[DMCForum] Re: de-emissioning (Ari)

["therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@xxxxxxx>]

When it comes to a *Smog Check*, you would be very surprised at what
can pass, and what cannot. But first, let's take a step back, and see
what we're looking at.

California Air Resource Board (CARB) sets high standards for
emissions. So if CARB approves of a product for emissions testing, the
federal government automaticly approves it as well.

Now, let's get something straight here: The emissions rules that we
have set nationwide are somehow based upon what California says is ok,
and what is not. However, the problem here is that the people who set
these rules are not unbiased, nor in many cases, are they educated
about what it is they're trying to govern! Just research back, and
find the case in point about diesel. The head of carb started to
research diesel, and found that diesel is a clean burning fuel, that
can easily be based off of a renewable resourse. But as soon as he
reccomended diesel conversions to solve California's air quality
problem, the guy got slammed from both sides by ever enviornment
activist out there, who didn't have a clue about what they were
talking about. Simply because diesel is percieved as "dirty".

Now as far as this talk about older engines not being able to burn
cleaner, that straight-up bullshit. Allot of the engines that many
vehicles out there are running ain't exactly spring chickens. The
Chevy 350, Chrysler 318, and others are not new engines. In fact, most
time, they're just adapted for fuel injection, and displacement. Hell,
my '99 Ford Explorer runs the same Cologne V-6 that DMC contemplated
installing into the DMC-12 30 years ago! And that motor qualifies as
Low Emissions!

What you absolutely must keep in mind for emissions paramaters on smog
checks, is that it all goes beyond Hydrocarbons. With your regular
catalyized cars, they have to get tested for H & NOX.

Now if you're saying that older engines cannot compete with modern
ones, let me grab a copy of my buddy's recent smog check for the exact
#'s. At idle alone, on a 1973 non-catylized 340ci V8 Plymouth Duster,
he he blew the doors off modern trucks. I believe his PPM on the idle
was in the 30's-40's ppm on the HydroCarbons. And he was burning old
gasoline. Slap a couple of catalytic convertors into place, and the
thing would have absolutely no problem burning cleaner than 2 stock
hond civics, matched to it's 8 cylinders. I'd say that the HC outputs
would be VERY competetive.

Now Jack, you said something here that I'd like to address:

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <jackstiefel@xxxx> wrote:
<SNIP> That's no excuse for removing emissions.  Now I am no big eco
buddy, but they are there for a reason, like it or not.

Ok, take a look at these links:

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-HONDA-Civic-05.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/osreg.htm

What I'm getting at here is that one quote at the botttom:
"California residents are prohibited from importing, purchasing, or
leasing a new vehicle from another state, unless the vehicle was
manufactured for sale in California and the Environmental Protection
Agency label certifies the vehicle has California smog equipment."

So let's take a look at this. There are seperate rules for those who
don't live in California? Like many pickup trucks that are
manufactured without catalytic convertors for use in areas outside of
California? So does this mean that if your vehicle didn't come loaded
with all these extra emissions controls that you're somehow a bad
person for driving it? Be it the same vehicle meant for a seperate
sales area? Or perhaps even an older vehicle that was manufactured in
a different time, but still runs on the roads today? Are we all
somehow bad people here?

No. The truth of the matter is that we've got a huge-ass surplus of
motor vehicles in this country. And the problem is that our automotive
manufacturers are being raped by the UAW, and everyone else who wants
to extort as much money out of them as possible. And never mind the
Japanese, and other car manufactureres out there. Every year, car
makers then have to compete with themselves, in the form of used cars
that they sold the years before.

So in order to sell new vehicles, they all try and make us feel guilty
for driving automobiles that don't run as clean as those new ones on
the show room floor. Of course when that doesn't work, they all try to
prey upon our fears with pictures of childern with bigger eyes than
Diego Rivera could ever have painted, sitting there talking about
getting lost, in an accident, or carjacked, etc., saying, "Who will be
there to look out for us?" as they're all on the verge of tears. And
then we get to see "OnStar: By GM!", and we're all told that this
little gadget is going to be our saviour from our own vulnerable
selves. And notice how in all the time GM touts this little system,
they never seem to offer to install it into the "quality" GM vehicle
that you already own. Nope, you've got to purchase a new one.

So Honda has got a good cover with Eco-terrorism, as they tout their
clean burning vehicles, and make you feel guilty about driving older
ones that weren't introduced under tighter emissions standards. And GM
has just got you scared with the whole terifying proposition about
even driving to the gas station, without the On-Star system. And you
won't see anyone from the government fighting for better consumer
protection. Especially in a time when many should be saving their
money. Nope. They too like it when you buy a new car, so that they can
collect their taxes on new car sales. John Z. De Lorean once said how
it was wrong for GM to keep forcing people into new contracts for cars
by using peer pressure with yearly redesigns and new chrome trim
options. And he was right. GM never stopped this practice. They just
changed the playing ground of what insecurites people have to play off
them.

This whole debate doesn't have a Goddamed thing to do with emissions
or safety of vehicles. It all has to do with us being somehow
brainwashed into buying new cars. Assuming I could keep the same gas
milage (which is quite probable) What is the big deal if I go out and
buy a 1996 Ford pickup and remove the emissions controls, or if I
bought a '66 Ford truck that never came with the controls, and drive
it just as much? Or is it irresponsable to buy the older truck, and
NOT try and update the older truck with moderm equipment for better
emissions?

6 of one, or a half dozen of the other seems to be what this whole
argument is about.

-Robert



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DMCVIN6683 <dmcvin6683@xxxx> wrote:
> The reason a 35 year old car can pass emissions is that they have 
> different testing parameters than a new car.
> 
> Do you really think they would make a 35 year old car pass by todays 
> standards? If this was true 99.9% of the 35 year old cars would fail 
> unless they had modern day emissions on them.
> 
> The older your car is the more pollutants it will pass out the tail 
> pipe.
> 
> I dont think any of our Deloreans could pass on todays emission 
> standards.
> 
> Mark V

SPONSORED LINKS

De lorean

Delorean part

Delorean cadillac

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---