I stand corrected on much of this. Thank you for that fascinating
information.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 (being restored, but will be drivable when the transmission's
back in)
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, nolan penney wrote:
> >The main problem with U.S. emission controls is that European
> >manufacturers didn't try to reduce emissions without reducing power or
> >efficiency. This is while American manufacturers were installing catalytic
> >converters, which have little effect on power or efficiency.
>
> I really have to disagree with you on that sir. The EPA knew then, and
>admits now, that they were
> well aware the technology wasn't there for the emissions reductions they were
>mandating, and that
> major players were the only ones that could survive the actions they were
>forcing. They new it
> was backwards engineering to demand such high reduction, with a lessening of
>reduction rates
> later. That better results would be obtained by reversing that scenario.
>
> I'm not sure where you've determined that american manufacturers simply put
>free flowing cats on
> their vehicles and life was fine for them. Nothing could be further from the
>truth. Starting
> with the horrid cats used by every manufacturer except Ford. Pellet cats
>seriously restrict flow,
> and plug themselves with amazing speed and regularity. At that time, it
>wasn't particularly
> uncommon for GM's especially to need a new cat every couple of oil changes.
>
> We were also being inundated with other charming systems, such as thermactic
>reactors in the
> exhaust manifolds that obstruct flow, egr valves that reduce power and
>efficiency, Chryslers god
> awfull lean burn system that destroyed every engine it touched, retarded
>ignition timing and other
> wonderfull things that left us with Pinto's and Cavaliers that couldn't get
>to 60 mph in less then
> ten seconds. Frequently destroying themselves in a matter of a few years
>trying to do so.
>
> What's more, the EPA requirements were exactly the same for the cars being
>imported into this
> country. They had no special exemptions or restrictions. Nor advantages in
>research.
>
> No sir, what ended up killing them as far as the US markets go is that they
>did not have the
> financial resources to survive this draconian learning era, or the
>technological resources to do
> much other then follow the lead of giant companies like GM when it came to
>attaching things to the
> engines to clean them up. While GM and Ford could weather this time
>(Chrysler only with a federal
> "loan"), little companies like MG and Triumph could not.
>
> Some little companies could, did, and still do survive by simply avoiding the
>dreaded US market
> intirely. Leaving then and never coming back. Many new ones refuse to even
>consider entering the
> US market for those reasons. Unfortunately for many companies, like MG and
>Triumph, the US was a
> major portion of their market, and it would have killed them for certain if
>they had pulled out.
> So their only choice was to attempt to make it with their meager resources.
>They couldn't do it.
>
> This tact of using economic laws to drive certain companies out of business
>is quite common with
> the EPA. They are neither subtle nor deceptive in doing this. They feel
>that whatever they are
> doing is right and proper, and that they have the right and responsibility to
>decide which
> companies should be allowed to continue, and which ones should not.
>
> Currently, I am perepherally involved with this as it relates to the EPA's
>plan to drive out of
> business 98% of all incinerators in this country. Check out their web page
>if you don't believe
> me. Download the RACT laws as they relate to medical waste and municiple
>incinerators from their
> TTN2000 echo. They've no shame in putting their plans to destroy companies
>in print.
>
>
>
|