Re: Seldom see "smoke belchers" anymore * Why not?

The real reason for the dearth of smoke belchers except in places like the Ozarks and Appalachians is the current credit policy, where anyone capable of walking in the door of a car dealership can get financed on a new car, combined with the absurdly high labor rates shops charge today. Unless you are a homeowner it's about impossible to carry out any major DIY vehicle work, and it's cheaper to make payments on a new Kia than pay someone else to keep an old car running on a continuous basis.

I have all my cars but one registered out of state and the people across the street are cops. I have a BONA FIDE PLACE OF BUSINESS out of state. Since I have one car registered in state and it's a '61 (but it has full, not antique, tags) I'm covered. The car I drive most is an '85. It had EFI, a smog pump, EGR and a catalyst when it left the factory. Somewhere along the line it lost all those things and acquired a four barrel Holley. "It was like that when I bought it"....:-)

I figure it costs another $100 in gas a year from the decreased fuel mileage. However, what would one good EFI repair cost? I have two spare rebuildable carbs, two spare distributors, and two spare good-when-pulled alternators on the shelf for it, so parts are unlikely to be a problem for another decade or so.

Generally it is unlawful to garage a car in another state than it is registered for more than x days per year, where x varies by state. The insurance company would have something to say too, if the car is not garaged where it is listed as insured, or if the insurance garaged address is different than the registration garaged address.

Having a business in another state does not permit a legal registration out of state unless the vehicle is garaged in that state. Businesses are expected and required to register vehicles where the vehicle is principally garaged, although some (few) exceptions do exist, e.g. car rental companies. Check your DMV/RMV for details.

Where do you live?

My cars have never been garaged for the last 20 years or so. Where does that leave me??

Probably in Canada. For registration and/or insurance purposes the term garaged does not necessarily imply that the vehicle is "inside a garage."

If you live in a no smog inspection state you can get some great deals on the "junkyard bound" cars described earlier. I'm looking for one right now, I'll probably find one in Denver. There are a fair number there that meet that exact criteria.

Trucks are impossible to find like that because the Mexicans buy them, de-electronify them and take them back to Mexico. Anything with a V-8 and a hole for a distributor is game.

Since I have one car registered in state and it's a '61 (but it

I feel anyone driving regularly a vehicle pre computer controlled fuel injection and cat converter (pre mid 80s) should have to breath the exhaust. I can smell such vehicles a block ahead of me. Consider the air we all breathe and junk your junk cars.

Eat me. Make a new car that's better than my old cars - as in more attractive and more involving to drive - and then maybe I'll consider it. As for smelling them a block ahead - that just means they haven't been well maintained. On a hot day you might get a little whiff of gasoline from the tank and carb but other than that you really shouldn't smell anything.

nate

N8N wrote

I'd rather smell old cars running rich than the catalytic converter stink the '75-95 cars with one stage cats running on high sulfur gasoline put out. I used to deconverterize them just to keep the smell down. That, and plug the EGR, bypass all the ignition advance plumbing, gut the AIR pump and plug the lines, and rebuild the carb with a marine kit with internal venting and rejet, and recurve the distributor. I'd take the car to inspection-punched cat, plugged EGR and all-and get a pass or a waiver, and a lecture about "all those idiots that think you can bypass the carefully engineered emissions systems". GOD they were dumb.

I wouldn't have a points distributor or a road draft tube stuck up my ass though. Electronic ignition and PCV were big advances. As is the Facet electric fuel pump, all my old cars have a block off plate where the mechanical pump used to live.

As I said before, I'll be driving a 60s or 70s Mopar until gasoline is no longer available. And one of my "junk" cars is worth more than a brand-new 300C, in case you didn't know that. My cars are well-maintained and meet my local emission laws. Don't like the fact that they have carburetors and no catcons? Tough.

I agree. I will keep driving my 1940 Chrysler Royal Coupe, fully restored, and it does not smell!

You nose is used to it or you've never followed it. If the exhaust pollution were measured that 1940 Chrysler would put out as much pollution as several hundred recent cars in total.

