Tree Huggers Vs. LBC Lovers. [was: Gastester/Colortune]

[Bret]

Hi gang,

Boy the Gastester vs. Colortune thread really developed into something much bigger than the sum of my original posting that kicked this whole Emissions thing off. Figured this subject needed a whole new topic of it's own.

A warning to all LBC owners. While California has always been a little over the top in it’s legislation regarding pollution mandates on emissions control issues (along with other environmental issues). It is my feeling that this mentality is going to do nothing but spread to other states through-out the union. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for using technology to improve emissions testing on "new" vehicles. But this retroactive (if you will) attacking of older vehicles is ridiculous.

Case in point - here in California something to keep in mind is that just because your pride & joy my be exempt from emissions testing, doesn’t mean that she isn’t subject to the emission laws affecting that model year anymore. While there isn’t any real enforcement (per se) regarding exempt cars & their polution control equipment. Technically all cars are required to retain their original smog equipment. So who’s to say that the next time you get pulled over (for whatever reason) by a Highway Patrolmen – you could be subjected to an impromptu inspection. Granted most cops have more pressing issues at hand, but the pretext for this is how local law enforcement handles some of these young folks street racers, with & their modified Asian tuners. My friend is a CHP motor officer, and it is not uncommon to pull some of these kids over and pop the hood of their rice rocket and sight them for illegal modifications.

Big brother is coming like it or not.

 

[Bret]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DougR:
Tree huggers can be LBC lovers too. I realise that my car does not run as clean as an Escalade, but I figure to compensate by consuming less. I have long been a minimalist, which sparked my interest in small cars. When necessary, I'll convert to electric and still drive my LBC.(with loud playing audio CD of appropriate engine noises)

<hr></blockquote>

Hi Doug,

I am not using the term “Tree Hugger” to be derogatory. I’d be one of the first to agree that one can still be a environmentally friendly consumer and still be a lover of the older cars. Example: As stated in previous post - I support the continued development & implementation of technologies to make new cars sold in this country more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.

However the problem we have here in California (and spreading to other states) – is that there is a radical (almost militant if you will) environmentalist movement that has found friends in our state’s capital. Case in point – is the resent attacks on SUV’s by the Hollywood elitist crowd. You might have seen these adds saying that if you drive an SUV you are supporting the vary Terrorists that attacked our nation on 9/11. Rubbish!

Fact is in addition to my 78 “B” my wife & I own a SUV and a full size car. Both cars are well taken care of and have never had a problem with emissions testing.

 

[Guest]

I would almost bet that a well tuned B without pollution equipment puts out less pollution than the average family car that gets new plugs about every 100K miles

 

[Bret]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chuck Cougill:
I would almost bet that a well tuned B without pollution equipment puts out less pollution than the average family car that gets new plugs about every 100K miles<hr></blockquote>

Beg to disagree?

This is a common statement I think we (as LBC owners) shouldn’t focus on when justifying our cause – as we’d lose this bet because the deck is stacked against us. In order for one of our B’s to even come close to a modern car’s emissions out put - we’d have to take care of a few things first. Just for starters remember most of our pre-emission equipped cars where designed to use unleaded fuel and would require modification. Even the later so equipped cars and those that have been modified for unleaded - can’t compete with the electronic computer controlled vehicles sold today. The ECC cars have several advantages we just couldn’t hope to compete with. Oh I’m sure there is one or two of us our there that can tweak their cars to come close – but I’m sure it would be an extremely expensive endeavor for the rest of us that it would be all but ridiculous to really attempt. Our only real advantage (and best argument) over the modern cars is in our gradually dwindling number of cars actually on the road. Couple that with the mileage we get and we have a better argument that truly justifies our existence.

Thinks about it – most of us do not use our treasures as daily drivers. Matter-a-fact some of us even tuck their cars away during the winter months. In other words most of us opt not to risk them to the ravages of the harsh weather and the road. Not to mention growing number of commuters on the road. So as the years pass our actual number cars on the road will naturally decrease. Thus our impact on the environment decreases too.

 

[TypeRboy]

I agree that there is no way an older car can match the emissions output of a new car, even if you spent a bunch of money.. You can't control engine variables to that degree without a computer and sensors.. and a motor designed with low emissions in mind.. Like piston/combustion chamber design, intake /exhaust design, temperatuse control, not to mention the better fuel atomization you get with injectors and 60 plus pounds of fuel pressure.

