>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.
|