Good news??? Or maybe I'm just terminally naive.
-----------------------------------------------
The new Republican House majority is developing a three-pronged strategy to challenge EPA regulations, which includes: 1) a series of Congressional Review Act (CRA) votes, 2) spending cuts to prevent the implementation of regulations and 3) aggressive oversight to highlight the costs of the rules.
The rest of the article: http://westernfarmpress.com/government/house-republicans-develop-plan-overturn-epa-rules (http://westernfarmpress.com/government/house-republicans-develop-plan-overturn-epa-rules)
YES!
Progress and change are evil. Stop the progressives from trying to save the planet. OK, so the water sheds will take a hit and LA will sink completely back into the clouds but we'll be able to more easily import small stationary diesel engines.
Casey
Quote from: LowGear on January 18, 2011, 11:16:59 AM
YES!
Progress and change are evil. Stop the progressives from trying to save the planet. OK, so the water sheds will take a hit and LA will sink completely back into the clouds but we'll be able to more easily import small stationary diesel engines.
Casey
All this from hindering the EPA from classifying your exhaled breath (Co2) as a regulated greenhouse gas? ???
Dude...oh never mind.
Ron
I think there needs to be a balance and balance does not mean going backwards.
I grew up in LA and experienced the pollution of the 70's and 80's first hand. It's not like that anymore and that's good.
HOWEVER, I do think the 80/20 rule has merit and should be given consideration. Modern industrialization offers things that the majority of us enjoy in one form or another. To assume that all products can be made or manufactured with no effect on the environment is flawed thinking at best. All the current policies are doing is driving manufacturing overseas to other locations where there is minimal interference from govt.
I would submit that requiring catalytic converters on lawnmower engines and cox model airplanes is a bit overkill and clearly illustrates an organization that is out of control and making up work to show its usefulness.
Why not work at implementing a legit mass transit system that works to get vehicles off of the road instead?
I have a MAJOR beef with the EPA's changes to auto paint for example. Since the change to water-based carriers, most vehicles now need a repaint at least once in their useful life. So, while the EPA can tout lower INITIAL VOC's in the paint, (and therefore lower emissions into the air), I would submit it's a major red herring due to them not calculating the VOC's from the second paint job, the waste disposal, cost, etc... So, if the VOC's in the current paint are at 8 lb/gal and the paint fades or peels over time, is that really better than 12 lb/gal for paint that lasts the life of the vehicle? Seems to me that if a repaint is required at least once, the impact to the environment works about to be at least double (or worse once waste disposal is factored in).
I can go on and on about it.
I like clean air and water as much as the next guy. However, creating a situation where engines fail prematurely due to the emission control systems is another example of EPA flawed thinking. If the diesel emission systems shorten engine life by 30%, how much additional pollution is created from the mining, the aluminum and iron manufacturing, the electricity to machine the parts, etc, etc, etc... If the true end-to-end costs and pollution were truly being calculated, I would submit that the current consumption/just replace it stance is seriously flawed.
How about the decreased fuel economy? Am I really to believe that an engine that consumes 15% more fuel because it's so choked up is in the best interest of the environment?
Does this mean I want to live in a place that's trashed and polluted? No. It simply means that there needs to be balance.
And yes, that means I should be able to have my stinking Listers as hobby engines if I bloody well want to! It also means that I shouldn't have to spend $50K in order to have the EPA grant me an approval stamp if I come up with a new type of engine.
Food for thought....
Steve
My wife does tell me I don't smell so good any more. "Honey, if I can't smell it then it doesn't stink."
Casey
Quote from: LowGear on January 18, 2011, 11:16:59 AM
OK, so the water sheds will take a hit and LA will sink completely back into the clouds but we'll be able to more easily import small stationary diesel engines.
Really? Listeroids cause all of that? But the air cooled china diesels and 2 stroke generators and that spew smoke don't?
What about the idiots that drive the biggest pickup truck they can buy with the biggest diesel engine they can find just to move their butt, when a kia would do the job?
