Nicole

You know, this is always the excuse for not doing anything. But if everybody has to do the same, it levels out the market. When the needed technology becomes commonplace, it also becomes cheaper to the point where it does not make much of a difference to the end customer.

Remember the discussion about airbags? The manufacturers where whining that it makes cars more expensive and the manufacturers would lose profits? Well, once all cars had airbags, they became cheap and manufacturers had found other ways to save cost - so in essence you as the car buyer get a lot more car for your money now than you did years ago.

The industry will always be against innovation, as long as the old stuff sells. It's easier than to invest into research and new product development. But it also hampers progress. And we've seen how unprepared the US car industry was when we had the first oil crisis. They have adapted and are still there...

This does not just apply to the car industry - one where it is very obvious is the appliance industry, which will continue to make archaeic top loading washing machines that use three times as much water and energy while wearing clothes more and still not getting it as clean as a modern tumble action washer. Now that more people become aware of energy and water issues, and there is "Energy Star", the industry finally wakes up. They are still light years behind what is available in other parts of the world, but made a big leap ahead. And they are not unaffordable anymore, even though not cheap either.

I bet you, if there WAS a law limiting the water usage of a washer, we'd have tumble action washers at low price points within a few months, saving a ton of water and energy. This would save a lot of worries about water in dry areas like most of the Western US. I don't know what it costs us to continue to epxand water supplies to dry areas, versus using less water, but I'm sure it would be more feasable without hurting the consumer. Sometimes both the consumer AND the insustry need wakeup calls for things to get better for all.

In the end we have to see the cummulative effect. Sure, it does not make much of a difference in overall pollution in California, if one person takes the cat out of his 928. But if 10 people do it, we already have the pollution of 220 cars, if 100 do it, we're up to 2200, and so it goes. Because we have a tendency to be selfish, we only change based on government regulations -- and then bitch about them. If these regulations were NOT in place we'd bitch about the pollution (or water or energy shortages). You'd worry about your kids' health, your water and energy bills. And so on...

Robert_H

All I can say is, if they make rides available (to us civilians) on those B-52's, I will be the first in line for a ride.

Rob

aircooler

That's funny Tony

Here is another:



The 52's make a lot of dirt, but have you ever lined up at the end behind a just departed C-141?

Hoooly!

Rob,

If you want a ride in a B-52 you can experiance it at home.

*Just sit in your most uncomfortable chair in a small closet with the light out.

*Have at least 2 vacume cleaners in there with you running constantly.

*Take in a small TV that you must watch for the entire duration, but you must only watch the finatial stock ticker.

Take in a cell phone and have you significant other phone you every 5-10 minutes to tell you the time. You must repeat the time back to her, and wish her a good day.

*After a few hours eat a cold dry sandwitch.

*Wash the sandwichit down with some 5 hour old luke warm coffee.

*After a few more hours eat another cold dry sandwitch.

*If you fart, keep looking around as if it was someone else.

There ya go Rob

Cheer,
Mike

ViribusUnits

Those numbers are intersting. My older car w/ much more primitive engine mannagement, w/o a cat turned sigificantly better numbers. Lower on almost all respects. The only thing that was higher was the HC count. Most intersting. Rember, I still failed the HC count, but I think I've got that figured out now. I had a crappy set of plugs in the car and didn't know it. Opps. I'm going to run this last tank of fi cleaner, and then try again. Lets see what happens, shall we?

I'm NOT in favor of govermental laws manddating fuel milage, or water consuption. I am however in favor of govermental taxs to increase the price of doing bussness if your stupid. High fuel milage cars are not popular in the US because gasoline is cheap. Lower water use appliances are not popular because water is cheap. Make the comodity pricy, as it should be if your haveing trouble getting a hold of it, and suddenly everything is so much more efficent. Notice how SUV sales have droped, but Diesel and hybrid sales have been takeing off? Also notice how things like "displacement on demand" are suddently becomeing mature.

I don't see why the goverment should manndate a low water use washing machine or toilet for me. I live in Houston. There is pretty much no such thing as a water shortage. We're liveing on drained swamp land for crying out loud. I get 3,000 gallons of water in a month for $8.40. I don't use but maybe 1,000 gallons of water in a month. And I've got the old style toilet, shower head, sink, etc.

