>Jim Ruwaldt wrote:
>
>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
>
Spark timing is very much a part of the "correct" California (and
other states) emissions testing. And without "improving" the rest of
the system (not allowed) raised compression ratios will result in
increased emissions.
Also the above stated "slight improvement in horsepower" may only be
six to nine HP on these engines, but for a Spitfire that is a more
than a 10% gain.
As far as their reasoning for the visual check of emissions devices,
there are probably at least two. One is obvious, its a money maker,
emissions devices are expensive because you have to have them, also
called circular economics. The other reason (at least the other
easy one) is that most people (think average young highschool hot-
rodder, regardless of physical age) would not do the system correctly
and so raise the emissions if they were allowed to remove or replace
at will.
I have seen some young hot-rodders put a lot of time and effort into
a project and do it up right. But this is probably the exception
to the rule, most would not have the cash resources or time to do so.
Most would adopt the bigger is better attitude of "Lets put an 1150
Dominator on this 1979 Monte Carlo, it'll scream Dude!" (Well O.K.,
it was a 1975 Malibu Classic in my case.)
I agree the bottom line should be emissions at the tailpipe,
regardless of what goes on under the hood. But, without a doubt,
there has to be some guidlines towards reduction of emissions, this
just cannot be a bad thing (reduction, that is, not the guidlines).
Were do you draw the line?
PS I get around it by having vehicles older than the emissions test
cut-off age. Soon to be even better when my 1967 joins these ranks
after the implementation of SB-42. But I will have to continue to
do the emissions dance until my 460 c.i. Ford is exempted in 2004.
More incoherent ramblings brought to you by:
Darrell Leach, KD6LRC DM-15, Ridgecrest, Ca
email: Triumph_TR4@ridgecrest.ca.us
http://www.ridgenet.net/~token/PAGE1.html
1962 TR-4 (CT5368LO) Every Day
1962 TR-4 (CT13108L)
1965 Spitfire Mk.II
1967 Spitfire Mk.III (In work, lots of 1500 stuff)
Keeper of the TR-4 List. Version 1.4 availible.
|