- EPA caught VW cheating - how does the car know it's being tested? - 22 Updates
- Wafer Switch Contact Lubrication? - 2 Updates
- Close captioning over HDMI - 1 Update
| etpm@whidbey.com: Sep 19 03:45PM -0700 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:15:32 -0400, Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net> wrote: >the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state? >There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold. >Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups... When I was a kid, 50 some years ago, my family would go down to Los Angeles from the S.F. Bay Area region a few times a year to visit my grandparents. I can remember sitting in the car at a stoplight and not being able to see the light one block away because the air pollution was so bad. The Bay Area smog wasn't as bad but there were still many days when the hills only a few miles away were obscured by the smog. The smog was primarily from auto exhaust. The population, people and cars both, of the L.A. and Bay Areas is much greater today than 50 years ago as are the hours that car engines are running but the air is much cleaner now, primarily because cars pollute much less now. Well, at least the components of the car exhaust that cause smog that were emitted from cars is way down. As far as lead is concerned it has been shown statistically that the IQs of children living in the areas, cities mostly, that exposed them to the then comparitively high levels of airborne lead were lower than the same type of populations today. Other neurological damage caused by atmospheric lead also afflicted children the most. Today, with the much lower amount of lead in the environment, these neurological deficits occur much less often. So even though it is pointless now to argue whether lead should be removed from gasoline it is a good thing we did. Eric |
| etpm@whidbey.com: Sep 19 03:54PM -0700 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:08:40 -0700, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet >requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them, >since the resulting performance will be terrible. The cars should be re-programmed, at the expense of VW. And then a lot of class action suits should be filed against VW. I suppose, to be fair to the car buyers who did not knowingly participate in the scam, there should be an option to have the new firmware installed. If they get the new firmware then they get to sue. If not then they would get no compensation because they have not suffered a loss. ERS |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 08:21PM -0400 >of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that >the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission >was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower. The improvement in emissions was at least an order of magnitude more than the "dilution" would have produced. This was in the days before "storage" catalysts that can store oxygen (part of the reason mixtures MUST oscillate around stoich - go rich, then lean, then rich) Air needed to be added in order for the oxidizing catalist to function effectively. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 08:26PM -0400 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net> wrote: >Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject >of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of >this? VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by VW |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 08:38PM -0400 >> Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture? >Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness >of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power. Bigger injectors will just be dialed back by the computer as the O2 sensors report a richer than optimum mixture. Too big and the engine will go into "limp mode" because the engine remains too rich even with the calibration at lean limit. Power will suffer. >fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running) >and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the >pollution output, of the engine. Yes, but it will turn on the CEL and in many cases prevent the engine from starting, even if it will run after starting. ANd it will run like crap when it runs. NO incentive to do it. >(on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove >them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required. >Never once had a comeback or complaint. Used to remove the limit caps, adjust to spec (or modified spec) and then replace the caps, as required by law. We did the adjustment using the exhaust gas analyzer that was part of the Sun, Allen, Marquette, or Rotunda diagnostic scope I was using at the time. Quite a few were off spec from the factory. AMC,Chrysler, Mazda and Toyota dealershipsduring that time period, as well as independent repair shops >catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train >computer management of hundreds of millions, not the >hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads. It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to "solve" problems. - some real and some immagined. |
| kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey): Sep 19 09:08PM -0400 >train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is >that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and >manufacturing has left? There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was taken out of gas. That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the scariest thing you can imagine. When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look back. You can say some bad things about the EPA and some of them are true, but the reduction in lead exposure has been one of the biggest benefits to health in this country. It probably hasn't resulted in the air smelling or looking any better (and feedback control of fuel mixture has) but it's been a big deal. >My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of >the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state? Depends on the state. LA is an interesting example... LA sort of has its own weather system in the basin and smog in the basin doesn't blow away, it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog in New York turns into smog in New Jersey. