[AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?

Thu Feb 5 12:18:31 PST 2015

Nearly every machinery manufacturer has decided that serviceability and 
reliability are non-essential. Style and form are the most important.  I 
quit buying Gm products because of the trouble I had with AC systems and 
the door handles on their trucks.  If the compressor went out, you had 
to replace the dryer in order to get a guarantee on the compressor.  99% 
of the time when you removed the dryer you ruined the connection into 
the evaporator in the dash.  The evaporator had a stainless nut that 
threaded into an aluminum nut on the dryer.  There was only 1/2 inch of 
room between the evap nut and the firewall.  A new evap was $125 and a 6 
hr job to install and 2 screws in the lower side over the trans hump 
never could be replaced, so it rattled form then on....     The outside 
door handle on the 88-200 work trucks takes a contortionist and x-ray 
vision and 3 hours to replace.  I blame all of this on City kids who 
grew up and learned CAD drawing and never had to work on a piece of 
machinery in their life....

Rant off I am just getting started....

Cecil in OKla

On 2/5/2015 1:43 PM, David Rotigel wrote:
> Let the free market take care of this. We already have MORE than enough laws regulating our lives!
> 	Dave
>
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Stephen Offiler <soffiler at gmail.com> wrote:
>> OF COURSE manufacturers should be required to make these systems reliable;
>> I completely agree.
>>
>> SO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Mike <meulenms at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve, are you forgetting about the millions of other pieces of
>>> machinery that have no EVAP systems, or even emission standards? Older
>>> lawn mowers, snow blowers, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, old tractors,
>>> outboard motors, etc. I'm not arguing against EVAP systems at all, I'm
>>> just saying that manufacturers should be required to make them more
>>> reliable. I know the problem Charlie is talking about, and the reason GM
>>> gave was that the part wasn't designed for being driven on dusty roads.
>>> It was poor engineering nothing else.
>>>
>>> Mike M
>>>
>>> On 2/5/2015 11:20 AM, Stephen Offiler wrote:
>>>> Charlie, please note that *I* am not the one worried about sloshed fuel.
>>>> Re-read my comments more carefully and note that I am responding to Mike
>>>> who is using the sloshed fuel as an excuse to condemn every single
>>>> evaporative emission capture system on the road.  The point, which
>>> perhaps
>>>> I need to spell out more clearly, is that Mike's logic is flawed.  The
>>>> sheer quantity of sloshed/spilled fuel that's happening routinely as a
>>>> result of sloppy refueling is infinitesimal in comparison to the amount
>>> of
>>>> fuel that would enter the atmosphere if none of the 250,000,000 cars on
>>> the
>>>> road had the "EVAP" system.
>>>>
>>>> SO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM, charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve stop worrying about the few ounces of fuel I might slosh on the
>>>>> ground
>>>>> or even intentionally pour out if it's contaminated.  Every military
>>> plane
>>>>> that
>>>>> flies dumps it's fuel before it lands.  If the flight operation is
>>> shorter
>>>>> than
>>>>> planned they dump a lot of fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stephen Offiler
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:23 AM
>>>>> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AT] off topic, Internet takeover by govt ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Back when I started driving and wrenching on things with four wheels
>>>>> instead of two, the carburetor was still king, but this was right around
>>>>> the introduction of the catalytic converter and they were starting to
>>> hang
>>>>> electrical gizmos on carburetors on new cars (of course, I was a kid,
>>>>> driving and toying with older stuff).  I clearly remember the smell of
>>>>> gasoline was pervasive around cars back then, especially those stored in
>>>>> closed garages.  Every single vehicle on the road back then (about 150
>>>>> million in the late 1970's) was slowly but steadily emitting vapors into
>>>>> the air, constantly, 24/7.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am firmly in the camp that says CO2 is inhaled by plants for
>>>>> photosynthesis and therefore this recent classification of CO2 as a
>>>>> pollutant is ridiculous.  BUT... BUT!  Unburned hydrocarbons are a
>>>>> COMPLETELY different story from an environmental standpoint.  If there
>>> is
>>>>> something that can be done to keep what is now today 250 million cars
>>> from
>>>>> constantly emitting unburned hydrocarbon vapors 24/7, I am 100% in
>>> favor of
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the sloppy fools who dump raw gas on the ground while
>>> refueling...
>>>>> yup, they exist.  Their couple ounces compared with the hundreds or even
>>>>> thousands of people who did NOT slop raw gas on the ground while
>>> refueling
>>>>> divides those couple ounces out into an incredibly tiny fraction
>>> overall,
>>>>> and it pales deep into insignficance compared with the entire vehicle
>>> fleet
>>>>> bleeding vapors into the air 24/7.
>>>>>
>>>>> SO
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Mike <meulenms at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> These codes are total BS, most caused by  whiffs of a little gas vapor.
>>>>>> I've seen people filling their cars with fuel that slosh 1-2 oz of fuel
>>>>>> on the ground putting the fuel nozzle back into the pump. How many
>>>>>> whiffs of vapor is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/2015 9:57 PM, Ralph Goff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2015 3:25 PM, pga2 at basicisp.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here in Texas we have an annual state inspection of all vehicles
>>>>>> operated
>>>>>>>> on public roads. It requires proof of insurance to get it done, as
>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> as to get license plates. Starting next month, the inspection and
>>>>>>>> regis-
>>>>>>>> tration stickers will be combined. In major metropolitan areas, there
>>>>>>>> has been a tailpipe test in place since about 1982. Most vehicles
>>> pass
>>>>>>>> this fairly easily. In the rest of the state it is basically just a
>>>>>> safety
>>>>>>>> inspection and a check to see that the factory emissions equipment is
>>>>>>>> still in place. The check engine light must not be on in order to
>>>>> pass.
>>>>>>>> Phil in TX
>>>>>>> Then even my "new" vehicle would fail. The check light has been on for
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> few years on my 97 Blazer yet everything works fine.
>>>>>>> A code reader said (I think) it was the fuel vent or something like
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> My older vehicle have no such light to worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph in Sask.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AT mailing list
>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com