I still don't trust breathing air I can't see.

To each their own -- Tho I'm bound to confess that it's visible air that inspires me with angst!

Best regards
HP

 

• a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.
  "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"

 

Would that be Dr. Smith (of LIS fame) in drag?

TTFN
HP

No, it's Joey's idol Ayn Rand. But close!

 

No, it's Joey's idol Ayn Rand. But close!

To be fair, it may merely be a (highly) unflattering photograph...

Best regards
HP

 

Not like those inefficient, clean burning clunkers today that generate 250HP or more while getting 25MPG.

I dunno -- I prefer the inefficiency of 'retro' automotive technology to today's engineered obsolescence and utter dearth of user serviceability... My $.02

Best regards
HP

 

To be fair, it may merely be a (highly) unflattering photograph...

Best regards
HP

Yea, you're right. Here is a better one.

 

I dunno -- I prefer the inefficiency of 'retro' automotive technology to today's engineered obsolescence and utter dearth of user serviceability... My $.02

Best regards
HP

That's an interesting observation. What is it that makes today's cars so much more reliable? I have one now that's almost 10 and all it has needed is a set of tires and a battery. Now I'll admit it could use struts, but no rings, valves, carburetor rebuilds or any of the fun stuff. Is it just better tolerances or materials or .....
Like Carl said - I think it's a little faster than my little 66 Vette was and gets almost 2X the mileage.

 

Yea, you're right. Here is a better one.

Thus it seems loss of 'amative appeal' with advancing years is the more than equitable price to be paid for a long life! -- Sincere apologies for my abjectly materialistic criticism of someone whom I know nothing about

Sincerely
HP

 

A younger Ayn Rand

 

Yup, I sure miss all that good clean brown smog we had that I could smell when I stepped outside, when on a good day there was so much ozone my lungs would hurt such that it was hard to breath. Ah, the good old days.
I still don't trust breathing air I can't see.

And of course the efficiency of those old polluting engines was really great, with 14MPG about the norm for the 200HP V8's.
Not like those inefficient, clean burning clunkers today that generate 250HP or more while getting 25MPG.

Fuel reformulations had far more to do with that change than any engine redesign did. Catalytic converters are about the only part of a modern emissions system I agree with having any degree of beneficial function toward meeting their regulations.

As for 14 MPG 200 HP v8's being pre emissions and post bieng 25 MPG WTF are you smoking and what exact brands and models of vehicle are you using as a reference or is this just general BS proclamations that can't be backed up by any degree of referenceable fact?

The thing is, I have rebuilt actual emissions compliant v8's into non emissions compliant engines and have seen first hand the numbers go the other way and countless other I have known and worked with for years have confirmed the same thing too many times to count. The reversal is easy. Swap out the emisons cam and putting a heavy towing high torque came and rejet the carburetor to run around 12.9:1 AF ratios instead of the stoichiometric ~14.5: 1 ratio then remove and block off the EGR and smog pump related stuff ans toss the catalytic converter in the scrap pile.
Same process for a EFI engine as well but to change the A/F ratio into the richer ratio a good efficient camshaft profile needs a germanium diode with a ~ .3 - .4 volt forward drop needs to bae add in series with each O2 sensor to get the A/F ration into a range that is acceptable for a non emissions camshaft to work.

