nklr_realllyyy again

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Mike Frey wrote:

> Much of what's in the bill sounds good, but when our > government (red state, blue state, doesn't matter) forces us > into something by making laws, it usually doesn't quite work > the way it was intended.

And sometimes that's good. Our government passed legislation enforcing emissions standards for automobiles, and while that has worked as expected for its primary effect (most of our large cities are no longer covered by a brown haze for 280 days a year), there has been some unexpected unintended consequences -- today's cars are far more powerful per cubic inch of engine displacement than cars before the standards and drive far more smoothly because the standards forced auto makers to redesign their engines to have better-burning heads, coated pistons and bores, electronic fuel injection, and electronic ignition. They are also far more reliable than before emissions standards, and require far less maintenance to keep them running because of the mandatory emissions warranty forcing car manufacturers to use higher-quality parts for most engine systems. The demise of the carburetor in automobiles is especially to be celebrated. My mother drove her Honda Civic for 300,000 miles with no (zero) fuel system problems, just the normal 30,000 mile replacements of the fuel filter (i.e. normal service). I cannot think of any carbureted car I ever owned about which that could be said... invariably at some point around 100-120,000 miles you'd need to replace an electric choke or re-bush the throttle shaft or otherwise have to fix something that required pulling the thing off the car and covering your kitchen table with far, far too many small parts. But of course everybody said it'd be the end of the auto industry if these emissions standards were forced upon auto makers by government because "you just can't make autos that don't pollute!". Err, right...