Ok, here is my stab a rocking the boat. What laws exist or are being proposed that threaten our hobby? For instance I was shocked to read in one of the Restoration Review magazines that Year One puts out that there are car crushing laws in already in California that target the older, heavier polluting cars. I also believe there are proposed "mandatory retirement" laws being floated about as states struggle to find ways to keep the feds from holding back highway money. Anyone up on this subject? Should there be a separate forum to keep everyone informed? How about an update in Aces magazine? Ideas, comments?
John Walker

It's called the "clunker law".We need to get in touch with our representative/congressman and let him know that we know that the big factories that are buying credits by crushing older cars is not going to stop them from still putting out the same amount of pollutants and the credits have no affect on that.These old cars are our enjoyment and crushing them isn't changing how much pollution is being produced.We need to make sure this is stopped!

------------------
John 67SS

I think the current threat is not so much in losing your car, but in losing the parts cars, as it's the basket cases are being bought up and crushed. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about our cars...I'm sure the writings on the wall. I would think that no matter what happens they'll never make the classics illegal, probably just harder to justify and register.

I have read some about this issue in several different publications. I'm anxious to see what happens if and when the government tells people that own antique cars such as Model T Fords, Stutz Bearcats or Deusenbergs, etc., that they have to bring in their old cars for crushing. I don't think there is a fan anywhere on the planet large enough to handle the load when it hits. You guys in Fairbanks Alaska will be able to hear me clearly when I start yelling because they want my 56 Vette!

------------------

Let me throw another one in. Today either NY City or NY State made it legal for the cops to seize your car if you are DUI. You do not have to be convicted of anything but your ride is gone. Why not speeding? Drag racing? One stoplight grand prix and poof! your walking? I agree I can't conceive of the pollution cops knocking on the door and asking for the keys, but the trend is not good, just want us to keep an eye open for this kind of nonsense.
John Walker

JMW:
Minnesota also passed a similar law effective January 1, 1999. It has to be either the second or third DUI, or DWI offense, not sure exactly (luckily it doesn't affect me), but it is an eye opener for sure! one thing they were doing for second or third offenders here was assigning a special license plate beginning with WX if you needed to drive to work. Every vehicle in the household that was available to the offender had to pay extra to get these plates, and just having them was probable cause to pull you over. Makes you think twice if you've had a couple drinks!!!!

First, I can't see how anyone can feel bad for someone who looses their car as a result of a DUI. I don't agree with the taking it w/o trial & conviction, but if you're shown to be under the influence, you deserve whatever they want to dish out. If all they loose is a car, they should be thankful.

As for clunker laws, these are only a threat to parts cars and junkers. There will never be a day where the Gov't comes and takes our cars. This simply won't occur. Anyone who tells you that the men in black are going to show up at your garage with a flatbed has been watching too many episode of the X-files. They probably also think that the bar codes on the back of road signs are for the martial law takeover of the country.

What will happen is mandates for cars with less polluting engines and better mileage. As a result, 2 things will happen:

First, as cars use less fuel, the per gallon costs will go up. This is simple economics. The oil companies will have to raise prices in order to make up for lower usage.

Second, the chemical makeup of fuel will change. We've already seen this with the elimination of lead. In order to make it cleaner, things will change. The first thing to go will be the sulfur, and if you watch the news, you know this is already in the works.

Because of this, it will be harder and more expensive to fine gas we can run our cars one. Yes, it will be available, but it’ll cost much more. So much in fact that many people will either get rid of the car, or convert to an engine which runs cleaner. There isn’t any reason you can’t run your 70SS on an engine that’s designed to be cleaner and more efficient. Anyone who buys a GM crate motor is already doing it.


------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net

Writing your congress critter does absolutely no good at all. Your representatives are beholden to the people with the money. Right now, those people are the bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals. Doesn't matter if they are Dems or Repubs. Their votes go to the money. I catch it double because not only am I into cars, I'm also an avid gun collector. What can we do? 1. Educate the masses (That is, put on car shows, car shows, and more car shows) 2. Mind your own driving habits. Every time someone is involved in a bad accident or is caught street racing in one of these cars, the "lets get these damn hot rodders" crowd starts whining and bitching, and they start calling for tougher laws and for "getting the damn old cars off the street." 3. Let's find and identify these liberals and their orginizations and flood their offices with pictures of old classics. (They use the same tactics to make their positions known) They assume all old cars are junk. They need to know better. Maybe we can reach someone whose dad once owned a 68 Chevelle, or a 69 Charger or an 67 Mustang. 4. Prepare for the worst. Be ready to hide your car if it ever comes to that. Not everyone knows someone in a rural area with a barn, but if you do, stay friends with this person. Otherwise, do the best you can to conceal it. Large cities can also be good hiding places. Am I paranoid?
A little. But we're talking about a government that has considered locking the hood of YOUR car and fining you if you if you try to work on your own vehicle. Just something to think about here, folks.

Well I have been reading the above posts with interest. So a lot of people don't believe that we won't loose our cars to the polution patrol. Here in California there is a group called Blue Water Inc. They figured a way to get MTBE put into gasoline to clean up the air. Problem is that it is getting into our lakes, streams and drinking water. The state made the oil company put this shxx in and now they are reluctant to make them stop. (Since they spent million on building plants to make the Shxx. So the solution was to ban all personnal water craft and outboard motor boats on about 60% of the lakes here and within 2 miles of the ocean coast line for most of California for personnal water craft only. And if you believe they're done, don't you believe it. By the way MTBE is showing up in lakes that have never see a boat. So it must be in the air also. This clunker

I must say there are a few house reps speakers whatever left in C.A., or they have some pay off money. We dont have to smog under 73 which several people fought for, amazingly the road side sniffers diapeared for now. In 97 things were lookin bad but seemed to work out for car enthusiests. How long will it last ? As for the clunker law, Word is the big oil company C.... S... so on crushed cars for credit on refinery waste some how less car pollutants is equal to there polluting mistakes. Its all about money. Thats rumor though. This site is a getta way, dont ruin it with goverment crap and upset us. Keep it out of team chevelle. I'm young and its very sad to see the way the world is going these first 30 years. Wants in store the next 30. Enjoy it while you can !!!

I must say there are a few house reps speakers whatever left in C.A., or they have some pay off money. We dont have to smog under 73 which several people fought for, amazingly the road side sniffers diapeared for now. In 97 things were lookin bad but seemed to work out for car enthusiests. How long will it last ? As for the clunker law, Word is the big oil company C.... S... so on crushed cars for credit on refinery waste some how less car pollutants is equal to there polluting mistakes. Its all about money. Thats rumor though. This site is a getta way, dont ruin it with goverment crap and upset us. Keep it out of team chevelle. I'm young and its very sad to see the way the world is going these first 30 years. Wants in store the next 30. Enjoy it while you can !!!

Byfield:
Whew, your item #1 is dangerous thinkin. One could go the next step very easily, an say "Why stop there, take his home, shoot, take everything". Everything is not black an white, there are shades of gray.

c'mon, I'm not advocating that people get stripped of all their worldly possesions.

If you take alook at what happens in a number of other counties when someone is caught for DUI, I think you'll agree that loosing a car is no big deal. And I don't just mean so-called 2nd and 3rd world places either. There are a number of places where you simply lose the right to drive, forever. Other places have manditory jail terms and huge fines.

Some people may thing this is oppressive, but these places also have DUI rates of almost nothing. I also don't view this as infringing on my rights at all. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the in the front lines on the day someone comes to take my Winchester, and it'll be a cold day before I give up my Chevelle for any pollution legislations, but I'll also be first in line to vote for tougher laws on DUI.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and everyone's got one.

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net

Byfield: I though simple economics was the "supply and demand" thing. Large supply with low demand means real low prices. Of course they could always create another artifical low supply. Though I think the real increase would be seen in gas taxes, much the same as the government is doing with cigarettes taxes now...if they can't make it illegal, they'll just try to tax it out of existance. Say, there's an idea for the gun control crowd...an ammo tax http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif

Gene: You are correct, and that state will exist, but only for a short time. Once the oil companies see there is low demand and low profit, they'll stop making the fuel we need (for our old cars, not cars in general). At that point, supply goes down and price goes up.

Gas Tax: About every year or so, they try to do a $0.01 gas tax around here. Not for pollution or that type for thing, but for valid stuff like road repairs. Andit's not a huge tax like some places have tried to pass either.

People go absolutely ape-***** crazy. The papers get filled with how this will cause everyone to go broke, how it's unfair to the poor, etc..etc. Apparently nobody has ever bothered to do the math on this.

Figure that you drive 20,000 miles a year.
You get 25 mpg.

This equates 800 gallons of fuel. A $0.01 tax per gallon adds up to a whole $8. If that's what they want from me and in return I get an interstate without potholes, I'd be happy to send the check to them today.

Gun Control: I have the perfect solution - guns can stay legal, but there's a caliber restriction. Nothing under 20mm http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

Kurt


------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net

Regarding the DUI-seizure issue: Anyone who thinks he has a right to drive even if a little intoxicated doesn't deserve to have a driver's license. Period. I’ve lost a few innocent friends to DUI drivers over the years. It’s saddening. I have to say I agree with Byfield about the consequences of a DUI. (Same goes for street racing, for that matter.) And those who think that the "government" will then take your home, your wife, kids, etc., are simply paranoid. Employ some common sense for cryin’ out loud!

Regarding the pollution issue: Old cars pollute way, way, way, way more than new cars. There is no argument there. I’ve worked in the pollution industry for several years and the increasing pollution stats are alarming. Those who think that they should be able to drive their old cars unconditionally based on nothing more than the “want” to drive their old cars are being just as selfish as the "tree-hugging environmentalist wackos" who want to rid the planet of every last vintage car. The key is to find a solution, and that will mean compromise on the part of old car owners. It’s as simple as that. I don’t understand why many old car owners think they have no obligation to the environment. Maybe it’s because they have never had to be accountable in the area before. Well...times change and (like the laws against DUI) the change is usually for the best interest of society. Quit being so damn selfish and look at the big picture.

I own a few classic autos, including two Chevelles. I love my Chevelles like you wouldn't believe. But that love in and of itself shouldn't automatically grant me the right forever to drive them unconditionally; I don’t have the right to pollute the air just because I feel the need or the urge to drive a gas guzzler. (Likewise, I don’t have the right to pollute a lake just because I feel like using a Jetski which, by the way, has no emissions control and can shoot as much as 60% of its emissions directly into the water. Think about that next time you jump in for a swim.) Driving is a privilege, not a right. And if the driving rules change, so must my acceptance of them. Why should my hobby be exempt from rules and conditions?

With regards to the “crusher law,” who in the world really sees the need for some old broken down, oil burning, rusted out *uncollectible* mid-60s wreck on the road? Before rushing to defend or defeat the law, proposed or in place, learn the facts! There is a lot if misinformation out there (including some of the above replies). The cars in our garages are safe and probably always will be. Maybe owning that SS 454 will mean paying more registraion fees, but it won't mean pulling the engine to replace it with an electric motor or sending itto the crusher! More than likely, our leisure to drive our cars at our discretion will not change in our lifetime; maybe it will in our children’s lifetime, but that will be their world and their decision.