Now as my personal experience in rolling back emission compliant engine to non compliance , One of the first full top to bottom engine rebuilds and conversion I ever did was in a 1895 Ford F150 and I didn't just go stock engine roll back I went full on bigger engine to boot! . I replaced a bone stock emissions complaint 351 V8 with a built 460 and doubled both the MPG and HP numbers for that pickup and would put that fact to any dyno and road test anyone could have thrown at me.
Ever since I got my first care I have researched and tested different ways to undo vehicular emissions systems and have confirmed that in every single case getting rid of that that crap improved performance and fuel economy and in many vehicles it gave a substantial gain in both areas! My present vehicles are a 1999 Ford F 250 Super duty and a 1994 Mercury grand marquis that I have striped eveyrting off of them I can.
The 94 mercury went from being a full size four door low 20's highway cruiser to a upper 20's to quite regularly low 30's vehicle by gutting the emisons systems in every way I could come up with and I am by no means a conservative driver any time. Same with the 99 F250. There isn't a dang thing left on that engines emissions system any more and it has made a substantial improvement in it power and MPG numbers when running on gasoline. Heck even on propane ist got the same power and fuel numbers too!
Before those where a 1989 Ford Taurus and before that was a 1984 Mercury topaz and along the way I have done every other vehicle anyone in my family has had as well which are not to many to even remember correctly plus I have helped many of my friends do the same thing to their vehicles as well.

As for your smog and related issues what cured that was the fuel reformulations they came up with in the 1970's along with the additions catalytic converters. Those two things alone were responsible for the better part of the 90% reduction in exhaust pollutants. That's where our clean air came from. The engine modifications stuff is almost entirely BS that drives the efficiency down not up and it's been around and the BS story behind it has been told for so long now that they typical props believes it to be true. It's how our government gets more tax money from us.

If you really want to know the truth I can explain it to you if you willing to listen. I have done and lived it for over 20 years now and have very little problem explaining how you're being cheated on what your vehicle's engine efficiency and power are capable of and not only that explain exactly how they cheat the numbers down on engine emission to make thing look and test lower than they really are. It's hard proven science.

BTW as a real life comparison of just how' fuel efficient' these new emissions engines I have a 1968 International R190 series fire truck with the IH LV549 cubic inch V8, that crossed the scrap yard scales where I got it from at 16,000 pounds, which is a low compression engine with carburetor I can almost stick my 2XL glove wearing hand down it throat.
When I got it I had to drive it ~300 miles to get it back home and it averaged 1 MPg worse than my modified 1999 Ford F250 did following it the whole way and I drove it with the huge V8 flat out against its governor the whole trip. Now what's interesting is if you ask any old farmer or truck driver, from back itne days when they were the common truck on the road, who ever owned a IH truck of that size with that engine every single one of them will tell you that IH LV549 V8 was one of the worst fuel pigs they ever created in its day.

So yea, when you tell me that emissions systems make engines more fuel efficient have every reason in the world to say BS. I know better from 20+ years of experience of direct hands on work with the stuff. The only engines it improved were ones that were total crap to begin with and admittedly there were a lot of cheap vehicles that were total crap.

 

Margaret Hamilton receiving the Medal of Freedom in 2016 and Margaret Hamilton with the code she wrote in 1969 for the apollo program.

 

Thus it seems loss of 'amative appeal' with advancing years is the more than equitable price to be paid for a long life! -- Sincere apologies for my abjectly materialistic criticism of someone who I know nothing about

Sincerely
HP

I think she was kind of evil even when young.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

 

That's an interesting observation. What is it that makes today's cars so much more reliable?

Right offhand I'd say conscientious (factory) anti-corrosion treatment - even so the machinery often outlasts the unibody ('tho I expect such is a regional 'consideration')-- But to the 'central' point: -- Were it merely a matter of maintenance cost, 'user serviceability' would be a near non-issue (that said, I expect there are those who may quite understandably object to the typical $7,000 annual outlay) --- Being 'marooned', as I was, at the northern terminus of Ont 808 (officially the N.O.R.T.) in the 'off season', fully 200 miles from any expectation of human contact - because replacement of the accessory drive belt required removal of an engine mount bolt - is quite another matter!!!

FWIW I sincerely believe much of the strife now seen in western society has little to do with political affiliation/ideology per se -- but, instead, is symptomatic of a mounting clash of urban vs. exurban (Spec collectivist vs individualist) culture --- My $.02

Best regards
HP

 

"crutschow said: ↑
I still don't trust breathing air I can't see."

