From: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Ethanol blended gasoline
Date: 5 Nov 1992 22:28:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) says:

>
>>Because they are responsible for 90% of the autombile pollution, and are
>>the main justification for ever-rising requirements of new cars, which makes
>>them more and more expensive, thereby making it harder for people to buy new
>>cars.  It's a positive feedback loop that is good for _nobody_!
>
>	Just a question no flames.  If old junk cars make up 90% of all 
>car pollution, how much of the total pollution do cars make up.  Air 
>pollution that is.  Seems to me that the government should go after the
>biggest polluters.  If that is cars then go after them.  But it seems to
>me that those factories that churn out tons and tons of smoke do more
>damage than the cars driving by them, am i correct, i honestly don't know.

no. most of the "smoke" that you see coming out of factories is h2o, simple
water vapor.  The epa started cracking down on them much before and much
harder than cars.  Unfortunately, i do not happen to know where my hard
data would be, so i feel sure that i will get flamed, and told that i am
WRONG, but chew on this: facatories that do not upgrade to control thier
pollutants are shut down, old cars tend to be justified to be allowed to
continue cruizing even if they do not meet emissions tests, the only 
thing they have to do is be equipped w/ whatever emissions stuff they 
had from the factory, and meet the standards for their time period, unlike
factories, which MUST update to keep up.  Do not misunderstand me, i am not
against hod rods, or old muscle cars, or even just old cars at all..what i 
am against is the old beaters that cruize around that you cannot even breath
for being behind them, either due to oil smoke, or the stench of a rich
running motor.  THESE are the ones that should be updated, or pulled.  I 
also advocate that when a vehicle is "restored" or "rodded" to be used on
the street, that it  should be updated to meet today's emmissions standards.
(of course, if it is to see very little street use, and primarily a show
car, and hold value, i can see allowing them to be stock.)..ok enuff..
a little of what i know, a whole lot of what i think!(but none of what i 
think i know!) ;-)
DREW

>
>>>                                                I personally wouldn't
>>>drive any newer cars by choice, maybe in the future i might be driven
>>>by practicality but new cars suck.
>>
>>Interesting value judgement.  You're full of grape juice, though.
>
>Grape juice?  
>
>>Not true.  At least, not entirely.  A properly tuned old car will probably
>>pass most current inspections, though they will be tougher in the future.
>
>	Mt '78 Wagoneer "wow i can't believe it started" again"  after
>being driven 10 minutes and after haveing a tune up 2 months before hand
>had 0 HC and 0.00 % CO.  Believe it or not.  No catalytic converter or
>any real emissions stuff.
>
>>That is the price of progress.  But at least newer cars don't _get_ screwed
>>up that often.  I haven't had an engine problem since around 1979, except for
>>two EGR valves.  That's _four_ cars.
>
>	Maybe I'm jsut wierd but i have noticed that a lot of new cars come 
>from the factory loaded with bugs and once they get orked out the car finally
>runs like new.  
>
>
-- 
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????-----whatever!
Newsgroups: rec.autos