Tuesday, Aug 16, 2005 at 21:45
Sorry Bill, there's a basic premise about "independant" testing that you and Fitch seem to misunderstand. That for all to be "above board" the test should be performed "hands off" Tobacco companies used to perform independant testing all the time and just how skewed was the info from them.
At your Vipac test, just who did all the work fitting the Fitch catalyst/s? Vipac or Fitch? If Fitch, why? Why choose a vehicle with about 300,000 km on the clock?
A much more meaningful test would be for you to get it done by "Choice" magazine from the consumers association and get them to select the vehicle/s, preferably new so any unexplained emmissions from new can be checked prior to testing. (no 300,000 km used vehicles where the abnormal can be explained away as possibly old age) You supply the Fitch catalyst and explain where it needs to be fitted but have Choice engineers fit it themselves. The testing is then performed by Choice with the vehicle/s at normal running temps so that one test isn't done from cold and one at hot. The testing should be performed 1st without then with Fitch and repeat the process at least twice but preferably more.
Then and only then will some form of credence be accepted. Blanket assertions about independant testing can't and shouldn't be accepted at face value unless corroboration is forthcoming from another party and only if that party's reputation is above reproach.
You can claim the Vipac test was independant but as soon as you put your hands on the car through the test your claim of independance flew out the window.
Regards Andrew.
FollowupID:
380228