I heard a few years ago that our old cars leak more emissions shut off than a newer car makes idling... I have no reason to doubt it..

 

[kindofblue]

Another thing to consider is that cars put out more emissions when cold, and when the emissions equipment is not warmed up. That means that 1/8 mile trip to the 7-11 is really really bad. Most older cars are driven for longer periods of time to shows on warmer days.
My favorite LBC cheerleader, Road & Track's Peter Egan had this come up in one of his articles. He suggested that old car owners spend less time on the road because of all the time in the garage repairing and working. No mall hopping for them.
As someone who is a "tree hugger" and a car lover I often struggle with this issue. TO the extant that we need to drive cars, I keep mine in tip top condition, tires inflated etc etc. My daily driver gets 30 mpg hwy. My last car was regularly over 35.
If you are really having a guilty concience and organization called Trees for the Future will plant enough trees for you in run down South American Rain Forests to absorb the emissions from your car. Or so they say. I send my $25 to them and get a little window sticker on my car that feels good to me.

In about 7 weeks I will have a lot more to say about this as I am in Engine Performance class, and we get our state Emissions testing license at the end.

 

[DougR]

Tree huggers can be LBC lovers too. I realise that my car does not run as clean as an Escalade, but I figure to compensate by consuming less. I have long been a minimalist, which sparked my interest in small cars. When necessary, I'll convert to electric and still drive my LBC.(with loud playing audio CD of appropriate engine noises)

 

[MattP]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DougR:
Tree huggers can be LBC lovers too. I realise that my car does not run as clean as an Escalade, but I figure to compensate by consuming less. I have long been a minimalist, which sparked my interest in small cars. When necessary, I'll convert to electric and still drive my LBC.(with loud playing audio CD of appropriate engine noises)

<hr></blockquote>

I agree. When we look at industrial pollution, companies pay based on the volume of pollution as well as the density. I know that an Escalade might produce less dense pollution than a Mini, but you would have a lot of convincing to do to get me to accept that it produces it in a lower voulume mile for mile as well. And then I would still counter with having to include the pollution and ecological damage, not to mention political/economic ramifications of the gallons more fuel the SUV uses. I think that before more emissions testing is legislated, efficiency legislation should be enacted.

MattP

 

[Bret]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MattP:


I know that an Escalade might produce less dense pollution than a Mini, but you would have a lot of convincing to do to get me to accept that it produces it in a lower voulume mile for mile as well.

MattP<hr></blockquote>

I agree with the idea of forcing automotive manufactures to increase their vehicles efficiency. And much of what I’m going to talk about leads up to that.

I’m not trying to nit pick here but your statement seems to be contradictory? Exactly what do you mean by the use of the term volume? If you are talking about the fact that there are more SUVs on the road than there are Minis – then I would agree with you. But if you are going to put them in a side by side comparison test against each other (one on one) - then modern vehicle is going to win the emissions contest - even with it’s much lower fuel mileage. One on one and mile for mile our LBCs put out far more pollutants into the atmosphere than would a SUV. Just because more fuel is used to travel the same miles doesn’t mean that more pollutants get in the air if that car burns that fuel more efficiently. While the there is a drop in pollution emission from modern cars - the real ecological damage is to the amount of resources we use or might damage in the collection of fossil fuel to run all of our cars, trucks, SUVs and LBCs.

The last part of my last statement is really a better argument made against larger vehicles when you think about the amount of resources being used with only a 12MPG rating. But even this argument might be off set when you consider that a car made in the 60s has about 1/10th of the recyclable materials a modern car has available at the end of it’s life for reuse..

IMHO Where we LBC owners come out as being environmentally friendly is when you compare the shear numbers of modern vehicles being put on the road each year. A number that will continue to grow, while our numbers continue to diminish due to attrition.

 

[aeronca65t]

This is a great discussion, and personally, I can understand why people have different viewpoints on this. As well as LBCs, I own a small commuter car (Miata) and an "occasional-use" truck (1-ton Chevy StepVan).

Honestly, I'm not concerned with *what* modern passenger cars people drive as long as it gets excellent mileage and emissions are fairly regulated. I would like to see *all* new passenger vehicles achieve "Tier II" emission standards and a 27.5 MPG combined mileage rate.....whatever you do to achieve this, and no matter how big your car is.....doesn't matter! I also believe that all states should have an emissions waiver on classic cars (min. 25 years old) with 2000 mile yearly limit (many states, including NJ already have this). They *do* pollute more than modern cars, but it's "small potatoes" in the aggregate of all emissions.

