NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27082

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 8.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!olivea!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mgweed!mgwhiz!mogun!dcg
From: [e-mail] (David Gunsul)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:36:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hotrods `R' Us, Montgomery, IL
Lines: 223

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
> [e-mail] (David Gunsul) in a flaming rant spews:
>
[e-mail] (Greg Moritz) In  usual eco-nazis BS fashion
continues to spew fourth more of his uninformed prattle.

> > > If your figures were true, yes.
> >
> > My figures are from the National Muscle Car Association's Muscle
> > Monthly publication under our "Save the Animals" section.
> >
> > Where are YOUR facts from?
> > AS A matter of fact where are your facts PERIOD?
>
> You conveniently deleted from context the following:
> ...................................................
> LS> Because they are responsible for 90% of the automobile pollution, ...
>
> [e-mail] (David Gunsul)  of Hotrods `R' Us writes :
>
> DG> This is complete and total BULL-SHIT cars and I mean all cars
> DG> only make up 10% of the worlds pollution.
>
> Perhaps, but they make up a far larger % of the USA's air pollution

This is not true, PERIOD.

Factories are spewing far more air pollution than cars.

Are you happy now?



> My facts are from the EPA.

HA! Now here's a reliable source...NOT!!


> If you want more details, the exact numbers
> are - 87% of all automotive pollution is caused by cars built before 1980
> the other 13% from cars built after.  So the 90% number is substantially
> correct.  Almost 90% of the total automotive pollution is from less
> than 10% of the vehicles on the road.  This makes sense since over 90% of
> the pollution has been wrung out of cars since pollution controls were
> begun in the 60's.  I have the statistics at hand, don't make me use 'em ...

This is correct!!
But notice you said "87% of all AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION is caused by cars
built before 80" You're absolutely correct, but this does not include
other source's of air pollution ie factory smoke stacks.

This is one of those clever little eco tricks bending the truth instead
of just out and out lying.

BTW thanks for making my point. :-)


> *Your* number (from the National Muscle Car Association) are severely
> skewed.  10% of all pollution means that cars make up 10% of all kinds
> of pollution including water, air, etc.

Excuse me, I did mean 10% of AIR pollution.



> Cars make up a far larger
> percentage of *air* pollution.  When your Magazine can account for
> 100% of the air pollution, then you will have a statistic to back you
> up.  For instance, what percent of the pollution comes from factories,
> cars, homes, offices, etc.  Some vague reference to 10% leaving the
> other 90% unaccounted for is *not* very convincing.

Why don't you write to them and find out for yourself?
I'll be happy to give you the address when I respond to your next raving.


> Now, David resorts to name calling:
>
> > >  People who like cars need to be able to admit to the damage they do...
>
> > Excuse me but, why in the hell would a car nut want to look like
> > one of YOU eco-nazis? ...
>
> > ... Oh let me guess, we "car people" are pissing you eco-nazis because ...
>

> Then why are you acting so paranoid?  If older cars cause almost 90% of
> all automotive air pollution, then 'smokers' probably cause almost 90%
> of that.  As those cars disappear, then the pressure on hotrodders by
> *actual* eco-nazis will diminish.  Several hundred thousand hotrods driven
> for small quantities of miles (typically) does not add substantially to
> overall air pollution.

I'm paranoid because these eco-policies ARE sucking in hotrods/restored
cars.

You are an eco-nazi you're one of the ones that trys to quiet (so called)
fanatics like me by saying: oh I'm not an eco-nazi so just trust me when
I say if you are quiet it"ll all go away.

Seems to me that's just what they told the Jews before Hitler came to
power, hence the name eco-NAZI!!


Now we (hotrodders/restorers) aren't going to lose our lives
to the EPA like the Jewish people did (if I've offended anyone by this
comparison I am sorry) but we will lose not only a lot of fun from our
lives but also a very small part of freedom and I don't think we
can afford to lose any of that.




> I want to make the problem smaller.  If the problem is smaller, then
> the eco-fanatics will not be able to get their crushing new anti-car
> laws passed (as easily).  Over 97% of the pollution will have been
> wrung out of the IC engine by the year 2000.  That's not good enough
> for them.  They want more.  HELL, if 97% is good, 99% must be twice
> as good - they spout.  (It doesn't matter to them that it adds hundreds
> more to the cost of new cars.)

Oh my God!! We actually agree on something!!!!!!



> Well, then fight to keep them whole - but not on the roads.
> I would think that wrecking yards would like this plan.  The purchased
> cars could be free inventory.  They wouldn't have to buy them until sold.
> This is called a consignment sale.  Everybody wins.

We are.



> Sounds like something worth fighting for.  Crushing sucks.

Another agreement, we're on a roll now!



> > What about the restorers that want to keep their cars absolutely stock?
>
> I'm talking about bringing cars up to stock specs.  Modifying a car to
> make it cleaner than new doesn't make economic sense.  This is another
> example of paranoia at work.  Nowhere was cleaner-than-stock mentioned,
> yet you somehow latched on to that idea.

No, I did not, I was only making sure that I understood you correctly.
Now who's paranoid?


> > They don't have to lay off anyone all they have to do is install those
> > "scrubbers" in their smoke stacks.
>
> Oh, is that all?  So you would rather have a factory have to lay out, say,
> $10 million rather than tens of thousands?  When faced with that decision
> many factories will have to close.  Scrubbers are great, but not cheap.

They do not cost that much.




>
> > > DG> Now would someone please tell me how this is helping the environment?
> > >
> > >     (2) Reduce pollution from another source.  ....
>
> (and jobholders) benefit.  Stick with relevant arguments.
>
> > BZZZZT!!! Factories pollute more than the cars
>

So what!? This means pollution has INCREASED!!
So tell me what good this is doing?


> All you have above is some small little 10% number that is not related to
> anything.

There's a net INCREASE so who benefit's?


> > ... and junk yards have a lot of little squares sitting around waiting to
>
>
> Famous argument; 'Takes energy to make a new car - better to keep the old
> one up.'  I have never seen a definitive comparison between the amount of

Now who's name calling?

Fine, fine, I didn't want to post the articles because I don't know where
they are but I'll dig them up if it will make you shut up!



> the post that you tried (and failed) to take apart earlier, the poster
> referred to a new Crown Vic.  It's a gas-hog next to a Saturn, but it is
> a fuel-misor next to a smoke-belching mid-seventies piece of V8 iron.
> It also puts out less than 1/3 of the pollution that the above-mentioned
> car put out when new.  When you come up with numbers that show a scientific
> comparison, I'll listen.  I'd love to add them to my arsenel of facts.

I really don't remember asking your opinion in the first place
so you must know I really don't care if you listen to me or not!


> > > You don't appear to have any flexibility in this matter.
> >
> > I am flexibleso I have to fight as hard as I can.
>
> Uhhh .... right.

WOW!! what a snappy come-back that was, gosh, I'm really impressed.



                     |
                     | David Gunsul
                     | [e-mail]
                     |------------------------------------------------
                     |  It's amazing what $2,500 worth of big block
                     |  will do to $60,000 worth of high technology.