Whew. On 23 Nov 2002 at 19:15, Dave Massey wrote what sounds like a
veiled but nevertheless pointed philosophical rebuttal. A key quote:
> any thing we do to flout the emissions laws
> only makes it that much more difficult to sustain our hobby in
> the eyes of the rest of the public (who wonder why we just don't
> go buy Miata's and Mini's) so I feel the effort to
> keep the air clean is worth while.
I don't recall advocating flouting emissions laws! As for the rest
of the public wondering about us, I can't say. (Most individuals I
know are envious, but I certainly don't talk to everybody.)
Regardless of opinions, it is true that if we were fully committed we
*would* be driving Miata's and Mini's. The TR's would be sitting in
museums. Similarly, one wouldn't sit in a car (of any make) for
hours on a fall weekend to get to and from a football game. Or drive
to the beach in summer or to ski resorts in winter. No matter what
car one uses, driving for recreation is a selfish activity, even when
the drive itself isn't part of the recreation. However we do it
because we have a justified sense of perspective. The same is true
about using an old car or even a reasonable modern one instead of a
new Prius or Insight. You don't use it for all your driving,
certainly not downtown commuting where it would idling at stoplights
more than driving. And no matter what you do to its emissions
equipment, you aren't going to make much difference unless you
disassemble things that still work, and then only if that "work" was
effective in the first place.
At the risk of sounding defensive, let me say that I have never
undone any operating emissions device, nor would I recommend it. All
the recent effort to upgrade my GT6 carbs has been driven by a desire
to make it cleaner. Ever since I've been old enough to understand, I
have been a strong supporter of environmental protection in all forms
(clean air and water, forest protection, minimal pavement, zoning
laws, etc.) and willing to pay a price for it. I've commuted by
bicycle, driven cars that get 35+ mpg, carpooled, and relied on mass
transit. However reality intrudes into our ideals. I drive to work
because my employer insists on being situated in a spiffy "hi-tech"
industrial park rather than closer to residential areas and more
accessible. We all buy old cars and drive them (though to read this
email list you'd think we wrench them but never drive) because we
wish to hold on to an element of style from the past, which is just
as much an environmental component as the natural world. So by
necessity we are compromised.
Now, to some specifics.
> Pumps sieze up due to either lack of use or (more likely) someone removing
> the belt and the resulting exhaust gas that leaks past the check valve
It doesn't matter why the pump is frozen; if it won't spin, it won't
spin, and you have to remove the belt or replace the pump. When I
bought my Spitfire the pump was already frozen, belt removed. I
would assert that very few of our cars have had all their emissions
equipment functional throughout their lives unless they are still
owned by their original buyers. If the pump fails while you own it,
then you have a decision to make.
> >(or weld (or braze or whatever) them closed), easier to do wih everything
> >disassembled.
> Thus making it that much more difficult for any future owner to reverse the
> process.
Well, of course you use your head about such things. How many cars
with a frozen airpump have the injector rails intact??? Most likely
they are rusted or broken, possibly pinched shut. If you are
removing the head and can get to the injectors for removal, then plug
the holes with bolts. Othewise you have no choice. And when you
later do the full-restoration bit, are you going to re-use that
original injector assembly? You'd be better off looking for a new
one. (Are they available? I dunno'.)
> > But the catalyst is not likely to be chemically functional after
> > all this time.
> Only if you've run leaded gas in there at some time.
What is the likelihood that all PO's of that car never ever put
leaded gas in it back in, say, 1979? I'm not a chemist or catalyst
engineer but I do have a good technical background and "back then" I
did read all the populist and not-so-populist press about automotive
technology. I'd question whether those older catalysts are as robust
and long-lasting as today's, even without leaded gas. They certainly
weren't as effective. Today's cars are an order of magnitude cleaner
because the catalysts are chemically different and because fuel
metering is better via engine and exhaust monitoring with active fuel
injection.
> I was once told that a catalyst presents no more back pressure than an
> equivalent length of pipe. Provided the honeycomb hasn't melted and
> collapsed.
So why did a mechanic once offer to "punch out" my catalyst for me?
I told him no. (I've never taken one apart, but I thought they were
porcelain inside. No, make the ceramic. Or fine china. :-) More to
the point though, exhaust systems work by resonating. Every
expansion chamber adds its own components to the pressure patterns
that get back to the head. If you were to design the ideal system,
it probably wouldn't involve a resonator right up under the manifold!
Well, I'm willing to be convinced about technical details. I
certainly don't want to argue with a highly respected list member.
It's a nice day in the northeast. We should be outdoors.
--
Jim Muller
jimmuller@pop.rcn.com
'80 Spitfire, '70 GT6+
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|