Impossibly low emissions?

) scribbled:

> > gpm, grams per million
>
> Actually, grams per mile. I don't think my vehicle has any idle
> testing required, it's all dynamometer testing.

.... Texas tests that way (dyno) too, at two different RPM settings.
(but in Texas, the reports are in PPM or % - see my other post in this thread)

--
<< http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com (Metallica - Battery) >>
Hummingbirds never remember the words to songs.

>
>>What the heck is GPM? I've heard of PPM but not GPM. Maybe the
>>decimals are right for whatever the heck GPM is.

>

My guess would be "Grams Per Mile."

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Van&Joan Hada wrote:

> It appears your state like some others read pollutants in gpm, grams per
> million

GPM = grams per mile, not "grams per million". GPM (more properly
abbreviated g/mi) is how the Federal emissions certification tests are set
up.

In article >,
"ed" > wrote:

> What the heck is GPM? I've heard of PPM but not GPM. Maybe the decimals are
> right for whatever the heck GPM is.

GPM= grams per mile.
The actual mass of the pollutant in question is measured over a
distance. Usually measured with a "flame ionization detector,"
which is fairly expensive.
PPM= parts per million, percentage is the same thing at a
different scale. Usually measured with a "non-dispersive
infrared test cell," which is fairly cheap. PPM equates to how
many bubbles are in a bar of soap since you can have an
absolutely filthy reading, but if you dilute it with an air pump
or a pulse air system, it will appear much cleaner. PPM and
percentages do have great use when used for diagnostic purposes,
but this is because all five gasses are compared against each
other in order to determine whether the mixture and combustion
efficiency are correct.

I'm with you -- there's something cockeyed about the decimal place or
the instrument or the test procedure, one. The only other
explanation would be a massive exhaust leak upstream of the tailpipe,
something that should be trivial to either identify or rule out.

Not that a well-kept 1992 Saturn isn't a nice little car, but the
numbers quoted to you are better than a recent-model
Ultra-Low-Emissions Vehicle, and in fact are in or near the Super-ULEV
realm that is occupied mostly by hybrids (see for instance
http://www.cleancarcampaign.org/emissions.shtml or
http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national...ons_popup.tmpl).


Cheers,
--Joe

"Emissons tests are mostly bull**** as cars are already pretty clean if
they are in tune."

I disagree. If you don't have some sort of policing of pollution
standards then there is no incentive for drivers to keep their cars in
tune and sensors and converters working. Are you going to depend on
voluntary compliance..."I promise to make sure my car is kept running
right..."

I think the standards should be tightened for older cars, and if they
fail and can't be repaired then they should be removed from the road.
No paying $100.00 in repairs then going on.

On Sat, 7 May 2005, John S. wrote:

> If you don't have some sort of policing of pollution standards then
> there is no incentive for drivers to keep their cars in tune and sensors
> and converters working. Are you going to depend on voluntary
> compliance..."I promise to make sure my car is kept running right..."


Well, why not? That's what the present administration does for industry.

> I think the standards should be tightened for older cars, and if they
> fail and can't be repaired then they should be removed from the road.

Oh? And what data do you have to support your litle belief here? A '77
Caprice you saw two weeks ago, belching smoke? The "common knowledge" that
old cars are all a bunch of gross polluters? You were scared by a '73
Mustang when you were small? Please elucidate.

John S. wrote:
> "Emissons tests are mostly bull**** as cars are already pretty clean if
> they are in tune."
>
> I disagree. If you don't have some sort of policing of pollution
> standards then there is no incentive for drivers to keep their cars in
> tune and sensors and converters working. Are you going to depend on
> voluntary compliance..."I promise to make sure my car is kept running
> right..."
>
> I think the standards should be tightened for older cars, and if they
> fail and can't be repaired then they should be removed from the road.
> No paying $100.00 in repairs then going on.
>
That is sure true. In fact, even with laws, look at commercial
operators. Some of the Diesel trucks around here are WAY overdue for
maintainance. Owners just don't car. I suspect the fine for excess
emissions may be less than the cost of a tuneup on these big rigs. Or
else they are just gambling that they won't get caught. We have opacity
laws here, and still the trucks spew out stuff that literally blocks out
the sun sometimes.

>>I think the standards should be tightened for older cars, and if they
>>fail and can't be repaired then they should be removed from the road.
>

Well, fortunately you're not in charge. I have no problem holding older
cars TO THE STANDARDS THEY WERE BUILT TO. But its just stupid to tighten
the requirement on them, especially when over 90% of all automotive
pollution comes from cars less than 10 years old. Its a numbers game-
there are so few old cars on the road that they just DO NOT contribute
to the total pollution in any measurable way at all. And most of them do
run relatively clean, because they're well-cared-for collector cars.

like my boat, gallons per minute!

Actually, I had a car pass under GPM but fails when they go to PPM. Go
figure.