I was reading an article on Mexico City banning the use of the Mexican VW bettle because of safety and emissions. That concerns me because I try to keep my 1.7 engine well tuned. I know my car is extremely fuel efficient but is it bad for the environment in another way? Does anyone know have any info on this?

Since they were built before catalitic (sp) converters and unleaded gas was required, I'd say they are very dirty.

But just like girls, the cheap and dirty ones and the most fun.

The air quality in Mexico DF makes the worst smog in the US look like a sunny day. Old Mexican VWs are essentially the same as un-caredfor 60s aircooled bugs here, and millions of them together make a lot of emissions. The location of the city is terrible, and anything they do short of moving all the people out isn't gonna fix the air quality. Your car makes a lot less harmful emissions than an old carbureted bug, and you don't live in a place where the environmental conditions and the geography conspire to make the air quality like a sewer. The Cap'n

Your car has much higher emissions than new cars do. But as long as you keep it tuned up and control the oil leaks I would not worry about it polluting the environment. There are not that many 914s on the road. If you're really concerned you can take it somewhere to have an exhaust gas analyzer check it, and they can tweak it to further lower HC and CO emissions. But it may not run as well. On the other hand, those of us forced to have annual emissions checks have to keep our engines tuned and running properly. Sometimes it reveals a vacuum leak or other problem that affects performance and fuel economy too.

I bet Mexico City had to take action because there are millions of those old dirty cars still on the streets. The engines are likely worn out, burning oil due to worn rings and valve guides and suffer from low compression. Also I think they still sell leaded gas down there. Think of a place with more cars than Los Angeles all polluting more than our cars did in the 1960s. Some days their air is unbreathable.

My '75 L-jet teener passed emissions easily and then some when I had her although she barely squeeked by the noise requirement (on the second pass...POS kid saw "PORSCHE" on the back of the car and decided to do a noise check )

I feel my current '73 would as well with the D-jet but due to her age she's exempt. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to do the emissions crap w/her and my Squareback. If I didn't have to deal with "the Man" about my Jetta I'd be even happier.

Keep in mind that "passing emissions" means that it meets the standards for the year the car was made. For my '76 2.0L, the limits are 600 PPM hydrocarbons and 3.5% CO. Anything less than that is acceptable. On a newer car (modern EFI, O2 sensor, cat) the numbers are a lot closer to zero.

OTOH, 914s have other means of keeping emsiions down : spending years hidden in a barn, in a garage on jackstands, or hibernating when the weather gets cold...

It's all relative. A typical car from the unregulated 1950s would register way over 500ppm HC on an idle test, often over 1000ppm. A 914 with D-Jet tuned for emissions roughly 100-200ppm. Modern technology, esp. catalytic convertors, but also lean-burn engines, have pushed this all the way down to under 10ppm. A PZEV class car (2nd gen Prius, Focus PZEV) will be under 1ppm. Catalytic convertors are so good that I once got 10ppm from a 1978 car with mechanical FI, just by swapping in a new cat.

So, 10-20% of 1950s emissions, but 100x the emissions of the best 2005 cars.

Of course, really, most 914s are true zero emissions cars, since they spend most of their time on jackstands, anyway.

The low emissions cars produced since 1990 or so have made a difference, which anyone who's lived in LA for 20 years will tell you.

so which is worse? a car that gets 30+ MPG with a lower emission standard OR a car that gets 13- MPG with a higher emission standard?

mine must be ok, when i had a tune-up done awhile back, the shop guy said it's emissions were good enough to pass the smog check, even though up here in washington it's no longer required for cars this old (75). no cat on mine either.

~a

QUOTE

Mexico City has the worst air pollution in the country and ranks among the most polluted cities in the world. Its ozone levels exceed World Health Organization standards 300 days a year

At an elevation of over 7K feet and surrounded by mountains on three sides.

Geez, and I thought Denvers inversion layer was bad... Sound like they'll end up doing what we did with the intro of Cats and unleaded gas. Oh, and low sulphur diesel.

Mexico City

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 08:09 AM)

so which is worse?  a car that gets 30+ MPG with a lower emission standard OR a car that gets 13- MPG with a higher emission standard?  :idea:

Well, to use some numbers presented here, pretend the 13mpg car puts out 10ppm and a 914 car puts out 100ppm. The 914 would need to get 130mpg to be as clean as the 13mpg car. If it gets 30mpg, it will put out about four times the pollution of the 10ppm, 13mpg car. So a 914 is pretty dirty, relatively speaking.

Andrew

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 08:09 AM)

so which is worse? a car that gets 30+ MPG with a lower emission standard OR a car that gets 13- MPG with a higher emission standard?

Depends entirely on what you're measuring. The gas guzzler will still emit more CO2 than the "polluter", since CO2 emissions are tied to fuel usage.

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 11 2005, 08:19 AM)

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 08:09 AM) so which is worse?  a car that gets 30+ MPG with a lower emission standard OR a car that gets 13- MPG with a higher emission standard?  :idea: Depends entirely on what you're measuring. The gas guzzler will still emit more CO2 than the "polluter", since CO2 emissions are tied to fuel usage.

