"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...
Garland Gray II wrote:
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".


Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
are far more powerful too.

The more economy is mostly from smaller cars. My 1964 300 hp 327 Impala SS
got about 16.5 mpg on average. City and highway. My slightly heavier, way
more technology 1999 Expedition got 14.5 mpg average. But MTBE cost about
10% milage, while reducing air pollution about 6%. Not a large combined
number. while at the same time, causing mass ground water pollution.

Max,
As much as I would like to do just that, those files got dumped
(litterally) two moves ago.

In a nut shell, the automotive industry was working very hard to clean
up its act starting in the sixties because new EPA regulations and clear
data. We were actually making very nice progress both in tailpipe and
fuel economy, but then came the election of '72. Senator Muskie decided
to make a name for himself, so he ramrodded regulations through that
reduced the exiting standards for allowable emissions by 90%. This was
a real problem because we were on a track to reduce the fleet emissions
by 80% from the unregulated in five years. This cut the time table by
three years and made the new target a 98% reduction.

This left us with two difficulties:
There was no current technology to do this reliably.
There were no instruments available that could even confirm that were we
meeting these new standards.

Catalyst development went into high gear. The original systems were so
valuable that when a milage accumulation vehicle was damaged at that the
proving ground we did not dare risk moving it back to the garage, we
rolled it over in place and the technicians removed the exhaust system.
The exhaust system went back to the garage on a flat bed and they
rolled the now totaled test vehicle up and hauled it back with a wrecker.

Beckman was the first company to come up with instruments the could
measure these things and the Horiba was slitghly later, but nobody's was
reliable and calibration was a crap-shoot.

It was discovered that the catalyst did not like exhaust from an engine
running a stoichiometric (ideal) air/fuel (something we had been
working toward for years now), but rather favored and engine that ran
badly such that the mixture varied from rich to lean so the cat got a
shot of HC then a shot of O2 to keep the fire going. It was clean after
the catalyst (for about 50k when it went down the tube), but a car that
used
to run in the high 20's was now lucky to get to 20. The engines that
had been historically good, now ran like so much crap. This was
essentialy the end of the good running engine until the computer
controlled port fuel systems came on line.

That was only compounded by the elimination of lead (not a bad thing
IMHO). The lead had to be eliminated from the refineries altogether
because any lead would contaminate the cat (and later the O2 sensor).
This lead reduced the cylinder flame temperature and also lubricated the
exhaust valve seats. Without it, exhaust valves became a warranty
nightmare (so the big three shortened the warranty).

Big cars faired better than the smaller because they could give away
more engine performance the meet the tailpipe.

The came the oil embargo of '74. . . .

I hope you enjoyed my recount.

Matt


max camirand wrote:
Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Matt Colie wrote:

KLC,

I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
American suppliers).

Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.

We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
seventies?

Matt


KLC Lewis wrote:

"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...


Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic




I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a
moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any
sooner.
Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the
major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology.
Anti trust laws, you know.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...



Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
are far more powerful too.

Oh - Charlie,

This is great view of the mistaken common mythology. There were a huge
number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. I
had two in my own lab.

I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too. The Nova was not
production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank),
and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle (not
including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$
base vehicle).

There were two stoppers.
Reliability was a big issue. This was the time when California was also
instituting legislation that no vehicle could require maintenance other
than lubrication at less than 50k miles. (We had one vehicle - a joke -
with the hood BOLTED down and the sticker off the back of a television
that said "No User Servicable Parts Inside".)
Manufacturability was another serious issue. Variations that the
assembly lines produced in those days was a problem. A family of I4
engines was bad enough that, though rated and sold as 90+hp actually
were anywhere between 85 and 98 as measured.

Everybody tends to forget that Germany and Japan both had all brand new
factories that (by enlarge) we paid for in the late fourties, but the US
plants all got seriously beat up making the hardware to win that war.

The thing that really gave the american market away was shortsighted
corporate management. For reasons I will not expand, I grew up with
little European cars. Whe the US tried to get into this market they
decided that little cars were inexpesive cars and inexpensive cars could
be cheap - not just cost, but quality as well. I bought my first new
American Car in 1973 and was treated so badly when I complained about
the shabby quality (not quite a quote - You bought a cheap car, What did
you expect?) I have never purchased another car from that manufacturer.





Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:43:21 -0500, "Garland Gray II" wrote:


That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a
moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any
sooner.
Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the
major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology.
Anti trust laws, you know.



In the early 70's, US automakers whined that the proposed government timetable
was too short, and the standards too high. They complained they would need at
least 7 years to create the technology to meet the proposed standards. Honda of
Japan bought a brand new Chevy Nova off of a dealers lot, shipped it to Japan,
and 6 months later delivered it to Washington, DC, modified to EXCEED the
proposed standards.

CWM


"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...


Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
are far more powerful too.

But fellows ... it's not about air quality, it's about DOMINANCE!

You will do what I tell you because I said so!

Roger

http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...
Larry,
I guess that you have not noticed that:
A-Logic has little to do with environmental regulations.
B-Much of the world is trying anything they can to shut down the best
economy in the history of the world.

The old 2 strokes were dirty engines. (I did some of the testing.) Their
hydrocarbon emissions were outrageous. Anything that gets lubricated like
an old 2-stroke won't wear out any time soon, but I have been on a could
of mountain lakes that had an oil slick the likes of a tanker spill.
For calibration, when I was working in one of those labs, the crew that
was doing the evaporative emissions testing put the office Christmas tree
into one of the evap sheds - It Didn't Pass -

Many of the world's vocal liberals are very down on the good old USofA
because we have something like 10% of the population and use 30% of the
fossil fuel. They don't happen to notice that this produces 40+% of the
worlds productivity and 15% of the worlds pollution*. (*Not including CO2)
(The quoted statistics are close but not exact.)