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 09:25PM -0400 >it just sits there and people stew in it. New York isn't like that... smog >in New York turns into smog in New Jersey. >--scott And smog in the Ohio Valley slides up and sits on top of Central Ontario - - - - |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 08:26PM -0500 > sensors report a richer than optimum mixture. Too big and the engine > will go into "limp mode" because the engine remains too rich even with > the calibration at lean limit. Power will suffer. You questioned how one could simply defeat emission controls. You were provided with effective examples. > Yes, but it will turn on the CEL and in many cases prevent the engine > from starting, even if it will run after starting. ANd it will run > like crap when it runs. NO incentive to do it. Again, you questioned how one could simply defeat emission controls. You were provided with effective examples. > the exhaust gas analyzer that was part of the Sun, Allen, Marquette, > or Rotunda diagnostic scope I was using at the time. Quite a few were > off spec from the factory. "Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars ..." I knew I heard that somewhere. After verifying everything else was within spec, and given that emission testing was not mandatory, the scope, a vacuum gauge, and a tach was all that was really necessary for an experienced mechanic to adjust the idle mixture. AMC,Chrysler, Mazda and Toyota > It wasn't hobbyists - it was "hack mechanics" who didn't know > anything about emmission controls and defeated them in an attempt to > "solve" problems. - some real and some immagined. Laughable ignorance. No, what led to cleaner air was unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel injection and overall drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT ... sensors, among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines. Sad that you don't seem to know and understand something that fundamental. |
| Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Sep 19 06:27PM -0700 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm >think, because of those two results. >Do you agree? >Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars? I'm pretty sure VW will be required to put some kind of "code" in their "fixed" system's computer. If you don't get it fixed they will know at the inspection station that it's not fixed and will fail you. |
| Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Sep 19 08:34PM -0500 Ewald Böhm wrote: > REFERENCES: > http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-caught-cheating-vehicle-recall-887 > http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/10688/VW- Caught-Cheating-on-EPA-Tests.aspx > http://hothardware.com/news/vw-intentionally-programmed-engine-software- to-cheat-emissions-tests-forced-by-epa-to-recall-482k-vehicles > etc. > My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions? Note that this applies to DIESEL cars only, apparently. Jon |
| Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Sep 19 06:36PM -0700 >standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered >safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the >road. Safety checks on light cars and trucks are nothing but revenue generators for the state and repair shops. The number of accidents prevented by them is essentially zero. Emissions testing of relatively new cars is also almost pointless but as cars age there are undoubtedly many people who would just let the CEL blink and the car pollute forever as long as it kept running. AZ has allowed cars to skip the test for the first 5 or so years and then tests every other year. Seems like a reasonable approach. Thank god we don't have those stupid safety inspections so beloved of the anal retentive nanny states back east. |
| Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Sep 19 06:45PM -0700 >>If only there were any documentation to support that claim. >Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of >dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many. Yet somehow all those dangerous cars had been driving around just fine for the weeks and months before you and the state forced them off the road. Here's a typical article. Note that there is not a shred of EVIDENCE presented that all these safety inspections do anything to improve safety. Just the usual lip flapping by the people who rake in the money. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/21/state-lawmakers-weigh-abolishing-unnecessary-car-inspections/ But if you like these safety inspections for cars, how about we institute mandatory gvt safety inspections of everyone's home. After all, many people get hurt or killed in their homes every year. Shouldn't we be mandating that you be forced to allow a gvt approved inspector to come into your home once a year, paw thru all your stuff and demand you throw out anything they think is dangerous, fix anything they think is "substandard and potentially dangerous" and otherwise conform to the gvt's standard of how a home should be? |
| "Tom Miller" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>: Sep 19 10:13PM -0400 "Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message news:qe3svadm4326lku4368295h993t677jtup@4ax.com... > and demand you throw out anything they think is dangerous, fix > anything they think is "substandard and potentially dangerous" and > otherwise conform to the gvt's standard of how a home should be? And make you pay for the service. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 11:15PM -0400 >coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based >carbureted engines. Sad that you don't seem to know and >understand something that fundamental. Exactly what are you trying to say??? My reply was to say there were many instances of people - hobbyists and mechanics alike, screwing with emmission controls in an attempt to defeat them and get better mileage and power, and getting (usually) neither. Nowhere did I even suggest any of that had any positive effect on emmission reductions. What "laighable ignorance" are you talking about??? Of course it was " unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel injection and overall drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT ... sensors, among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines" that made the difference. Where did I ever suggest otherwize?? Or are you saying the emission control inspections were not instrumental in reducing emmissions? They WERE for a short period of time, partly by catching the vehicles that were "screwed with" by hobbyists and "hack mechanics" - but they have become virtually redundant today because the sophisticated engine management systems can pretty well tell you if the vehicle is running within design specs with a cheap OBD2 code reader - or even your cell phone with the proper software and OBD2 code reader adapter. No idea who or what you are since you hide your identity. I was a carreer proffessional mechanic for years, as well as an automotive technology instructor at both secondary and post-secondary (trade) level. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 10:46PM -0500 > many instances of people - hobbyists and mechanics alike, screwing > with emmission controls in an attempt to defeat them and get better > mileage and power, and getting (usually) neither. And as I've stated multiple times now, they comprised an insignificant component of the problem. > the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil > choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines" > that made the difference. Where did I ever suggest otherwize?? Any claim that hobbyists, racers, lack of or incompetent maintenance or what have you, constituted a noticeable effect on air quality in general suggests a misreading of the problem. > Or are you saying the emission control inspections were not > instrumental in reducing emmissions? Evolved and more effective emission controls resulting in lower emissions? Yes. Less emissions due to inspections? Of course not in any significant measure. They WERE for a short period of > I was a carreer proffessional mechanic for years, as well as an > automotive technology instructor at both secondary and post-secondary > (trade) level. Sad. |