I thought things were looking better somewhere I read California Governer lowered the polluton control limit on vehicles prior to 1974 stating that they are a very small percent of automobiles and are usuallly in good running con

There is only one group fighting for motorist rights. www.motorists.org

Join the National Motorists Association or be bulldozed by ill-informed do-gooders who have a bad "solution" to both real and imagined problems.

I've been a member since the mid-'80's. Strongly recommended!

Byfield,

In regards to taking possesions, during the smog delema if you had a vehicle sitting in your drivway un registered that vehicle could be impounded. No homeowners association, were talkin Mr. Law. I dont know if the law is in effect or not. Also the way that the goverment can rid of that 70SS or are pride and joy is reduce emission tolerances (as California has done) to were vehicles new in the 60s-70s cant pass todays standards, Make you smog that old car every year to insure it is in compliance.
Example in late 96 a friend had a 84 ford pick-up totally stock. FAILED new standards emisions FAILED 3 times $1,300.00 later he is slapped with a gross polluter registration with added registering fees. Who wants a vehicle that is going to put you through that? If big brother tries this on are pried and joy were one step closer to civil war.

The only way government can control honest people is to slap so many laws on them that they break some law every time they step out their front door. 1bad made that point when he stated that all the legislature has to do is hold older cars to new car standards. As for the comment above stating that big brother will never come after your possessions or take your rights away, wake up! I agree they won't take everything at once, they'll just nibble away at them over a period of time until one day you wake up and poof, your rights have all disappeaared. That's what's happening to our hobby now. How much harder is it to get a car registered now than it was ten years ago. Here in Texas, it is a nightmare to register a classic purchased in another state. And the pollution laws have been discussed to death here. Again, they just keep adding a little more each year until passing inspection becomes impossible. What's next? Classic car fees? Higher fees for cars older than 15 years? Registration fees that multiply each year? These things have been or are being considered in many states and at the federal level. Even horsepower limits have been considered at one time. The government will choke us to death if only we allow them. Better a little paranoid and prepared than surprised with a shocked open mouthed look on my face. And as for the mid 60's wrecks, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I know people who collect old Lincolns, Ford Galaxies, Pontiac Bonnevilles, etc...Each to his own. Disclaimer: I have no intention of using this sight as some right wing anti government forum, but reality is reality. These are important issues that affect our hobby and we should all keep our eyes and ears open. The saving grace is this. Classic car restoration has become a big money business in just the last few years, and that along with the big bucks in motorsports (Nascar, NHRA) will hopefully keep our hobby alive for many years. (Remember, the legislators go towards the money.) And Al, please accept my apologies if I'm coming off to strong on the government issues.

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-23-99).]

Another thought/experience with Calif. smog laws and the issue of old cars meeting newer car emissions standards. While selling a '70 Nova a few years ago ('93), I attempted to get a Calif. smog certificate so as to broaden my "market" (I live in Oregon). Anyhow, my mildly modified Nova easily passed ALL the sniffer tests. I mean at 10% or less of any of the allowable emissions. My car still failed because of the aftermarket equip I had installed.My point is this- even though my car polluted at less than 10% of what's allowable for newer cars, I would be forced to conform to somebody elses idea of what parts would be appropriate for it to be "legal". Happy ending? I brought my Nova back to Oregon and found it a loving home. My .02, Bryan

Is the goverment trying to dis-arm us so when they knock at your door to impound your chevelle you cant defend yourself with
Smith & Wesson. Some think so. Just one of those rights as Randy mentioned, slowley disapearing.Is the big manufactures behind getting these old cars off the road that last longer than todays cars ever will, so more new cars have to purchased? Food for thought, seems radical but you never know.

[This message has been edited by 1bad67 (edited 02-23-99).]

1 -DZAUTO; hell, I also want your 56 vette!!!
2 - I love my country but fear my government.
3 - Y'all "Greenie weenies" need to hug a tree.
4 - Global warming is a THEORY
5 - Mans effect on the ozone hole is a THEORY
6 - Motorcycles create a VERY small fraction of a percent of all air pollution,but California is requiring catalytic converters.
How much do all "classic" cars make all combined?? Very little. Don't think logic applies.Our toys will be next.
Prepare to enjoy your EPA approved japanese sewing machine.
Logic says that there are so few old cars on the road that they should be left alone.


------------------

Well The way i see it is if the gov wants to smog my ride they can go ahead i will make that thing burn cleaner than a honda Step up the jets 5 or 6 and run her on methanol they will think im running a 4 banger under the hood. So im not worried about the sniffers.
and if the time ever dose come when they come to take my car ill meet them at the door with a large caliber weapon. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

I feel better now

Charles

My Honda pukes out more exhaust than my Chevelle. Why? Because my Honda gets driven 15k miles a year. My Chevelle only gets about a 100 or so. Yet the tree hugging pussiez want to restrict my enjoyment on driving my hobby on the street. They may not take my car but they sure can tax the hell out of it if I want to drive it. These same panty waste are also trying to tax and limit my possession of firearms. I would even guess that on any given hot summer day that lawnmowers and other yard equipment belch out more pollution than the pre 72 cars on the road on that same day. But should we restrict the exhaust and pollution on yard equipment? Oh yeah, I forgot the Nader nannies are trying to do that too. I can't even take a shi* in a toilet of my choice in my new house because these fagg*ts have said that it only takes 1.6 gallons to flush my turd. Yet, I can build the biggest pool I want and water my grass with a gazillion gallons.
There is currently legislation pending to allow us to buy only one gun a month. What's next? I can just hear these government turd*s who have never held a real job claim "Nobody needs more than one belching, polluting pre 72 car, so we'll just tax the hell out of them and apply the tax $ to some government agency for the benefit of [you guessed it] the children." Oh well, I digress.
My point is this. If it sounds crazy and you think the government won't try it, you better think again.
One last point: the Greenhouse cr*p is a THEORY that has been repeatedly proven faulty.
Off my soapbox now......

Man...I am reading some of these previous messages and I'm just shaking my head at the absurdity of some of the people in this group. I hate to be rude, but c'mon, get an education people. Anyone who thinks that automobiles -- especially old ones -- don't contribute to the majority of air pollution is insane. *ANY* CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC SOURCE will tell you that global warming IS NOT a just a theory! Like it or not! I work in the pollution industry -- on the side of industry, no doubt! Pollution is way more serious than most think.

If you believe your Chevelle doesn't pollute that much, back it up with some proof. One bone-stock 1965 Chevelle equals the pollution of how many new Nissan Sentras? Of how many new Toyota 4x4s? Of how many new Camaros? Well? How many? Set aside your emotion and talk facts. And if you don't know the facts, learn them or let someone else to the talking.

I love Chevelles: I own two. But I still don't understand why many (if not most) here feel they have the right to drive whatever they want, whenever they want. What's up with that 1950s way of thinking, huh? I guess the answer must be, "This is America and I pay taxes, damn it! I can do whatever the hell I want as long as I'm not hurting someone!" The reason, in part, that there are so many laws on the books regarding everything you can possibly think of is because there are too many corporations and people in this country who have the attitude that they can do anything they want, whenever they want. When people and/or companies as a whole don't practice discipline or employ some common goodwill, the government steps in with regulations. Anyone who has studied American history can cite several examples of this in effect. (Although, I can't think of any examples of the US government applying martial law on its citizenship to get what they demand, as some needlessly fear will happen with regards to their cars, of all things!)

A lot of the messages in this thread seem to come from people who don't give a rat's ass about anything other than what they want. "To hell with the environment! To hell with the government! To hell with anyone who thinks differently! I want to drive my Chevelle!" Why does that want outweigh every other emotional and scientific argument? That selfish behavior invites regulation, don't you get it? How can Chevelle owners possibly gain any footage or even common respect from non-classic car lovers by proudly employing such an attitude of moronic ignorance? This group of car lovers maybe ultimately doomed by their own misplaced passion. It's almost embarrassing. I think I'll go for a drive in my 68 now to clear my head...

Whoa folks, lets save the strident stuff for another site. I was curious about REAL or proposed laws that affect my freedom to drive what I want. I felt it was relavent to the group when I saw Year One getting involved. I know they are trying to protect their future business, but it also means my chances for continuing this hobby are reduced. Don't know about ya'll, but I am heading over to motorists.org for a look around. Al, as they say these days, "Lets move on!"
John Walker

[This message has been edited by jmw (edited 02-25-99).]

time to close this one Al !!!
Before I really get going !!

------------------

Whoa is right 283...but nobody mentioned the fact that it doesn't matter what we do. Unless something can be done, we won't be able to drive our cars LEGALLY. The gov's standards on the auto manufacturers concerning pollution (or rather the lack of it) is currently in phase 2. Phase 1 was the cats and stuff. Phase 2 is more stringent, and gives you a 'check engine' light if you just don't tighten your gas cap enough. (We're talking the new-er cars) I've read that phase 3 is going to be even more stringent...even to the point of cars being built with a built-in kill switch! Imagine tooling down the highway when your car suddenly shuts down and you coast to the shoulder...then a mobile sniffer pulls up and tells you your exhaust is too bad and you can't continue your trip until you get it fixed! Something like that would be great for those DUI's and would eliminate high speed chases if the cops could shut you down, but several people hit it on the head. They won't take your car away, they'll just make it impossible for you to drive. Get with some of the organizations that are trying to guard against "Big Brother" in our hobby and help them.

Moronic ignorance? 1. I gots college. 2. I have years of experience in both automotive and aviation maintenance. 3. They don't allow morons to work on aircraft with hundreds of lives at stake. 4. I deal very closely with the federal government on a daily basis and see many of the absurd and contradictory regulations firsthand. Like I said above, most of this is dollar driven. A Pratt and Whitney JT8D produces more pollution at takeoff power than my Chevelle will produce in two years and yet you don't see catalytic converters on the tailpipes of 727's. For one, it would be impossible and too costly if it were possible. Airliners spew tons of exhaust into the air yet no one cries about grounding aircraft. Why not? The airline industry is a multibillion dollar industry with armies of lawyers at their disposal. That's why. So the liberals and their government cronies go after easier targets. We don't have the billions and we don't have the lawyers. We look like fish in a barrel to these people. The point we're trying to make here is that we are not going to fade away quietly. We're not going to say "yes sir, may I have another". I hate to keep going on and on in this forum about this. This is the sort of thing that makes Al's skin crawl, I'm sure. Our world history is full of examples of governments and empires that started out good, then turned totalitarian and eventually collapsed. (Since we're into history lessons.) All we can do is be watchdogs. Keep your eyes and ears open. Watch the editorial sections of the car magazines and read the industry trade publications. Watch for impending legislation and for bills that are being debated. I don't want to get into Ruby Ridge or Waco because this isn't the place. It's also not the place to speculate about the intelligence of the people who have responded to this thread. So Al, if you have been reading this, if you feel you must close this down before tempers flare................

So the logic is: If an aircraft spews out tons more pollution than a automobile, it is therefore okay for an automobile to pollute because it will never pollute as much as an aircraft. That is called circular reasoning. And it doesn't fly (pun intended).

Smog regulation, by design, is not bad law. For example, the population of the greater Los Angeles area has increased significantly over the past 30 years. The number of cars on the roads in LA county has increased by more the **one million!* in the past 30 years, yet the pollution levels there today are far lower than they were 30 years ago. More cars, more freeways, longer commute periods and *less* pollution. Why is that? It's because of smog regulation. (Email me if you want the private industry and county-wide stats to back up this fact.) I am truly baffled as to why no one will squarely address the pollution issue with regards to old cars.

