PDA

View Full Version : Tree Huggers Vs. LBC Lovers. (was: Gastester/Colortune)



Bret
01-11-2003, 03:36 PM
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.

graemlins/cryin.gif

Bret
01-11-2003, 05:45 PM
<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) graemlins/thumbsup.gif <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.


graemlins/patriot.gif

01-11-2003, 06:01 PM
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
01-11-2003, 06:41 PM
<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.


graemlins/cheers.gif

TypeRboy
01-11-2003, 08:34 PM
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
01-11-2003, 10:59 PM
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
01-12-2003, 04:16 AM
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) graemlins/thumbsup.gif

MattP
01-12-2003, 04:39 AM
<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) graemlins/thumbsup.gif <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
01-12-2003, 06:25 AM
<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.

graemlins/cheers.gif

aeronca65t
01-12-2003, 12:08 PM
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.....
images/icons/grin.gif

Duane
01-12-2003, 12:10 PM
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 graemlins/cheers.gif
Duane

Bret
01-12-2003, 03:09 PM
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
01-12-2003, 05:10 PM
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

01-12-2003, 07:02 PM
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
01-12-2003, 07:28 PM
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
01-12-2003, 07:29 PM
<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>

graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif

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
01-12-2003, 08:50 PM
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.
graemlins/yesnod.gif


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.
graemlins/jester.gif

Bret

Bret
01-12-2003, 08:56 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aerog:


graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/lol.gif

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?
graemlins/crazyeyes.gif

aerog
01-12-2003, 09:14 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bret:


My car was on Blocks some time. Doesnt hat count?
graemlins/crazyeyes.gif <hr></blockquote>

Ok ok sure images/icons/smile.gif

youngsmith
01-12-2003, 09:47 PM
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

01-12-2003, 09:48 PM
Actually I am a heritic, I am wanting to do a v6 in the car I am restoring. However, I am employed in a fossil fuel electric plant, and have been for 20 years. I have seen the implimentation of all kinds of pollution controls, including a 110 million dollar scrubber in 94 that reduced our NOX emissions to less then 1% and now a huge catalytic converter that was supposed to cost 35 million ,but ended up closer to 75 million. My Company is currently building 4 more of these, in order to meet the 2004 emission standards (federal) and to remove that 1% of the NOX our scrubber misses. We sell the byproduct of our scrubber (gypsum) to be made into drywall and are looking into using our flyash in concrete instead of landfilling it. At the same time we deliver power to the consumer at an average of 8 cents/ kilowatt hour. People want the world to be a cleaner place and it does need to be. Who is going to bear the costs of the cleanup? The consumer of course. To paraphrase an old racing saying, Clean costs money. How Clean do you want to be. I apologize in advance to those I've offended, and for this Rant

Bret
01-12-2003, 10:03 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by youngsmith:

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.

Tony<hr></blockquote>

Being a single person. I’d think that you’d be the ideal candidate for an Electric or Hybrid car would. Granted it’s being a nerd mobile it’s not exactly the way to attract the opposite sex. I mean if I was single (no kids & such) and they could produce one with a reasonable amount of sex appeal (judging by those I seen thus far this is a stretch) I’d pick one up in a hart beat.

graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Duane
01-12-2003, 11:01 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 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<hr></blockquote>

All governments are protectionist; some more than others. Japan runs second to none. The main reason why we didn't buy into Kyoto (correctly I believe) is that what good is signing a treaty that no one else adheres to.
Jimmy Carter was pretty proud of collecting the Nobel Peace for brokering the Nuclear non- proliferation treaty with N. Korea. Within days, the news is out that N. Korea was building nukes anyway with the help of Iran!
Or as Homer says: DOH!
Rant over, I'll put on my asbestos jammies now.......


