500 ppm diesel still readily available......

Page 2 of 3  
Mike Simmons wrote:


In this case, the DC documentation could be correct, but it doesn't *prove* anything. DC official documentation also refers to the LH car coolant outlet housing as a thermostat housing when the thermostat is not within 2 feet of it. :)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

You find mis-use of semi-technical terms a lot in stuff published for the masses. Two examples that come to mind (certainly there are others): (1) The engine coolant outlet housing on the Chrysler LH vehicles is exactly where traditionally the thermostat is on most engines, but the thermostat on the LH's is on the inlet side of the engine (located low on the block on the driver's side). But people are alwyas referring to the outlest housing as the thermostat housing - even the Chrysler FSM erroneously refers to it as the thermostat housing in at least two places. (2) The cushioning devices used in valve trains were traditionally in line with the valve stem actuation (typicaly push rods) - and were called valve lifters. Now, more often than not, they are on the opposite side of a rocker - not directly in series with the valve actuation, and they are more accurately referred to as valve lash adjusters. Yet on the street and on car forums, and even among highly qualified mechanics - no doubt even in technical articles, they will be incorrectly referred to as valve lifters.
So, though I have no horse in this race, I can buy SnoMan's argument that even the technical gurus may refer to something that technically is not a catalytic converter as a catalyitc converter. All that means is you can't believe everything you read - even by the "experts" - if you're doing so with an eye for technical accuracy.

So - if you have to get a bigger engine to recover the power lost to improved emissions, will there in fact be no net gain in the emissions? IOW - you can fool yourself with percentages if you turn a blind eye to the total *quantity* of emissions if you're using bigger engines to make up for lost power in meeting the new regs. I.E., unintnded consequences (or pretended ignorance by those who may understand this but don't want to bring this to the public's attention, which wouldn't matter anyway due to it's short attention span and inability to ever peel more than two layers off the onion on any given subject).
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My typos... 15 ppm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

No, you didn't miss anything. And yet, just yesterday, I kept hearing people (who live in the US and presumably SHOULD know the facts) calling into a radio show that was discussing global warming talking about how "the US just HAS to start cleaning up the mess we've made."
Uh... exSCUSE me!!! Who led the world in auto emission controls beginning in the mid 1960s when US cars had PCV and vapor control systems and the rest of the world still had crankcase draft tubes?
WHO led in the elimination of leaded fuel and addition of catalytic convertors to reduce NOx and CO in 1975 while oh-so-responsible European countries had leaded fuel into the NINETIES!!!
Who led the way in cutting back (and ultimately eliminating) the use of CFCs in air conditiners and manufacturing?
Sure as hell not Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, or Mexcico... Hmmm. that leaves (wait for it....) The United States!
I'm sick and tired of hearing people bellyache about the US "not cleaning up" or not signing Kyoto when we're ALREADY cleaner than Kyoto requires countries like China and India to be. Kyoto is a crock. And its incumbent on the REST of the frickin' world to catch up to what the US has done before they start throwing stones. We're waiting.
Sorry. Pet peeve of mine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I got a friend who has a 1969 Camero SS. His father got it new in Califorina shortly returning from Vietnam. It originally had a smog pump and cat on them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NOT! Homework assignment for you: Find out what year the Camaro first got a catalytic converter. I'll give you a hint. It starts with 19 and ends with 75.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're right, Kalifornia might have gotten EGR a year earlier than the rest of us but unleaded gas, needed for converters didn't hit until 1975. We had low and SOME no lead but not much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BigIronRam wrote:

Also, catcons weren't mandatory in '75, if a car could meet the required emission levels without one, it didn't have to have one. But *most* vehicles needed catcons to meet '75 (and later) emissions. Light trucks had a different standard, and many got away without catcons for a few more years. That's why a 1978 Dodge Little Red Express was quicker than a '78 Chevy Corvette (well, ONE of the reasons). The '78 LRE didn't need cats and used a true dual exhaust, the 'vette being a car had to meet tighter emissions. By '79, the requirements had tightened so that the 1979 Dodge LRE truck did have catcons. The '78s are now much more desirable as collector vehicles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Buwhahahaha! Was seeing if anyone was paying attention and knew their stuff ;-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You just showed that you don't. <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A pump maybe, but a cat in 1969. Where was it mounted?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GeekBoy wrote:

Smog pump: YES Cat? Not in '69.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

Feel better, Steve? :)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Yeah, now I'm peeved about cheap "made in China" fluorescent tubes that only last 2 months :-p
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Make sure it's really the tubes and not a failing ballast.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Steve" < snipped-for-privacy@spam.thanks> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Veering way off topic, but since you asked....
I would have suspected that, but its ONLY the chinese tubes in the same fixture with German tubes and its the only chinese tubes in several different fixtures. These are rather expensive aquarium lamps with special spectal characteristics, and the tube vendor (Coralife) switched production from Germany to China some time last year. Its 100% consistent- all the new Chinese tubes are failing early. I'm no longer buying Coralife lamps as a result.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
California pumps carry no label because the fuel is mandated statewide - no choice so no need for a label on the #2 pump. Specific EPA labeling exemption for California fuel retailers.
--
2006 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written
permission.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gee... sound so copyrighted!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yea - but the year is wrong on the copyright (still says 2006)
2007 Josh. Publication in any form is highly encouraged

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ya know, if you post to a public news group I think it becomes public property. I'm not a copywrite lawyer, I just play one in cyberspace.
"-->> T.G. Lambach <<--" <"T.G. Lambach at NoHamorSpamcomcast.net"> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.