RE: Is Canada Next Place
Oh, it's coming. My '82 Dodge doesn't have a black box though. I think I'll keep it.
Oh, it's coming. My '82 Dodge doesn't have a black box though. I think I'll keep it.
Is Canada Next Place For This Scheme?
- Thread starter mrmom2
- Start date
Re: RE: Is Canada Next Place
Rev, your beloved Dodge is a polluter! It spews out more unburned hydrocarbons, NO2 and assorted other contaminates than ten '02 model cars of any manufacture. Now that's not responsible behavior, old man.
For the last ten years at least, all new cars have been "run" by black boxes. They control ignition, fuel management, ABS, airbags, electrical systems, etc. and have plenty of unused capacity to boot. It isn't too much of a leap to think tracking devices could be included in these boxes.
Well, Rev, it's already here. Most boxes today have a recording system to indicate engine performance including RPM maximums, speed, hours of use and the like. Now I'm not paranoid, but I can see how some of us would be a wee bit nervous if we thought a technician could obtain information on our driving habits, whereabouts, etc.
Food for thought. 8)
Coaster
Reverend Blair said:
Rev, your beloved Dodge is a polluter! It spews out more unburned hydrocarbons, NO2 and assorted other contaminates than ten '02 model cars of any manufacture. Now that's not responsible behavior, old man.
For the last ten years at least, all new cars have been "run" by black boxes. They control ignition, fuel management, ABS, airbags, electrical systems, etc. and have plenty of unused capacity to boot. It isn't too much of a leap to think tracking devices could be included in these boxes.
Well, Rev, it's already here. Most boxes today have a recording system to indicate engine performance including RPM maximums, speed, hours of use and the like. Now I'm not paranoid, but I can see how some of us would be a wee bit nervous if we thought a technician could obtain information on our driving habits, whereabouts, etc.
Food for thought. 8)
Coaster
RE: Is Canada Next Place
It's got a slant six engine that gets better mileage than most new sedans, Wetcoast.
It's got a slant six engine that gets better mileage than most new sedans, Wetcoast.
Re: RE: Is Canada Next Place
Don't buy a GM if that's the case. There is no way to remove or disable the OnStar GPS tracking system without voiding the warranty.
Isn't it comforting to know that some dipshit phone-jockey in India can unlock your doors with the press of a key? (Maybe that was a bit harsh, the call centre may not be India after all)
Reverend Blair said:
Don't buy a GM if that's the case. There is no way to remove or disable the OnStar GPS tracking system without voiding the warranty.
Isn't it comforting to know that some dipshit phone-jockey in India can unlock your doors with the press of a key? (Maybe that was a bit harsh, the call centre may not be India after all)
Re: RE: Is Canada Next Place
And a fine little motor it was too, Rev. However, fuel mileage has little to do with emissions. I'll see if I can find an index of emissions for it to compare with current six cylinder motors of similar displacement. As I understand it from Transport Canada, there is no comparison; the emissions output of the older engines, particularly as it relates to NOX and CMOX are a multiple of current emissions. However, your skepticism is warranted until I can establish my facts.
Coaster
Reverend Blair said:
And a fine little motor it was too, Rev. However, fuel mileage has little to do with emissions. I'll see if I can find an index of emissions for it to compare with current six cylinder motors of similar displacement. As I understand it from Transport Canada, there is no comparison; the emissions output of the older engines, particularly as it relates to NOX and CMOX are a multiple of current emissions. However, your skepticism is warranted until I can establish my facts.
Coaster
Canucklehead: Your fears are unfounded. According to one of GM's recent ONStar ads, one of the call centres is in Canada. On the other hand, buying a GM car is a risk of another kind.
Coaster
Coaster
I got the wife a 05 cavallier and the plug in for the transponder is built right in you can see it if you know where to look.All cars built since 2000 have the plug in .Its coming whether we like it or not .Why else would they be putting them in?
