Calif. sues 6 carmakers

[spike]

It's common knowledge if you have any experience at all of the IC engine. You need to make one of two changes..

So a link should be easy to provide then showing that emissions cannot be cut any further.

 

[Gato_Solo]

So a link should be easy to provide then showing that emissions cannot be cut any further.

I hate to say this...I really do...but he's right. Common knowledge of the IC engine would not be enough to avoid a link in this case...That being said, there is only so far you can 'lean out' an engine before it won't fire at all...

I'll give Inky this much, however. He's been working on and driving a vintage Ford Fairlane for most of his adult life, so he should have a bit more knowledge than most with mechanical systems. The automakers went with electronic fuel injection in the late 1980's and the early 1990's, depending upon the continent of manufacture, because of the precision of the fuel-air mixture. This is just a clue for you, spike...

 

[RDX]

New cars have very low emissions, and adding further emission control devices results in very diminishing yields. More and more of the components in a car are to reduce emissions, corresponding to an increased cost. On top of that, many of these regulation devices lower the gas mileage of cars, a not so welcome side effect.

Highwayman is correct that to get a real significant lowering of emissions, a car would need to have a radically differnt engine design or move to an alternative fuel source. The IC engine has been engineered for so long and from so many angles, there aren't any ways for the car manufactures to magically cut emssions in half with a few small tweaks.

I still recall a serious proposal of blowing holes in the surrounding mountains and installing monster fans

I remember revisting this proposal in an air pollution control class that I took. The tunnel/fan width was calculated to be something like 1/2 mile in diameter. Now THAT I would like to see.

Another rather unique proposal that was seriously suggested in Mexico was to have 5 large helicopters hovering over the city to create air movement and "blow" the pollution away. Obviously, this proposal never got too far.

 

[spike]

"Anybody who knows anything about emissions should be able to predict that emissions are going down," says Dan Meszler, director of Energy & Environmental Analysis Inc., an Arlington, VA, consultant group that recently completed an emissions study for AAA.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_1999_Nov/ai_57165220

 

[Gato_Solo]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_1999_Nov/ai_57165220

I wonder why? Could it be because automakers have lowered the emissions over the past decade, or could it be that people are getting their cars serviced on a regular basis?

Here's a good one for you, since you put up an opinion as a fact...

Read this...and read this...and finally, this...

 

[Professur]

Not quite sure where you're trying to go with that Spike. But, let's look at a few 'other' things.

Automakers may be able to squeeze more emissions control out of their engines. Maybe not. But the issue is wether they can continue to be profitable while doing so. Don't forget, these are publicly held companies. Shareholders require profits. No profits, no shareholders, no company, no employment. GM employees how many people?

Regardless of wether automakers produce cleaner cars or not .... people aren't buying them. Go to the corner and count in one minute how many SUVs you see. Now count for another minute how many hybrids. Now remember you're in Calif where ECO rules .... or does it?

Add to that the fact that for a large part of their market, automakers aren't selling in an electric friendly environment. Canada and most of the US face sub-Zero temps all winter. I don't know if you're aware of what that does to battery life. Every 10C drop in temp halves a battery's voltage. So electrics and hybrids face some major problems for fully half of their market share.

The long and short of it is that people don't give a rat's ass. Trying to force automakers to serve as the people's concious and do the work for them is the same as my gov't taking my taxes and giving them to charities I don't support.

A smarter and more efficient way to clean up, would be to simply introduce a gas-guzzler tax. Take that money and use it to finance clean research. Oh wait, they already did that, didn't they? Not only didn't it slow people down from buying SUVs, the research funded by it hasn't yielded anything that's make the 11 o'clock news yet either.

 

[spike]

Here's a good one for you, since you put up an opinion as a fact...

Put up an opinion as fact? Where did I claim it was fact?

I put up a quote and a link from a source that has conducted an emissions study.

You got a problem with that but not the people in this thread who have done nothing but post their own opinions as fact? Strange reaction.

 

[spike]

Automakers may be able to squeeze more emissions control out of their engines. Maybe not. But the issue is wether they can continue to be profitable while doing so. Don't forget, these are publicly held companies. Shareholders require profits. No profits, no shareholders, no company, no employment. GM employees how many people?

Regardless of wether automakers produce cleaner cars or not .... people aren't buying them. Go to the corner and count in one minute how many SUVs you see. Now count for another minute how many hybrids. Now remember you're in Calif where ECO rules .... or does it?

I guess they can be profitable since I see far and away more hybrids on the highway than SUVs. There goes that theory.

Hybrids are allowed to use the carpool lane with only one driver. You can't go a block with seeing three of them. People give a rat's ass more several reasons.

 

[Professur]

I guess they can be profitable since I see far and away more hybrids on the highway than SUVs. There goes that theory.

Hybrids are allowed to use the carpool lane with only one driver. You can't go a block with seeing three of them.

Really? I highly doubt it. And I've the web accessible traffic cams to make my point.



But, suppose that is the case. Then what more are auto makes supposed to do? Sounds like they've already done their part.

 

[chcr]

But, suppose that is the case. Then what more are auto makes supposed to do? Sounds like they've already done their part.

Pony up. Daddy needs a new pair of Birkenstocks. Not much to worry about really. Within ten years (maybe less) there won't be American automakers.

 

[spike]

Really? I highly doubt it. And I've the web accessible traffic cams to make my point.

But, suppose that is the case. Then what more are auto makes supposed to do? Sounds like they've already done their part.

You look at your cams and I'll keep looking out my windshield.

What are automakers supposed to do? Keep reducing emmissions and improving effeciency. It's an ongoing process, not a "done their part" kinda thing.

 

[Professur]

You look at your cams and I'll keep looking out my windshield.

It's an ongoing process, not a "done their part" kinda thing.

I wasn't award they'd stopped. In fact, since I just finished car shopping, I can tell you that the new GM minivans are more fuel efficient than my old '97 .... which was easily the most efficient minivan availible when I bought it.

 

[spike]

That's great. What kind of mileage are minivans getting these days anyway?

 

[Inkara1]

This smog report and a bit of analysis is where I get my information.

The 2000 Neon is the daily driver... the 1962 Fairlane, which I've done a lot of engine work on since 1997, has 1962 fuel economy, brakes, steering, safety systems and emissions, and thus isn't practical as a daily driver.

Oh, just for you guys' info... the 1981 Honda Accord I had with the CVCC engine put out about the same numbers as the Neon does... with a carburetor.

 

[Professur]

http://www.gm.com/automotive/fuel_economy/

Allowing for bias, given that it is a proprietary site.