And since no one here wants to talk about anything other than his God-given right to drive his Chevelle, or the liberals who are secretly planing to take away everyone's car, gun, and freedom, there is almost no reason to continue this thread. What are your thoughts, Al?

(I am glad that we all have something in common: our love for Chevelles and our desire to preserve them at any cost.)

The point is, we have neither the army of attorneys nor the the resources to defend against lesgislation or hire lobbyists. Picture this if you will. What would happen if the EPA went to Pratt or GE and said "Your days of polluting the skies are over. Clean up your engines or face daily multi-million dollar fines. We don't care that you'll have to spend trillions on R&D to do it and destroy your bottom line in the process." The engine makers and airframe builders and the airlines could pool their resources and drag out the procedings for years. The feds would have to spend billions on its own lawyers to enforce the regulations. (That's your money) They (the aviation industry) have hundreds times more clout and far more vast resources than the auto manufacturers. Whether or not I think its OK to belch pollutants from my car exhaust is not the issue. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Trust me, I've never said to myself, "Hmmm, look at the smoke trailing from the exhaust of that plane. I'm going to go home and fire up my Chevelle and for good measure, I think I'll close up the choke plate, run it rich, and burn a hole in the ozone." The thought never entered my mind. I was making a fact based comparison, based on FAA and EPA studies that I read in a trade publication a few years back. (OK, they didn't actually use my Chevelle, and these facts were compiled in the late eighties. You get the picture though). The point I've tried to get across (and apparently unsuccessfully) is that there are people and organizations with big bucks who have the ears (and pockets)of elected representatives and that we should be on guard against "overkill" legislation. There is nothing wrong with being ever vigilant, either. I didn't invent this money and power game. I didn't imagine this game. It's real and that's the way the game is played. It's not some line of reasoning that I'm subscribing to, or warped logic as I prefer to call it, its just reality. Since you're obviously an educated person who reads the business magazines and the newspapers, you know its true. I'm glad the air in LA has improved. I'm sure the smog regs AND the increased usership of public transportation have helped greatly. (yes, yes, a million more cars on the road but try to imagine life without the transit system that's in place now) Also, industrial pollution is down simply because our economy is moving away from manufacturing and industry and is gearing more towards the retail and service sector. (factory closings, seems like everything is made in Taiwan or Korea. Their problems are getting worse, and they drive the cars they are exporting) But back to the subject of mass transit, air quality is still the main, number one reason that the DFW area is desperately scrambling to put a light rail system in place. Fewer cars on the road (newer, older, inbetween) equals less pollution. If you destroyed every car built before say, 1989, you'll still have a problem with air quality without a mass transit system in place. Too many cars on the road regardless of their age. (Common sense) My brother-in-law sang praises the day the BART was extended out to his home town in the Bay area. I'm all for cleaning up the air, I have to breathe the stuff. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, however. There's too much of this "my way or nothing" attitude out there right now. Too many people are unwilling to compromise not because of the importance of the issue at hand, but just because of their egos and pride. When you speak of selfishness, there seems to be plenty to go around these days. And yes, BOTH sides are guilty. You'll get no argument there. We can argue statistics all day, so here's what someone (Mark Twain or Will Rogers, can't recall at the moment) once said about statistics. Some people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post; for support, not illumination. I hope this clears up my position. I'm not really a one-eyebrowed redneck yelling yeeha and whose parents were cousins.(No offense to those who are) I'm a pretty darned nice 40 something guy who has been around the block a couple of times with a lot to teach, experiences to share, and yes, a lot to learn as well. Now, back to the other love in our lives........... What color am I going to paint this 71 when I'm done with the body?

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-26-99).]

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-26-99).]

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-26-99).]

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-26-99).]

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 02-26-99).]

Hello folks, I started this and have enjoyed the conversation. For the most part it has stayed away from "flaming" another person, which I think is the only reason Al has let this run on. I've learned plenty from posts like the last few. As long as comments are constructive I don't mind it running its' course. But Al, if you want to pull the plug, no problem here. I know its not like you need my permission, but hey lets get back to burning up dinosaurs.
John Walker

[This message has been edited by jmw (edited 02-26-99).]

[This message has been edited by jmw (edited 02-26-99).]

rstoltz, I see your occupation is listed as "California" in your info. This sounds about right!
Just because you hear the same junk over and over, does not mean it is right.
Global warming IS ONLY A THEORY - check it out!ONLY A THEORY!
MANS effect on the ozone "hole" IS ONLY A THEORY. - check that too.Theoretical.
There are many serious scientists that can "prove" both of these wrong as well as anyone can "prove" they are right.
I think that your working in the "pollution industry" has biased your views to accept what is repeated in the news.
Now, try to be calm and logical; POLLUTION IS BAD ,I think we all agree, BUT why not get the best bang for our tax buck ??Spending ANY time and funds on classic cars is like farting in a hurricane. Spend our tax noney where it will produce results: big industry ,airlines, whatever 95% of the cars on the road currently are, etc..I would say that one airline trip from CA to NY puts out more pollution than every classic car in the USA for a month or a year.
I realize govspeak is to go after the weak, but common sense is to go for the big numbers.
How about let me designate where my tax money is spent - TRUE Democracy!

------------------

Actually, 283v8, part of my job in the pollution industry was to determine how much gross pollution my plant produced. It was my job to compare the plant's pollution emissions to the reg's limits. We were often not in compliance -- mainly due to $$, as it was sometimes more cost-effective to pay the fine than to limit the emissions. (But those days are soon to be over.) This is all to say that my views are not biased toward the side of liberal politics. If anything, the contrary.

Randy Mosier's last response pretty much hits the nail on the head, if you ask me. The topic of air pollution and the cause (i.e., blame) of pollution will continue indefinitely as long as there is money to be made and finger-pointing to be done.

Let's start talking about Chevelles again. My kids and I went on a tricycle ride around the block last month. I watched as a 70-something neighbor of mine pulled her Ford Taurus into her garage and parked it right along side of her 67 SS396 Chevelle. I about flipped! I never knew she had this car and I've been living in the same house for 11 years! She let me look at the car; it is 100% original and has only 43k on it. It was her son's car and he died in 1973 in a fire. Her husband then drove the car for two years before he died of as heart attack. The car has been sitting since. Twice a year she washes it (in the garage). She won't sell it because of sentimental reasons (which pleases my wife). I want that car so badly I refuse to think about it!

My sister's first husband bought a 1967 SS396 brand new. That was the first Chevelle I rode in. It was maroon and black with black interior. It had a white shift knob. I was about nine years old at the time. Been hooked ever since. (Ahhhh, Chevelles, much much better)

I agree with 283v8. With some focus on big industy, airlines ect... Pollution could be cut at least in half. Even if it did happen, I don't think it would be the end of it. Put my tax money to work where it counts.
As to NYC taking citizens cars upon SUSPECTING they are DWI, is wrong. They can take your car even if you are found not guilty. You then go to a civil court to attempt to get your car back. I believe that stricker laws need to be enforced, but taking someone's personal property without even a trial is unconstitutional. Next it could be your house, business or whatever they feel like taking...

------------------
71 BB malibu,67 conv
camaro and going...

Had to put this in:

Quote from a magazine article I read recently:
The pre 60's cars polluted more just sitting in the driveway, not running, than the newer computer controlled cars of today running in rush hour traffic, simply because there was no vapor recovery system.

Still think the older cars don't pollute?

rstoltz,

I get steemed when big Industry pollutes are air and water and pays the goverment cause its cheaper. Oil companys produce MTBE and the goverment blames the Jet Skie.We launch the space shuttle, fly planes all MAJOR contributers to are air quality.
But Mr. Middle class gets the big one because he owns a 2 stroke lawn mower, a jet ski and a 70 chevelle. Like all hard working americans can afford to buy all new everthing to be earth friendly, why cant we say I cant afford to comply with your your standards so here's some money. My .02 cents If one states popullation rode 2 stroke skis dirt bikes, drove there chevelles it might equal the pollutants of big industry.I want clean air but why the hell do we have to make the changes and foot the bill? Everyone should comply.The goverment wouldn't allow a pay off from industry if they were really concerned about the enviroment.Why the hell are these tankers dumpin oil in are ocean all the time?? And there are more hondas, toyotas, suv's,clean burnin vehicles on the road than none complying vehicles.And we still have a problem. So now we are not allowed to burn wood soon. What a bunch of hippocrates. They can kiss my ...
By the way I do care and don't have a bad attitude. You may think so if you wish.I'm concerned about my childrens future. The way I see it is they will have less rights and poor air quality and paying more than we are to resolve it.Big brother is more concerned about makin a milion on a dollar investment, smoken cigars, and gettin a bj. Big brother wont be around when we cant breath. He could give a rats ass, and it shows.

[This message has been edited by 1bad67 (edited 02-26-99).]

1. The U.S. gov't has become way too big for it's own good, Sorry, it shouldn't have it's hands in business and private affairs the way it does..
2. The wrong people have way too much power, at some point we may have become so happy with the status quo that we didn't realize what was going on(or we just didn't care because it didn't apply to us yet!)

3. Ya ever listen to the lyrics to Red Barchetta by RUSH? kinda interesting...

------------------
Sean
Heavy '73

I have to agree with 283. Global warming is just a theory, as well as man's cause of the hole in the ozone (how do we know that the hole wasn't there before we had the technology to see it?). I wish more people would realize that. Sometimes it seems that we may be making a mountain out of a mole- hill.
One thing that I know for sure is that people will tend to listen to what you're saying if they don't have to wade through all the bitter name-calling. Lets try and stay calm.

I just had a smog check done on my 79 Buick and even though it pass the sniffer test with flying colors they felled it because the timing tab had broken off and they could not verify the timing setting but could fix it for $238. I fixed it for $5. but had to pay for reinspection. To me that tells me where the states concernes are - MONEY.
AS far as global warming why is it then every couple of years all of a sudden we are going back to an ice age - just a bunch of different groups crying wolf to get federal funding in there pockets

While we're on the topic of emmisions, why have states included a visual inspection along with the sniffer? Would seem if I can get the car in tune by other means than the factory sent the car out with, where's the problem?

I'm not worried at all...I'm more than sure that registered operational classics will be "Grandfathered" and not be crused. Autos should only be tested to the tolerances the EPA had during that year of production. It is rediculous that 70's cars should meet 90's standards.

As far as pollution goes, what about those big a$$ diesel trucks spitting out plumes of smoke? Do they have any kind of pollution control? No, at least I have not heard of any kind...

This is what good ol' Uncle Sam should crack down on. An 18 wheeler pollutes way more than my '69 Chevelle SS. So what's the deal?

I can't hold back any longer! In my opinion, the following laws and/or ways of thinking are threats to our hobby. Maybe not for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but in our lifetime.
1. The trend toward property seizure. Sell drugs? have too much cash on you? blow a .10 blood alcohol level? Decide to do a stoplight grand prix? get caught without the government mandated exhaust system? Poof, your property is gone and you have to sue to get it back, that is after you prove you are innocent. What if the local cop takes a liking to my car and decides he can fix the auction so he gets it? (I know, too many X-files).
2. Hot Rods as bargaining chips. In the big picture, we are a chip to be played. If the right combination of political circumstances arise, we can get cashed in. Not take our cars away cashed in. Just regulated as mentioned above. Add outrageous fees or new emissions regs on older cars or something else to make it prohibitively expensive to operate a pre-catalytic converter car.(This will get lumped in with the new reg for emissions controls on lawnmowers, etc. I believe there are a host of proposals in this vein that followed the Kyoto conference.
3. Al Gore. Didn't he say something about how the internal combustion engine was part of an evil right wing conspiracy? The real reason he is on here is I just don't like him. Had to throw in a gratuitous slam.
4. SUVs. They are huge! Ford is building the EXCURSION. A foot longer than the Suburban. I ususally see them wandering all over the 6 lane interstates, without signaling, being driven by petite women. They love them cause they know everyone has to get out of their way. (Actually my observations are about an even split between men and women driving SUVs). Watch Out!

There, I feel better already.
John Walker

Rstoltz....please show the undisputed scientific fact where the Nader Nazi's, have proven beyond a shadow of a dought that a 1965 Chevelle pukes out more exhaust than a Toyata 4+4 or two Nissan Sentras or a Camaro as your earlier post stated. I hope the study includes how many miles each car is driven , how they are driven, whether they are properly tuned and have survived repeated scientific analysis for the past 20 years. I also want to read any other studies that thave anything negative to say about the original study you say exist comparing the 1965 Chevelle to the Toyo 4+4. This shouldn't be to hard for you to prove up since you know so much about pollution. I don't. I'm not an expert, just a dumb ole lawyer.
I still stand by my original statement that I GUESS that since my 72 is driven less than 100 miles a year, it produces far less pollution than than my Honda which is driven over 15,000 miles a year. I do not have proof to back that up. Looking forward to you showing me on the Internet or library where I can compare the 65 Chevelle with the Toyo 4+4, which interestingly enough I also own to pull the trailor for my Chevelle. Gee... I don't feel so bad now driving my Toyo SUV even though I have been told by everyone that I have to be careful or I might flip over on the way to work.And to think I had to pay Clinton a "luxury tax" on the thing when I bought it. Makes sense....I pay the Feds for the luxury of flipping over.But if I flipped over in the wrong part of town at least I'd be safe, because I ALWAYS carry a gun. Amazingly enough I have a permit, have been trained and never bother anyone....EXCEPT Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy and a few others who always find out some way to try and protect me fom myself and others. Well at least I feel safe because the Safety Nazis have said that since my Toyo so so high and does'nt have to comply with safety bumper standards there is a 100% chance I'm gonna maul those little bitty cars. And for that I'm sure Stae Farm is gonna up my rates. But alas, if People would only put their kids in car seats and buckle up , they would live. Oops, forgot, Hillary , in addition to making our air cleaner has made laws that make us buckle ourselves and our kids up. Thank God so many people are looking after me. I feel so secure that everyon is concerned for me. But oh yeah, my Toyo gets only about 15 miles per gallon so think of how iresponsible I must feel knowing that I am rapidly depleting the world's extremely scarce gasoline supply.
No intent to flame here I hope you see the satire of the thing though....
Just my two cents.

Michael,

You referenced an earlier post of mine. Please reread it a little more closely. Nowhere did I say there exists a study comparing a '65 Malibu with a Toyota 4x4. (Such a study would be a waste of time.) I used a '65 Malibu and a Toyota 4x4 as an example to more or less issue a challenge to those claiming that old cars are no more polluting than new cars. The question of which auto pollutes more is more theoretical than anything else, as anyone with half a brain knows that the 65 Malibu pollutes way more. How much more? Hell, I don't know. But it's so obvious that can't imagine someone seriously doubting it. I mean, c'mon, some things are a given here. The fact that a mid-60s car couldn't meet the emission standards set for a 1999 car proves my point (which surely would be a *ridiculous* requirement). There are scores of documents on pollution stats, and using this forum to republish one would be a *huge* waste of space.

Rather than taking heat from those disagreeing with me, I'd like someone to point me in the direction of just ONE legitimate document concluding that auto pollution is not as important as other forms of pollution. Auto pollution pollutes our immediate air more the pollution generated by aircraft simply because of its proximity to the ground. (Tailpipes are a lot closer to my lungs than airplanes!) Rock solid data proves that over the past 20 years there has been an increased amount of weekend precipitation over heavily populated areas. Why? Weekday auto pollution and end-of-the-week air convection. This issue is simply nondebatable. It is not even debated in the scientific community. It is universally accepted as fact, hands down.

I agree that our government is bloated and that there is too much emphasis on the almighty dollar on both sides of the democratic/republican fence. But funding air pollution studies is not a total waste of money and time. I look at the issue in the same light as I view lawyers. There are countless crooked, money-grubbing attorneys out there lookin' to screw someone for a quick buck. But there are also lawyers who rallied behind the civil right movement, helped pass laws tough laws to put away for good truly evil people, and drafted legislation requiring extremely high standards with regards to roads and general construction and transportation safety. Ridding the planet of lawyers -- or environmental studies -- would not make the world a better place.

1bad67,
Believe me, I share your disgust over the fact that corporations can buy their way out off curtailing their own pollution. You or I try that enough times and we'll be in jail. That pisses me off more than I can express (which is why I eventually parted ways with that company).

Maybe we need more Jessie Ventura's kickin' ass in America to get things back on track.

b]WOW...[/b] This has been some interesting reading. But this argument is getting way too emotional and is really pointless. Fact is, the Government is regulating us to death and for our own good or so I'm told. I have a real problem with the fact that I
cannot legally modify my 78. I am subject to a severe fine each and every time I drive my car down the road. Am I selfish and irresponsible, I think not. This is my pleasure and my pursuit of happiness and if that IS selfish then so be it. Also, I have a real problem with regulation that causes the guy that can hardly feed his family to have to pay fines and comply with mandates that are not conducive to his family's well-being and recreation.

We all have our jobs to do to, and usually our position on any particular issue is where we sit. That’s evident from what I have read here. The one concern we all share is the future of the hobby and business of classic cars. Contrary to popular opinion we are a voice and lobby. Collectively we CAN influence legislation and I challenge all who read and participate in Team Chevelle to write your hired help. Voice your concerns. They are compelled to answer the mail as you are a vote. Get your friends to write, you might be surprised at the results. However, you must keep the issue in mind as you read the response. Staffers will answer the mail and they are trying to prove to their boss that they
can write a dissertation without really answering a question or adequately addressing the issue (the politician way). Email is so easy and you can send your legislator a note frequently. The below site is a great start:

congress.nw.dc.us/wpost/elecmail.htm (http://congress.nw.dc.us/wpost/elecmail.htm)

BTW I work for the Navy with commercial ships. Anyone ever see the down wind
results of a ship blowing her stack. Also, do you think the“regulators” care that in my job I could influence pollution? If I could change policy that would prevent a pollution incident could I get pollution credits that I could cash in so I could drive my 78 on the street legally? Am I any different than an industry that can do this?

Hey Guys, any recommendations for an outfit to rechrome trim pieces, cast pot metal and
plastic. I am prepping for paint now. Parts for my 78 Elky are harder to find than parts for my 72 Elky.

Have A Great Chevelle Day http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif.

Mike Crosby

[This message has been edited by Mike Crosby (edited 02-28-99).]

Lets see... my automobile produces an extra 12 parts per MILLION in CO, and NOx therefore I should give up my hobby (and probably other hobbys), to preserve the integrity of the planet. I should also give up all social activities that involve any kind of alcohol, because of the risks that I pose. How much pollution does my Elky really omit. Compare that amount to the explosion of Mt St. Helens or the amount of space dust (particulates) that fall into the atmosphere every day. Talk about pollution, those effects can be easily measured. Before the so called experts impose restrictions on us based on there "small window" of tests results, maybe they should enlarge there data collection range to include the entire life cycle of the earth (if they could). Maybe then, they could generate the BIG PICTURE. Remember there is always a cause and effect when imposing restrictions. Pollution has been around since day one. Cyclic temperatures have been occuring on earth for as long as scientists can disern. I agree totally with restricting needless spewing of pollutants, but there is a limit on what burdens we impose on human activities.

I think we need to tie the eco-weenies to the tree there hugging and run it through the saw mill! My Chevelle with the old 90K + engine put out not much more than my mothers 94 Accord. I sure need to get my Calvin pissing on EPA sticker done! The biggest reason here in Denver for the emission tests are to make a profit and to give the unemployed lazies a job.

L65 71 SS soon to be 454

[This message has been edited by L6571SS (edited 03-01-99).]

Does anyone remember Joan Claybrook (transportation secretary during the Carter administration) and her backwards motorcycle design? She believed as many do today that the public needed to be protected from the "folly of its own actions". Fortunately, even her liberal colleagues rolled on the floor laughing at her rendition of how a motorcycle should be built. But isn't it ironic that the freedom loving, live and let live, do your own thing, down with the system generation of the sixties and seventies has evolved into a group of let's govern them, rule them, regulate them, mandate them, tax them, impose fees on them, if they don't comply we will send the swat team after them, more big government, my way or no way, I'm right and you're wrong liberals in the eighties and nineties? Many of them are the same people, who have been elected or appointed to positions of power, proving that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was just a little irony I thought I would share.

OK, I'm gonna flog this dead horse one more time. I still say my Honda pukes out more than my Chevelle because the 72 is driven only 100 miles per year as opposed the Honda which gets about 15,000. Rstoltz, you must agree with me that that is only common sense. Yet people want restrictions on my Chevelle. That does'nt make sense to me. I own [GASP!] two Rottweilers. People also want to ban me from owning my lovable Rotties b/c they THINK they are dangerous. Yet most serious K-9 organizations rate them as one of the most loving, intelligent dogs to own and they are great around children. Now if you Really want to prevent people from being harmed you should ban Golden Retrievers and Labs. Why? Simply because there are more of them, more people are bitten by them. But WHOA NELLIE you will never see a news story on someone being bitten by a Golden. If you tell a lie often enough like "Rotts are evil and old cars are bad" people will believe it. If you REALLY want to reduce pollution, just ban people from driving their Hondas since , I believe , Accord is the numer one selling car. Imagine how much pollution we could stop if we just rationed the amount of time they could drive their Hondas. But that ain't gonna happen is it?
Now on a very timely note: I saw that the new Ford Excursion has arrived and [GASP again] the Safety Panties and Eco Nazis have said that the new truck is the most polluting vehicle on the road. Funny, I thought, since it comes with a V-10 that Ford has been building for years. Course they said nothing about the deisels that have been in Ford and Chevy P/U's for years. Just keep tellin' these lies over and over. I saw it last night on TV. Just a big Eco Nazi lie by people who drives Volvos and hate SUV's. I say if you can afford it, more power to you. That just gives me greater drive to succeed. Only gets 12 mpg? So what, it's my $. I 'm not campaigning the federal govt to stop poor peole from gambling. It's their $. What do I care.
Now lessee...I own a lot of firearms, a pool, an SUV, a Chevelle, a boat, I drag race, have a beer or two on occasion and drive my car, own a radar detector and [Ohhmmmaaaagod!], sometimes speed, have to flush my turd only once because I have one of those evil water wasting toilets, actually heat the hell out of my house burning up all the electricity I want, don't always recycle, never give bums money on the street[since when did bums start being called "homeless" anyway} actually burn some evil wood in my evil fireplace, smoke a cigar now and then, own 2 Rottweilers[ one who is actually trained to defend me if my life is in danger] and a lot of other evil "BAD" things. Funny how I just pay my taxes and just leave people alone. But yet someone always is trying to tell me what to do. Tell ya what... you don't ask anything of me and I won't ask anything of you. You go your way , I go mine. I leave you alone, you leave me alone. Deal?
Again, no flame intended.
I just want to be left alone to acheive my goals in life without every body trying to ruin all the fun. I don't care what other pepole do. I wish them the best. I wish them no harm ior ill will. It just really gets me steamed to see so many lies told so often that I feel compelled to respond , in some small way, I feel that I can't complain if I don't vote or speak out when confronted with intolerance for the right of people to be left alone.
Hey, I'm just one little guy fightin' the power.
Just my .02 cents
No hard feelings, eh?

Dude, mellow out...Damn!

Yes, your Honda pollutes more than your Chevelle because you drive it more. And our Chevelle pollutes more than your Honda on a gallon-for-gallon comparative basis. Does that matter since your drive your Chevelle only 100 miles a year? Nope, sure doesn't. Pollution from a vehicle driven only a 100 miles a year doesn't add up to anything that is worth measuring and probably harms ol' Mother Earth not one itty bitty bit. I don't, however, think that your case is the average.

Just curious...how many people with "classic" cars drive them only 100 miles a year?

I think the lady with the original pristine 67SS396 in her garage as described by rstoltz should voluntarily have it crushed because if it ever got sold, it might be driven over 100 miles per year and destroy the earth.
How about let all the greenie weenies move to LA and choke together.

------------------

Just out of curiosity, how many of you who are slamming the so called 'tree huggers" are avid hunters or like to fish? Any of you mt. bike or enjoy camping?

One only needs to look at the air quality in LA County to realize that there are needs in some areas for more stringant pollution controls.

While I agree that some of the laws are a bit heavy handed, and have an unfair impact upon the lives of various people, to make a blanket statement that it's all due to a bunch of tree huggers and granola eaters is a bit ignorant. A good nuber of these greenie weenies you speek of are members of the NRA who want to protect their hunting grounds, members of Ducks Unlimited who want to protect the wetlands, or any number of other groups which are devoted to the use of the outdoors, and therefore are willing to pay an extra few dollars a year for emmissions checks if it means they'll have some greenspace in which to relax and have fun.

After all, would it be fair to say that the only people who want to keep the old cars on the roads are a bunch of toothless rednecks who need the old cars bwecause their jobs at the gas station won't let them afford a new one? No, I didn't think so.

To think that these 2 groups are mutually exclusive is kind of dumb. I'm not about to give up my Chevelle (or my Honda), but I'll be ready to take on anyone who wants to build a WalMart on my favorite mt. bike grounds.


Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net

WHAAAAAAT? we're not all toothless rednecks??? Shocking.I thought we were.
Sorry, the point is that cars over 20 years old represent such an infinitely miniscule portion of the pollution spectrum as to be laughable! Those who want to waste my tax money regulating insignificant contributors while the big guys spew-on are truly misguided greenie weenies and need to check reality every now and then. Go for the big polluters, not lawnmowers, cycles, old cars, and garlic breath !!!
Reduce pollution, but use some sense.

------------------

283 v8, Percentage-wise, how much pollution is is the result of lawnmowers, jet skis, motorcycles and old cars? I would like you to tell me. You say that this type of pollution represents such an infinitely miniscule portion of the pollution spectrum that it is laughable. Make me laugh then! Serve up some proof. I want some actual figures from you.

Look, you are probably a decent guy and I really don't mean to single you out, I really don't, but your posts to this topic are the perfect example the attitude that many have. Of the 50-plus posts to this thread, many are nothing more than blanket statements lacking any evidence whatsoever. Opinions are spouted as fact. Almost everyone is passionate about the topic matter, and understandable so to a certain degree, but most comments here seem to be fueled with emotion rather than logic. That leads the discussion down a dead-end road.

Sadly, I doubt think much ground has been covered after 50-plus posts. John Walker's original question, and it was a good one, was lost somewhere early in the conversation. Debating a man's passion is a pointless exercise. And it seems that this thread has boiled down to nothing more more than that.

Based on several personal emails I've received (much of it full of profanity), I know that some here think that my presence is depriving some village of its idiot. (So much for expression of free thought and speech.) So I'm throwing in the towel. Later.

just my .02, but i hear a lot of talk of Honda's. Why? I have more than 1 vehicle, but they are all from the General, a 89 K5 blazer, 98 k1500,70 Malibu,78 elky, 64 elky and the black sheep is my sons 79 turbo regal. If it isn't Gm it can't come thru my gate. I hope i'm not killing mother earth the air here is still invisible and eating the fish hasn't killed anyone. Philip

In regards to so-called tree huggers, yes I do hunt and fish and love being outdoors. But I would never resort to driving spikes in trees to destroy a power saw while a lumberjack is trying to cut it down. Lumberjacks have been seriously injured and even killed due to these tactics. All they're trying to do is support their families and I respect their right to make a living. The point we are all trying to make here is that there needs to be balance. All we want is to find the common ground that will keep everyone satisfied. A good start is to educate the masses like I said before. Spread good will by being considerate of your neighbors. (Don't uncap the headers and run up and down your street on Sunday morning, or gun the engine in the driveway at eleven o'clock at night) We bring a lot of it on ourselves and people see emissions laws as a means of getting us off the streets. We know we're all good people here, but we need to let the rest the rest of the world know we're not evil.

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 03-02-99).]

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 03-02-99).]

Rstolz, I have several friends with "classic" Chevelles. Most are driven even less than 100 miles a year like mine. I have a ;lot more friends with old Camaros too. In fact most all of our/their time is spent being driven 1/4 mile at a time. Take a look at my friend's car featured on the cover in the January issue of Hot Rod mag as "Sleeper". Interesting point to bring up is that he has repeatedly failed emissions. Since that car only is driven only about 20 miles a year or so---he doesn't care to pay the inspection fee, take off work etc. to get it inspected etc. It's just cheaper for him to break the law and if he gets caught , I'll work a deal with the prosecutor for court cost. Oh yeah, you can work any deal on a ticket as long as the county gets its "court Cost". All the lawyers know that and if you ever get a ticket , take it to court, tell them you'll never do it again, and pay the court cost. [ See, I do like you, I just gave you free legal advice that can save you on ticket cost , increased insurance cost for at least 3 years etc.!] The system is just wrong when it won't make exceptions for cars like mine, his and all my friends' who occasionly drive on the street and have to worry whether their hobby will become a pain and end up in court just because they wanted to take it out to the burger joint on a Sat. night. Back to the original post----its just wrong to see what we have now and to hear others suggest that we need more makes me want to share some of my real world experiences with people who have to deal with big brother every time they drive their hobby car.
Again, no flame intended and although I do not agree with your position on more govt emission control, that is your opinion.

Let me support 283V8 statement without investing millions of taxpayers dollars trying to prove it, or alot of my free time researching a point that I feel is ludicrous. I live downwind of a Ford motor plant. I also live within the visinity of 2 interstate highways. Using low tech equipment (my nose and eyes), I can guarentee you when the wind is right, the air quality in our neighborhood is bad. The pollution is not from the interstate highways (or all the neighboring roads for that matter), its coming from ONE facility. Wake up, my extra 12 parts per MILLION from my Elky or from my neighbors lawnmower is like adding a grain a sand to the beach. As most replies have stated, go after the big producers, and leave our hobby alone.

Been readin' all this - interesting. I live in California and it's a laugh. We have here:
1. Environmentally friendly charcoal lighter that takes 1/2 a can to to the job.
2. Paint removers that won't even strip spray-can enamels.
3. Bans on two-stroke lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
4. Can no longer purchase a NEW 2-stroke dirt bike for play riding(for closed course only).
5.DO have the new '73 and older exemption (doesn't mean it's legal to polute and remove smog equipment - still can be inspected if they desire).
We have all this and they still scream for more. They'll get more too - look at the California Desert Act - fought it for years with Cranston, he left, and Feinstein got it thru. If they want stiffer requirements, they just keep pushin until they get them. Don't matter how you vote - if something is passed by the voters, the losing side is filing in court the day after the polls close. Sorry, I get just as upset as the rest of you - just don't know what to do to put in some rational control in the whole system.

Hey gents, cool it, or the long arm of Al will step in and shut this down. I've seen him do it before. He doesn't seem to mind a little spirited debate unless it degrades to trashing, bashing, and insults. Al's word is the final word here and I respect that. Let's pull over to the side of the road and let the engines cool a bit.

I've been reading this for a few days and think its time to pull the plug. But I got to get a few things off my chest. First Chevelles or any muscle car make up a very small percentage of the vehicle population not to mention vehicle miles driven. On top of that, most classic owners keep their rides in tune. I don't think any of us would tolerate a vacum leak, worn rings, or out of tune carb in our cars. This is the logic used in CA. to exempt pre 73's from the smog checks. Also, it only makes since since attrition has reduced the number of vintage cars on the road - look at prices for any used Chevelle part. The pool is shrinking!! By the way, if I want to drive my Chevelle for pleasure, what's the difference between that and taking out a ski boat, jet ski, etc,etc. Everyone has their own form of recreation. Even if you like to hike you still have to burn gas to get there.

The second thing I'd like to add is that the CO,NOx,&HC that are being regulated are just a small portion of the exhaust in comparison to the emission of CO2 which is the primary gas blamed for greenhouse warming. The only difference between a new and old vehicle is the level of CO,NOx and HC in their exhaust. The level of CO2 is still about the same. Just basic chemistry. The only way to make progress is if everybody does their part - but it DOES seem like the little guy (us) seems to get squeezed a lot more than the corporate swine.

The final point I want to make is that if the y really want to get us out of our Chevelle's maybe they should start reproducing them with an LS1 and 6 speed that can be maintained w/o the assistance of a dealer and/or big $$$ for diagnostic equipment. There is no excuse with the level of computer power available that a self-diagnostic routine cannot be included in new vehicles. There is also no excuse for making difficult-to maintain vehicles. I love my Chevelle because I can use a 1/2" or 9/16" wrench to fix most of it. The only reason is that the dealers make big $ on service and service parts and the car companies would rather save a buck than worry about maintenance. If GM or anyone else started making a car that I really wanted, I would think about trading in my Chevelle. But they DON'T. To me, most new cars inspire about as much emotional reaction as a washing machine. They are nothing more than an appliance to be used up and thrown away when their service life is over. Where's the environmental responsibility in disposable vehicles??? The latest design trend is design for recyclability. True recycling is rebuilding and reusing, not melting it down and spitting out another piece of crap. Also, has anyone ever analysed the amount of environmental degradation created from mining and processing the rare earth elements for the catalysts,and producing all the high tech stuff that goes into new cars.