Now if we could just find a way to make LA sink completely into the
ocean...
[.[/quote]
Now if we could just find a way to make LA sink completely into the ocean...
[/quote]
Bad answer, That would not employ enough government employees, but if mother nature runs due course, its going to happen anyway.
Quote from: Jens on January 18, 2011, 08:52:45 PM
Hey Hey Hey .... them is fightin' words man !!!!!!! .... besides, no KIA would have the load capacity for my butt !
F350 .... and darn happy to own it !!!!!
I drive a big old 1 ton chevy...lucky if I see 10mpg. And that's my right. But I can't have a listeroid? BS...
i drive a 1ton chevy van, 454 auto, it gets about 10.5 on the highway and about 7 mpg in town, of course it tips the scales
at a robust 9800lbs give or take about 100lbs, depending on fuel in the tank.
pound for pound , dollar for dollar the best work truck i have ever owned! just a tough old sonofagun.
i wish i had another one of the same vintage, but with a 350 cu/in and A/C to take back to kansas with me.
over the last 30 odd years i have built and used over 10 service trucks, and this puppy hands down has been the most
profitable and productive rig of the bunch.
which reminds me, my first service truck was an E350 ford with a 300cu/in six, ,,hmmmm funny how things come full circle!
start with a 1ton van, and end up in a 1 ton van.
certainly tried the gammit in between them though
bob g
Now this topic is getting interesting!
;D
Bob, I had no idea you were a van guy...
I have been agonizing about buying a van for the last month or so. I've always owned pickup trucks and figured on just buying another. Given the climate in the Pacific NW, I've been toying with the idea of a van because it might be better suited. I certainly like the idea that I can lock it up better than a canopy.
The problem is, what do you do when you need to load something like a Lister that weighs 1200 lbs with the roof overhang? Might seem like a dumb question, but I don't always want to be hauling my trailer around, and that seems to me to be the big trade off with owning a van. It is by far my biggest concern...
I assume they're every bit as tough as a one ton truck. Is that correct?
Finally, (another dumb question) with a van am I going to freeze my butt off in winter because it takes so much longer to warm up the inside compared to a truck cab?
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Steve
The mileage on that GM stuff sucks! I drive a '71 IH 3/4 ton Travelette pickup which is a 4 door long bed. Engine is a 345 with a 5 speed trans and it gets an honest 14 mpg doing 70 on the freeway! It's had 4,000 lbs of batteries in the back and still had 1.5" of travel left in the suspension and drove quite well.
Well I can see why you got better mileage with the IH 3/4 ton Travelette pickup. The bodies shed weight from rotting away. Just joking. ;D
Henry
Don't cuss me , but where in the world did you find a 71 International that was not 90% into the process of "returning to the Earth from where it came" ? You must be in Arizona or New Mexico. I love the things, they will run FOREVER, but the bodies don't last long here.
Ron
One of the few benefits of living in Northern California I guess. There is a little rust around the windshield and some in the hood, but other than that she's pretty clean. I get a LOT of comments on that truck when driving it. Got 2 spare front clips and 1.5 sets of doors for it too.
Wait a minute...BOB doesn't drive a DIESEL?! :o The mileage in my '73 Chevy is horrific. I can't figure out why besides weighing 6000lbs. I know a guy who drives a school bus based on a medium duty chevy chassis, with a 366 big block, and he gets better mileage than my truck with a 350 small block!
I've always been a truck guy too but I've really been eyeing the new Ford van the neighbors at my shop got. (plumbers) It's basically the van front with what looks service truck bed with a canopy over it, though it's built to match the original lines of the van. Walk through too. I want one...
Quote from: BioHazard on January 19, 2011, 05:05:50 PM
Wait a minute...BOB doesn't drive a DIESEL?! :o The mileage in my '73 Chevy is horrific. I can't figure out why besides weighing 6000lbs. I know a guy who drives a school bus based on a medium duty chevy chassis, with a 366 big block, and he gets better mileage than my truck with a 350 small block!
