" Most of the homebuilts I know of run just regular lead
acid batteries purchased from the local FLAPS".
Don't lead acid batteries emit some sort of noxious gas while discharging?
So they aren't truly zero emission, are they?
Tim in Ft Worth '50 Chev dlx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly and Chris Mills [SMTP:scmills@tntech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:16 PM
> To: bob_keeland@usgs.gov; oletrucks@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Cafe and the environment - rant and LONG
> (sorry)
>
> This is long. Sorry - it's a big topic with me lately.
>
> Read it and feel free to poke holes in it.
>
> Please understand that I feel the average driver could care less about
> what
> makes their car go as long as it goes. Most teenagers know more about
> their
> computer than their cars. A sparkplug is as mysterious to some as is a
> torque convertor. Some might argue that today's average car is pretty
> boring but I'll argue that most people don't care one bit as long as it is
>
> fast enough, goes when you turn the key, and stays out of the shop and
> looks cool to their friends.
>
> So many of us could alter our means of transportation and eliminate most
> of
> our polluting habits. There are so many options out there already but the
> politicians, auto makers and the media proclaim none will work. They will
> but why change what we drive - when so many are already getting rich from
> our 'bad' habits?
>
> We've all heard the solutions involving bicycles and walking to
> work/school/store and whatever but none are very realistic for little
> trips
> where you need to be presentable on arrival or carry something with you.
>
> I think alot of us could get by with an electric vehicle as an in town
> vehicle. I'm not talking about those of you doing 80 mph commutes across
> metro areas because it's going to be tough to get there and back without a
>
> charge in between if you plan on using the heater and radio and lights.
>
> I hear the groans already but read on. I don't own one yet but I am
> thinking about an EV built from probably an old VW Beetle. A home built EV
>
> will do about 60 miles on a charge at 50 mph or less (you can go faster
> but
> not as far). Around town I get a ticket if I run over 35 mph. I know I
> could get around for several DAYS back and forth to the University where I
>
> work on one charge (more or less 6 miles each way). An old Chevy truck EV
> would be cool but I'm not going to hack that up... <grin>
>
> Even a home built EV operates cheaper than an ICE at about 2 cents a mile
> my reading shows.
>
> I subscribe to an EV list and they build theirs from average small 4
> cylinder cars. Not golf carts or anything too exotic like titanium framed
> whatevers. This is where old Geos and Escorts or Rangers go when they get
>
> old.
>
> An EV is very practical for these short trips where most of your cold
> engine wear is, where your most inefficient combustion takes place, and
> where your oil is never going to get hot enough to burn off the byproducts
>
> of combustion due to blowby of the piston rings.
>
> I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but I do believe that an EV can
> be
> built to practical standards for today's driver if enough money was thrown
>
> at it. I also believe that there are other technologies that can be used
> (fuel cells, etc.) but get 'lost' on purpose.
>
> Don't forget alot of companies get rich from the car as we know it today.
> Oil companies, engine part companies, service facilities, car makers, etc.
>
> Maintenance on an alternative powered vehicle like an EV is very minimal -
>
> just replace the batteries every so often (several years I'm told) and the
>
> rest is mostly electrical - no tune ups, no spark plugs, no oil, no
> filters, no valves! Most of the homebuilts I know of run just regular lead
>
> acid batteries purchased from the local FLAPS.
>
> Think of what goes away and then think about which companies don't get
> your
> money! It really upsets the automotive economy as we know it. I think if
> there were more efficient alternatives on the road you would see the car
> makers scramble to make the rest of their fleet more efficient. I think
> the
> auto/oil industry is protecting their infrastructure (wouldn't you?)
>
> They have spent billions and trillions on what we have today and they
> aren't going to just throw it away and jump into fuel cell technology (or
> anything like it).
>
> I'm not sure if I would say the ICE engine is as good as it gets today. I
> think it can be better, but maybe only marginally. I really believe like a
>
> friend (engineer) told me that regardless of what they do, you can only
> get
> so much energy out of a gallon of gas. The efficiency could still increase
>
> some though. We are hauling around alot of steel in the modern car but my
> '49 3100 216 c.i. gets about the same gas mileage as some of the other
> pickups on the road today - which are certainly cleaner, and certainly
> pack
> alot more creature comforts, but still get 15-20 mpg. Big deal.
>
> Think about what technology has done in the past 30 years (computers,
> etc.)
> and then think about the fact that the average car still uses the same
> basic ICE as 100 years ago - albeit much cleaner, durable, reliable, etc.
> Still pistons sliding up and down, camshafts, tappet valves, oil and
> gasoline.
>
> One good example of improvements out there (proven? dunno..) was an
> article
> in Hot Rod magazine last year sometime where a machinist/engineer replaced
>
> the cylinder head as we know it and it's tappet valves with a custom made
> head using rotating 'ball' valves in the head resulting in 30%-50%
> increases all over (I don't remember the exact numbers). The first
> improvement in power resulting from eliminating the camshaft and lifter
> arrangement which I'm told eats up much HP in any ICE.
>
> He tried this on everything including a Harley engine with good results. I
>
> wonder why the car makers don't embrace this stuff? Maybe it is durability
>
> or licensing or ??? but this sounded like a good improvement worth some
> attention.
>
> I'd love to see the common car or truck or SUV move on to a better power
> plant. I too love the ICE - tinkering and tuning and repairing. I also
> love
> being able to breathe and knowing that there will be some cheap energy
> left
> in the last years of my life (I'm 30 now). Why wait until we are at a
> crisis like the 70's during the embargo when we have the technology to
> improve our rides now. Most of what is on the road now are disposable
> vehicles anyhow. I also don't fear our roads would be crowded with tiny
> non-de script cars and trucks. Luckily the auto manufacturers keep putting
>
> out some very interesting wheels at the big expos. With only minor
> improvements I think we can take the EVs and fuel cells ideas to realistic
>
> design without a miracle.
