http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/ema...2305024AA0EEA25

Anybody go to the hearing or hear about the results?

pete

Pete,
I didn't hear about this until after the hearing. Otherwise I could have gone. It's just down the block and around the corner.
I suppose a call to the Senator's office???

I know, I only got wind of it yesterday...

If this goes, it would be VERY bad for a lot of us and our cars as a matter of precedent. Things like easy six conversions and trick Type IVs will non longer be viable. It also makes one question the wisdom of doing anything with these cars' powerplants unless it can be made to be smog legal. Of course, I suspect a Raby Type IV would actually run cleaner than a tired stocker, and maybe cleaner than a good stocker. But our government, in all its brilliance, would fail it on a visual.

pete

Isn't Florez the same bone-head that wrote the legislation that did away with the 30 year rolling exemption? Isn't there anything else he can do to make a name for himself? The amount of pre 76 cars is so small, they can't be contributing that much to contaminate the air.
Elliot

There is a reason why our development has made a 180* change recently...

I am now working with development of engines that mix MPG/efficiency and clean running into a less powerful, but adequate package for tomorrow.

Things like high MPG, clean running and Ethanol compliance are the key- else we'll be out of business like everyone else that isn't looking forward to tomorrow, onlu being concerned with performance today.

I don;t like the changes, but we'll have to do something, else I'll have to get a job someday...

The main reason that the last one past was b/c they attached a change for newer cars. They put in the same bill that new cars can go 6 years w/o being smogged. I believe that that is even worse, gives incentive for people buying new cars to do whatever they want and get 6 years until they have to worry about it.

Anyways... I think that unless they attach something stupid to this bill like the last one it won't pass also there are alot more people that would be affected with this bill than the last one. Maybe we should minimize using our older cars until this goes away.

ugh... Just heard about this as well... What a crock of shit. I'm e-mailing all of those reps as soon as I get home.

How about they repeal some bullshit tax laws and become worth their weight.

Stuff like this needs to be a separate bill (not earmarked with others like child-safety provisions or budget increases for public service departments) and shot down on the public ballot.

There is no letter you can write to an idiot politico, in any numbers, that will change their direction. Their incentive is money in their pockets, not our welfare. All you need to find out is who is funding / paying him and up the anty ... money talks, bullshit and common sense walk.

I just sent a letter. It may not do anything, but it's at least better than sitting around here bitching about it.

it's but we all need to at least e-mail your senator. the bills with no opposition are easy and sail right past. i'm not overly optomistic about how much of a differance it'll make, but at least you can get the satisfaction of being a burr in there ass.

makes me mad that big pollution producing business can simply buy cedits, continue their dirty business and get away with a MAJOR part of the problem. and they find polical footing attacking the FEW, rarely used, pre-75 vehicles (most cleaner burning than when new). face it the smokin', chokin' pre 75 maveric is long gone...

do the world a favor ... hang a polititian

CA should be talking to GM, Ford and Dodge to start thinking about overall output of emmissions, not old cars.

If history has taught us anything, the big three need to remember the 70's. this Era and that Gas crisis is what allowed the foreign car makers, specifically the japanese companies, to gain a foothold in the US market.

What is with these guys...start making cars that compete...start making less trucks...geez.

Oh, and Jake, good to hear you finally looking at MPG...lol
You once told me that no one would want that...but here we are looking at $4 bucks per gallon this summer.
It seems that 50MPG should be your target...AIm high.
Rich

I think its a major headache to most old car buffs, who knows what the percentage of pollution old cars emit? I know one of ours puts out maybe 30 times a new car does, but thats just a guess.
I held a Ca. Smog license, along with the L1 CRT so even tho I have a V-8 car I'm not worried about getting things to conform, just a pain in the ass..
I would have to have two engines bla bla bla.
Lets all cross our fingers~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think it would be interesting to find out how many pre 1976 cars are even registered in the state of California and what percentage that is of all vehicles. Like I said in another post, how often do you see a pre '76 car on the road?

It will never fly! Ca. Doe's most (all) state wide! This jerk got pissed off by somebody local thats why he is only doing is area! Forget about it.

Rich, I have had a 51 MPG engine for 2 years now... But creating it has not been economically feasible. Len and I started the MPG development back in 2004 and it has been ongoing (slowly) since then.

I still stand by my statement that even at 51 MPG a MAJORITY of the people here on these boards would still not drive their 914 daily and give up the BS modern creature comforts that they are spoiled by. I state this even with the 4 buck per gallon gas prices that are forecasted because people will just keep driving their "safe" (BS) SUVs and slapping their rug rats in the back shoving a DVD in the player and letting the brats be further spoiled... They'll worry about the gas prices when they max out another credit card thats being used for buying all that gas- they don't care about it today and probably won't for a few months/ years.

What we are shooting for now is emissions and ethanol compliance....

Like I have said many times, give me even 20 people who want a 45-50 MPG 914 for everyday use and I'll create a package. I think you'll have a very difficult finding them.

