Its ok calm down! What I said that Ford meets the standard and some of their vehicle's don't have gas caps. So yes you are correct Ford gas cap less system is a simple design and it works. So whats the problem? Why is everyone complicating the problem if its so simple for Ford to get it right without a gas cap?
What? FORD has developed the technology of the first true force field, and they are wasting it on capping their fuel systems??
Is there anyone on this board, other than 06h, that believes the Ford System is anything other than a spring loaded gas cap, that you just don't have to unscrew?
Again, you keep focusing on the gas cap, as this is the problem. Hello, the system warns the owner to check the cap first to make sure its NOT a simply mistaken securing of the gas cap. If the owner did secure the cap properly, the problem is a leak in the system or the test system itself.
Are you still confused about thermostats. Yes they open and close in the summer and winter, how many times do we need to go over this?
Wow, just Wow
and they often open different amounts in summer and winter, yet you claim no knows what they are talking about, they only open or close all the way. And then proceeded to claim people said things they never said in the same thread like you are doing now. Do you really think anyone on this forum does NOT know that?
Well seems like someone is blaming the EPA. The EPA didn't design the system, did the EPA build the Commander? Didn't the system work fine when it left the dealership so how is this the EPA problem? Seems like alot of blaming others and the governments out to get ya by making life harder for you! The government isn't out for you and to drive you insane! Wouldn't it be Jeeps problem since they built it, oh that right Jeep does nothing wrong! Except for smoking pot and drinking on the job, needing government funding, building a unfit for human consumption vehicle and then wonder why anyone bought them (priceless)!
Unfit for human consumption, need we say anymore!
Again, just Wow,
you're so myopic you don't even see that you've put words in people's mouth, while in the same paragraph you go on to do the exact same thing you falsely accuse others of doing.
You can certainly argue that you do NOT believe the EPA has set an unfair standard, that would be 100% reasonable debate. BUT, nope, instead you claim we are concocting conspiracy theories in some adhomid attack.
Yep, Jeep and Chrysler has had problems with some vehicles indicating Evap Emmissions system leaks, that dealerships, independent shops and owners often have difficulty repairing, requiring multiple attempts to fix it. BUT, so has Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, VW, Audi, Saab, Volvo, Hyndai and Kia. BUT, you refuse to even acknowledge that, and instead go on some canard about Ford coming up with a gimmick gas cap, seriously, who do you think you are fooling on this board?
Ummm, and systems working fine when they leave the dealer lot, but don't work as well several years later, really? you are really going to argue that only Jeep vehicles wear and break after years of use? Again, just Wow, you are out of it, just making insane grasps at straws to support your ridiculous claims after the fact.
The reason why so many evap system monitoring is so hard to repair is because the EPA set a bad standard that is too high, it results in systems that do NOT leak and do NOT contribute any meaningful extra pollution as testing as if they fail, and the fact the leaks are so small they can NOT be found after test, after test with multiple repair visits is evidence of that.
The EPA could have set a much lower standard and there would have NOT been any increase in actual pollution at all, and then perfectly good systems that are only slightly worn would NOT be failing tests and the failure be so extraordinarily subtle, that experts can NOT find the failure point and thus can NOT repair it.
It would be the inequivalent of a State setting a safety inspection law of putting your vehicle on a rolling dyno at the safety inspection, and if the vehicle makes less than spec HP for a new vehicle, it is therefore UNSAFE and must be corrected to make spec new HP. You don't think people would be having to make multiple visits to repair shops trying to correct that, wasting money rebuilding perfectly good motors that were only slightly worn, etc. Naw, that wouldn't be the State's fault for setting a ridiculously high standard that really did NOT prevent anything, it would all be the manufacturer's fault for building engines that actually wear with use.
Vehicles and their sub-systems wear with use and time, they degrade in their performance with that wear. Although performance degrades, it is often still well within an acceptable margin of effective use and performance. If you set standards for performance, you need to set realistic and effective standards, keeping wear in mind.
The fact that perfectly good systems from multiple manufacturers, that are NOT making any extra pollution, are failing tests, and the failure mode is so small and subtle it can't be found, is pretty good evidence that the standard to pass is too high.