To each their own -- Tho I'm bound to confess that it's visible air that inspires me with angst!

I trust you understand I was saying that with tongue firmly in cheek.

 

So yea, when you tell me that emissions systems make engines more fuel efficient have every reason in the world to say BS.

The BS is saying that I said or implied that.
My point is that modern engines meet emission standards and get considerable better mileage than the ones I drove pre-emission.

It's interesting that you are so proud of single-handedly make numerous vehicles into non-compliant smog generating ones.
But I guess if you live in the middle of nowhere, a little extra smog isn't a problem.

 

Right offhand I'd say conscientious (factory) anti-corrosion treatment - even so the machinery often outlasts the unibody ('tho I expect such is a regional 'consideration')-- But to the 'central' point: -- Were it merely a matter of maintenance cost, 'user serviceability' would be a near non-issue (that said, I expect there are those who may quite understandably object to the typical $7,000 annual outlay) ---

$7000 for maitenece and repair? Really? Have I ever been lucky.

Being 'marooned', as I was, at the northern terminus of Ont 808 (officially the N.O.R.T.) in the 'off season', fully 200 miles from any expectation of human contact - because replacement of the accessory drive belt required removal of an engine mount bolt - is quite another matter!!!

Now that's a real problem. Bet that ruined an otherwise good day.

FWIW I sincerely believe much of the strife now seen in western society has little to do with political affiliation/ideology per se -- but, instead, is symptomatic of a mounting clash of urban vs. exurban (Spec collectivist vs individualist) culture --- My $.02

Maybe to some extent, but that has been around for a long time. My $.02 is on resistance to change. Mostly automation and the global economy. Those two things have made it much harder on the individualists and it has happened quickly enough to create a problem with retraining. It bothers people when they have a feeling of going backwards. It bothers them even more to be hungry.

Best regards
HP[/QUOTE]

 

The BS is saying that I said or implied that.

And I am supposed take this comment how?

And of course the efficiency of those old polluting engines was really great, with 14MPG about the norm for the 200HP V8's.
Not like those inefficient, clean burning clunkers today that generate 250HP or more while getting 25MPG.

Sounds pretty well implied that you think that emissions compliance improved fuel efficiency and power.
If not what am I supposed get you implied from it?

But I guess if you live in the middle of nowhere, a little extra smog isn't a problem.

No it's not a problem and never has been since the 1970's when fuels were reformulated but mostly those who run our state put very little trust and faith in what the EPA says about anything and we plan to keep it that way.
Unlike other sites we have a financially responsible government and thusly don't have any need to find every possible way to tax our citizens out of every dollar they can by any questionably legal extortion means california has set up necessary.

Also back then the largest contributor to smog, NOx and Ozone pollution in the large urban areas was not from vehicular emissions but from the majority of the heating systems back then burning low grade lignite an bituminous coal in low efficiency furnaces and boilers before the switch to the present day far more efficient and cleaner natural gas fired systems they use now came into play.

 

That's an interesting observation. What is it that makes today's cars so much more reliable? I have one now that's almost 10 and all it has needed is a set of tires and a battery. Now I'll admit it could use struts, but no rings, valves, carburetor rebuilds or any of the fun stuff. Is it just better tolerances or materials or .....

EFI played a huge part in improving engine life simply due to having far better control over fuel delivery in all operating conditions for the average driver.
Just by taking cylinder wall fuel washdown and oil dilution issues from flooding and carburetor malfunction out of the equation that alone substantially improved engine life.

Second was the advancements in metallurgy and manufacturing processes. Better materials made with far more consistent tolerances.

Third was the vast improvements in our road systems where most vehicles now see very little rough gravel and non paved road miles in their life.

Fourth is simply our overall improved mobility. We now drive more miles per year and at faster average speeds than any generation before us because the first three things allow us to do so without thought or undue expense.