I wouldn't say that people who drive gas-guzzlers are supporting terrorist per-se, but this country is *far* too dependant on foreign oil at the moment....I commute 12 miles in a 4 cylinder car. My neighbor (a great guy) commutes 36 miles, alone, in an Excursion.....bottom line: I think I'm doing my part; I don't he is.

I spent a fair amount of my life as a material engineer, and the notion that modern cars are more recyclable is unlikely. Example: despite the obvious safety benefits, a thermoset plastic dash with airbags is much more difficult to recycle than an old-fashioned metal dashboard. Before I typed this, I called my pal, who owns a junkyard....he agrees.

The comment about the Escalade versus the Mini is a good example of uneven laws. The Escalade is a "truck" and must meet the same emissions regs as a gas-powered dump truck. The Mini falls under "passenger car" and has much stricter emissions regs. Unfair, as I see it.

Here's a quote re: the present SUV emissions laws (source: https://www.ucsusa.org).
______________________
Three decades ago, light trucks were given relaxed treatment under federal air pollution laws because using trucks to haul heavy loads made reducing emissions a technological challenge. At that time, light trucks, serving primarily as working trucks, accounted for just 15 percent of the new car market. Today, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks, in their new role as family cars, are one out of every two new passenger vehicles sold. Regulators are finally acknowledging that federal standards are overdue in catching up to market trends. It's time to revoke this license to pollute.
Current federal loopholes allow SUVs and trucks to emit three to five times the pollution of an average new car. UCS analysis shows that these loopholes, coupled with increased sales of light trucks, add 5,000 tons of smog-forming pollutants to the air each day during the smoggiest time of year--equivalent to the pollution from 40 million cars.
Today the auto industry has the technology to meet tougher standards, as California's air-pollution-control engineers have clearly demonstrated. They modified a Ford Expedition by simply adding an effective, off-the-shelf catalytic converter and reprogramming some of the air/fuel controls. The result: a reduction in emissions to 90 percent below current standards. And tests simulating load-towing up to 14,000 pounds showed that lower emissions are technically feasible even for "work trucks."
________________________________
But here's what I don't get? America makes some *excellent* large cars that get great fuel mileage and meet all the stricter emission laws. If I were looking for a larger vehicle to drive on normal roads, I'd choose a big American car over an SUV hands-down. I just drove an '02 Impala 700 miles last week (for work). Super comfortable, roomy, huge trunk, tracks like an arrow, and doesn't feel spooky in turns. Drove it through a NorEaster that dumped 18" of snow in NH, with no problems. It's much nicer to drive than the other "work vehicle" I could have used (an '01 Mercury SUV). My sister-in-law (a careful driver) flipped her Explorer on a rainy road last summer (yes, tire pressure was OK)....she's much happier in the Olds sedan she now drives.

If you really *need* an SUV for plowing snow or driving up goat paths, then fine......as long as we make them play by the same emissions/mileage rules as other passenger vehicles........but In my opinion, a Camry or Malibu (or whatever) would be a better choice for most people (but less profitable for the car companies...which is the *real* reason SUVs are so heavily marketed).
All this talk makes me want to tune up the MG.....

 

[Duane]

I'm impressed with the level of this thread. Another point: although these old nails may have a small amount of directly recyclable materials, they are almost 100% recycled these days in that the cars are kept going rather than ending up in a landfill. More and more rusty hulks are getting picked clean of usable parts and keep other not quite so rusty hulks running. Overall methinks it's a good tradeoff. Good on all of yer for a well thought out discussion. I'm looking forward to more

Duane

 

[Bret]

I think we’re getting a little off topic but I do have some additional comments. First we do need to try as hard as possible to be come less dependant on foreign oil. Second – I think it is somewhat impractical to think for a moment that a true zero emissions vehicle is on the near horizon.

