One of the things that government legislators and regulators don't realize
is that in our quest for higher performance and 'more power', we actually
make our vehicles burn cleaner! As any race mechanic, performance
enthusiest, and shadetree mechanic knows, burning fuel anyplace besides the
cylinder just after TDC is useless waste of fuel and is a loss of potential
power. Thus, everything we do in the quest for power is focused on that
one thing. Burning as much fuel as possible in the shortest moment of time
during the power stroke of the engine.
On the tailpipe end, this simply means lower emissions as all the fuel is
burned before it ever leaves the engine. Why a government would want to
stop such modifications is beyond me. If the public is willing to spend
Billions of dollars on aftermarket performance parts to achieve a few more
HP, and create a more efficient engine in the process, why would you be
against it?
True, not all modifications improve engine efficiency, Large tires, heavy
bolt-ons, and non-areodynamic additions (like light bars) all produce drag
that the engine must work harder to move. However, I'd like to see an on
board computer system determine that the added drag is from vehicle
modifications, and not from a contractor's toolbox across the bed, or a
landscaper's trailer, or even just a large family packing into the truck
every weekend. No way it could tell.
It isn't the modification crowd that is the problem, in fact, they
generally operate the most safe, efficient and eco-friendly vehicles due to
continuous maintainence. It is the commuters who drive a car for years and
never change the oil, never get a tune-up, and never bother to maintain
their vehicle that produces the majority of the polution.
A study I read not long ago tried to see where the worst automotive
polution offenders were. It was no surprise to find that small and midsize
cars between five and ten years old in urban areas were more likely to be
in need of engine work than any other group combined. Trucks fared very
well as the majority of trucks are in commercial use and generally well
cared for, but a note accompaning the report did state that small pickups
were much more apt to be in need of repair after five years then full size.
I suppose it is no surprise that after about fifteen years of age, the
vehicles in the study became significantly cleaner running across the
board. Not as efficient as new cars, but then again, back in the 70's and
early 80's, most cars and trucks were carburated and weren't as efficient
to begin with.
I've said it before, and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face. Get off
the back of the home mechanic, and start cracking down on the people who
don't take care of their vehicles.
One more item. Does anyone else see the new trend toward 100,000 mile
tune-up intervals a real problem? Sure it sounds nice, but the wear and
tear over 100,000 miles to spark plugs, fuel filters, belts, hoses,
electrical, etc. is asking for trouble to happen. One of the things I love
when doing my 10,000 mile tune-ups (sometimes more often) is that I can
catch all the little problems before they leave me stranded. The only
thing a 100,000 mile tune-up is going to do is justify to people that cars
don't need to be looked at anymore. Safety, efficiency, and public demands
are all going to go out the window. What happens to old brake lines that
haven't been looked at in 80,000 miles? Now picture a panic stop as a
small child runs into the street. Spark plugs with more than 50,000 miles
on them are generally worn fairly significantly. To account for this,
newer cars have gaps smaller than optimum to allow room to grow at a slight
performance hit. In the long run, the vehicles will be so detuned by the
computer as it compensates for all the aging systems that people will look
for bigger engines at their next purchase. It is a serious vicious circle
and everyone has accepted it with open arms.
Christopher Siano | A little Revolution
CSiano@Banyan.com | now and again
0- | is a good thing.
----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:21 EDT