Looks like the only location in NM that requires testing is Albuquerque:http://www.dmv.org/nm-new-mexico/smog-check.php

El Paso is closer than Salt Lake City.  I 25 straight south.

---- Tom Buese <tantonbz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Salt Lake County in Utah requires that kind of testing, IIRC.
> Still a drive, but worth it?
>
> YMMV,
>
> Mr. BZ-go north & turn left
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, OlRivrRat <OlRivrRat@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >               Dennis
> >
> >       Thanks for that info ~ I was actually suspecting that something like
> > that
> >
> > might be the case. I had just pulled out my report from the
> > ABQSmogTester to
> >
> > see what the numbers might be indicating & had noticed that there are
> > not any
> >
> > results for NOx. It does say " Catalytic Converter - passed" but as
> > you pointed
> >
> > out it is a "no load" test so not necessarily the whole truth. I am
> > running dual
> >
> > O2Sensors ~ 1 up' & 1 downstream ~ and the ECU is not complaining
> > about the
> >
> > work that the Cat' is doing but again I suspect that may not be the
> > whole truth
> >
> > & probably not good enough to make everybody happy.
> >
> >       Does anyone know if there are any places around NM that require the
> > Dyno
> >
> > SmogTest? If I ever I get to someplace that does I might just get the
> > test done
> >
> > as long as it is not outrageously priced.
> >
> >                                                       ORR ~ DeanB
> >
> > On 20 Mar , 2012, at 6:19 PM, Dennis Haynes wrote:
> >
> >  I looked up the information on the Albuquerque NM emissions test
> >> program.
> >> They are only looking for visible smoke, carbon monoxide and unburned
> >> hydrocarbons. The emissions are checked at high and low speed but
> >> not under
> >> actual load. CO is mixture related and a properly working O2 sensor
> >> system
> >> will keep that near .5% before the Catalyst. Unburned HC would only
> >> exist if
> >> you have a miss fire, valve, or other engine problem.  Again should
> >> be well
> >> under 50 ppm even before the cat. So your nonpolluting test results
> >> do not
> >> confirm your cat is actually working. You would need to check before
> >> and
> >> after the cat to see if you are getting any reduction. Now where we
> >> need to
> >> get the cats to really work is under load, changing loads where the
> >> engine
> >> management can't always provide perfect mixture. Also, a major job
> >> of the 3
> >> way catalyst is to reduce the oxides of nitrogen, (NOx). NOx is
> >> produced
> >> mostly at the pressure temperature peak of the combustion cycle and
> >> mostly
> >> happens under load. The higher the load, pressure, peak flame
> >> temperature
> >> the more NOx produced. In order to test this part of the catalyst or
> >> other
> >> factors (ignition timing, EGR).that affect or control this the test
> >> has to
> >> be done with the engine loaded.  This is why many emissions programs
> >> required the dynamometer testing, (IM240). This is where the cheap
> >> cats
> >> fail.
> >> Since we had this test in NY until recently factors that often
> >> caused test
> >> failures were bad cats, oversized tires, especially on automatics,
> >> over
> >> advanced ignition timing, and on the air cooled engines the missing
> >> EGR
> >> systems.
> >>
> >> BTW the EPA requires replacement Cats to be warrantied for 5 years
> >> or 50K
> >> also. Keep the paperwork. The real issue will be to prove the
> >> failure was
> >> not caused by something else.
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.**com<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>]
> >> On
> >> Behalf Of
> >> OlRivrRat
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:57 AM
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >>               Jeff
> >>
> >>       I'm very proud of you that you have an important job to do &
> >> are
> >> trying to do it well, but again ~ according to a recent Albuquerque,
> >> NM smog
> >> test (which, by the way, I had done voluntarily as I'm not required
> >> to have
> >> one in the county where I live) & my EJ25s ECU ~ My VDUBARUs EJ25 &
> >> its
> >> attached ExhaustSystem are not polluting.
