Hydro Carbon and CO seem to be about half what I see on boxers, NOx is just
below average for the setup, which tends to be less than halfway to the
limits in most places. This would be lower during idle if we did not delete
the EGR system, but since it causes most drivability issues in zetec focii
and is the least reliable part ofthe system, it's well worth the trade to
avoid the headaches and just be slightly below average there instead of
much further below, and only at idle.  We don't have much test data as most
customers don't send emissions tests back to us (under 10% do). We were very
surprised though when the newer metallic core spun cats we use beat the OEM
ford cat in testing in Colorado, which is substantially larger with much
more substrate surface area and especially surprising since OEM cats
typically have more reactives.  But the zetec has an edge over the wbxr in
compression ratio, spark/fueling measurement/controls, and a close coupled
cat for faster light-off. We have never done shed testing for Evaporative
emissions.

Jim Akiba

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:40 PM, David Beierl <dbeierl@attglobal.net> wrote:

> At 12:02 PM 3/7/2011, Dave Mcneely wrote:
>
>> Is it true that we as Vanagon owners are a special class, and that we
>> should be allowed to install equipment that WE say pollutes less than WE say
>> some other equipment does?  What about ON OUR VEHICLES?  We don't know.  The
>> laws in California are designed to make sure that any vehicle class meets
>> the requirements.  The fact that a Bostiq engine is, theoretically, less
>> polluting does not mean it will be less polluting when installed in one of
>> our vehicles.  So, the certification process for engine transplants.  Sounds
>> good to me.
>>
>
> I believe Jim explained the subtleties of the situation extraordinarily
> well.  But I suspect he's also in a good position to know how the numbers
> compare.  Jim?  How does the Zetec look compared to the WBX engine?
>
> Yours,
> David
>