the motor into what they deem a gross polluter. If anyone falls outside of these limits, they must go get an inspection. If anything has been modified from stock - including the removal of airpumps and cats, we could be screwed...

Given that the participants of this BBS are pretty darned smart, I don't really understand the uproar. We know that in some states our cars (1975 and older) have been exempted from annual smog testing. We also know that although we may be exempted from annual testing, we have not been exempted from meeting specific smog requirements. The argument is that once the car has been licensed, then we are free to do what we want, beacuse the states don't have any way to find out what we've done. Now that the states may have found a way to see if we cheated, we may be caught. What's the problem?

If you've made any significant changes to your smog system, or if you happened to put a different engine into your 914, and if your 914 doesn't meet smog requirements, you're may end up having to follow the law, like a lot of us do every day.

The technicality of not needing an annual test, or of getting a "classic" plate was never intended to provide you with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. That some people here interpreted it as such poses significant risk to them.

If you are planning a "track" car, then use it at the track. Otherwise, it appears we will all have to follow the law.

Flame on.....

Eric Read

Given what we have seen this law is pretty inaccurate if I read an above posters message right. He quoted some testing figures for the 6 that were beyond that which the original posters car put out, but accepted by the state.

That right there shows this is purely a money/power grab type issue.

Is that not an issue? I mean correct me if I am wrong.

The very fact that there is conflicting senses of obligation to an authority here should be a clue that something is not right.


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif)


It stinks. There is no excuse on a state level for two sets of standards or agencies. The validity of this needs to be challenged. A reasonable set of standards needs to be there for vehicles in which certain replace parts such as EGR or other bits are no longer available for limited use and mileage.

That is my understanding historically part of the reasoning why classic and antique vehicle tags exist. They are limited mileage and some states have hot-rod or street rod tags which allow limited street use to/from shows and events.

Not everyone has a big block turbo chevy runnin 11:1 AFR at idle with no cats.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif)

Why do we not focus on emissions where it counts, such as industry and power plants etc?

[ArtechnikA]

...testing figures for the 6 that were beyond that which the original posters car put out, but accepted by the state.

That right there shows this is purely a money/power grab type issue.

Is that not an issue? I mean correct me if I am wrong.

you are wrong.

...There is no excuse on a state level for two sets of standards or agencies.

I agree. You need to take a deep breath and realize that is _not_ what is happening here.

The roadside remote sensor DOES NOT establish, set, or enforce emissions standards for a particular vehicle. It has a (fairly low) threshold level of specific (easily measured...) emissions gasses. It ONLY establishes a threshold level that requires an INSPECTION by certified technicians that DO apply individual emissions standards to a SPECIFIC car in reference to the applicable law.

Pass the inspection and you're OK.

Compare it to DUI law. You're flagged into a random checkpoint. You do not cooperate and you refuse the blood test. In most states, refusal to comply with the test is a guilty plea, end of story.

Same thing here - your vehicle is seen with a big emissions profile. If you refuse the inspection, it's taken as an admission of guilt. Pass the inspection and be on your way.

If your car meets its applicable standards as required by current law, it should pass. If it can't, it should fail. If you thought the end of periodic inspection was your free pass to remove factory-installed emissions-control equipment, you guessed wrong. (And here is where I am at odds with California and many other states: IMO - if you *CAN* meet the standards, it shouldn't matter whether you did it with the factory parts or not.)

There are damn few internal combustion motor vehicles that are TOTALLY exempt from all emissions standards. (I have one that meets even CARB requirements. Hint: anything older than 1955 is free...)

BTW - The "go after some real criminals" defense is always going to be a non-starter.

[ericread]

...testing figures for the 6 that were beyond that which the original posters car put out, but accepted by the state.

That right there shows this is purely a money/power grab type issue.

Is that not an issue? I mean correct me if I am wrong.

you are wrong.

...There is no excuse on a state level for two sets of standards or agencies.

I agree. You need to take a deep breath and realize that is _not_ what is happening here.

The roadside remote sensor DOES NOT establish, set, or enforce emissions standards for a particular vehicle. It has a (fairly low) threshold level of specific (easily measured...) emissions gasses. It ONLY establishes a threshold level that requires an INSPECTION by certified technicians that DO apply individual emissions standards to a SPECIFIC car in reference to the applicable law.

