Re: Plug wires

["Chris and Ranae Procyk" <procyk19@domain.elided>]

>I DO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. It's my second Government job. I spent 18


That's right, I forgot!

>I own a motorhome with only 13,000 miles on it. I can get it to pass the
>tailpipe test, but they won't let me install the devices it needs because

......
>take it out of state to sell it.


Yeah, that's what so ridiculous.  Who in their right mind wouldn't think
that something that's had 20+ more years of refinement (with an eye towards
emissions) wouldn't be better?

Plus we're buying like 1.2 mil new cars a year?  How many vehicle miles is
everybody with a truck like yours actually contributing to the total?
Immeasurable.

What are they thinking?

>If private industry ran our SMOG check program they would have lots of
>solutions for autos that were having trouble passing and they wouldn't


I'm not so sure??? What would be their incentive?  UNOCAL thought it had a
pretty good take on the problem... thank the "big-pocket environmentalists"
for containing that disaster as much as it has been contained.  SEMA just
showed its usual impotence.

>effect when they were built. They would push manufacturers to come up with
>support for thier old vehicles still on the road (Chrysler no longe

....
>to make "copy cat" parts to meet that need without Chrysler's permission
>and a royalty. Remember, Chrysler wants you to dump the old truck and move
>up to one of their new V-10s or Cummins turbo diesels.) They would also


Actually, I think the constipation comes from the other area.  Of course
Chrysler doesn't want to be bothered... which is why I'm unsure about the
incentives of a private agency, either.  Imagine if AT&T ran the thing..
ugh.

The constipation comes from the visual test, and the butt-head adherance to
original parts.

Take your bugaboo, carbs.  You can get a basic Holley 2bbl for like $175,
little over $200 for an 1850.  But always OFF-ROAD only... Now, what if you
had to meet a reasonable, but effective (not just unloaded) emissions test,
somewhere between new and the nasty 5/1200-- BUT YOU COULD MEET IT ANY WAY
YOU WANTED TO.

Wouldn't then the free market itself create a huge incentive for Holley, et.
al. to put major resources into developing newer carbs for older cars?  You
can buy the new Cummins for like $35K, or you could bolt on a carb for a
couple of 100 bucks that would sail you through the emissions test, save
gas, and actually clean up the air???  Besides, Holley could then easily
decide how to consolidate their carb lines and reduce their vast inventory
of re-build kits, which would help their bottom line.  It's a decision
everybody's making anyhow, which is why you're screwed on the old carb.  But
instead of just saying "okay, we're dropping all support for this carb, too
bad" they could spend a day of lab time documenting how to make a new design
carb bolt up.

Shops would pop up that specialize in fixing up older cars, and competition
between them would push valve and ring job prices down.

You could probably get rings, valves, and a new, smarter carb for less than
two car payments.

And everybody wins, because the real truth is:

1) In the Northeast and northern midwest, pre-80's vehicles have pretty much
rusted themselves off the road, or been saved by enthusiasts who will only
put fairly low miles on them.

2) In the sunnier climes, the American ideal of "I must always have
something new, and bigger than the neighbor's" will still persist with most
people so, again, the percentage of vehicle miles from older vehicles will
just shrink to nothing.

So why didn't SEMA ever push this kind of vision ??

Surprisingly enough, generic, useful gov't decrees can be an economic help,
not hurt.  In the US we, the people, got fed up with smog and other stuff.
But Clean Air targets didn't know about cat. converters.. they were thought
up by private industries.

A while later, they, the people of Germany, also got fed up with smog.
Guess where the automakers had to come to buy cats?  The USA.

Gov't is best when it recognizes problems and demands fixes by trying to set
targets.  But when they think they can decree the path to those targets, we
invariable get this type of foul-up.

They're doing it again with safety issues.

>I venture to say that you support your smog check program because it
>doesn't greatly inconvinience you or stop you from driving your Scout. But,


Actually, sad to say, what's happened to you probably won't happen to the
rest of us because we have, as you say, been alerted!!  Our smog program has
actually be defanged, in fact.  Although they added a 2000+ rpm (no load)
test, they've completely exempted 25yr+ vehicles (which I agree with, like I
said, you can't drive them year-round around here anyway cause they quickly
become a pile of iron oxide) and ANY vehicles with less that 5000 mi/yr.
use.  I suspect we'll see a rash of broken speedometer cables, which I don't
like so much.