I've always been a truck guy too but I've really been eyeing the new Ford van the neighbors at my shop got. (plumbers) It's basically the van front with what looks service truck bed with a canopy over it, though it's built to match the original lines of the van. Walk through too. I want one...
In my experience, the only engine that Chevy ever built that liked gas more than 350 is a 454, and I don't know why. Well, a 292 straight six rated right up there too.
Ron
Hmmm . . . I don't suppose this is a good place to mention my '89 Toyota p/u with the 22RE.
i got an '83 toyo diesel pickup too!
it likes to run down the highway at just about 58mph,, although under protest it will do 75 plus
i like the little bugger a lot, however i really like my G30 chevy even if it doesn't get all that great of mileage.
wouldn't have a van with a diesel, never, ever...
its bad enough just doing a 100k mile tuneup on the 454, thats about a 6 hour job all on its own. no way do want to fuss
with a diesel in such a cramped application as a van.
in a perfect world? a P series van 16k gvw plus, about 18-20 long, rollup back door, flip up front end, and a dt466 with allison
mounted mid ship with a work bench over the top. and my miller welder up under the flip open hood where the engine generally
would be found.
then to service the engine, i could unlatch the bench slide it back off the engine, and have it open for easy access for service/repair work.
a dt466 at about 220hp or so ought to get about 12mpg or maybe a bit better, and the p-van is relatively easy to get in and out of.
that would be about the perfect service truck in my opinion.
bob g
i bought the van at 105k miles, and put about 5k more before the first tuneup
went with top of the line parts and double platinum plugs
made it to 205k miles before the next tuneup and found the platinum used up, so i went back with all the same stuff
again,, figuring 95k miles on a heavily loaded work truck between tuneups is pretty good.
other than a bitch to work on, it has been a real workhorse, and been the most production friendly service truck i have every owned.
if i could find a low mileage 1ton cargo (no windows) G30 with a 6.5l diesel i might consider it, but it would have to be a mid 90's van
i really don't like the newer body style for what i do.
something about big v8 engines stuffed in the nose of a van body is just a horrible combination to work on, but i guess that is the compromise that has to be made.
while i like the technology of the navistar/ford 6.0 liter ford,, i would hate to have to do anything on one of them stuffed in a van.
bob g
Quote from: Jens on January 19, 2011, 11:24:12 PM
Tuneup ? What's that ? Sold my last truck with the original spark plugs in it. I was rather upset that I had to put in a new battery after about ten years of service.
LOL, my '01 Dodge has almost 150k on it now, factory plugs and battery. When you open the hood it's difficult to find the engine under all the plastic. That's why a 2001 is the newest thing I own. Funny enough, my '73 is just now hitting 50k for the first time. ;D
My 86 Yota is a motorhome chassis with factory dual wheels and a 9 1/2 foot flat bed. After my son drove through high school and is still beating it to death (he's 26 now) it still runs great, but uses a little oil- ok a lot of oil. I don't know how many miles are on it the speedo didn't work for the first 7 or 8 years. I have hauled 3 and a half tons of gravel on it.
way cheaper to drive than the Dodge dually.
Ron.
Not a van by a long shot, but for moving stuff around, my '95 GMC Suburban with the 6.5 TD will comfortably run 19 MPG at 65 MPH (drops to about 17 at 75MPH). Not too bad for waste fryer oil ;D
Suddenly, I feel a whole lot better about my old bus, which does ~17mpg. Or, as you Americans would call it, a "mid-sized station wagon"... (I'm talking about the one up front, not the one behind, which does about 2-3 mpg...
How the Hell do you get 17 MPG out of that?!? Drive down hill everywhere :D :D
Ron
Quote from: vdubnut62 on January 21, 2011, 07:50:49 AM
How the Hell do you get 17 MPG out of that?!? Drive down hill everywhere :D :D
6 litre straight 6 diesel, no turbo :)
She'll do 90mph down hills...... but only 9mph up hills (steep ones anyway). I think the MPG is partially offset by the oil she burns ;D
Not bad for a 42 year old engine!