Again, I think people are missing the point. I was referring to people
who remove emission controls and claim that they get improved horsepower,
when the primary drain on horsepower is the reduced compression.
As I said before, the removal of emission controls results in only a
slight improvement in horsepower. Some day I hope to increase my
compression ratio and possibly improve the fuel system, while at the same
time installing the necessary technology to maintain acceptable emissions.
I wonder if the testers check compression ratios and spark timing to see
if they're correct for the model year? Probably not, so, as long as you
get your emissions down sufficiently, you should be all right, unless you
replaced you fuel system. I agree, their methods suck and seem in part to
miss the point. I wonder if anyone knows why they check for the emissions
devices?
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 CC79338U
Bloomington, IN
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Shane F. Ingate wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > I hope I haven't offended anyone with this, but I felt I needed to
> > make a point.
>
> No, I dont think you have offended anyone, and you are of course free to make
> a point. I too am free to make some points, and will try to answer some of
> your points, but first will state clearly what emissions standards in the
> 1970s really meant:
>
> 1) emissions standards tightened in the 1970s. Automobile makers
> require many years to scale their operations to satisfy federal/state
> laws. In the 1970s. it was not possible for manufacturers to
> design fro scratch "clean" engines, and so they added gear to
> the outside of an engine, and detuned them horribly. How many
> of you can remember the 160hp Corvettes? I was reading an article
> in a 1976 Car & Driver last night of a road test of an MGB, where
> they could extract a top speed of 80 mph! MG quoted 90 mph as the
> top speed. Several years earlier, this same engine, with over-the-
> counter modifications, could turn 120 mph. Spare a minute
> for our fellow enthusiasts with 1976-79 Spitfires; what was
> once a delightful sportscar was then as heineous as a
> Hyundai without a 4th gear. Maybe too you have forgotten
> how poorly the mid-late 1970s cars ran. You are fortunate
> that you have a '72 TR6. I challenge you to drive a '75
> TR6 and say that you felt the changes from your '72 are
> merely in your mind.
>
> What I am saying is that the car had CHANGED. The looks
> were still there, but the spirit BROKEN. The loss to the
> enthusiast by these "bolt on" emission controls was substantial.
>
> 2) These "bolt-on" devices used vacume lines for signals.
> This is perhaps the largest problem for the enthusiast, to
> trace vacume leaks. Unfortunatly, Calif. and other)
> emissions testing check carefully for vacume leaks; the EGR
> valve is checked (BTW, older style EGR valves are not
> manufactured anymore - have you prived a working used EGR
> valve for a Triumph? Can you even find one? As a
> comparison, working used EGR valves for Ford V8s from the
> mid-70s cost upwards of $350...if you can find one), the
> emissions are checked for CO/O2 ratios. Modern cars (ie
> post-1981) sense vacume leaks and automatically compensate.
> It was the GM fuel-magament system of 1981 which solved the
> problems of emission controls for subsequent generations.
> The modern Corvette is a 180mph monster, yet uses the same
> engine as it did in 1976 when it could barely hit 120mph.
>
> 3) Over the past 20+ years, emissions controls have tightened way
> beyond what our 1970s cars were designed to pass. NOX testing will
> be required next year in Calif. on our cars even if theye were
> built BEFORE NOX standards had been established. No Grandfather
> clause there.
>
> 4) I argue with the unfairness of the system. Whereas the
> most popular vehicle sold in the US, the SUV and
> sports-utility are classed as "work vehicles", the
> emissions requirements on them are 50% more lenient than on
> passenger vehicles. Hell, maybe I should be collecting
> Tahoes.
>
> Jim, my '74 TR6 does pass smog, and will do so at ANY smog-testing
> station. It does however beg for the 40+ hp that the car was
> originally designed for.
>
> I am pro-clean air, but the Govt should be sensitive to the needs
> of the minority who contribute little to the problem, yet we are
> lumped together with out-of-state/country and illegal vehicles that do
> contribute, nay create, the problem in So.Cal.
>
> This emissions thread is very broad, as it is really a socio-economic
> thing. Most people see it as how it effects us under the bonnet, but
> it is much larger than that. Please do not view it in terms of nuts
> and bolts on an engine.
>
> Hopefully, I havent p*ssed you off!
>
> Regards,
>
> Shane Ingate in San Diego
>
>
|