Pass the inspection and you're OK.

Compare it to DUI law. You're flagged into a random checkpoint. You do not cooperate and you refuse the blood test. In most states, refusal to comply with the test is a guilty plea, end of story.

Same thing here - your vehicle is seen with a big emissions profile. If you refuse the inspection, it's taken as an admission of guilt. Pass the inspection and be on your way.

If your car meets its applicable standards as required by current law, it should pass. If it can't, it should fail. If you thought the end of periodic inspection was your free pass to remove factory-installed emissions-control equipment, you guessed wrong. (And here is where I am at odds with California and many other states: IMO - if you *CAN* meet the standards, it shouldn't matter whether you did it with the factory parts or not.)

There are damn few internal combustion motor vehicles that are TOTALLY exempt from all emissions standards. (I have one that meets even CARB requirements. Hint: anything older than 1955 is free...)

BTW - The "go after some real criminals" defense is always going to be a non-starter.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Well said!

Eric

[jhadler]

With "better than 10% accuracy." (The way I read that, it means it's right 10% of the time. maybe they mean each reading is within 10% of its actual value - but that's not what they say.)

No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm.

Any way you look at it, 10% accuracy is pretty sucky - but they also claim "Inspect & Measure" programs have the same "10% accuracy" rating, so something is wrong with the reported data...

10% is really not that bad. If you look at what they are measuring, and how they are doing it, 10% is really quite an impressive accuracy. As for the mobile system having the same claimed accuracy as the permanent testing stations? I don't know, it's possible that the they both have the same accuracy, but are based on different principles. I would hazard a guess and say that the mobile system is more maintenance intensive, and that there is more work required to keep it operating at that 10% level. The

Something I have an issue with is tailpipe height - I get the IR absorption spectrosopy. I don't see how they can sense a raised 4x4 with a tailpipe 3' off the ground one second and a lowered 914 the next.

They're not looking at the pipe itself, but the cloud behind the vehicle. Granted, a lifted 4x4 is likely to measure less than the 914 as the system no doubt is designed to look at passenger cars, and not big rigs.

Note: While I'm impressed with the design of the system, I'm not necessarily supporting the way it seems to be used.

-Josh2

[ArtechnikA]

No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm.

What you have described is not 10% accuracy - it is 10% error. But it's semantics, mostly...

They're not looking at the pipe itself, but the cloud behind the vehicle.

But that's quite an issue. THE cloud behind THE vehicle - at 1 vehicle a second. How much of the leading vehicle's cloud is still in the air when I pass through right behind him?

[jhadler]

No, that's exactly what they say. 10% accuracy means that an indicated reading of 3500 ppm could be anything between 3150 ppm and 3850 ppm.

What you have described is not 10% accuracy - it is 10% error. But it's semantics, mostly...

In metrology, "accuracy" a crude term used in the statement of the uncertainty of the measurement. "error" is not a generally used term, although that is what it is widely interpreted as. What I would really like to know is what is the basis of their 10% number? 1-sigma? 2? 3? Makes a BIG difference on what the REAL uncertainty of the measurement is. And I wonder if they would even release that information. My guess? It's a 1-sigma statement, and at that point, 10% is not so great.

But that's quite an issue. THE cloud behind THE vehicle - at 1 vehicle a second. How much of the leading vehicle's cloud is still in the air when I pass through right behind him?

Agreed. And if a car is right in front of you belching a cloud of mosquito killing smoke, how well does the system compensate for the leading cars' contamination of your measurement? I would hope the sampling rate is high enough that it can average multiple measurements per vehicle pass, and be able to set a background level prior to the next vehicle passing by.

Getting back to the original topic, the numbers the system displayed on the vehicle in question showed a really high HC value. It didn't say if there was a background correction, but it did seem to have a radar gun measurement coupled with it, and it indicated that the car was -slowing- not accelerating. Okay, looking at the data, it did say that there were 8 samples for the given measurement, but how fast was the sampling rate? And it does not indicate if there's a background correction.

I dunno, I just plan to avoid the stations for time being... Right now they're not like photo radar (which can be placed anywhere), they are placed at specific locations, at specific times (check the website). Just don't go there...

A good idea, but may not be well executed...

-Josh2