If you only use it to the occasional show OK, for regular use you have no consideration for the air we all breathe.

While it's easy and convenient for you to point the finger at cars older than whatever year or lacking whatever technology you arbitrarily pick, facts do not back up your assertion. The US EPA (and many state EPAs) were once very keen on what they called "accelerated retirement" of older vehicles. No longer. Why? Because they've repeatedly and robustly found that the bulk of vehicle-sourced air pollution comes from cars between 4 and 14 years old. This age group comprises the largest percentage of the on-road fleet. High-polluting vehicles closer to the 4-year-old end of the scale are beginning to experience emissions-related failures and deterioration but are still, while high-polluting vehicles closer to the

14-year-old end of the scale are being driven by those who cannot or will not pay to keep them in proper repair.

The percentage of the on-road fleet represented by vehicles older than 20 years is so trivial that if ALL of them were immediately removed from service, there would be no measurable improvement in air quality.

So, in a sense, the many newer cars on the road "subsidize" the higher emissions of the few older cars on the road. That may chap your personal sense of fairness, but the refusal of even the strictest vehicle-in-use emissions regulations to prohibit old cars in proper repair means your view has been thoroughly rejected.

This isn't from me, it's from the findings of the Federal EPA. Synopses are easily findable on the web, while whole reports can be purchased from EPA directly if you're inclined to educate yourself.

But, I'm guessing you're not. You'd rather bitch and moan ignorantly and melodramatically about *one* 1940 Chrysler or *one* 1968 Dodge or *one*

1977 Chevrolet.

DS

While this is true, its not even the whole story. By continuing to drive (and maintain) an older vehicle in top condition, we older-vehicle drivers prevent a whole "logistics tail" of hidden environmental damage that comes with the construction of a new car. Everything from the mining of raw materials (and the emissions of the mining equipment) to the blast furnaces (or recycling furnaces), to paint fumes, to refining petroleum for plastics, to hazardous chemicals for the battery packs in hybrids, to the emissions of the trains and trucks that haul a new car to its final destination are eliminated, just by NOT buying a stinking new car.

That argument, whilst having some validity becomes less persuasive as modern vehicles become more fuel efficient and therefore cause the balance to swing in their favour.

Graham

Hi Graham...

With all due respect let me refute that... vehicles certainly aren't becoming more efficient, quite the opposite. Ever since the mid to late 80's efficiency has been dropping.

However, even if I could agree with you, how about the landfill situation? If we're trying to turn the entire continent into one massive dump - we're off to a pretty good start.

Conspicous consumption. Let's use up all the world's natural resources today, and let future generations fend for themselves. If they can.

Course I'm from the waste not want not generation, so...

Take care.

Ken

And a 1953? Hudson Hornet TwinH (7X?)with the road draft tube replaced with a PCV was reportedly able to pass proposed 1978 emmission regulations in 1974 when all the manufacturers were crying it could not be done. 170 HP 308 cubic inch flathead six (7.2:1 CR?) with dual intake manifolds in a high state of tune.

Even if that were to be absolutely true, it doesn't account for the fact that 90% of new cars suck. They're soulless identity-less jellybeans with no "character" and with built-in obsolescence, or else they cost $40k or more. And a lot are all of the above.

You are guessing and assuming -- incorrectly. Your first error is in assuming that there's a fine, delicate balance between the resource consumption and emissions caused by the manufacture of a vehicle on the one hand, and the resource consumption and emissions caused by the operation of that vehicle on the other. If that were the case, then the fuel economy of the manufactured vehicle could possibly swing the balance. However, in fact, there is no such fine balance. The manufacture of the vehicle from raw materials is very much more energy-intensive and polluting than the operation of that vehicle over its lifetime. Such is the difference that the fuel economy and emissions characteristics of the vehicle are trivial in the calculation.

Your second error is in assuming that fuel economy has been increasing lately. Remember, in the US, the overall on-road fleet fuel economy has been *decreasing* over the last two decades.

DS