| "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>: Sep 20 12:04AM -0400 >> inspection. > Not any more. The ECU is linked to the VIN, and the OBD2 tester reads > the VIN directly from the ECU That's hit/miss here in NY. The software looks but depending on the ECM it may not work. Then you grab the scan gun and see if the old inspection tag has the correct VIN in the matrix. -- Steve W. |
| "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>: Sep 20 12:18AM -0400 >> If only there were any documentation to support that claim. > Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of > dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many. I still fail cars for being rolling junk. >> It still is. > Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford > Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture? Power tuners and pass through devices that alter the signals from sensors. See them all the time, and frequently fail the vehicle they are on. > mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing > them) > The numbers WERE significant. Yep, Still happens today. EGR bypass kits, tuner bricks, fake O2 sensor signal generators, and more. >> Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars. > And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private > passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario. It is in NY as well. -- Steve W. |
| "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>: Sep 20 12:23AM -0400 Bob F wrote: > Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet > requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them, > since the resulting performance will be terrible. I doubt they will be able to sue. The "normal" EPA test numbers for these vehicles have alwas been "low" compared to the ones outside the lab. I hear folks all the time bragging how their VW gets 45 mpg but the sticker says it should be getting 38 mpg. VW can re-flash the ECM and simply say the the TEST (remember the tests would have been with the emissions systems working)mpg is the correct number and their 45 mpg was a fluke. -- Steve W. |
| Ewald Böhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca>: Sep 20 05:51AM On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:30:45 -0400, Steve W. wrote: > How do you figure that "almost no states use OBD" testing. In fact most > of the states do not use a dyno any longer. I just had mine tested, in California, and they used a dyno. No OBD hookup whatsoever. |
| Ewald Böhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca>: Sep 20 05:54AM On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:44:13 -0700, sms wrote: > Can't speak for all states, but in California one of the first steps in > an emissions test is for the codes to be read via the OBD-II port. I know this intimately not to be true, in the truest sense of what you say. While many stations will certainly do a courtesy OBD scan, since you can't pass CA emissions with a given number of pending or set codes or unset monitors (the numbers of each are depending on the year of the vehicle), it is absolutely NOT a requirement to run the OBD scan. Look it up. I did. |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Sep 20 03:27AM -0400 In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company >would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get >caught or ratted out. Many corporations have no morals these days, and like most criminals, they think they won't get caught. Do you remember Bank of America, how when it got several checks whose total exceeded the money in someone's checking account, regardelss of the order they came in, they would process the biggest ones first, so as to empty the checking account so that all the little checks bounced, giving them as much insufficient funds fees as possible. That was outright stealing by the Bank of America. They only changed because the government caught them and made them. I had occasion to be in a Wells Fargo branch, and I was telling the bank officer why I despised Bank of America and he was telling me I should change to Wells Fargo, and 6 months later, 2 or 3 years afer the incident with Bank of Am. and I reed in the paper that Wells Fargo is doing the same thing, and they didn't even stop after Bank of Am got caught. They are also thieves and if they don't steal more often, it's because they think they'll get caught, not because those in charge have any morals. |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Sep 20 03:30AM -0400 In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm >It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I >think, because of those two results. >Do you agree? Only with half of what you say. They will do t he same on the emissions test, and continue to pass unless something is broken. But yes, that means they'll get lower mileage, not just during the test. >Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars? VW should pay them for the extra gas they will have to buy, and pay them for the time it takes to go to the gas station and get it. |
| jadney <jadney@vwtype3.org>: Sep 19 09:01PM -0700 This question has bothered me for a long time: What, if any, lubrication is appropriate for wafer switch contacts? I'm talking about those multiple position rotary switches that typically (but not always) have several wafers (switch sections) on a single shaft. I'm comfortable with rather ordinary grease for the rotating shaft bearings, etc, but the contacts are different material and can't afford the insulation between contacts to be compromised. I'm pretty sure Tek used to lube these with something in the old days, when you shipped scopes back to them for cleaning and recal. Yeah, I know, that was a LONG time ago. I think Tek even had lube kits that you could buy that contained suitable lubricants for different areas. This is a general question, not related only to Tek scopes. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Sep 19 09:10PM -0700 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:01:25 -0700 (PDT), jadney <jadney@vwtype3.org> wrote: >What, if any, lubrication is appropriate for wafer switch contacts? Caig Labs Cramolin <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/ctype.KB/it.I/id.324/KB.215/.f> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/ctype.KB/it.I/id.316/KB.218/.f?category=3> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| "Ron D." <Ron.Dozier@gmail.com>: Sep 19 03:44PM -0700 See: http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#117 |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment