I have to agree with Larry on this one. As I recall, the first attempts at
emissions control came in the form of PCV valves on '67 or '68 models sold in
California. I believe it was the most efficient way to detune the standard
spec for that limited market.
Steve Hollander
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 17, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Larry Young <cartravel@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sorry, there is no fable here. If you read a bit of history, you will
> find that the first real standards on tailpipe emission occurred in
> 1968. Here are a couple references, which state:
>
> "The first legislated exhaust (tailpipe)
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_system> emission standards were
> promulgated by the State of California for 1966 model year for cars sold
> in that state, followed by the United States as a whole in model year
> 1968. The standards were progressively tightened year by year, as
> mandated by the EPA."
>
> At that time, the auto makers only tool for reducing emissions was by
> detuning. Catalytic converts came about in 1975 and helped to reduce
> the amount of detuning required. Electronic engine controls helped even
> more. Those that mention muscle cars should notice that they began to
> decline about this same time and were then totally killed by the 1973
> oil embargo. It's too bad Triumph didn't adopt electronic fuel
> injection once it was perfected rather than continuing to detune, then
> the TR6 and TR7 wouldn't have been such dogs.
>
> references:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_emissions_control
> http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview4.htm
>
>
> On 1/16/2013 7:27 AM, John Cyganowski wrote:
>> In my humble opinion, the emmissions thing is a fable that was published a
>> long time ago and has become accepted fact. First, in 1967 there was no
EPA.
>> EPA was begun in 1970 under President Nixon. Car emmisson standards (the
>> little that they had) came under the Department of Health Education and
>> Welfare (HEW). Oh for the days when government was not so bloated.
>>
>> I think the PI system needed altitude compensation in the US. This woulrd
have
>> cost more. But I don't think the PI system could not be tuned. That is
what
>> fuel injection is all about - delivering the right amount of fuel at the
right
>> time.
>>
>> The issue was sales. McWilliam nixed anything he thought would be a
>> distraction to sales. The home market was small. The home market had
troubles
>> with the PI system, but the number of cars produced for that market was
small,
>> so the problems were managable. The North American Market by comparison
was
>> huge. McWilliams just did not want those issues. He was right.
>>
>> John Cyg.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> 6pack@autox.team.net
>>
>> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>> Unsubscribe:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/cartravel@pobox.com
>
> ________________________________________
>
> 6pack@autox.team.net
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/tr6uo@aol.com
________________________________________
6pack@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/mharc@autox.team.net
|