Now what's interesting is if you break down your average vehicles run time Vs distance traveled it's not that great compared to typical commercial application equipment run time and service life.
Take your average vehicle today and figure its average rate of travel for it's entire life is ~ 40 - 50 MPH or about 3000 - 4000 running hours at best and even then with all the precision EFI and everything else even the best built engines are pretty worn out at that point.
However when compared to commercial equipment that sees 15 - 25,000+ running hours on an engine in some pretty harsh working conditions that's not all that much.
Even less so if you consider many engines used in stationary power applications like generator systems can easily see 30 - 50,000+ running hours in their service life.

Many of the new vehicles have actual hour meters built into their electronic data systems that can be read at any time so finding out exactly how many hours the engine ran for the miles traveled is pretty easy and most vehicles in non commercial applications really don't see many hours for for the miles they put on.

A company I worked for a number of years ago gave me a Ford F550 service truck that was only a few years old and only had ~95,000 miles on it. After the first month of driving it was showing it has some major engine issues despite its low miles.

The local dealership had a look at it and told us the engine was worn out already to which my boss went nuts and questioned how that could be given the low mileage and age. Well according to the hour meter it has over 6000 hours run time which showed that the previous owner had let the thing idle constantly for the few years they owned it.
By the dealer's estimate for the milage it should have at most 2500 hours run time given the typical service life of the Ford 7.3 diesels was 250 - 300,000 miles or about 5000 - 6000 hours run time which is considered to be quite a bit higher running time service life expectancy than the typical gasoline burners in any common vehicle most of us own.

 

Sounds pretty well implied that you think that emissions compliance improved fuel efficiency and power.
If not what am I supposed get you implied from it?

No, you are making the correlation between fuel efficiency and power. @crutschow, I believe, is making the correlation that general technological progress has created the best of both worlds. Greater power from a V6 than pre-1972 emission regulations V8s and better fuel economy.

The keys are,
- better bearings and machining technology implemented in modern engine and transmission assembly plants resulting in less friction and wear.
- Better materials and processing
- better lubricants
- Fuel injection.
- pressurized fuel rails
- CVT or other close ratio (up to 9-speed) computer-controlled automatic transmissions to keep a car in the economy range or the power range or what ever the onboard computer elucidates your driving style to be.
- low rolling resistance, high traction tires

 

No, you are making the correlation between fuel efficiency and power. @crutschow, I believe, is making the correlation that general technological progress has created the best of both worlds. Greater power from a V6 than pre-1972 emission regulations V8s and better fuel economy.

Apparently you read way different than I do being I see nothing mentioned anywhere that remotely implies better design tech. I see HP and fuel mileage commented on and that's it an dimmy book that implies engines especially given the context of the conversation based on what I had said earlier he was replying to where I didn't make single reference to anything but emison systems and their related reductions in power and fuel economy.

BTW most vehicles today still don't have CVT's and 9 speed automatic transmissions. For Most vehicles manual with overdrive was it for driveline related fuel mileage gains until the late 80's until automatic with OD came out for the average vehicle.
Heck my 1989 Ford Taurus was the first vehicle in my family to have an automatic with OD! That was also the first car I or anyone else in my family had that had an actual EFI too! It's also the first vehicle I had where I learned about how EFI and the emissions systems that went with it worked and how to defeat/override/fool it's sensors into running the engine at the most fuel efficient settings too and boy did it make a difference on those engines back then! That's where the germanium diodes in series with the O2 sensor outputs to change the A/F ratio to the richer more fuel efficient burn range cheat came from.

Consistent upper 20's to low 30's on a four door 3.8L V6 powered sedan driven by a 20 something year old nut and a good 4 - 5 MPG step up over the factory stock ratings. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5726.shtml

That was some bragging numbers there and the incentive to do the mods to other peoples vehicles who then confirmed it wasn't a fluke! Meeting emissions compliance was hell on vehicle fuel mileage numbers back then.