True, but CO2 isn't a "pollutant" per se.

Andrew

QUOTE

Depends entirely on what you're measuring. The gas guzzler will still emit more CO2 than the "polluter", since CO2 emissions are tied to fuel usage.

and an HC is unburnt fuel...

QUOTE (phantom914 @ Oct 11 2005, 09:21 AM)

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 11 2005, 08:19 AM) QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 08:09 AM) so which is worse?  a car that gets 30+ MPG with a lower emission standard OR a car that gets 13- MPG with a higher emission standard?  :idea: Depends entirely on what you're measuring. The gas guzzler will still emit more CO2 than the "polluter", since CO2 emissions are tied to fuel usage. True, but CO2 isn't a "pollutant" per se. Andrew

carbon monoxide/dioxide -- the main cause of global warming

Arguably not.

Talk about a

CO2 emissions the main cause of global warming? That is a debatable statement. However CO2 emmisions and milage are linearly dependent per mile driven.

My 914 when last tested did about one tenth the level allowed for that year, so It was running faily clean.

Since most cars are newer these days,t he air is actually cleaner most of the time than many years ago, dispite many more cars in use. The big polluter in my area is the winter time burning of wood in fire places. Get one or two home in a suburban area that buy the cords of wood and burn day and night all winter long. Gag choke puke. It is so bad you can't dry your clothes outside for the smell,a nd you got to keep the house all closed but stil the stench gets inside.

Since gas prices (heating gas) are expected to raise 70% this year, I already se folks stocking up on wood. Its going to be a stinky polluted winter around the San Fransisco Pennisula regardless of my 914's smog level thaks to all the wood burners out there. Bet one night of wood burning dumps more crap in my neighborhoods air than several tankfull of gas burnt in my 914.

Mexico has lot and lots of old cars, so that is why they have polluciton problems. The later mexican Bugs were however FI with catalysts. I would think any proposed ban on older cars would not included the later year bugs, as they are fairly clean.

If we wanted to, we could add three way cats to our 914's but we would want to update our FI system,a dnignition system to assure correct mixture and burn to prevent premature catalyst death. With that, a modern cat, with a O2 sensor controlled FI and knock sensor advance we should be cleaner than even the cleanest 914 (the 1976 California version 914) and do ity without a power robbign air pump! We would likely see better milage and performance, plus clean up the smog we make.

Then again, if them SOB's stopped burning that damn wood all winter, the air would be so much cleaner. Gawd, just light the pilot light and turn that knob on the wall to stay warm. Don't burn wood to save money, cause you are messing with your nieghbors comfort and health.

Growing up in the country, I'd much rather burn wood than raise my electricity or gas bill (and I like the smell!). As any country folk will tell you, wood heats you up two ways...when you chop it and when you burn it

Of course in the country, in more northern climates than SF, most people don't dry their clothes outside and there is more space 'tween homes.

QUOTE (rogergrubb @ Oct 11 2005, 08:17 AM)

Geez, and I thought Denvers inversion layer was bad...

Our air quality is actually quite good here in Denver. There are only some days when we have a bad inversion layer. Most of the time the weather is quite good with very little to no visible layer.

Granted there is smog. But not nearly as bad as it was 10-15 years ago.

dmenche,

maybe you should move to denver. we have restrictions on burning wood every day.

we also have differently formulated gas for summer and winter.

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 02:26 PM)

we also have differently formulated gas for summer and winter.

So does the rest of the world.

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 11 2005, 02:36 PM)

QUOTE (TROJANMAN @ Oct 11 2005, 02:26 PM) we also have differently formulated gas for summer and winter. So does the rest of the world.

then let me add in "for the altitude."

Hopefully the SF BAy area will adopt strict Denver like fire place restrictions. The problem is the air settles the smoke close to teh ground. many of the fire places are not efficient,a dn smoke the entire time. Folks also burn wet or green or other junk wood. Homes are on 5000 Sq ft lots. It is so bad that it causes difficulty in breathing. A thick blue to grey haze is all thru the nieghborhood.

It is crazy to make folks jump thru hoops to smog their cars, yet anyone is free to burn the stinkiest fire 24 hours a day. They problably don't even smell it anymore their so used to it. In a crowded suburban area, that has still wind days in the winter there is too much harm and discomfort done by wood burners. The benifit by switching to natural gas is so much for clean air, that even with the increase in gas cost, and assuming the wood is free, the cost of the smog produced is greater than that reduced per dollor in automobile smog tests. More bang for the buck I say for cleaner air. Just drop the car smog tests, and crack down on wood burners.

Country folks dont have nearby neighbors, so the effect of their burning wood is minimal, however it is still worse than running an old car.


Fancy wood pellet fireplaces, with reburners can burn much cleaner, but many folks don't have them.

Also if your into wanting to hug a tree it is better to keep the tree alive rather than chop it down to burn.