[Vwdiesel] negative aspects of burning water

Roger Brown r.c.brown at ieee.org
Fri Sep 14 09:05:20 PDT 2007

LBaird119 at aol.com wrote:
>   I wish I could find the article but European Car (back when 
> they had good articles) had one on a Saab.  The tailpipe 
> emissions were actually cleaner than the ambient air (at least 
> of the elements they were testing for.)  The conclusion was 
> that a conventional gas engine could easily be more efficient 
> than a power plant at converting fossil fuel to motive power 
> with less pollution.
>   There was also an older Car Craft article where they managed 
> to fairly simply get a pro-street car to have better emissions 
> than it needed to pass (by a HUGE amount) but because of the 
> visual part of the inspection it failed to pass even though it had 
> better emissions than most new cars.
>   It's not REALLY about "saving the planet."
>      Loren

Yep, here in Calif., the smog check racket is big business.  I had an old 1974 Toyota 
Landcruiser (gas engine) that originally passed smog with flying colors.  It blew numbers 
well below what the new car standards were with absolutely no smog equipment hooked up 
(had been removed by previous owner).  However, the shop that did that check later lost 
their license (probably got caught in a sting letting something by) and I was later unable 
to get it past the visual inspections.  I then converted it to run on 100% propane as that 
was exempt from smog checks in the state at the time.  Some years later, the state decided 
that things like propane, natural gas, and hydrogen were suddenly no longer clean burning 
and had to be checked.  Only problem was the silly visual inspection, would not pass since 
the engine was "modified".  Sure, it was modified to run propane, a cleaner burning fuel, duh!

At least my '82 diesel is still exempt.



More information about the Vwdiesel mailing list