How much is the kit? And is it a little spunkier than a stock 2.0? my stock 2.0 w/F.I. was just right for toolin' around town in, running errands and such, and still had a little bit of a 'fun' factor.

With the ethanol compliance, are you able to get more hp and higher compression ratios? I was reading an article somewhere on a Rotrex blower setup where they were able to add boost, have lower temperatures, and higher compression than normal because of using ethanol... (IIRC)

Personally, i think aircooled an ethanol should go quite nicely together.

I live in So Ca and own a 76 Fiat X19, when I drive it I have to run it at 90% from light to light to keep from being run over. People own cars that can get 30 plus mpg but drive them like top fuelers. You can engineer an efficient car but put a person behind the wheel and everything goes to hell.
My neighbors has a Prius the wife gets 50 plus and her husband gets 20 mpg go figure..

Looks like it would affect a newly registered purchase the way it's worded. You might have to go buy and register every toy you way want for the rest of your life before it became law.

Would make all the same toys\conversions worthless in the future since nobody would buy it if it couldn't be registered\smogged.......

Look at this

This is today the best value for comfort / economy in France.
And beleve me, this car is not small.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/09/pe...n-mpg-marathon/



Figures

Town= 42 mpg
Road= 63 mpg
Mixed=54 mpg

but it is ugly

I drove a Peugeot 407 Diesel while on my Honeymoon in Leman in 2006. It was a realy great driving car, but just had too much turbo lag.. It really impressed me!

Ethanol changes lots of things with the engine and higher CR is a possibility and almost a must if you intend to achieve much in the way of MPG. The downfall to ethanol is the loss of MPG and learning how to maximize that with the engine combo is going to be the challenge.

I am not convinced that going to Ethanol is the best option to go in for us here in the states.. Yes, we have a ton of corn crops, but now the Farmers that were producing wheat are producing corn because it is more profitable due to Ethanol demands- thats why the prices of bread ad other products that use a healthy dose of wheat are going up.

There is always going to be a trade off and I am all for taking as much money from the oil barons as possible.

The cost of a kit engine that would get lets say, 40 MPG wouldn't be much more than 4500 bucks... Getting that extra 10 MPG would cost 2K more at minimum due to the processes and extra development to get the results.

As for power:
The 51 MPG engine I built in 2006 still made 134HP and 151 lb/ft of torque, it was no slouch at all and only needed 5K RPM to make all it's power. The combination couples high CR, very mild cam and hi velocity heads with friction resistant coatings and polishing processes to reduce motoring power losses. I have only built two of them and I am working on a third for my Wife's beetle to replace the 2.8L twin plug 249HP engine thats in the car now. Heck that engine still gets 33 MPG!!

Most people feel that underpowering a vehicle produces better MPG- I don't share their thoughts. I believe a bigger engine, built very conservatively, creating a very high amount of torque with a flat torque curve is the key to MPG. When the engine makes more power it takes less effort to push the vehicle down the road and with gear ratio manipulation the results of this theory can be extreme. I'd much rather "idle" down the road as having a "beetle" experience with my foot half way down the carb driving WOT everywhere I go.

A good example of this was my trip cross country in 2006. I averaged 24 MPG with a 180 HP TIV engine travelling at 76 MPH (AVERAGE) across the country (3,450 miles). Several times during that trip I saw averages in the high 80s of large spans of open country, seeing well over 100 MPH for several miles at a time, that driving was also averaged into the 24 MPG figure.

In 1996 I made that same trip in a similar VW Beetle with a stock engine and averaged the same MPG and I damn sure wasn't travelling anywhere near 76 MPH average! That engine made no more than 55 HP, but achieved the same mileage as a dual carbed, 180HP engine travelling much faster over most of the same terrain and interstates...

The biggest difference was in the stock engined beetle I was driving Wide Open Throttle 75% of the time- with the MassIVe engine I seldom used more than 20% throttle...

A great deal of MPG is in the car it's self as well as the driver's ability to use the throttle and gearing wisely. The key to being a good driver, able to attain MPG is throttle manipulation, don't change throttle position unless you have to and be very, very, consistent with gear shifts. Keeping the engine at a stable, optimum temperature is also a big key.

There are certainly bigger variables than the engine that weigh into MPG even more than the engine does...

Jake;

As the price of gas continues to climb, that $4,500 + $2,000 may be sounding real good. I'm expecting to pay nearly that for a mid-year 2009 rebuild kit from you on my 2.0L engine anyway. I'm restoring everything but the engine through the end of 2008 (on a monthly budget). However, in about 12 months, I'm fully expecting to spend that kind of coin, so please keep us updated on your plans.

Cool, but it'll take 19 more guys like you to make it worth the time, especially with all the Boxster development work we are doing now.

Well due to the last bill that passed and made new cars not have to be smogged for 6 years, I have seen dozens of new cars at the drag strip that no way would be able to pass smog.

The most popular car is the Chrysler 300c, seen them at the track with a whole different top end of the motor (heads, cam, headers, injectors) and they have plates on them.

They are just working backwards and need to create more of a market for hi-mileage cars... Or maybe that diesel hybrid that VW is creating.