Duane graemlins/cheers.gif

DougR
01-12-2003, 11:43 PM
Sorry Duane, but as a world LEADER, U.S. should be setting an example for other nations to follow. "Everybody else was doin' it" wasn't even a good excuse in 5th grade. graemlins/patriot.gif

aeronca65t
01-13-2003, 11:15 AM
First:

Kudos to Bret for getting us all talking about the environment and emissions....everyone of us wants clean air, yet all of us drive these dirty little cars....we are all in sort of a quandry. There's no perfect answer, but I'm happy to compromise, if my future grandchildren can have a cleaner environment.

Chuck asked "How clean do we want to be?"....My answer: "We need to *lead* the way (as Doug says)"...We can afford it.....Most of us live in the richest part of the planet....if we didn't have any diposable income, we wouldn't have computers, LBCs, etc. Besides, we've lead the way in *generating* man-made air pollution, so we bear *some* responsibility in fixing the problem.

More ominously, countries like China are catching up rapidly when it comes to generating man-made pollution....they're the #1 soft coal user in the world, at the moment. We need to develop and support technology that *they'll* adopt, so that they're industrial pollution doesn't become *everyone's* problem (it is already something of a disaster in southern China).

I know this is impossible at the moment, but I'd like to see sort of a world-wide VAT-type tax on products based on the pollution index of their manufacturers (in other words, if you pollute more, your product is taxed more). No idea how this could be enforced, but we need to start thinking about goals like this.

The issue of Kyoto and the N. Koreans in actually related the other way around. One of the biggest supporters of Kyoto was the French, who generate the majority of their electricity with nuclear energy. The North Koreans could say that their increased nuclear energy development was in support of the Kyoto initiative (I wouldn't buy that, of course, but it's an example of how complex the issure is). Many Americans probably thought the Koyoto initative was too "loaded" against the U.S., but I think we should have stayed in the game and negotiated more.....the best solution involves compromise all was around.

The non-prolif agreement with with N. Korea was imperfect, to be sure, but at least we had some inspectors and cameras in place....sadly, in the last few weeks, the world now has less oversite in this area. It's useful to keep in mind the *real* culprits in this dillema. We may want to blame Carter/Reagan/Bush I/Clinton/Bush II, but the real cause is the Chinese govenment, which has groomed N. Korea as a de-facto "poking stick" in that region....keep that in mind, every time you buy something made in China.

Note to Scott: I have an STC on my plane to run no-lead....runs great, it's cheaper, less plug deposits and I get that warm fuzzy feeling that I'm doing my part for air quality!

78Z
01-13-2003, 12:11 PM
I take the bus during to work every day, drive some sort of a classic car during the summer and we have my wife's Jeep for long trips. Works pretty good and I'll bet even with a classic I put a lot less driving emissions than the average person.

[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: 78Z ]</p>

01-13-2003, 12:50 PM
Chuck asked "How clean do we want to be?"....My answer: "We need to *lead* the way (as Doug says)"...We can afford it.....Most of us live in the richest part of the planet....if we didn't have any diposable income, we wouldn't have computers, LBCs, etc. Besides, we've lead the way in *generating* man-made air pollution, so we bear *some* responsibility in fixing the problem.

I agree with that to some extent, but when they hold hearings on our rate increases to pay for new anti-pollution equipment, even the local environmentalists show up to protest. IMHO, people need to be willing to pay for what they want, and they aren't

Bret
01-13-2003, 05:43 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 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.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: catfood ]<hr></blockquote>

Be for warned - long post!

Steve has a point. However this should be expounded on. What comes out of the tail pipes of our cars is indeed only part of the bigger picture. The process to make these vehicles in another aspect. The use of recyclable material either in the actual manufacturing process, or material that can be recycled after it a car is scrapped is definitely a positive thing to look at. But again this is only a part of the problem. I’m not so sure that the cost of replacing a car that is forced off the road or scrapped because it fails emissions standards is really a major point. As far more cars are being put on the road year after year to meet the demands of an ever growing population, than are actually being taken off the road due to natural attrition.

