home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: co.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!csn!tpsrd!tps.COM!thomasd
- From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
- Subject: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
- Message-ID: <thomasd.57.726189717@tps.COM>
- Sender: news@tps.com (News Software)
- Organization: TPS
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:21:57 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- This is probably more a question for mechanics than politicians, but here
- goes. My newest ever vehicle, a 1986 Toyota Van, recently failed an
- emissions test: CO was 4X allowed and HCs were 10X allowed. This vehicle is
- as loaded with antipollution stuff as it gets: fuel injection, sensors
- everywhere, catalitic converter, etc. It will cost me $270 to get this
- unit back on the road.
-
- "My other car is a" 1973 Toyota Hilux with 300k+ miles and no serious
- antipollution add-ons. It has always passed inspections in Nebraska,
- California, and Colorado. And it did again this year. Not only did it
- pass, but its emissions were lower than the max levels for the '86 van.
-
- So here's my question: is there really a significant improvement being
- made to any part of the exhaust emissions by all this "improved technology"
- or are we just being jerked by our good intentions into buying new cars? If
- my old pickup gets better mileage, maintains low emissions (at least
- relative to my newer van), and doesn't cost the resources it takes to build
- a new vehicle every few years, what is the point in owning a newer car?
- Please don't feed me estetic reasons, the Hilux's ease of maintenance
- overwhelms any improvement in cosmetics or even the addition of air
- conditioning that my van offers.
-