Smog pumps started about 1970, and that is more than 20 years ago. Like I
said, the manufacturers are against it, mostly because they know it's a lot
of hogwash, it's the new car dealers association that push it. Now, lemmee
see....1970 to 2008, that would be 38 years..like I said, about 40 years,
you might be too young to remember that, but I am not.
Rascal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bernd D.
Ratsch
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:42 AM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: Re: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
San Jose/Santa Clara is a prime example. I was involved in the
transition years for the smog checks and yes, the air quality there has
definitely improved over the past 20 years. Austin has also improved
already and that's just with simple maintenance that's normally
neglected. Are the vehicles entirely at fault for the excessive
emissions....nope - you can thank the large processing and chemical
plants for that one.
As for the 40 years of emissions stuff you're talking about - it's only
been about 20 years. 40 years ago, there wasn't much of any emissions
related equipment at all on the vehicles (if any at all). I know my old
'69 AMC Javelin didn't have anything on it except for a retrofitted PCV
system and a manifold heat pipe. no smog pump, no egr, and no 9000
miles of vacuum hoses and check valves.
What the dealerships do in order to make a buck selling new vehicles is
independent of the actual manufacturers fight with the EPA and ARB.
Prime example is what happened in CA several years ago when they changed
the minimum emissions specs. A lot of us had passed the year before but
failed that next year...with nothing changed and regular maintenance was
done. That was, again, an EPA and CARB decision - not the
manufacturers. GM, Ford, and DC (at that time...now Chrysler, LLC) had
it out with the EPA and lost.
Key thing is maintenance on the emissions output. Oil changes,
Tune-Ups, making sure the engine is working properly (mechanically) and
the electronics are kept up (as in not letting a check engine light stay
on or just clearing the codes....fix it - it's there for a reason).
There's still a lot of states/counties without emissions testing and
it's getting to be a much smaller list. Old school thinking needs to be
put on the back burner and some forward thinking needs to be
implemented. Our children, our grandchildren, and their offspring will
be living with our mistakes. Plus, the emissions systems of today don't
rob the engines of power as they did 10 years ago. Thermo-cats, newer
EGR systems, and all other electronics in the equation have already
proven that.
- Bernd
Rick Barnes wrote:
> Like I said, that only took 40 years to get that horsepower back after all
> the smog pumps that we put on our cars to choke them to death, along with
> all the catalytic converters that are now dumped into junk yards. You
know
> several cities that have improved air quality.....really? Name them...I
> suggest it has nothing to do with emissions testing. Like I said, it's a
> scam originated by the car DEALERS, not the manufacturers...if you do your
> homework, you will find that the manufacturers, (like Chrysler), are
against
> emissions testing, but the new car dealers are the ones pushing for it. I
> was involved in that while I lived in Atlanta and the bottom line was that
> they simply wanted people to keep having to purchase newer cars so that
they
> could pass emissions testing. We went about 20 years without emissions
> testing in Atlanta and our air got better and better...to the chagrin of
the
> EPA. Go figure. So, emissions testing is only "partly"
> nonsense...hah...its just nonsense.
>
> Rascal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bernd D.
> Ratsch
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:22 AM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
> I know of several 4 and 6 cylinders that are making just as much power as
> tne V8's of the 60's - that is progress. Plus, the V8's are making the
same
> (if not more) power as the 60's V8's and still running cleaner and with
> better fuel economy. Definitely progress.
>
> Now as for the emissions testing being a joke - not entirely true. I've
> seen the air quality improve over the years in many cities that
implemented
> it...the program does work (just not as fast as people would like). Are
the
> car manufacturers pushing this scam...nope, I know Chrysler was fighting
> againt several emissions law changes (and bills) along with several of the
> big-3 having to scramble to change their designs to keep their ULEV and
LEV
> certifications because the specifications were changed.
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Barnes [mailto:rascal@scrtc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:28 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, that's all well and good, but the emissions testing programs
are
> a complete joke. They are supposed to make the air
> cleaner...nonsense...this scam is pushed on us by the new car dealers to
> make us have to buy more cars. Are the engines getting better? Yes, they
> are almost making as much horsepower per cubic inch as the engines back in
> the 60s...wow, that's progress.
>
> Rascal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bernd D.
> Ratsch
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:22 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
> Emissions nonsense eh? EVAP systems actually put money back into your
> pocket by burning the fuel vapors which would otherwise go into the
> air...fuel vapors from the fuel you just paid for with your hard earned
> money. EGR systems actually save you money by cooling the combustion
> chamber (nothing worse than burning up a valve from too much heat in
there),
> and computer controls which keep your engines running at a much higher
> efficiency that the old-school engines. Heck, these days we're running
> cleaner, more efficiently, and make more power than the old Big-Block
> V8's...and with less cylinders and/or displacement. :)
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Barnes [mailto:rascal@scrtc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:08 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
> Bring it to Kentucky, none of that emissions nonsense here.
>
> Rascal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Biff Byrum
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:07 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
> Thank you, lots of highway miles, and I tried to take care of it. Oops, I
> forgot that and something else. The oil is only about 500? miles old and
I'm
>
> not sure how many months. The other thing is that it overheated last year
> due to a crappy thermostat. Got real hot on occasion. Could that have
> damaged something?
>
> I've heard about the thing about oil, but I thought my oil was good
enough.
> I always use Delo 15W-40. Perhaps i've just run out of luck. When I got it
> at 137,000 or so it was using about a quart in 400-500 miles. It's
steadily
> decreased to about a quart in 1000 last time I ran it regularly. I'm sure
> there is some blow-by and through the guides, but everything in the
exhaust
> stream always looks clean and light, even the tailpipe tip.
>
> My problem is just that with all those lines I don't see spending for a
good
>
> Cat and finding it's not the problem. Wish I had a place to store it for a
> while. Thanks, biff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Faison" <cfaison@magpage.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: DML: Smog failure, a little help please
>
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Biff Byrum wrote:
>>
>>> It's history: It's a 95 RC, 3.9, AX15. Over 480,000 miles, but still
>>> running great when I last used it. Almost never less than 20+ mpg at
>>> sea
>>>
>
>
>>> level, combined driving.
>>>
>> 480,000 miles! Congratulations.
>>
>>> I would appreciate any help anyone can provide. I love that thing
>>> and would like to keep it around as a backup. Not that I don't love
>>> my current one, a 98 SLT CC in Forest Green over Alum. just as much.
>>> Thanks, Biff Byrum
>>>
>> You don't mention the age or condition of the oil. In an engine with
>> that mileage, there's sure to be some blowby and/or valve guide/seal
>> leakage letting engine oil into the cylinders. Clean oil should make a
>> significant
>>
>
>
>> difference. My wife's old Laser once failed emissions testing by huge
>> margins and then passed with flying colors the following day after an
>> oil change.
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Craig
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 01:11:51 EST