I think the reason why most of us are frustrated is that we are caught in the middle of a big money game. Smog laws, emission levels, on-board diagnostics are manipulated by big money to produce more $ for themselves. If the true goal were cleaner air, they wouldn't care what's under your hood as long as it passed the sniffer. If the auto companies produced something the enthusiast really wanted maybe they wouldn't have to try to force us out of our pride and joy by supporting accelerated retirement programs and all that other b/s. I've said enough - now I've got to go to the garage and enjoy my Chevelle while I still can.

I have hinted a few times to Al that it was time to pull the plug, thankfully he did not. In spite of the flames from time to time, there has been some good debate, mostly on environmental issues.

The original post was sparked by some random but related thoughts:
1. It has been 15 years since I last cruised in Hot Rod and I wondered how much hassle I would get from the police, if any.
2. Saw a special about a motorcycle gathering somewhere in the mid-west and the police there would throw guys in jail if they did a burnout. No one lost their rides, everyone knew the rules and for the most part abided by them, but still seems like fun everywhere is being regulated to death.
3. Our county government settled a lawsuit by a local businessman who was financially ruined after a politically motivated search and seizure of his business property. He was supposedly involved in drug running. He fought it, was cleared, but business failed and property already auctioned off. He settled for millions after years in the courts. He had enough resources to fight, would I? I'd hate to see the same system evolve for seizures that we now have with ticket quotas. Is this a threat to us? Doubt it in the short term.

I tinker with cars to some extent to escape from all the real world crap like this. I suppose in the future it will just be that much tougher to escape. Back to the garage!
John Walker

I like the idea of actual statistics on pollution by older cars , lawnmowers etc.as suggested by rstoltz. From a quick search,it seems they may be hard to find for older cars ,lawnmowers etc, but I will keep looking. I will post any findings in a new posting "pollution by Chevelles"

------------------

Actually, how many of you guys are just happy to get the mower started, and hope that it stays running long enough to finish the job? I know it happens, usually from a lack of maintenance. The air filter clogs up, grass makes it's way into an air bleed in the carb, makes the mower run like crap, but it's always "I gotta look at it soon", or "It'll start, you just have to play with the choke and throttle a little", if the neighbor asks to borrow it, because his finally died, after blowing smoke the last few weeks.

Also, I was glad to see some discussion about the dwindling number of parts cars, and running cars, around today, thus the exemptions made for them in California. Myself, I'd have to smack the idiot who comes up to me and tells me my car is the root of all air pollution. I'd have to point out all of the late 70's through late 80's cars on the road which usually run so much better once you change out the 50 feet of rotted rubber vacuum hose, for the "emission controls" systems, under the hood.

Nice Chevelles, make that nice classics, actually, are scarce in my parts. I usually have to have one of those pollution laden airplanes fly any parts I need for my cars in for me. Don't want to ruffle any feathers, just puttin' in a couple cents worth.

Darren
64 El Camino
Waipahu, HI

Wheels68, I share, in part, your opinions about new cars lack of style character or whatever, to paraphrase you. Don't know if you are aware Ford is coming out with a new T Bird that actually looks kinda like the ole 55 "bird. Even if you don't like Fords I'm giving Ford credit for rocking the boat a little. I won't buy one but I hope they sell all they can paint so that we can get back to some cars that have real style.Kinda reminds me of the Prowler. I'm not gonna pay 40k greenbacks for one but I love that they are being made. Of course they will all get great gas mileage, low emissions etc that the original "bird makers could only dream of. Lets hear it for Ford. On another note lets hear it for Chevy for building what is arguably the finest sports car in the world for the $-the Vette.

My last job entailed a LOT of travelling and over the last few years I must have rented between 75 - 100 cars. They were all what the rental companies term "midsize" but they ran the gamut from Chevy Cavaliers to Toyota Camrys and just about everything in between. The only really memorable cars were a LeBaron convertible and an OHC V8 Cougar. The rest were totally forgetable; appliances like a toilet or a toaster. One time I was driving a snot green Contour but spent 3 minutes trying to open the door on someone else's Datsun Altima - they looked so much alike even to the colour. I HATE new cars. I needed to buy a daily driver when I changed jobs (the travelling finally got to be too much) and I bought a stripped down Sonoma - this is as close to my 65 Malibu as it is possible to get nowadays. Needless to say I like it and will probably stick to trucks from now on (for daily drivers)

My $0.02

Steve Wild

I have a question. They say my lawn mower running for one hour at operating speed polutes more than a modern emission equipt car running for 3 hours. How can this be 1 pint of gas for the mower, more than a few gallons for the car. ???

No two stroke mowers in Cali, better not tell my Grandad in Sacto he has more than a few http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif. Everwant to borrow my 70's briggs and straton beast let me know.

When they are making comparisons between a new car and a lawn mower, they are comparing levels of CO,NOx, and HC on a parts per million basis. The new cars have very low emissions of these pollutants, but still create about the same level of CO2 as the older cars. The only way to lower CO2 emission is to burn less gas (higher milage). The lawnmower will release less CO2 because it is physically smaller, but will release more pollutants because of unsophisticated caburetion and lack of emission controls.

Why don't we write or E-mail people like Reggie Jackson or Jay Leno, who have alot of old cars, and ask them what they think about this. They may have some ties with the government. Just a thought. I've been working on my chevelle for the past 14 years, taking a break from it for a full year here and there, not knowing that 'THEY' want to shoot down my dream of driving my chevelle after I finish it!. I'm going to go work on my chevelle to take my mind off of this BS!.

Here's some numbers to throw around...

http://www.smogcheck.org/asm1198.htm

Whoa! A lot of you guys need to chill out. What started as a straight forward post turned into an I'm right, your wrong, go jump of a cliff argument.

I also agree this post should be locked, but before it does here's my $.02:

As far as EPA, and 'tree huggin' hippies', well regardless of what regulations and laws, we need restrictions. Some people here display the attitude of "your $#$$ brand car that has fuel injection is way bigger a polluter than my hi-po Chevelle, so don't blame me"

Wake up! The me-me-me attitude is wrong. I agree that about 90% of the emphasis is placed on the wrong vehicles/industry but the fact of the matter is I don't want to tell me kids someday that they can't go outside and play because the air is so thick with chemicals that they'll choke to death!!!

Clunker bills, That was the original post right???

These are where big company "Polluto-Inc." says "ah oh, my smoke stacks are putting out a ton of @#$# and the EPA is giving my a dirty look. I think I'll start a program to take the junkers off the street to help meet the total air cleaness requirements. This will make my look like the good guy to get the EPA off my back and help my fellow polluters by taking the heat off them and placing focus on those "damn" old cars."
This is what is going on, and I agree it is wrong.

The ultimate result is PARTS! No junkers mean no salvage in yards. Do you want to tell your kids you'll have to go by a $40,000 full restored 'show car'1970 Chevelle just to "tinker" since no 'old cars' exist!

A lot of you need to focus on the big picture here. Yes, I want to keep my Chevelle and don't want to face fines, restrictions,or mandates, but I sure as hell don't want to walk outside one day to work on it and be forced to wear an oxygen mask!

Remember just because you drive YOUR car like 100mi. a year, that doesn't mean all those old daily drivers with idiots behind the wheel do! No, they put serious miles on with serious exhaust pouring out the delapadated rear end. And I'm not talking about old Chevelles, I mean I see a lot of of mid/late 70's and p.o.s 80's cars(even 90's cars) that just are on their last leg(do to their idiot owner "duh what's oil?") spewing crap into the air.

Thanks for reading.

[This message has been edited by Coppertop (edited 03-05-99).]

WOW! Just wanted to put my .02 in. I live in New Hampshire, you know, the "Live Free or Die" state. Well, up until 3/4/99 that is. You see we were either the last state or second to last without a state income tax. Now the state rep's (rat's) have passed one, it doesn't look good for us! What's this have to do with Chevelle's? It's another example of lawmaker's not listening to the people who put them there and thinking that they know what's good for us. I agree with all the other comment's about how government is just out of control, these beurocrat's(?) will continue to pass law's that strip away our freedom's and pretty soon that freedom might be the ability to go for a Sunday cruise in your 1970 SS Chevelle 396! You guy's in Cali. already know it better than the rest of us. I have to small kid's, believe me, I WANT clean air and water for them and their children, but the way politician's and the EPA are doing thing's just doesn't seem right. Gotta go, my gun need's cleaning! Narti

Just so you know, I (administrator) whacked a couple of waaay off topic postings on this page, we aren't going to get into name calling now or ever. This must be the 'posting that will not die' (as much as I've hoped it would)

Well I'm new at chevelles.com.. and I must say its great.. and I'm not sure if this topic is dead or not, but I am going to poke another stick in it, just because I want to http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif Not being a scientist, and just spouting my own opinions, don't take anything I say as 100% fact. Rather than looking to older cars as the problem, why not look at newer ones? People are honestly trying to tell me they NEED a sport utility with a V-8 and room for 6+ people that gets 14-18 MPG? New car manufacterers should, if they had a conscience, curb production of these bulk-mobiles. Another big polluter is the older people. Unless you live in a retirement community or have worked in a grocery store, you wouldn't be too familiar with my theory. Well I have done both. The seniors seem to like to run to the grocery store everyday, which definately CAN'T be good for the atmosphere. When I say everyday, I mean every single day. Sometimes twice. I realize they get bored, but that probably is playing a major factor. I'll get off my soapbox now http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

One of GM's vice presidents addressed this issue a few months ago. He said they make Metros that get 50 mpg but no one buys them. As for cutting production on SUVs, why would they cut their own throats? Does anyone really believe it costs 30,000 dollars to make a Tahoe? SUVs have the highest profit margins in the industry. V-6 powered vehicles such as Explorers or Blazers actually get pretty decent mileage as long as you mind your driving habits. Much of the "SUV menace" is media perpetuated. The real problem has been the recent reinstatement of higher speed limits. We went to a national 55 mph speed limit in the 70s due to the gas crunch. Now, with the higher speeds, we are burning way more fuel than before. The faster you drive the more fuel you burn. I like SUVs because they are rear wheel drive. No more front drive cars for me. Again, all I can stress is, mind your driving habits. I'm only speaking for myself, I can't speak for Surburbans or Tahoes, with their larger engines and higher weights.

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 04-06-99).]

Here is something odd, the faster I go on the highway the better my truck does (I picked up a couple MPG with a 4bbl too!). I can break 20MPG out of my old 302 with a good sized load and doing 70+ MPH. Wish the thing didn't burn so much oil though http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif guess thats to be expected after 30 years and god only knows how many miles. Mabey this summer I'll build an new engine for her too.

71 L65 SS soon to be 454

Well the car companies WONT slit their own throats, but they should be forced to. There is a "guzzler tax" now which taxes vehicles that get under something like 20 MPG for each MPG they are under, quite heavily. However, car manufacters beat this by producing cars that get better MPG, so they are allowed to still produce the guzzlers untaxed. Front wheel drives ARE a pain in the ass, I know that cuz I owned one. SUV's should not even have a V-8 option... 90% of the people who buy them buy them for trend only and bragging rights as to having a V-8. Pickups are a different situation. More people actually need the power in pickups since they do tow, haul, etc. The government is finally making ground to curb the production of these trendy bulkmobiles, by FINALLY taking them off a "favored status" when it comes to getting smogged, since SUV is supposed to be a classification for medium duty work trucks, and SUV's got a break on emissions when the trucks did too. Now in CA they finally recognized the diff, and toughened emissions on them. While SUV's aren't all of the problem, I admit I do my fair share of polluting. However, I don't drive my chevelle everyday to work and back, and I don't buy it to feel bigger than everyone else.

One erupting volcano puts more clorine in the atmosphere than all the r-12 produced to date.

I've been involved with this site from almost the beginning (if not before), and this HAS to be the longest string I've ever seen!

It really should be called the "everything under the sun string".

I've also got to add my .02

1) On the second verified (by two different methods) DUI, your car should be taken away! You are a repeat threat to the lives of others.

2) On the second occurance of exceeding the speed limit by 60 percent (doing 104 in a 65), your car should be taken away! Once again, you are a repeat threat to the lives of others.

3) Crushing cars for smog credit does NOT reduce pollution! The reason is simple and is in it's very name. It's "credit" that a large company can use (or buy) so that they can continue to pollute. Large companies are allowed to continue to do the polluting with the justification that everything balances out!

4) I feel that the goverment IS controling what is produced by the major manufacturers (along with the buyers)! I don't know of anybody that requested or voted for 5 mile per hour bumpers, let alone airbags! It's a lot easier to find somebody asking how to turn off the things so that their kid doesn't get killed. And yet, you can't sue the goverment for requiring it's installation!

5) Of course, the buyer is also controling what the manufactures (along with creative marketing) make available. Who really needs that monster SUV that Ford is putting out (the name escapes me)! The ads brag that they pollute less than what the goverment requires, however, they don't say that the standards for a truck are different than for a car. Why is it OK for a lady driving a Tahoe to pollute more than a Camaro?!



I'm done. (but could continue)

Wes. Vann

I can't really say if I want big government imposing more rules on greedy, heartless corporations. It's hard to take sides there. All I know is, we all pay for it in the end with even higher prices on already overpriced new cars, regardles of whether big gov or big corp wins. These times are reminiscent of the late sixties when bigger cars were better. Then the gas crunch came and everyone dumped the big Chryslers for little Vegas. It could happen again real quick. Remember, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

I can't really say if I want big government imposing more rules on greedy, heartless corporations. It's hard to take sides there. All I know is, we all pay for it in the end with even higher prices on already overpriced new cars, regardles of whether big gov or big corp wins. These times are reminiscent of the late sixties when bigger cars were better. Then the gas crunch came and everyone dumped the big Chryslers for little Vegas. It could happen again real quick. Remember, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Interesting comparisons between daily driven Hondas and 100 mile/year Chevelles. I have a different slant on that. I drive a '68 El Camino daily. And have done so for the last twenty years. The same car. When the Powerglide died I put in a Turbo 350. When the TH350 died I put in a 700R4. It has a mild 327 (rebuilt twice)and probably gets better milage than the Crewcab Duallies and the Suburbans/Expeditions parked in my neighborhood. It has always passed emissions testing by a wide margin. My point is that no natural resources were used up building new cars for me to drive during the last twenty years. No pollution was created manufacturing new cars for me to drive during the last twenty years. I have friends who have purchased/leased as many as ten new cars in the same twenty years. I have bought one (the El Camino and it was used then). The new cars are not free - they cost the environment to build. I'm not saying that driving older cars is the answer.....I just cannot deny that it feels like Christmas morning every time I turn the key.

I think just 4 fun we should all get a certin time to go out and start up your cars and just let them run and see just how much polution we can make http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

On TV the other night there was a show about how the government wont even let you buy a new car without an airbag if you dont want one. The show also stated how a law will make it a crime to drive your car with a person under 13 in the front seat. The government is going to far on these issues. They want to make criminals out of everyone. Makes me so mad I dont even know what to say (type)


------------------
Jon, 66 Malibu Sport Coupe
Fremont CA, Birthplace of many a Chevelle
members.tripod.com/jon66bu/jon1.html (http://members.tripod.com/jon66bu/jon1.html)

ANYONE WHO GET BUSTED FOR "DUI" SHOULD WALK THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.......

SUV owners not paying their fair share?? Its the same old socialist addage that the rich should pay more taxes, or there should be no rich people at all. Our govenment has become progressivly more socalistic in the past few years. People start whining about one thing and the media plays it up and boom we have some law that is completely asinine or just a rewording of one that is one the books but not inforced. People seem to want to be protected from themselves and because they don't have enough commen sense to keep them selves out of trouble they need the government to do it for them. Seatbelt laws are one of these. If you don't have enough common sense to buckle up and you take a trip through the winshield thats your problem.

Well I agree with the law part to a certain extent. As you know, most people are dumb. Airbags SHOULD be optional at no extra cost if that is what the buyer wants. However, when it comes to seatbelts, those should be law. The problem with people taking a trip through the windshield, is a lot of these people are on a health insurance, which someone ends up paying for, whether it be through premiums, or in the case of government insurance, taxes. Same goes for helmut laws. Anyone who wants to ride without a helmut should have enough money to pay for their own stupidity when they are a vegitable. Heh, how did we get on seatbelts anyways?

Just puttin' my two cents in,as a father of two little girls and an owner of a '70 Chevelle,I personally believe that anyone who gets nailed for a DUI/DWI deserves to lose their "ride",before someone loses a life! nuff said.

Here in Ontario we have M.A.D.D,thats Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.They have influenced our gov to impose stiffer penaltes,nothing as strong as the wrath of a woman. But beware of your elected members of GOV they can turn on you to suit themselves.In Canada we have had Bill C68 shoved down our throats this is mandatory gun registration thats all guns rifles, shot guns,hand guns have always had to be registered.The MP in our area said he would never vote for it,when it came time he voted with the party.Not with the people he made promises to.He knew he would be out of a job if he didn't.(so much for free speech eh!)They say most people want gun control.Nobody ever ask me, don't know where they get their facts.We already have a law that says you have to have your guns under lock and key.They say they want to make Canada a safer place to live BS.I read a stat a couple of years ago that 1100 people die from smoking related deaths a year across Canada.Thats the diseases and fires started by smoking.Guns don't kill people people kill people.Damn soap box just broke...FRED

[This message has been edited by Fred Ont canada (edited 04-09-99).]

Just read in Car & Driver that the new 6600lb Ford Excursion SUV will have all be classified as "LEV's" i.e, a Low Emission Vehicle that meets Cali's tough emissions standards. Imagine that---a gigantic huge V-10 [thats right I said V-10 motor] that is the biggest thing on the road that hauls 9 people comfortably and will cost almost 50,000$ pukes out just a tiny bit of that so called ozone depleting pollution. Gee, I guess that since my Honda is not classified as LEV then the Nader Nazis will start saying we should all drive Excursions. Excuse me while I laugh at the thought of the tree huggers nashing their teeth figuring out how to get the govt to ban this thing!
I also read that NHTSA says if you get involved in an accident with an SUV while driving your car you have a higher probability of being killed. Sounds to me like the govt should ban all those unsafe cars and requrie that everyone buy an Excursion.
Oh how I just love the hypocrisy of liberals!

Well, first off I have to agree that DUI/DWI is something that doesn't just affect life, it can just plain end it.

As for emissions, I don't think you can lump all old cars into one giant melting pot. It stereotypes it too much. I'm sure there are some that pollute heavily, but it has been proven many times that some of the old cars are better than half the cars on the road. Take Car Craft for instance, and their crusher camaro that they rescued from the industry crush-for-pollution-credits program. For one, the car was a really nice '67 Camaro i believe. They ended up yanking the straight 6 and putting in a v8, and it passed 90 or 91 standards on the IM240 testing equipment, and even farther on some specific parts.

A couple of years ago I had a friend with a 72 Nova with a 350, and it put out less emissions than my sister's 90 LeMans with a 4-cylinder. My 68 with a 350 passed the same standards, and my 74 with a 400 in it beat both of our engines by far.

Not trying to add to a war or anything, just saying that the old cars usually can beat the 80s cars on the road in emissions if they're kept up, and sometimes some of the 90s. Just some food for thought there..

Tony

THEY ARE NOT CRUSHING CARS IN CALIFORNIA, UNLESS YOU LEAVE PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, OR IT WAS FULL OF DRUGS, AND DIDN'T CLAIM IT AFTER IT'S TOWED.

I WANT TO HEAR FROM JUST "ONE" PERSON IN CA. THAT SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THEIR CAR AWAY AND CRUSHED IT.

I LIVE IN SACRAMENTO.

------------------
ACES #2637
TEAM CHEVELLE #69

Wow this thread hasn't died yet. Hadn't seen it for some time.

------------------
JT
71 SS 350 soon to be Vortec 355 then a 454
www.angelfire.com/co/KellyMotorsports (http://www.angelfire.com/co/KellyMotorsports)

NO NEED TO YELL! You gotta admit that when it comes to "leading" the nation, the good and bad ideas for pollution control seem to start in California.(yes I have seen the smog and would want something done, too) Examples; those computer controlled cars riding along in a line on the special highways with no driver in control and anything involving Ed Begley (did you see the Simpsons episode where Ed had a bike like contraption that was powered by his own sense of self worth? must have done 0-60 in 5 seconds! I laughed out loud)
So pardon me if I thought the pollution police had the authority to get cars crushed faster in California than the rest of the country.

I really only posted to try to get this thing to triple digits. I thought it was long dead, too.
John Walker (He who started it all)

Yeah out here in California, we have "the CLUNKER Law" It's really sad. In Hot Rod's Junkyard Jewel issue Aug 99 they have an article on it. It's pretty common to see classic cars just being crushed out here. People in the East should come out here for 2 days and get a car for $100. The last time I went to the junkyard I walked by a crusher in Ecolgy and there was the crushed remains of a 69 SS and a 65 GTO. I think we should all right a letter to the congressman of the state. My .02

Wow on track, off track, back on track. some interesting reading, until the DUI or in NYS DWI. first in NYS as in all states, We are granted a privledge to drive, Many of us just think it is a god given right, second, until you have actually lost a friend/family member to a DWI related accident or have had to notify the parents that their 18 year old daughter is deceased due to a motor vehicle accident because the driver of the other vehicle decided it was his right to drink and drive you really won't/can't realize how destructive this is. Sorry folks this is a great web site and I enjoy restoring my 69ss, But don't whine to me if the LAW decides to take your vehicle because your (suspected of) driving while intoxicated. if your found not guilty in NYS your vehilce is returned to you. As for the original topic pollution/crusher laws just hire OJ's dream team and they'll save us..

After spending an hour reading all this, I just have to put my bit in with another hot topic related to the whole government control thing.

What grates my cheese more than the emissions stuff is speed limits. Speed limits have 1 primary function, to generate revenue. Not to keep us safe, not to reduce emissions, but to generate revenue for local/state govt's.

I got a ticket in my truck one day, going 80 in a 70. it was 7:30 am, I was the only vehicle (other than the trooper) in sight in front or behind me.

I get to court, and there are at least 25 other people that got the same ticket on the same stretch of road by the same trooper that morning. Protecting and Serving my a$$, all they wanted was some county revenue.

Not that I think people should be allowed to drive like maniacs, because there are always people that abuse lenient speed laws (like Montana used to have). But frankly, I can drive 80 mph on the interstate without endangering myself or anyone else. Someone that's endangering other people with their driving needs to be ticketed. Someone safely cruising to the beach without another vehicle within 1/2 a mile doesn't.