Fact is the idea of a “practical” zero emissions vehicle for the masses is a vary long way off. Mind you not impossible but we are going to have to wait. The good news is that auto makers are getting closer this goal but this is still a long time way off. While the technology “might” be there to currently produce a car that would get 50 + miles per gallon @ close to 0% emissions, I feel in the end the cost of such a vehicle would be out of reach for most of us. And even when that day comes how many of us would opt for an electric car or a hybrid vehicle that couldn’t carry more than two people or cargo? In the case of an electric autos technology can’t do better than 100 miles on a charge, without finding yourself stranded on the side of the road. Think about it - most of us put on an excess of 200 miles per week. I myself average between 900 and 1200 miles per week in a normal workweek.

So for now I feel we should focus on making the auto makers develop those cars for the future. And keep imposing stricter emission standards on those they currently produce.

However when it comes to our LBCs or any vehicle for that matter currently on the road it. We shouldn’t impose retroactive testing and expect a car produced 30 years ago to met the standards on required for a 2003 model year car. Here in California – our ultra environmentally militant friendly state has upped – exemption on older cars from 25 years to 30 years for smog testing.

As for SUV & light Trucks being allowed to put out five times the pollutants as other modern cars. Nobodies contesting that least of all me. My wife & I own three Vehicles: One 78 MGB, One SUV and one Full size car. Hands down the full size car beats the SUV in a side by side comparison for mileage and emissions. But looking over our last smog test results for my MGB vs. our SUV are the most telling. My B is allowed 5 times the allowable levels of HC & Cos. And believe me when I say my old B uses up almost all of those allowable levels.

 

[youngsmith]

Interesting.

I used to work for an alternative energy company. My job was r&d, I was also the company mechanic.

Let me just say, one of the company cars was a shelby cobra a.c. replica built by holman moody. it had a dry sumped chevy can am series engine in it, good for 550 horsepower in the carbuerated trim that it was. It got 8 miles to the gallon, and put out lots of emissions.

The car it sat next to in the garage was a porche 550 spyder replica. This car was a bit different from the cobra, as the power source was electricity. the porche was a demo model of what we could do. It had a range of better than 150 miles, at a speed of 50 mph, it also had a top speed of 140 mph.

Which car do you think got more attention at car shows?

Did you know that 85% of the trips americans make (round trip) in their cars, are less than 50 miles? for such trips, an electric vehicle is ideal, no emissions, quiet, and cheap to run.

The problems associated with electric vehicles are generally:

"They have a short range, so they may work as commuters, but trips are impossible, thus neccesitating the need for a second vehicle" True, but most american homes are multi-vehicle homes anyways.

"They take forever to charge" Not true, magnetic flux technology to the rescue. A magnetis flux charger can charge a cars battery pack in less than 5 minutes for a small (short range) pack, and under 10 for the largest.

"you have to replace the batteries every 2-3 years" only true if you use inferior batteries. even lead acid batteries can be made to last much longer using things like cloned plates and larger cases, allowing more acid. Magnetic flux comes to the rescue again, as it extends the life of bateries indeffinitly by completely reclaiming the plates. There are even better bateries on the market now, for example NIckel Metal Hydride batteries, wich are lighter, increasing efficiency, and smaller, allowing a longer range, as well as being longer lasting than conventional lead acid.

Are electric cars for everyone? No but more people could live with them than you might think.

Imagine though, it is quite possible to convert a classic british car to electric.

Another interesting option ar hybrids, no I don't mean anemic honda's and toyota's. Back in the 70's people where building hybrids that where running 16 horsepower engines, through a hydraulic drive system, producing 75 mpg, and accelerration tikmes like 0-60 in 8 seconds, no real burner, but it beats my civic.

Tony

 

[Guest]

So Tony, when are we gonna see the electric B prototype? and how much would it cost to build? I assume there would be no Lucas parts?

 

[catfood]

I think a point a lot of people miss is the emissions cost of creating a vehicle. The factories that produce the steel and aluminium are churning out all sorts of stuff. So it's not just the running emisions that need to be looked at.If a car is scrapped after a few years because it no longer meets the running emissions regulations what is the emmisions cost of building it's replacement. The same can be said of electric cars. They are not emission free, we burn fossil fuels or use nuclear powerplants to generate the electricity to charge them.

I don't claim to know any of the answers, however I think the argument is a little deeper that what does or does not come out of the exhaust pipe.

At the risk of getting political what is the 'common mans' opinion in the USA of your failure to ratify the Kyoto agreement. I know over this side of the pond opinion seems to be that the US is being protectionist and is only worried about it's own industry and doesn't seem to care what future it may be condemning our children to.