I also don't see why the goverment would want to manndate emissions control equipment for west texas. There arn't enough cars out there to matter one way or the other. I've been known to drive on a 2 lane road w/o seeing another car for hours. Like haveing a cat, or not, is going to matter one way or the other? So far Texas has done pretty good in that regard, and is only requireing it around the citys. I'll be the first to admit it's over due in Houston and the Metroplex.

I guess I'm something of a Libertarian at heart.

Nicole

I should say that I agree with Viribus that if something has to be done, it is better to increase the cost of a commodity locally than to put regulations in place. However, what you will find is that continued unlimited usage might become a status symbol of the wealthy -- kind of like driving a Hummer H2 that nobody needs, but after all they can afford it...

Like, if there is a water shortage, and the State has to invest in water treatment plants or else, then the consumers must be aware that they either conserve or pay for the extra effort that has to be made to acommodate their needs. And to a certain extend that's already done.

The problem with exhaust is that there is no fee for emitting it, so there is no way to give an incentive to emit less. As a result, we got regulations. And as always, it has become a type of sports to circumvent the regulations that are made to benefit us all.

I admit there are areas where emissions controls on one car won't make a difference. But again, look at the cummulative effect. It's all the same atmosphere, with China and India now contributing, too!

BTW: Europe has never had any fuel efficiency standards, and yet, people buy and drive fuel efficient cars. In fact, it is considered "cool" to have a clean high tech turbo diesel or whatever other fuel sipping type of vehicle...

It's always a matter of perspective: Here you can impress your neighbor by telling them you removed emissions controls and gained 10HP (sounds a lot for the guy with his old 100HP car, but is little for you with already 316 horses under the hood). In Europe, you impress by having the latest technology that saves fuel and emissions, and is fun at the same time. I regret that we won't get the turbo diesels with soot filter over here. If I could afford it, I'd trade my Saab V6 for one of those in a heartbeat.

Nicole

Well I certainly did not mean to say anything sexy - even less the sexiest. And I don't quite understand how that could hurt you either...

In case you meant "sexist", let me correct myself:

"If your neighbor beats his husband and kids..."

Are you happy now?

SharkSkin

As for the first part, which set of numbers are you looking at? The ones with just the O2 sensor, or sensor + cats?

I can't reconcile the last two lines I quoted above. The sort of taxes you are talking about are a big part of what's stifling this country. Another part is excessive regulation, like washing machine efficiency. Nobody ever thinks about the bureaucracy and waste that accompanies each little paragraph of mumbo-jumbo doublespeak that gets enacted. Make a new law, and you have to hire someone to monitor and enforce it, to collect fines, etc.

This is exactly how we end up with the horribly inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies like DMV; they are about as efficient as a quadriplegic ditch-digger, and even more useless... unless you happen to sell donuts. I could name more, but suffice it to say our society is already drowning in useless bureaucracies. How much more do you really think we can afford?

I'm not against laws, I'm just against stupid laws... unfortunately that's most of them. For example, the EPA encourages pollution. Sound crazy? It is, and they do it every day. Company XYZ calls up disposal company ABC. XYZ has a few drums of some really noxious waste, and company ABC is going to charge the going rate, $50K to dispose of it properly. So XYZ looks up the penalties incurred for dumping it in the local creek or down the sewer, finds it's $10K, IF THEY GET CAUGHT, and they dump it. If they do get caught, they still get off easy, and in that event there is no civil liability because the fine has been paid to the EPA. So if that happens to be your backyard the creek runs through, you can't sue to force them to clean it up!



OK, OK, I'm done.... just... please, no more stupid laws.

Nicole

Dave: The ideal cas is always NOT to have any regulations. Nobody wants regulations, but they are often the only way to change people's habits.

How else would you get people to act responsively in cases where the action of one does not make much of a difference and/or is seen as a burden, but the cummulative actions of many is needed to make an impact and bring the cost down for all?

Regulations don't always have to be painful. For example, the Europeans give tax incentives for buying cars that meet the latest emissions standards (I have heard you also get a $1500 writeoff for buying a Hybrid here in the US). That makes people happy and helps achieve the goal of reducing pollution. And quite often people find that these more modern cars use less gas (costing them less) and are more powerful and fun than their old clunker.