Anyway, my griping for the day...

BTW, I drive my '69 about 15,000 miles a year. It always meets emmissions standards for my state (NC), even though it's not required to because of its age.

this, with the original 307 block with 137,000 miles on it.

69Boo: In denver they have the new photo radar vans that are just parked along side the road, they snap a photo and mail the car owner a ticket. They say it's for public safty but whats safe about everyone slamming onthe brakes when they see one? or the things bright flash in you eyes at night? Talk about easy money.

------------------
JT
71 SS 350 soon to be Vortec 355 then a 454
www.angelfire.com/co/KellyMotorsports (http://www.angelfire.com/co/KellyMotorsports)

They do the camera thing in other states as well I understand.

If the government had their way, we'd all go around in little japanese computer controlled cars that we can't control, and we wouldn't even be able to own our own cars.

Oops, I contradicted myself. If they did that, they couldn't rip us off with speeding tickets, and get tons of money and free equipment from the insurance mobsters.

Let me see if I have the details correct here:

You knew the law (valid or not).
You knowingly and willingly violated that law.
You got caught.

And now you're pissing and moaning about having to pay the fine as a result?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will admit to knowing a particular law and likewise admit to breaking that law, yet insist that it's not their responsibility when they get busted for it. It's always the fault of the Police or the Gov't, right?

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352

Yep, I knew the law. Thought it was ridiculously stupid, broke it in utter defiance, and pissed and moaned all the way to the courtroom where I got it reduced after paying the $90 court fee so that they can raise my insurance rates and give more money to the organized robbery they call auto insurance. In turn, the cop gets newer and better radars from the benevolent insurance companies, and the circle goes on...

Just because the government says we should do something, does that make it right? I'm playing the devil's advocate here just for fun. I do think alot of laws are for the good of the people and are very neccessary. I think alot of others are just bullstuff implemented because the beuricrats (SP?) want more $$$.

The point about knowingly breaking the law applies to the original subject of this post.
If the government passed a law saying noone could drive a car over 20 years old, I don't think there's many on this site that wouldn't knowingly and defiantly break the law, and raise heck if they got caught doing it.

I never said it was a good law, but that doesn't detract from the fact that breaking it on purpose simply because you think it's a dumb law is, in itself, dumb.

Do I speed? Every time I drive, but I do it because I like to drive faster than 55/65. I have nbo problem with the speed limit being 55/65 as I don't think moat people have the ability or maintain their cars well enough to go faster than that. If I get pulled over, then I'll pay my ticket and go on with my day.


If you don't like the law, breaking it is the last thing you want to do. It only adds credibility to the law and more like it. The police can show larger numbers of people busted for speeding, thereby justifing the need for more radar guns, cop cars, etc.

If you challange it in the proper forum, then it raises the issue and gets people thinking that it needs to be changed.

Breaking it won't do a damn thing other than empty your wallet.

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352

Byfield,
your points are quite valid. I also speed because I like to and can safely drive faster than 55/65. I don't go 100mph weaving in traffic. we're just talking 80 or so on the interstate. Just for the joy of driving my car and to get where I'm going faster. I realize it's my own fault when i get a ticket.

But I still like to gripe about it. I do think the insurance companies are worse than the government. They have a license to steal since we all must have insurance, and they excercise it with reckless abandon.

But this is supposed to be about Chevelles, so to relate back to Chevelle Tech--
My tired old 307 still loves to run. the old Powerglide won't let it hit peak rpms until about 75-80 mph. Thus I speed everywhere I go when I'm driving the big green monster.

Anyway, I'll try to shut up and let other people post now...

A Green Chevelle with a Powerglide? Well, there's the root of your problem. That particular combination causes an effect where the car only travels over the speed limit, and attracts cops better than a red Italian sports car.

If you check out my site, you'll see why I know this to be true. Even though it's techically "Ivy-Gold", I like to tell people the color is really 'soylent' green. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6873/Chevelle/68_Chevelle_Info.html)
Email: Kbyfield@terracom.net
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352

On January 1 of this year of this year, over 25,000 new laws went into effect. How can anyone keep track of right and wrong with all that legislative legalese to sort through? If they had passed a law giving them the right to come get your clasic car, guns, kids, dogs, beer or whatever, who would have known? My thoughts on speeding and road rage: Personally, I don't think our Department of Public safety here in Texas is doing enough to combat the road rage crazed aggressive driving maniacs who seem to have taken over the state's freeway system. They seem to be content to catch their occasional 75 in a 70 speeder and look the other way when the nuts come screaming through. Having just spent week in Washington, Oregon, and California, I can say the road rage / maniacal driving is far worse here in the Lone Star state. It seems like everyone is madder than hell before they even get into their cars and they get worse once they get going. It irritates the hell of me that the law enforcement here does nothing about it. I have a friend who was driving down I-35 through San Marcos a few months ago, late at night. He spotted a guy weaving all over the freeway, on and off both shoulders, chunking beer bottles, and just endangering lives in general. He called it in on his cell phone, got close enough to get the idiot's license number and then fell back and kept the guy in sight and waited for the troopers to arrive to get him off the road. 45 minutes later, not a trooper in sight, the guy was driving worse than ever, he calls 911 again, and the dispatcher acts like she doesn't give half a sh#t. Finally, as he is entering San Antonio, he spots a San Antonio city cop entering the freeway (DPS was a no-show). The city cop pulls in behind him (he's still on the cell phone with 911 dispatch), pulls him over and writes him a ticket for 74 in a 70! When he tried to tell the cop he was following a possible DWI and had been doing so for several miles, he was told that it was none of his concern and to take care of his own business. The law will never get any help from him again, and as he told me, everyone can kill each other as far as he is concerned. He tries to help get an drunken idiot off the road, and HE GETS A TICKET! I guess if you're doing 74 in a 70, as opposed to 95 in a 70, that makes you easier to catch. I hate to rag on law enforcement, (I just hate it when one of them dies in the line of duty), but in the case of road rage / aggressive drivers, they're dropping the ball. There, I'm done venting.

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 07-17-99).]

I noticed a reply on this thread a while back that was asking if they are smog checking the smoke-spewing diesels. I work for UPS in Calif. and our mechanics are doing smog checks on the diesel and gasoline powered trucks. I won't say the numbers on the diesels are very restrictive, I'm sure they're not yet, but they are checking them now and I'm sure the restrictions will only get tougher. As for all the other items brought up in this thread, I think it's all been said by now. I'm glad we all can speak our minds thru this forum. Keep up the good work Team Chevelle!!! Tony...

Wow, what a long thread. I had to use my cable modem at the office to view it! JMW, good start. We are losing our freedom by leaps and bounds. In all facets of our lives. We've seen some rebellion against it, ( fringe milita folks so far )and I hope and pray that it begins to effect more and more of us we will once again have to purge the tree of liberty of tyrants. Trouble is, once we get to that it ain't gonna be pretty so all the suggestions I've seen on this thread are recommended!

As a back door ( all good mil ops have a back door or contingency ), Canuck64SS Or Fred Ont Can, can you score us a bigass barn in southern Ontario please? We'll need a place to park our illegal rides! If they allow us to cross the border.

[This message has been edited by Gene Chas (edited 07-19-99).]

While this thread begain by blaming "big Gov" =) It seems to have been turned into bashing cops ect. You have to remember while doing this that each cop is a person and while they all usually avide by the same base rules.. not all are *******s and some will go after the 95 vs. the 74 in a 70 zone. Just depends on the person.
Also the 454 im planning to buy is owned by a cop in my town who along with some of the other poliece men own some of the sweetest classics ive ever seen. And yes.. iv'e seen them going 70-80 in 65 but as long as you keep with the flow of traffic they seem to leave me alone and iv'e even been complimented on my friends 454 by a cop.

my .o2 =)

-Chris

Like I said, I hate to rag on cops, but having recently spent a week driving down I-5, the road rage problem seems to be worse here in central and north Texas. Out west I noticed a lot more unmarked units out on traffic patrol. Maybe that helps. Plus, many states have put plans into effect to combat lunatic road rage infuriated drivers. Not so here. I know some pretty cool cops too. I had one stop at the house the other day and offered to buy my brother-in-law's Cuda that's stored in my garage. However, I can't question my friend's credibility, and I know what I've seen with my own eyes. I realize cops are people. That means they are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us. I knew an ex cop who quit because of his frustrations in dealing with lawyers and the court system. Every time he pulled someone over who was driving a Lexus or a Mercedes or a BMW for a traffic violation, the driver always knew a lawyer, a judge, a senator, the govenor, etc... who could "have his badge." He spent more time in court dealing with their lawyers than he did on patrol. He finally got to where he would look the other way when a $40,000 dollar Lexus or Benz went speeding by. He was sworn to protect and serve the public, but realized he was no longer effective at doing so, so he resigned. According to him, there are other traffic cops who feel the same frustration. Yes, 454, policemen are human. That means, when the job's not going good and they're not getting support from their superiors, they get frustrated and fed up just like the rest of us. They're prone to the same ups and downs we all go through from time to time. But the job still has to be done, regardless of whether a speeding driver is driving an $50,000 dollar Infiniti or a beater Chevy pickup. The point I was trying to make was; we have serious road rage / aggressive driver problem in this part of the state, and no one, from the govenor's office to the legislators to the top law enforcement officials down to the the cops on the street, seems to want to touch the problem with a ten foot pole. I'm not exagerating, it's so bad that I plan my road trips for late at night or early in the morning when there are fewer cars on the road. (The drawback to that plan is that a higher percentage of the drivers on the road at that time of night are legally intoxicated.) Don't think I'm down on the cops though, because the solution has to start at a higher level. If there is a plan in effect here in Texas, I haven't heard of it, nor is it working.

Thanks, Gene.

Also, not to split hairs, but my question was really do I have a reason to bash government, and if so, what are the new laws that have hit the books and are causing people like us pain and suffering. For instance, I know that it is widely accepted that it is ok to take someone's car who is convicted of DUI. I say no, fine them, throw them in jail for a while, etc. This whole idea of taking someone's stuff is just getting too popular. If DUI kills and you lose your car, why not for speeding? If I choose to run a stoplight gran prix with some guy in a vette and I get pulled over, can they impound my ride? I was looking for real, known or proposed threats like that.
It's been fun, but I promise this is my last post on the subject, time to get back to getting the thing running before I get too old to push the pedals!
John Walker

Good closer, John. This thread went off on many a tangient. Your concerns are valid ones to be sure. One of my concerns is, what if, in order to get our cars off the to appease the enviromentalists, the government simply imposes so many user fees that driving them becomes cost prohibitive. It's not confiscation as they would point, it's simply a matter of making them too expensive to own. There, that makes this reply # 115.

[This message has been edited by Randy Mosier (edited 07-20-99).]

Well that would suck. All my money goes to my insurance co. already (near 3500yr) and i have a perfect driving record. but im 16 =) and insurance dosent like 500 horse, 468's =) but anymore expense and im pretty much done for =(

-Chris

Well, we have to bring this one to a close.
It's an administration issue, not a topic issue.

Any tech file that gets over 100K creates a multitude of problems for the script to handle and this one is easily double that size. We will have to split these large pages up in the future, so I doubt we will hit this many responses to one topic again (without a split).

Al


[This message has been edited by Al (edited 07-21-99).]