[ QUOTE ]
As stated, removing the smog pump may free up a little performance, but nothing you will be able to detect without a dyno. None of the other equipment on you car can detract from performance (assuming it's working properly). As for "cleaning up the engine bay", I find that the most selfish, arrogant, and irresponsible reason for doing it. Only you see your engine bay, but we all breathe your pollution. It's no different than saying "I don't like the way garbage cans look in my back yard, so I'm just going to throw all my trash in your yard." Do you like people's litter in your yard?
I think that if we want to drive these cars, we owe it to ourselves, each other, and out children to use them responibly, I think that the responsible thing to do is to make sure all emissions gear is intact & functioning. I don't want to breathe your pollution, so I want to see your emissions gear in place. I respect you enough that I don't want you to breathe my pollution, so all my emissions gear is in place.
I'm researching right now how to install a catalytic converter on the B, and a cat and PCV system on the TD....
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. I sense that you feel strongly about this. (sarcastic humor meant to lighten the tone a tad)
I should point out that EGR valves INCREASE HC and CO while reducing combustion temperatures in an attempt to reduce NOx emissions.
And yes, removing an EGR valve can increase volumetric and thermal efficiency well enough to be seen on a dyno, if done correctly.
As for smog pumps, thir purpose was to add additional oxygen molecules to the exhaust stream so that the catalytic converter had the raw materials needed to convert HC and CO into H2O and CO2. CO2 is now being blamed as the primary cause for global warming in the media (even though the concept was scientifically debunked int he 1980's). A modern catalytic converter does not require a smog pump, which is why you don't see them anymore. Furthermore, ctalytic coverters are completely ineffective above 60mph. The exhuast stream moves too fast for the coversion to occur. Last, catalytic converters create sulfuric acid in the conversion process. This is what was referred to in the 80's as the "acid rain" effect.
If you remove the evaprative systems from every car in the world, it would release fewer hydrocarbon particles than a single petroleum refinery.
Although I hate A/C, it is also worth mentioning that if you had released all of the R-12 refrigerant out of every car so equipped in 1997 (when R-134a was introduced) it would have caused less damage to our atmosphere than a single firing of the space shuttle.
Particulate emissions from diesel engines account for far greater amounts of noxious emissions than gasoline powered vehicles, and yet in most states they are unregulated.
Industrial pollutants account for some 100-fold the emissions generated by automobiles, and yet our current administration has lessened the environmental burdens on big businesses, most notably on the coal burning power generation industry.
it is also well documented that the largest polluter world-wide is the US governement, particularly (but not exclusively) the military.
The focus on the war against pollution has been against the automobile, not because it was the largest polluter, but because it was the path of least resistance. The public doesn't fight the additional costs of vehicular equipment and annual emissions inspections. Industry does fight these things, and expends large amounts of money and political influence to do so.
As for EGR valves, catalytic converters, and smog pumps - these were all bolt-on alternatives to pacify the EPA in order to avoid re-tooling and spending money to do the R&D necessary to build engiens with the combustion efficiency to reduce emissions properly.
The best way to reduce emissions is through combustion efficiency. You don't see these bolt-on devices (other than mo modern catalytic converters) on engines that have been recently developed. Of course, they are still there on a chevy 350.
As strongly as you feel, I feel equally as strongly in disagreement. The public has been lied to and given the blame and financial burden of a problem that automobiles are only contributing to in a minority. The largest contributor to the problem is exempt of cost and responsibility, and those who have the funds to buy their way out of responsibility have been given that alternative.
It makes me very angry that this is the way our political system resolves a problem.
It makes me more angry when the public actually beleive the propoganda they've been fed, let alone propogate it with the voracity you demonstrated. Why the motoring public accepts these costs and refues to question why the problem still exists seems the highest form of social irresponsibility.
To continue your metaphor, I'd prefer that you do not instally a catalytic converter on your car. I'd rather not have your acid rain ruin my paint, and I philosophically object to your supporting the current emissions program.
But it's your car, and I respect your choice to do with it what you please.
with respect,
Eric
Hey there Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
A friendly reminder - be careful what links you click on here. If a link is posted by someone you don't know, or the URL looks fishy, DON'T CLICK. Spammers sometimes post links that lead to sites that can infect your computer, so be mindful what you click.