not to mention I take vans through air care here in vancouver once in
a while for my work... when I brought my bostig van through the guy
triple took at the results and told me he had never seen a vw van pass
that well... and when I took my new syncro with a 2.1 a few weeks back
it was not mentioned ( yet did pass )
  yeah and what Jim said ;)
On 30-Jun-10, at 10:21 PM, Jim Akiba wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> I have some data, both two stage idle and I/M 240. I will pull some
> together for you. The changes to the ECU that I make don't affect
> emissions very much when things are running right.. I'm not sure how
> it would compare when things are not running right however, in that
> case the OEM setup should theoretically have more wiggle room than our
> setup, esp in NOx but this has never been tested, and the EGR setup on
> the zetec never worked well in the original application either... but
> it was still SULEV.  I'm not touching spark, base fuel, or cold fuel
> tables, nor am I changing cranking fuel, coldstart enrichment nor
> coldstart enleanment(yes there are tables for both ha) or adaptive
> strategies.  It is either a tribute to the calibration, or a snub to
> the pointlessness of the stock EGR system and massive close coupled
> cat.  The biggest impact on emissions we've seen so far was using a
> ceramic core cat in the early v2.0... it was worse than stock, but
> with the metallic core cats we've used ever since, it's been no
> trouble at all, and in  I/M 240 testing on a customer van in CO both
> the stock OEM massive close coupled cat and our(really can-mex's)
> metallic spun cat were tested and our setup blew cleaner which really
> shocked me actually. I've always "understood" that OEM cats always
> have more surface area, and always have more active substrate, and
> therefore are always cleaner, and always worth more as scrap ha.   As
> far as it being cleaner than the stock boxer.. that's easy.. you have
> to remember even if they were to put out identical emissions in I/M
> 240 rolling road for instance(which they don't from what I've seen),
> the Bostig will "smoke" the boxer in actual emissions because with the
> close coupled cat, the cat light off is much much faster than the wbx
> with the cat so far away. Our cat is 150-200 mm from the exhaust
> valves.. the wbx you can almost measure in feet, all that time until
> cat light off you're essentially gushing, and even though state tests
> always have you warm it up for the test, every time you start from
> cold you're going to be gushing for a bit till light off.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, mark drillock <mdrillock@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> I would hope the newer Ford engine conversion has better emissions
>> but
>> have not seen any emissions test results to back that up. Since my
>> waterboxers generally passed CA tests by considerable margins I would
>> need actual facts to convince me that the Zetec conversion does
>> better
>> by default. I'm sure that the native Zetec does better, just not so
>> sure
>> about the conversion after the reprogramming of the ECU that goes
>> along
>> with it. Any test results you know of by certified testing stations
>> of
>> Bostig setups?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> Jay lefstein wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been trying to hold back and not say anything to this thread.
>>> I think a generator and AC are getting rediculous!! no wonder the
>>> weather is so ****** up these days.
>>> The ford engine in my van puts out less emissions then a stock
>>> water boxer
>>> ..............
>>