[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: catfood ]</p>

 

[aerog]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chuck Cougill:
So Tony, when are we gonna see the electric B prototype? and how much would it cost to build? I assume there would be no Lucas parts?<hr></blockquote>

Actually there is an electric-B on the roads already, there's a web site on it somewhere. I suppose that's better than condeming the car to the junk yard, but somehow I'm not impressed.

I drive all my gas powered vehicles guilt-free and stickerless by the way. I even run an engine on leaded fuel. I'm terrible huh? Rest easy, the federal government won't let me run it any other way and some how I don't lose any sleep over that.

Oh, and by the way - there's no such thing as a zero-emissions electric vehicle unless it's charged by the sun, wind, or a hydroelectric plant.

[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: aerog ]</p>

 

[Bret]

Again not saying that its not possible to make that vehicle using current technology, only that the cost of incorporating it into a new vehicle design would make it unfeasible for the average consumer to attain. Granted with time and solid development advancements - the cost of producing that vehicle would naturally come down. But I still contest the idea that a viable vehicle is right around the corner for the

Example: While working at another company just over 5 years ago - I had a boss that was one of the “lucky” few selected to beta field test GMs EV1. He was basically given the car to use for an entire year and provide feedback to GM. Now I had a chance to bum a ride with him from time to time and I must tell you this car was revolutionary in several ways, but it had far more shortcomings - than positive ones IMHO. While this car might have just been a stepping stone toward something better down the road, in a side by side comparison with contemporaries at the time - the EV1 wasn’t anything but a curious experiment.

Granted things might have gotten better in the last 5 or 6 years. But at the time the EV1’s batteries accounted for a full third of the entire vehicle weight, and according to the information at the time an owner would need to replace these batteries every three to five years at a cost of $3500 a pop. One would think that better long lasting batteries would mean more money. Another limiting factor about the car was that it was just a two seater with a trunk the size of a common briefcase. This might be fine for some but not vary functional from my perspective (Wife, lots of Kids and two dogs etc.). While it might be feasible for some short distances commuters - it isn’t really a real car pool or socker mom type of car. Nor with it’s 100 mile limit per charge was it vary practical. Depending on how you drive as well as the many traffic variables - this wasn’t the real limit at it turned out. I can recall my boss having to make use of the free road side assistance at least once or twice a week. Likewise this car was not a vary good grocery getter either, with it’s limited cargo capabilities. A trip around the corner to the Circle K trip maybe, but not a weekly $200 or $300 grocery run for a family.

Now lets talk $$ cost: The EV1 had a base price of just over $35K at the time of this evaluation. At the point in time - you could get a fully loaded SUV (Ford Explorer XLT) for just about $25K, or a loaded Honda Civic that was priced well under $20K and had twice the capabilities as the EV1. How many of you are going to pay more for less? Think about it – the only way folks are going to accept less out of a vehicle is if we give these cars away. Otherwise most folks will continue to drive their old gas guzzlers for purely logistical reasons.

As to the idea of converting my MGB to an electric or some sort of hybrid power plant. You’ve got to be kidding or are you are a heretic - I’ve already had to take a heck of a lot of flak from some opinionated purists over my intentions of doing either a Rover V8 or GM V6 conversion. I can’t even begin to fathom the blistering I’d receive at our next MG Club meeting.

Bret

 

[Bret]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aerog:

Oh, and by the way - there's no such thing as a zero-emissions electric vehicle unless it's charged by the sun, wind, or a hydroelectric plant.

[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: aerog ]<hr></blockquote>

My car was on Blocks some time. Doesn’t’ hat count?

 

[aerog]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bret:


My car was on Blocks some time. Doesnt hat count?

<hr></blockquote>

Ok ok sure

 

[youngsmith]

Well, a feature of our porche was a solar powered charging station, the solar pannels charged the main station, then the magnetic flux charger charged the car from that.

No the car isn't cheap. I wasn't saying that the thing was. And I don't drive an electric or hybrid car, as I am single.

The hybrid idea is doable, I was at one point gathering parts for it, but it got put on the back burner about a year ago, and hasn't moved forward.

The basic price of converting a conventional car to electric runs from about $3,000 to about $12,000 depending on what kind of proformance you need or desire. not very cost effective.

AS per the EV1, in the opinion of most alternative energy developers, myself included, they where nothing more than a ploy by G.M to say "We love the environment" without any practical aplication of the tech tha was available to them.

Tony