Re: RE: Is Canada Next Place
Rev: I have been having problems finding definitive data on engine emissions for older cars. However, the Colorada State Motor Vehicle agency has a website which details allowable emissions for automobiles from 1982 through 2005. The standards speak for themselves:
Maximum Carbon Dioxide 4.5 ('82) vs 2.0 ('05)
Maximum Hydrocarbons 4.0 vs 1.2
Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide 8.0 vs 3.0
As you can see, the improvments are significant. Interestingly, there was a comment on air pollution in Vancouver recently that indicated the largest source of air pollution on the coast is from oceangoing shipping; ahead of either automobiles or industry.
Coaster
Reverend Blair said:
Rev: I have been having problems finding definitive data on engine emissions for older cars. However, the Colorada State Motor Vehicle agency has a website which details allowable emissions for automobiles from 1982 through 2005. The standards speak for themselves:
Maximum Carbon Dioxide 4.5 ('82) vs 2.0 ('05)
Maximum Hydrocarbons 4.0 vs 1.2
Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide 8.0 vs 3.0
As you can see, the improvments are significant. Interestingly, there was a comment on air pollution in Vancouver recently that indicated the largest source of air pollution on the coast is from oceangoing shipping; ahead of either automobiles or industry.
Coaster
Wetcoast40 said:
Arrrrggggggghhhh, ahem, sorry, i feel better now. Too many of my friends have been taken advantage of in American call centres based in Canada if even a fraction of their bitching is true. But that's a whole other thread.
Transponders should never ever be an involuntary accessory on one's car :evil: On the other hand, there will always be ways around them for those of us who prefer not to feel like a rat in a maze.
Those are allowable emissions, not actual. They allow more emissions from older cars because high mileage causes them to burn oil, have fouled spark plugs, etc. Older vehicles are also more likely to have large engines. Mine isn't high mileage (only 110,000kms) and it doesn't burn oil. It has a catalytic converter in place and a working emissions cannister.
Another little bit of reality...Trucks do not have to meet the same emissions standards as cars, so a new truck would be measured by a different set of numbers than you have presented.
Theres no way around them in the states Head!They are putting in Cameras and the deal is if you don't take a transponder they will charge you double through the cameras.Thats what there doing in Oregon plus there offering a cute rate for those that jump on board right away
I think we're talking two different things here. I meant the OnStar GPS units. A bit of properly placed wire mesh should cut the signal (can't think of the proper material used though).
As for transponders used within a limited distance of toll booths, that's different. They use cameras here, also at a higher rate, for the 407 toll road around Toronto. Transponders are used by the commuters but I haven't a clue how often, or how far, one must travel per month to make it cheaper than the camera billing method.
edit: I've also heard plate covers exist that effectively block camera shots, but I imagine the fine for being caught with one is rather hefty and not worth the trouble.
As for transponders used within a limited distance of toll booths, that's different. They use cameras here, also at a higher rate, for the 407 toll road around Toronto. Transponders are used by the commuters but I haven't a clue how often, or how far, one must travel per month to make it cheaper than the camera billing method.
edit: I've also heard plate covers exist that effectively block camera shots, but I imagine the fine for being caught with one is rather hefty and not worth the trouble.
Yea I saw those around here when we first got photo radar I heard they worked to .I don't no what the fine was for getting with one
Maximum Carbon Dioxide 4.5 ('82) vs 2.0 ('05)
Maximum Hydrocarbons 4.0 vs 1.2
Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide 8.0 vs 3.0 [/quote]
Those are allowable emissions, not actual. They allow more emissions from older cars because high mileage causes them to burn oil, have fouled spark plugs, etc. .
Another little bit of reality...Trucks do not have to meet the same emissions standards as cars,
Rev, I forgot to mention that the statistics are all based on 50,000 mile 'aging'. I can assure you, the representative differences between 1982 and now are accurate for comaparison purposes.
The truck issue is a different kettle of fish. Manufacturers have been declaring their SUV's as trucks to dodge the tighter regulations for cars. With the price of gas sailing over a dollar CDN, it may change the thought processes of both the manufacturers and the buyers. I hope!
Coaster
Maximum Hydrocarbons 4.0 vs 1.2
Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide 8.0 vs 3.0 [/quote]
Those are allowable emissions, not actual. They allow more emissions from older cars because high mileage causes them to burn oil, have fouled spark plugs, etc. .