>
> Okay for those of you who are going to rant this has nothing to do with
> old
> Chevy trucks - I'll argue it does. It does because what extreme
> legislation
> gets passed in the big metro areas of our country affects us everywhere
> eventually. Don't believe me?
>
> Everything in CA (Republic of Kalifornia I get told by some folks)
> trickles
> down to us in the boonies. Our clean cars are based on older CA standards.
>
> Not a bad thing but what if their rather extreme car crushing policy makes
>
> it's way to our home states? I often read stories on other lists (VW,
> Corvair, Porsche, EV) where folks are put on notice that their old parts
> vehicle in the backyard will be crushed by the local municipality if it
> isn't in running condition or registered (taxed). Most of these stories
> are
> coming from out west (CA) and some are certainly in neighborhoods with
> strict zoning regs. But where does this set of regs start? Frustrated
> neighbors with adjoining property looking at ancient junk heaps rusting
> away 50 feet from their bedroom windows. Maybe the car crushing is to make
>
> the militant tree huggers feel better - like they are accomplishing
> something for the environment. I figure they are just encouraging the
> economy to buy more new cars instead of taking care of the old ones.
>
> Fist let me say I'm not a nutzo tree hugger. I love the woods and the
> undeveloped lands we have left today. I'd love to see the urban sprawl
> stop
> but I'd be happy with some careful planning that keep the centers of the
> cities alive and trees everywhere - not just acres of asphalt (malls every
>
> 5 miles).
>
> I'm not a militant tree hugger with blinders on but I do think that
> progress keeps them in check. If we constantly improve auto technology for
>
> the average car then the militant need not crush all the old cars and they
>
> have nothing to complain about. If we are improving the common car then
> age, wear and tear, and accidents take care of most of the older cars who
> can't keep the air clean. What's left are fairly desirable relics
> appreciated by folks like us. And if the roads were full of our old cars
> stinking up the air then yes I'd probably be unhappy about it too.
>
> This I think takes the pressure off of the old car folks like us who want
> to keep and drive the oldies. Who cares if my old truck doesn't have a
> catalytic convertor and could choke a moose standing behind my truck when
> it idles IF the common commuter car is so clean you could heat your house
>
> with their exhaust (I'm stretching it a little!).
>
> Another way to look at is this: how much gas do you burn in a year? How
> much does some of commercial fleets? When I was in the Navy (Haiti to be
> exact) the SEALS were running OPS with patrol boats powered by twin
> in-board big block 500 c.i. engines. Beautiful to listen to (at a
> distance)
> with huge short header pipes sticking out of the rear, un-muffled,
> un-catalytic convertored - raw!
>
> They were running 2 or 3 boats I remember. They had to have fuel air
> dropped in huge bladders that looked like huge floating green marshmallows
>
> (make you hungry?). They used more in a couple days than I used in the
> previous two YEARS! And our antiques are a serious cause of the air
> quality
> problems? DOUBT it!!!
>
> One idea I never hear mentioned on the network news or by the militant
> tree
> huggers is how much resources are used to produce and deliver a new
> vehicle. I figure I'm using less energy driving the same 30-50 year car a
> few thousand miles each year than the local big wig buying a new whatever
> every two years no matter how clean his newest car is. Wouldn't it be more
>
> efficient to drive the same old whatever until the doors fell off and
> maybe
> keep it tuned or upgrade the drivetrain to a cleaner solution at rebuild
> time?
>
> A good example is my two VW's which will be getting 80's vintage fuel
> injection and a cat at some point in the near future since I can
> understand
> the system almost (once they are back on the road) and my '49 that might
> get something BOLTED in that is late model if I choose to begin operating
> my business with it. That will be MUCH cleaner than they are now and if I
> get really rich and smart then I'll move to 90's fuel injection...
>
> And what about the CAFE rules? Many loopholes allowing large SUV's to be
> categorized as what they are not. Half the time when I am riding my
> motorcycle to and from work I think they should require special licenses
> to
> drive some of the bigger ones - oh and cell phone blockers. I do think
> CAFE
> has cleaned up the air but without alot of pain for the car makers. They
> complained the whole time and then recently made some token attempts to
> produce EV's. Probably more public relations than real attempts at
> changing
> what we drive and thus what ends up in the air.
>
> I'm done ranting. I suppose this is just the result of the recent
> elections
> and listening to the candidates on all sides and all the networks giving
> such a narrow, slanted, non-objective view on the topics of today. This is
>
> the great thing about these Internet lists - common folks and goofy folks
> like me can spout off and be heard by someone besides their spouse,
> children and pets. Well at least by a couple bored folks anyway.
>
> Our world doesn't have to be like the politicians or the TV networks or
> corporate America plans it. There are other ways to skin the cat (I like
> cats honest!) I just believe the laws we are faced with today are
> encouraging the auto makers to build more and more gas sucking SUV's than
> REALISTICALLY examining other ideas. Like the newscasters say - it has
> polarized the issue. You are either for or against whatever idea is being
> proposed. Not many are saying hey - look - their's a pretty happy middle
> ground in here if you'll notice. A decent way to make everybody happy and
> not make anyone go home with their feelings hurt!
>
> Back to rusty trucks and leaky engines!
> CHRIS in Tennessee
> scmills@tntech.edu
> ICQ: 5944649
>
> '78 VW Westfalia (maybe some CIS injection,Corvair, turbos --- hmmmm...)
> '65 Beetle (Type IV powered)
> '99 CR-V 5 speed
> '49 Chevy 3100 Pickup
> '81 Honda CB900C
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|