> >>       Having said that ~ being the InfoHaulic that I am ~ I would
> >> like to
> >> be informed about what pollutants my cars might be spewing into the
> >> environment that the ABQ SmogGuys don't seem to care about so any
> >> wisdom
> >> that you might have & would care to share in that regard would be
> >> appreciated.
> >>
> >>                                                       ORR ~ DeanB
> >>
> >> On 20 Mar , 2012, at 1:13 AM, Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>  Well. sit right back and I'll tell you a little story.  Perhaps my
> >>> "ABSURD" feeling, as you like to call it, comes from a little bit
> >>> (perhaps a lot) more experience than yours?  I happen to be a
> >>> Registered Importer and part of my job is to make imported vehicles
> >>> legal for the USA.  Your "$100 Cat" will not pass any of the EPA lab
> >>> tests even when new.  The $200 cats will not pass the EPA lab tests
> >>> when new.  Only the OE $500 cat will pass the EPA lab test.  The most
> >>> glaring failure of the "non-ABSURD" cats is that they do not come up
> >>> to operating temperature quickly enough to be effective for short
> >>> drives.  Other problems have to do with comparison testing and how
> >>> quickly they lose their effectiveness.
> >>>
> >>> Now let's just forget about the whole fancy EPA lab testing stuff and
> >>> concentrate on everyday experience with plenty of customer's cars
> >>> here
> >>> in California.  I can't keep track of the number of 2 year old "$100
> >>> Cats" that failed their 2nd smog test.  It sort of became a running
> >>> joke in CA Vanagon land about replacing your cat every two years to
> >>> pass smog.  Lots of people bitched and moaned when CA put in their
> >>> new
> >>> cat replacement laws a few years back, but it sure got rid of the 2
> >>> year cat syndrome.
> >>>
> >>> So. I'm sorry if the facts seems "ABSURD" to you, but in reality, you
> >>> do get what you pay for when it comes to a catalytic converter.
> >>>
> >>> Happy smogging.
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: OlRivrRat [mailto:OlRivrRat@comcast.net]
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:56 PM
> >>> To: Jeff Schwaia
> >>> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>>
> >>>                       Jeff
> >>>
> >>>           My "$100 Cat" (which actually only cost me $87.95 back in
> >>> '07) is 5yrs old & has 62000mis on it
> >>>
> >>> ( 2yrs8mos/26Kmis+H2OBxr & 2yrs4mos/36Kmis+EJ25 ) & according to a
> >>> recent smog test & my EJ25
> >>>
> >>> ECU, it is doing a darn fine job. So it would seem to me that an
> >>> "ABSURD" might be in order in regards
> >>>
> >>> to feelings about your need to spend $500 on a OE Cat. Here again is
> >>> the link to the one I use & highly
> >>>
> >>> recommend.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.summitracing.com/**parts/MPE-22918/<http://www.summitracing.com/parts/MPE-22918/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>  ORR  ~ DeanB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 Mar , 2012, at 7:14 PM, Jeff Schwaia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A $100 cat is effective for less than 2 years and is nowhere near as
> >>> efficient as an OE cat.
> >>>
> >>> If you really want to do it right, buy a cat that meets OE specs...
> >>> about
> >>> $500.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.**com<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>]
> >>> On
> >>> Behalf Of den jolliffe
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:46 PM
> >>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >>> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>>
> >>> Aren't we talking about a $100 part that helps emissions and the air
> >>> we all breath. Say it lasts as long as the original or less (20
> >>> years)...that's $5 a year...less than a pack of smokes or a gallon of
> >>> gas A YEAR.
> >>>
> >>> It's a no brainer for me...NAPA has them.
> >>>
> >>> Dennis2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________**__
> >>> From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
> >>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:38:50 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>>
> >>> David, that is true.  Some folks try to do something about, others
> >>> rail that it is too much to bear to clean up the act.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is true that transportation is the single largest polluter,
> >>> however, and the only way to control that is to make sure that each
> >>> vehicle complies with standard.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We all pay, but then we all should.
