Date:         Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Steven Johnson" <sjohnson@pcocd2.intel.com>
Subject:      re: My Volkswagens-an EPA Danger 

So William Abbott says:
> 	With due respect to previous posters, its neither true that people
> need to be forced to save the ice caps, nor is it true that all emissions
> regulation, equipment and inspection are a scam by big business. The automotive
> sources of smog in densely populated California cities was well documented
> in the 1950s. Emissions controls have made a huge difference. The voters
> and taxpayers have largely supported this. Industrial sources have been 
> curtailed, though money plays a role here and more could be done.  
> We old car fans simply do not show up in the polls, but we don't speak with
> one voice either.

Bill,

I think the argument is not whether or not we want tail pipe emission tests
or not.  I think most people do.  Begrudgingly, but we do.  I think most people
believe that we need to do something about the pollution as well.  What most
people do to solve the problem is buy a new car.  The big car companies love
this response.  It's like gravy to a pig.  And as long as the EPA fosters this
mentality, the big three and others will support them.  Of course, when the
EPA requires the car companies to find ways to decrease tailpipe emissions even 
further, e.g. make electric cars, they whine and wimper that the car buyers 
just won't buy and the technology isn't there and other such nonsense.  Of 
course they don't want it.  It will cost them too much 'up-front' money.  

For those of us that want our older cars have a problem with the equipment 
check part of the testing.  Despite what comes out of the tailpipe, they insist 
that we have original equipment.  That means more 'up-front' money from you
and me.  That's why I chose to keep my engine bone stock.  But I hear those
folks that put in newer engines and those others that modify their engines
when they complain about testers wanting them to have the original equipment
even though their tailpipes still pass the test.  What the hell good is this
test if it cannot accept a reasonable alternative?  Even if the emissions
are less?  That's why I think the original equipment part of the test is
bogus and should be rewritten.  

With all the money we spend on checking emissions, we could probably save
money by buying new or rebuilt engines (or new cars for that matter!) for poor 
folks with old cars rather than spend it all on the EPA bureaucracy. 

Steven 
Sacramento, CA
sjohnson@pcocd2.intel.com