China has not been asked to reduce anything and they are still running
wood fired steam locomotives and have the fastest declining air quality in
the world. It is so bad that some coaches are expecting to have to shut
some of the events at the next Olympics down because of the pollution.

Why do you think Motorcycles are now required to have catalytic
converters?

Why do liberals think that a Hybrid vehicle is a better answer than a
diesel?

Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic


Larry wrote:
wrote in news:fufim2het1capo2e7k4p6kitgmq7vhtc3b@
4ax.com:


Oh by the way the EPA problem with 2 strokes is
not so much the oil in the water but in the air.


I wonder how that works?? Oil doesn't evaporate so it's not vapor
pollution. I suppose the tiny bit of smoke trailing an outboard motor is
pollution, probably .00000001% of what pours out of a single smoke stack
at your electric plant, 24/7/365.

Dead out on the river, 20 miles from the trailer, I want the simplest 2-
stroke outboard with the fewest failing parts that a guy standing in the
mud behind it along the banks can figure out what's wrong and patch it up
to get home. No valves, no belts, minimal pumps, simple carburetion,
hand startable (if necessary)....the motor with the fewest failure modes
almost anyone with any sense can get running. A 2-stroke needs:
A - Fuel
B - Spark
C - Cooling
D - Prop

Everything else is fluff.

Every one of them needs a primer bulb, a fantastic troubleshooting tool
for the fuel system and emergency fuel pump if the diaphram fails in
their pulse pump. It amazes me the number of people who just sit there
staring into it and don't THINK about what that little bulb can tell them
if they'd just pump it and think about what is happening. I've helped
lots of stranded boaters with it. "Pump the bulb for me.", I ask. "It
squeezes but doesn't come back out.", he says. "Turn on the fuel shutoff
valve.", I say...and away they go. "It pumps real easy.", he says.
"Here, let me loan you some gas.", I respond. "It pumps and I see gas in
the water behind the motor.", he says. "Your fuel pump diaphram has a
hole in it pumping gas into one cylinder, flooding it....or the carb
float is stuck. Pull the cover and we'll bypass the pump. You can
squeeze the bulb while running it home." So easy....even on a carb'd 4-
stroker. Impossible to fix on fuel injection and other high tech
nonsense....

Larry

Were you running vehicle development programs at that time also?
If so please tell us what programs you worked on and what results you had.

If you were, then you know all about the MEPS, Pathmore and Challenge
vehicles and probably remember when that one became a smoking hole in
the Lodge freeway on its way to do a demonstration to congressmen
assembled at Cobo during SAE week. Best line ever ..... Smith, the
executive head of the program got up to the podium to introduce the
vehicle (while the DFD was trying still working) and said “I really wish
I didn’t have to apologize for the failure of this breakthrough vehicle
to make an appearance, but I have just been informed that there has been
some technical difficulty that indicates that more development may be
required.” - My own very personal “Houston, We have a problem.”

With the total loss of the only program vehicle with all the prototype
hardware and then the finding that this type of casualty would be very
difficult to prevent, the program was buried. For 100,000$ in small
unmarked bills, can you tell me where it went and what it became?

The pictures that I took then have been released. The problem is that
if I post them somewhere, then I and some associates (they are still in
the industry) could be identified and this might not go well for them
(me - I do give a **** any more.)

I never though I would get to the point where I enjoyed taking the time
to recount these stories.

Thank You


Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:24:51 -0500, withheld
wrote:


Oh - Charlie,

This is great view of the mistaken common mythology. There were a huge
number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. I
had two in my own lab.

I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too. The Nova was not
production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank),
and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle (not
including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$
base vehicle).



You are so full of it your eyes are brown.

CWM

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I appreciate it.

Going to bed less stupid...

-Max


max camirand wrote:
Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Matt Colie wrote:
KLC,

I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
American suppliers).

Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.

We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
seventies?

Matt


KLC Lewis wrote:
"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...

Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic




I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

It wasn't the new factories that enabled Japan, it was an American Quality
Control expert. And a set of managers that would listen to him.

Detroit refused to listen to Edward Demming who was telling American
automobile manufacturers that the American people wanted cars that would not
only look good but run well, too. When the manufacturers failed to listen,
Demming took his ideas to Japan and for the next decade the Japanese owned
the American car market.

Roger

http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:24:51 -0500, withheld
wrote:

Everybody tends to forget that Germany and Japan both had all brand new
factories that (by enlarge) we paid for in the late fourties, but the US
plants all got seriously beat up making the hardware to win that war.

I always said the best thing we could ave done was bomb all our own
factories in 1946 so we could all start fresh.

I agree 100% it was the Japanese who made us stop making the same
basic car we started WWII with. The same is true of outboard motors
(to give this thread a "boaty" spin)
My mercury is still a Yamaha design and a lot of the parts are
interchangable until you get down the US designed "big foot".

derbyrm wrote:
It wasn't the new factories that enabled Japan, it was an American Quality
Control expert. And a set of managers that would listen to him.

Detroit refused to listen to Edward Demming who was telling American
automobile manufacturers that the American people wanted cars that would not
only look good but run well, too. When the manufacturers failed to listen,
Demming took his ideas to Japan and for the next decade the Japanese owned
the American car market.



Plus the rust problem in the '70s.
The Big 3 .,especially Ford, deserved to be run out of town on a rail.
They smugly sat back and let the imports get a toehold which grew into
an avalanche.