There are other aspects of the issues that seem to be over looked that contribute just as severely. The biggest IMHO is that growing pollution I mentioned above. The following is an excerpt of an email discussion I had with another concerned citizen of our planet and LBC lover.

Read on at your own risk!

graemlins/cheers.gif

Forwarded edited dicussion:
“As to the " some facts that cannot be disputed" you listed - I only had an issue with one.

&gt;2) People consume/pollute, animals do not, plants do not
False - Yes, people do consume and pollute, but the part of the statement regarding Animals is wrong. Many studies have proven that cows "alone" account for something like 10% of the 550 million metric tons of methane gas emissions. FYI Methane is one of the major contributors to global warming.

The rest of your facts - I more or less agree with. I was happy to see that you didn't have any issue with my claim that My 78B (or anybody's for that matter) could hope to pass the stiff emissions tests set for our newer autos.

As for the rest of your comments concerning the planet - I'll admit that I don't have the answers. But I'd like to pass along some information to you as you seem genuinely concerned about our planet future. I've seen several studies on the aforementioned Methane gas affect on global warming that you might be interested in knowing. Here are some basics.

The four largest sources methane gas:
1) Landfills.
2) Enteric Fermentation (i.e. animal emissions)
3) Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems
4) Coal mining.

While these are the big four largest sources of methane gas in the world. Studies show that Agriculture accounted for 28 percent of U.S. methane emissions in 1999. In addition to the Enteric Fermentation (not just cows) Agriculture also consists of Manure Management, Rice Cultivation and Agricultural Residue Burning to list but a few. With that said - in the grand scheme of things, Mobile combustion (Interstate trucking, Trains, Autos as well as encompassing all methods of air travel) accounts for less half the methane releases that our Wastewater Treatment plants produce.

In support of your comments concerning over population and scant resources - the top source of methane gas is our over flown landfills. As the population increases this will only get worse. As will the demand for food and other natural resources generated through Agriculture. So don't look for any of these to diminish any time soon if population growth continues on it's current path.

Regarding CO2 emissions. The information I found would also support some aspects of your comments. With Fossil Fuel Combustion accounting for something like 95% of CO2 emissions thanks to the population growth. However the following quote from the EPA's web page - attributes less than 31% of those emissions to the Transportation End-Use Sector (Folks like you & I), with less than 2/3's of that resulted from gasoline consumption in motor vehicles.
"Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities - excluding international bunker fuels - accounted for 31 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 1999. Virtually all of the energy consumed in this end-use sector came from petroleum products. Just under two thirds of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption in motor vehicles. The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft."

As for N2O: (This is the worst by the way) In 1999, agricultural soil management accounted 69% of the U.S. N2O emissions. Likewise N2O emissions from managed manure systems in 1999 for 4%. All the while in that same year - N2O emissions from mobile combustion totaled 15% of U.S. N2O emissions.

For more information: https://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/ghgintro.html

Granted we can and should do better for our children’s sake. But knowing what I know - I still don't think that attacking our classic autos is the answer to our world's woes. I feel that we have much bigger fish to fry.

01-13-2003, 07:32 PM
I gotta agree with that

aerog
01-13-2003, 09:32 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aeronca65t:

Note to Scott: I have an STC on my plane to run no-lead....runs great, it's cheaper, less plug deposits and I get that warm fuzzy feeling that I'm doing my part for air quality!<hr></blockquote>

I'll just say I don't have the STC and don't intend on getting it - unless of course all the airports put in alcohol-free mogas pumps at a reasonable price, then I'll certainly consider it (I don't think we're that far away from it anyway). EAA reports the average on-field cost for Mogas (in '01) as $1.88 - I pay $1.96 for 100LL, the convenience of not carrying three 5-gallon jugs more than pays for the price difference.

Regardless, I get a guilt-free warm fuzzy feeling everytime I run it. Same holds true with the "B", no mixed-feelings in the least. None.