Another little bit of reality...Trucks do not have to meet the same emissions standards as cars,
Rev, I forgot to mention that the statistics are all based on 50,000 mile 'aging'. I can assure you, the representative differences between 1982 and now are accurate for comaparison purposes.
The truck issue is a different kettle of fish. Manufacturers have been declaring their SUV's as trucks to dodge the tighter regulations for cars. With the price of gas sailing over a dollar CDN, it may change the thought processes of both the manufacturers and the buyers. I hope!
Coaster
RE: Is Canada Next Place
I don't believe they are the same, Wetcoast...at least not in the way that you mean. If less gas is used there are less emissions. It doesn't matter if you are burning a puddle of gas on the ground or burning it in an engine.
That is the strength of the slant 6. It sips fuel at an incredibly low rate...slower than the fuel-injected v-6's of today. It has no power...acheiving the speed limit on the highway is kind of theoretical, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make since it gets used mostly for hauling dirt and lumber and garbage.
If you were comparing equal engines...say a 1982 318 and a 2002 318...I'd agree with you. The slant 6 has been replaced by less fuel efficient, more powerful v-configuration engines though.
I don't believe they are the same, Wetcoast...at least not in the way that you mean. If less gas is used there are less emissions. It doesn't matter if you are burning a puddle of gas on the ground or burning it in an engine.
That is the strength of the slant 6. It sips fuel at an incredibly low rate...slower than the fuel-injected v-6's of today. It has no power...acheiving the speed limit on the highway is kind of theoretical, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make since it gets used mostly for hauling dirt and lumber and garbage.
If you were comparing equal engines...say a 1982 318 and a 2002 318...I'd agree with you. The slant 6 has been replaced by less fuel efficient, more powerful v-configuration engines though.
Well Rev, try as I might, I can't find mileage or emissions data for the '82 Slant Six. If anyone reading this has a source, I would be delighted to follow up. I am, however, confident that a current engine of similar displacement (Daimler-Chrysler made) would be significantly cleaner than the '82 version. It doesn't just relate to mileage, but the ability to limit emission and that isn't a 'straight line equation'.
The Chrysler Slant Six was made from '59 through '86 although it ceased to be used in passenger automobiles in '83. In other words, Rev, you have one of the last of the breed. Probably a single throat carb with 225cu in displacement and 145 hp. No firebreather, but like most in-line sixes, dead smooth and dead reliable. You might lose the car, but based on all the separate web-sites dedicated to slant sixes, you might want to keep the motor.
Coaster
PS: I found a reference that indicated the old '67 Dodge Polara with 170 cu in Slant Six could get 30 mpg (US) on a good day, downhill with a tailwind.
C
The Chrysler Slant Six was made from '59 through '86 although it ceased to be used in passenger automobiles in '83. In other words, Rev, you have one of the last of the breed. Probably a single throat carb with 225cu in displacement and 145 hp. No firebreather, but like most in-line sixes, dead smooth and dead reliable. You might lose the car, but based on all the separate web-sites dedicated to slant sixes, you might want to keep the motor.
Coaster
PS: I found a reference that indicated the old '67 Dodge Polara with 170 cu in Slant Six could get 30 mpg (US) on a good day, downhill with a tailwind.
C
More big brother in your car
http://infowars.com/articles/bb/speed_cams_can_talk_to_track_you_down.htm
http://infowars.com/articles/bb/speed_cams_can_talk_to_track_you_down.htm
I get 25 in a full-sized truck with or with out a load. If it's heavy it just won't go faster, so the mileage remains the same. Classic trade-off.
It's not just displacement though. We've been trained to think that, but it isn't true. The old motors, and the slant six is really the last of the breed, just wouldn't do more. You can pour gallons of gas down its throat, but there's no more there. Make the load heavier, it slows down. Try to push it and it coughs and says, "No, thanks." It's the other side of efficiency. Nobody ever talks about that anymore because we're addicted to speed.
If Chrysler were to build a modern version of the engine, it would be cleaner. They aren't about to though.
My buddy used to have an old 390 3 speed Ford pickup .That truck used to go forever on a tank of gas.The thing would just jug away barely turning any rpms it was amazing you could start in 3 from a dead stop.It was no speed demon though but great on gas