From: miller@FS1.cam.nist.gov (Bruce R. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: Old Car Emissions (Update)
Date: 3 Oct 92 04:18:41 GMT
Organization: NIST - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory


In article <1992Oct3.000353.21001@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, Mark Shaw writes:
> In article (Bruce R. Miller) writes:
> |> [seems like as good a place as any to comment]
> |> As someone else has said, type-b dogs provide parts for type-a babies!
> |> But, we shouldn't overlook the fact that many type-B dogs really are
> |> dogs, but they are Paid for and the people who own and drive them, and in
> |> many cases have no alterternative transportation,  will be suffering in
> |> a very real way from bans on old cars, or whatever.  They cant afford a
> |> new car, until it `creates a job' for them.
> 
> Let me paraphrase your comments:
> 
> It's great to have all those poor disadvantaged people out there trying to
> keep those old wrecks running, so we can buy the parts we need when we need
> them!


WHOA!! That's what you call paraphrasing???
Maybe I'm partly to blame by not responding in the right place and
leaving the context unclear.

Someone classified type-b dogs and claimed, to the effect, that noone
would miss them.  I just wanted to make the point that there are poor
people who use & need these for transportation and have _NO_ chance of
buying a new car, clean or not.
Other than ephemeral things like "heritage" and Hobbies, _THESE_ are the
people that would be hurt most by any plan to smash old cars.

The rest of your interpretation, I couldn't even begin to understand; I
hope this clarifies what I was trying to say there.
> 
> |> > A good statistical source is the MVMA "Motor Vehicles Facts & Figures" 
> |> > published by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc., 7430 Second Avenue,
> |> > Suite 300, Detroit, MI, 48202, (313) 872-4311.  
> |> 
> |> Thanks for the information, and I will try to get ahold of this book.
> |> But... It's just what I was afraid of.
> |> I really dont know how to take information thats produced by people who
> |> have a distinct financial interest in the outcome.
> 
> Lighten up Bruce, the data is used by the industry itself.  What purpose
> would it serve to lie to others in the same business?   Besides much of the
> data comes from other sources (i.e. EPA, State and Federal government
> agencies, and independent market surveys, etc.)  It is a nice compliation
> of data relating to the things automotive.  One might disagree with some
> of the conclusions they may draw, but the data looks valid.

I'll admit to being a bit overcynical --- but I come by it honestly :>
---, but you certainly wont claim that MVMA is an objective source?
I dont want to claim that the information is wrong, intentionally
misleading, or even unintentionally misleading, but we _have_ to be
critical.   Again, though, I dont know where else we could find the
information, so we have to make do.

Regarding Industry sources, consider the recent cable bill.  A cable
organization generated some `data', passed it to the Commerce dept,
which reissued it, accidentally or otherwise, giving the appearance that
it was a DOC report.  Kinda makes you wonder.

Another point;  Much is made of the fact that old cars make 10 times the
pollution of a new car.  Your article "Old Car Emmissions" gave the data:
  "Pre-70 425cid, uncontrolled, tuned 12mpg -> 1.71 pounds/12mile trip
   post-82 any closed-loop lambda           -> 0.13 pounds/12mile trip"

That's pretty dramatic I grant you.  It may even be true.
But are you claiming that a 425" engine is representative of all "old
cars"?
Since this (apparently) leads to the 50% figure, it's worth examining.

> |> > 1)  Alternate fuels: diesel, propane, natural gas, methanol....
> |> > 2)  Conversion of old cars to new engines (factory or otherwise)...
> |> We're not allowed to talk about these; check the charter :>
> Would someone please send me the charter.  

Ok, that's my sarcasm again. I dont know if it's against the current
charter, but the proposed charter for rec.autos.antique is pretty strict
about NO modifications.

> If everyone would prefer not to discuss these issues, speak up, I can
> spend my time elsewhere.  But somehow I think everyone is missing the
> point -- controls on or disposal of older vehicles WILL COME.  All the
> issues relating to the poor, the industry, the other sources of pollution,
> etc. will be addressed and compromises reached.  Only problem is, no-one
> seems willing or concerned enough to make sure that the hobbist's interests
> are heard.  
> 
> Mark

I think it's a fine topic, myself
And in spite of my occasional crankiness, I'm enjoying the discussion
(if not the implications).