> >>>
> >>> mcneely
> >>>
> >>> ---- David M <covrambles@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >>> Meanwhile US industry pumps out millions of tons of pollutants every
> >>> year while us poor suckers pay over $1000 to get thru the emissions
> >>> test (happened to me twice).
> >>>
> >>> If you look at the statistics you will be shocked at what goes into
> >>> the air every year.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David, 1987 Wolfsburg
> >>>
> >>> --- On Sun, 3/18/12, Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
> >>> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >>> Date: Sunday, March 18, 2012, 6:14 PM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Luckily for many the federal government relies on the states for
> >>> enforcement. However the general requirements start at the federal
> >>> level (EPA),especially for the design, maintenance, and operation of
> >>> motor vehicles.  Disabling or removing parts of the emission control
> >>> system are federal violations. Engine upgrades are also regulated
> >>> with
> >>> the major requirements being that the replacement be same year or
> >>> later and all of the emissions equipment that goes with that engine
> >>> goes with it. This can include all the controls, exhaust after
> >>> treatment, and fuel tank vapor recovery systems and maybe even the
> >>> transmission/drivelien. All the state emissions programs require that
> >>> all the original equipment is there. Keep in mind that depending on
> >>> use, (load, time under load, accelerating curves, etc.), a more
> >>> efficient engine may not mean a cleaner engine. Some states actually
> >>> operate these programs as private shops can both look the other way
> >>> or
> >>> take advantage and abuse customers. As for just relying on tailpipe
> >>> tests, they are just too limited in scope and function. They can only
> >>> look at percentages or parts per million (ppm), not actual pollutants
> >>> per mile especially under different conditions. Again they are
> >>> designed to identify "gross" polluters, not certify your vehicle
> >>> works
> >>> perfectly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dennis
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.**com<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>]
> >>> On
> >>> Behalf Of Scott Daniel - Turbovans
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:27 PM
> >>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >>> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>>
> >>> what does that mean 'move issue up to the Fed level ' ?
> >>> there are no Fed smog stations.
> >>> I'm sure there is conflict between state's rights to set there own
> >>> emissions requirements and what the Feds want.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's interesting that where smog is not an issue locally ..
> >>> say where ocean air blows emissions inland ..
> >>> ( not talking about Ca. )
> >>> there can be no local smog checks at all, yet the cars are still
> >>> emitting, it's just blowing somewhere else.
> >>>
> >>> fortunately for many of us smogs checks are not required.
> >>> I would be in favor of basic tail pipe checks..
> >>>
> >>> and an example of how silly the whole thing is ..
> >>> in Ca ...
> >>> officially, they will not allow people to put newer more fuel
> >>> efficient, less polluting engines into their older vans.
> >>> Pretty stupid.
> >>> They could/should PAY people for putting in a late model less
> >>> polluting and more fuel efficient engine into our old beaties.
> >>> But then anyway  ...'logical/practical' and 'government' have never
> >>> been known to coincide.  Durn shame.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/18/2012 9:36 AM, Dennis Haynes wrote:
> >>> It will run just fine with the guts removed. There may be a very
> >>> slight performance penalty as the gasses bounce around in the hollow
> >>> cat. Not having a local emissions testing/enforcement program just
> >>> moves the issue up to the federal level.
> >>>
> >>> Dennis
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.**com<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>]
> >>> On
> >>> Behalf Of marc rose
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:54 AM
> >>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >>> Subject: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>>
> >>> I went to change out my worn out and rusted muffler on my 90 Carat
> >>> "Rosie"
> >>>
> >>> yesterday and noticed that the converter was all busted up and the
> >>> ceramic is all but gone.  I live in an area that has no enforced
> >>> emission tests or anything like that. My question is can i can safely
> >>> run without the convertor.  I was going to just bust out the rest of
> >>> the ceramic and reinstall but was not sure how it would affect the
> >>> overall operation of the engine.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts??
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Marc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David McNeely
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
> --
> Tom Buese

--
David McNeely