Now, if I can only get people to stop throwing their money away on replanting the rain forest while I see the forests in Florida get bulldozed daily to make room for concrete, houses, and condos, then I'd have an even warmer and fuzzier feeling.

That feeling could just be turned loose if they could also magically get all the rusted-out oil-burning pickup-trucks off the road, and while they're at it make people realize it isn't nice to toss their McDonald's bags onto the side of the road while they're obviously changing their oil using the "burn and fill" technique.

They could even probably make me gleeful if they could instantly disolve the part of a person's brain that makes them decide that the right thing to do is throw their softdrink and beer cans out their car windows (surely they're not drinking and driving are they? Uh, nevermind). I never quite understood why the Indian Chief (Native American to those who are turned on by PC) cried when he saw that stuff on the TV ad - I get red in the face mad.

I would be absolutely beside myself if they could further understand what makes someone throw a bag of their gathered-up crap into the trees at a National Park "Scenic Overview" when there are three empty trash cans 20ft away from each other.

Lastly, and this if off-topic, I would just instantly die and go to heaven if they could suddenly and mysteriously make everyone figure out that they're not going to drop dead if they walk 10 feet to put their shopping cart back in the big cart-pen. I mean, afterall, it's just the right thing to do, isn't it?


Sorry for the rant, Respectfully --- Scott

[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: aerog ]</p>

Duane
01-13-2003, 10:34 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> Sorry Duane, but as a world LEADER, U.S. should be setting an example for other nations to follow. "Everybody else was doin' it" wasn't even a good excuse in 5th grade. <hr></blockquote>

IMHO I think it tends to fall under the heading: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. By rejecting Kyoto I think we HAVE taken a leadership position.
Truly a complex situation in any event.
graemlins/thirsty.gif
Duane

aerog
01-13-2003, 10:41 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Duane:


IMHO I think it tends to fall under the heading: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. By rejecting Kyoto I think we HAVE taken a leadership position.
Truly a complex situation in any event.
graemlins/thirsty.gif
Duane<hr></blockquote>

I absolutely agree wholeheartedly.

You aren't necessarily doing anything better by signing a worthless treaty. Not signing it does not imply you're not going to do things "the right way", you're just not imposing world rule on your homeland.

FWIW I'm not going to read this thread anymore. This forum, for me, is for enjoyment and technical support relating to our car-hobby. This is showing signs of rapidly becoming a sounding board for political and environmental views, neither of which are what this forum was designed for.

For those who want to continue it, knock yourselve's out.

Bret
01-13-2003, 11:07 PM
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aerog:


FWIW I'm not going to read this thread anymore. This forum, for me, is for enjoyment and technical support relating to our car-hobby. This is showing signs of rapidly becoming a sounding board for political and environmental views, neither of which are what this forum was designed for.

For those who want to continue it, knock yourselve's out.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry if I offended anybody – Scott. I may be a lot of things to many people, but I am not an environmentalist. I just get all bugged out every two years - when the California DMV tells me that my MGB has to get another smog test. I for one think that a lot of those folks who wrap themselves up in the “Green flag” don’t have a clue what they are actually talking about most of the time.

If further posts are warranted on this subject - I suggest we move it over to the “Free for All” discussion group. Other wise I am done ranting too.

graemlins/cheers.gif

[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: Bret ]</p>

aerog
01-14-2003, 12:59 AM
Bret: I don't think being an environmentalist is either good or bad, it depends on your attitude toward it. I seriously don't believe that there are many people who are truly NOT an environmentalist really. If you think tossing garbage on the ground is bad, you're a sort of an environmentalist.

Personally I think everyone here has good points and bad ones. I won't jump further into that subject, but having been exposed to some of what you're going through -- well I'll just say I feel for you images/icons/smile.gif I think there should be a lot of leeway on older cars myself.

I'll look forward to seeing some more in the FFA forums.