Here in CA it's the opposite - at least for non-hybrids. You buy a new, clean car, you pay registration through the nose. Get an old clunker that barely passes the sniffer test, and you pay hardly any registration. Here you have an incentive to own multiple such cars - it's a lot cheaper than one new one with the latest emissions controls.

Of course, us 928 owners love that. In contrast to Germany, where 928 owners put the more efficient high flow metal cats in and get a tax deduction that almost pays for the upgrade, we remove the cats and circumvent the lax testing we already have.

(Actually, in some areas it's not quite as lax anymore... I just paid $700 to pass my Saab because these idiots who replaced the heads 10k miles earlier had put the old spark plugs back in, plus another part needed replacement)

Think about it next time you are on Skyline Drive. Take some time to stop and look down into the Bay Area. Seeing the brown smog can be sickening... That's the stuff you and I breathe every day. Does it really have to be that way?

Again, I'm not saying and have never said you should not have a nice car and have fun with it. I just feel it's a small contribution to leave your cat in place, or get one, if you don't already have it. Whether you pass without it or not.

SharkSkin

Nicole,

Look, I happen to agree that there are things we can do to clean up our environment. I for one have my cat in place and functional, and I've posted my smog cert on my site. It doesn't look as good as Mike's, but it's decent. Frankly, IMHO, these new smog laws are even stupider than the last ones. East Germany threw off the yoke of oppression, maybe we should do the same.

Look, it's none of the state's damn business what's under my hood. Blower, SC, gas turbine, flux capacitor.... none of their business. If they want to hold a vehicle to certain emission standards, that's fine with me, but again it's none of their business how I achieve it. Maybe someone from the raindrop state can confirm what I've heard, but my understanding is that in Washington state smog checks are basically like a toll booth in layout... you drive up, they put an RPM sensor on the OUTSIDE of your hood and a sniffer in the tailpipe. They get a reading, and you're done. Isn't that the point? Check emissions?

All of this intrusiveness is counterproductive. For example, my 4x4 had an aftermarked 4bbl carb & Edelbrock manifold. My smog check indicated I was putting out about half of the limit on all emissions. BUT, since their little book said I had to have a 2bbl carb, they forced me to swap one in. This was expensive and a bit painful, since I ended up having to search high and low for the correct manifold. The end result was, with the 2bbl, the best I could get the emissions down to was about 5% below max on all but NOX. The smog referee guy(at the BAR station in the south bay) gave me a big thumbs up, saying "Aren't you glad it's all legal now?"

So here is my response to the smog ref: "Yeah a-hole, I'm so glad I wasted 3 weekends searching for parts and working on this thing so that it puts out twice the smog, has half the power and now you feel that there is a point to your life". Well, I would have liked to have said that, but instead I noodged and hinted at it... he got the idea though.

Again, I'm all for trying to clean up the environment, but please no more stupid laws enacted by stupid people who don't understand cars. I want these idiots out from under my hood. Yeah, they can check the tailpipe any time, fine with me. The issue is emissions and IMHO that's all they should look at.

Nicole

Generally Agreed.

If we require cars to be at least near as clean as Mike's car with the cat (which we do on new cars), the testing should be able to determine, if that's really the case. How you achieve that should not be an issue -- in theory.

The problem: Since it has become a type of sports to circumvent emissions regulations someone would come up with a trick, like a blower that injects a lot of fresh air into the exhaust tube, or something weird that fools the test equimpment -- and that's not the idea here. We all have become the vicitms of this sport by getting stricter and more expensive inspections.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever achieved such low emissions without a cat. The fact that 928s passed the sniffer test was because the text was lax enough to let it slip through, not because a 928 is super clean without a cat.

Today's cats are so efficient that power loss is absolutely minimal. If you feel the factory cat is inefficient in any way, you can upgrade to a more efficient metal cat. I have yet to hear a really good technical justification for not having a cat at all.

Look at Blau928's new exhaust system as a good example...

ViribusUnits

SharkSkin:

1. I found it intersting that my car w/o a cat, and a very old school engine mannagement, and head design was getting better emissions than his car w/o a cat. In other words, eighter L-jet isn't all that bad, or something wasn't working exactly right on his car.