Jake; This is the first I'd heard of your efforts in this area. It sounds great for us folks that are daily drivers. But from your earlier experience, it looks like it'll take 6 or more months of publicity to get the orders lined up (remember the delay in getting the $5,000 engine to take off?)

How much time do you anticipate needing to complete the kit in making it ready for distribution? I understand you probably don't want to take R&D money from your other projects to support this, but how can we get this into a potential timetable?

Though this thread started on emissions, I must say where it's going is indeed interesting...because gas prices just keep getting more "interesting."

I'm currently looking at two window stickers for 2008 911s as I'm working on a story and, in the box about fuel economy the estimated annual fuel cost is "based on 15,000 miles at $2.80 a gallon." Here in SF, it is hard to find 91-octane for less than $4 a gallon, and 87-octane for less than $3.80. And they say it'll get worse this summer! Gas is still cheap in comparison to what it costs in other lands, but it's getting high enough to make me think about how and when and what I drive, as well as whether that trip up the coast is worth it (it still always is, but I never even used to consider the gas $$$!).

Jake's philosophy ties in well with BMW's eta motors of the 1980s. They abandoned that route, something I never fully understood why because the cars were nice to drive so long as you didn't mind a 4500-rpm redline!

pete

First thing I thought of too. A friend had a 325es back in the early 90s. Good car, not particularly exciting to drive. He sold it and bought a 325is. Same body (E30) and man what a huge difference in the personality of the car.

Yep, I like high-revvers for fun, but I have to say that a 528e (or, more accurately, my college girlfriend's 325e) is pretty damn nice around town. Roll the windows down, put the (manual!) sunroof back, and enjoy easy light to light driving. I thought that grunty straight six was pretty satisfying in its own way, but I wouldn't pick it to dance with...

But I'm starting to foresee a day when the character of what we drive on a daily basis will be very different. And a day when "hot" cars used as daily drivers (like the current GTI/335i/997/MazdaSpeed3/Mustang/350Z/etc.) won't be worth their operational cost in an everyday environment.

I hope I'm wrong.

pete

Back to the emission isse for a moment...

Is there any reason why we don't use this forum as a lobbying base for such issues? Within this BBS we have hundreds of persons that will be directly affected so it seems like a good place to create a group response.

Is it possible to use the "survey" function of this BBS to collect electronic signatures that we can distribute to local and national lawmakers?

Or would using this BBS for that purpose cause legal/tax issues that need to be avoided?

www.semasan.com

SEMA's Action Network. A lot of this kind of info runs up there.

Lawmakers don't give a damn... They are just more worthless pond scum that is worried about nothing we care about.... That could give a damn less about a car thats older than a 2007.

Hell a few months ago the freakin President didn't even know how much a fuckin' gallon of gas cost!!!

On the tipoc of the MPG kit engine, lets don't hijack the thread- start one on my forums as thats what they are there for.. if we do it here some freakin whiner will point their finger at me saying that I am using the BBS as an advertising venue, then I'll get pissed and all hell will break loose...

Pete, I see the need for an article on tuning the 914 for MPG in the future :-)

Seriously Jake, don't hold back. If you have an opinion let us know

My apologies for the hijack - I just find mileage to be an increasingly important issue.

No worries, I think the two are kind of intertwined.

The guy working on my car right now is a real doomsdayer when it comes to gas, emissions, and global warming. And, yes, he is pained by the obvious conflict in his day job. Anyway, he ventured forth an interesting theory. One day, gas might be really, really cheap -- because we'll pay by the pound for our individual pollution. I dunno if I agree, but I can see politicians loving it.

I sure wish America hadn't made SUVs and big pickups its new family cars 15 years ago or so. Maybe high gas prices are actually going to be good for us, and for the environment. It's just a pity that, unlike in Europe, the money is going into corporations' pockets instead of back to taxpayers.

Of course, that's assuming it would be used, uh, usefully...

pete

Pete, I see the need for an article on tuning the 914 for MPG in the future :-)


[/quote


That would be awsome

Florez...what a schmuck....or should I say pendejo....

All he'll do is take the beaters away from the people who elected his ass. Bet it's a pay back from some other "green bill" he voted against....

I dont know... My 74 with a 3.6 can pull off 30 mpg if I keep my foot out of it.

I do agree that gas mileage is putting a dampner on things. I just opted to start car pooling 3 days a week to lower my costs. My daily driver is a 96 jeep that gets a lousy 18 mpg. I started the carpool 3 weeks ago and have already saved 100's of dollars since my round trip commute is 100 miles and I carpool with 2 other people.

As for making older cars pass emissions it is just nuts!

My 74 will pass with flying colors. However, If I had to pass all the conversion criteria it would tank. It runs easily 20X cleaner than a stock 74 with cis but I dont run cats... I will just have to find a corrupt smog station if this sh*t passes.

I really think the one thing that they should relax on if they decide to smog older cars is to allow any modifications as long as it passes the sniffer. By making smog E.O. necessary they just squash the innovaition of mom and pop shops.