Cheers all!

jha2297255
01-14-2003, 10:22 AM
"log earth, we'll get the other planets later"
-Josh

MattP
01-15-2003, 05:01 AM
Been a while since I checked in on this thread. Wow. Brainfood.

It was hard to accept that the SUV would but out less total emissions than a older car with much better gas milage. Then the post with the fact they put out emissions just sitting there reminded me of the carbon reclaimation tanks on new cars ect. I wonder which of the new features might be efficiently translated to the older cars. I have noticed that there is a company offering injectors and ECCs for old small block chevies. All they do is poke the injector into intake manifold just in front of the port. Is there something for LBC's like that?

I still stand by my statement that the new cars need efficiency legislation (the caddy 16 comes to mind). But no one seems to be arguing against it so it is easy to stick to.

This has been a deep thought provoking topic, and I hope it continues. Next we can work on World Peace and Hunger.


As an American, I liked the concept of the Kyoto agreement, but not the treaty. Perhaps if it had been more hashed out, but as it stood, I didn't.


MattP

On the humorous side, I have found out that there is an iceage every 10000 yrs. The last one began just over 11000 yrs ago and ran to about 8000 yrs ago. If one were to hit the world would be devistated, as all the population swarmed the tropical zones as the arible land was chilled out of production starvation of biblical proportion. We are now geologically 1000 years overdue for this disaster, so get out and do your part. Drive. graemlins/thumbsup.gif The greenhouse gasses will prevent average tempratures dropping the nessicary 2 or 3 degrees and save civilization from ecological devistation.

[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: MattP ]</p>

PalmettoBT7
01-15-2003, 01:12 PM
I guess what this discussion boils down to, in its most brutal terms, is-is it irresponsible to drive a 60's model LBC in the present ecological climate? When viewed as a strictly emissions-based decision, there can be no doubt the almost any modern motor vehicle runs cleaner than even a well-tuned vintage LBC. There are two other ways of looking at this that I'd like to suggest. If you look at the entire energy profile of the system that produces and operates automobiles, taking into account the systemic energy expended to produce the metals and plastics that go into a car, the other energy expended to actually build the car, energy to ship it to its destination and the enrgy to operate it, would the conservation of energy realized by more people driving 50 year old cars offset the increased air pollution and consumption of fuel? Here's another aspect. Is not the ecological "penalty" of a few of us operating our old cars offset by the educational and sociological benefit of reminding our fellow citizens of the history of automotive technology?

Bret
01-16-2003, 04:21 AM
Sorry I lied – but I couldn’t stay away. Who could have predicted that this thread would have turned into something so much bigger that the sum of my original post. Which concerned a vary real threat to folks (like us) who own older cars. In this case LBCs and the affect of California’s law that only recently upped the requirement for emissions testing exemption for older cars from 25 to 30 years.

Anyway I’d like to make just two final statements:
First when I said I wasn’t an environmentalist – I meant it. Least ways not in the since that the environmentalist movement carries itself and is perceived by the general public. I.e. Militant, kooky and down right out there in the Twilight Zone - when it comes to the mainstream. Yes - I recycle whenever possible and don’t see any problems with imposing stricter & stricter laws (as seen with imposed on new vehicles) to diminish the growing effect of the worlds population on the resources of this planet. While I don’t usually begrudge most folks their beliefs one way or another, I simply have no time or patience with someone who supports a cause from an uninformed and all to often hypocritical position.

Secondly: As stated and detailed in my previous postings in this thread - in a nutshell, I think all vehicles (old & new) are the prime targets of these militant environmentalist groups because they are such a visible part of our everyday life. If you think that cars alone are the primary cause of the world’s environmental woes then you are sadly mistaken. There in lies the problem – as these folks spread and find willing allies in our Federal, State and Local Governments - trying to do the “Politically Correct thing”, we are all in danger.

BTW – My 78 “B” has never once - cut down a tree.

Enough said.
graemlins/cheers.gif