2&3. I want no regulations. Thus the libertarian comment. However, I know that's not possible. No regulations brings out the worst side of capatalism. Probably not the best thing to do.

Failing no regulations, I want the least possible regulations. And I want those to make sence. To me mandateing a 1.6l per flush toilet makes no sence. Same as manndating 27.5 mpg cars. If the consumer doesn't care about the cars milages, the moment it comes off the line, that milage is going to go down. For our stand point it doesn't matter if it's because of a heavy foot, modifications, or just lack of a tune up. Same with toilets, just flush it twice, use 3.2l per flush, instead of 2.something. Kinda a self defeating regulation. Then if we mandate 27.5 mpg for cars, we have to come up with a testing scheem, a enforcement scheem, etc. And it still doesn't solve the basic problem. People will live father away from their work, etc, and end up burning the same amount of fuel anyways. Not to mention, we have to secure a supply line of oil for that fuel, and all the complicaitons that entails.

Consumers are SMART for the most part. If you want them to conserve a specific item, make that item more valueable to them. How do we do this? Well, the simplest, and cheapest regulation that I can think of is to raise the price. Maybe a tax of oil from "unfreindly" nations, namely OPEC. The price of fuel goes up, everyone screams bloody murder, and then buys a more efficent car, and/or drives less. At the end of the day, here's what we've solved.

-CO2 emissions reduced
-CO emissions reduced
-Unfreindly countrys punished
-traffic congestion reduced
-suburban spral and waste reduced
-reurbanized citys (dead citys come back to life basicly.)
-a shift in dependence from oil and automobals as the consumer good of choice to something else, like electronics or cloths, reduceing the influance of so called big oil.
-increased development of so called "alternative energy"

To me, that seems great, for only a limited downside. The one down side is the punks that can afford an H2 would buy it as a status symbole, but why do I care about that? They're going to try to buy their status symboles anyways. Least I can do is make it mean they are really really really rich, right!

As far as emissions testing, I've seen reports of an intersting set of sensors. Instead of measureing ppb, ppm, or a percentage they measure in grams per mile, milligrams per mile, etc. They are more expensive, but the point is there is NO way to fool the sensor. You stick the sensor on the tail pipe, and there is no fooling it. Bigger motors predictably do worse, because they more more air/fuel mix in general, and thus pollute a bit more in general. This makes alought of sence to me. It's a dyno unit of course, but there is no requirement for a rpm sensor, or realy any inspection under the hood at all. And really, thats what we care about, the grams, or milligrams of harmful gasses emitted per mile travaled.

V-Fib

It is interesting to note that, Big factories and refineries are allowed quota's on the amount of pollution they can produce. Did you know that they are allowed to sell their unused portion of their maximum output quota to a factory that is putting out more than their allotted quota? This allows a company really polluting to stay in business. As far as the 79, I am emissions exempt in Texas (25 y/o or older) and do not feel guilty at all for a no cat dual exhaust system. My other vehicles meet all required regulations. I've got to wait a couple more years for the Vette to make 25, then cat-less, I will go.

SharkSkin

I'm of the opinion that taxes are the wrong form of incentive. We are already taxed out of 2/3 of our earnings, and what do we get for it? Damn little per $. Look, they take 1/3 off the top before you even get a paycheck. Then, out of every dollar that's left, around half goes to the government in one form or another. I for one am sick of it. This is like the junk food tax debate all over again.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine... and I am a registered Libertarian BTW, though this may be the first election in some time where I don't vote a straight Libertarian ticket, just because I think Mad King George needs to go.

BTW the claimed benefits of increased fuel prices that you cite are specious at best. One only has to count the SUVs on a mile of California freeway to see that.

ViribusUnits

Personaly, I would use the oil tax as a replacement tax for some other tax. Instead of adding it onto other taxs, use it as a partial or total replacement for the IRS. This way, instead of takeing the fuel tax on top of your income tax it's taken in place of most of the income tax. I belive this might even make it politicaly possible.

For an example what what high fuel prices will do to a country you can't look at CA. The fuel is still "too cheap" there to get the full effect. California has many more hybrids, battery powered cars, and econoboxs than say Texas does, but still quite a few SUVs. To truely see what I'm going for, look toward Europe. If fuel hits 5 dollars a gallon, how much would you burn?