Uncle Sam vs The Smog Monster
By Tom Shaw (Editor of Muscle Car Review) originally published in the Feb/Mar 1996 issue of Muscle Car Review.
It started in 1961- for a good cause. California's first "smog" law required new cars to have a PCV system to burn crankcase vapors instead of venting them into the atmosphere. True to the adage "As California goes, so goes the automobile," by 1963 all cars were PCV equipped. In '66, new cars bound for the Golden State had to have hydrocarbon (unburned fuel) emissions less then 275 parts per million (PPM), and 1.5% carbon monoxide. Chrysler used a lean calibrated carb and retarded idle timing. Ford, AMC, and Gm used a Saginaw-developed open air pump to drop hydrocarbon emissions from around 575(PPM) to the 200-210 range. By January 1, 1968 most new cars got what came to be affectionately known as "smog pumps".
It was the beginning of a 35 year wave of government mandates forcing the American automobile to clean up its act. And it needed cleaning up. Now after 35 years of clean air laws we're seeing the payoff. The Los Angeles basin, perhaps the most problematic area in the country, just had its cleanest year on record. 1992 EPA reports show highway vehicle emissions falling sharply, continuing a trend that started around 1980. EPA projects even fewer emissions through the turn of the century. Thats good.
What's not good is the army of agencies created to clean up our air is moving toward levels of regulation against both new and old cars that are unreasonable and ineffective. The vast regulatory machine has spent three decades at war with the automobile. Any soldier will tell you that even after victory, feeling of animosity toward the enemy don't change overnight.
I believe that the passenger car is about as cleaned up as it can practically get. You can only squeeze a car so hard. You reach a point where you try harder and harder, but accomplish less and less real improvement in air quality for your efforts and money.
I submit that it is time for the EPA to declare victory over the tailpipe and move on to more meaningful conquest. Consider: leaded fuel is gone. The big 400-455 V8s that once guzzled it have been replaced by V6s in the 200-250 range. V8s and V6's have been replaced by 6s and 4s that burn many times cleaner. Tires that once lasted 10,000 miles now last 80,000. Cars are machines that burn fuel and demand oil and will never be spottlessly clean. There is a price to pay for the lifestyle of freedom and convenience that the automobile allows. We've reduced that price a great deal, but the internal combustion automobile isn't going to get much cleaner.
Yet the "environmental industrial complex," to adapt Eisenhower's term, continues on the march, in the name of its good cause.
In New Jersey, fax lines are burning up with the alarming news of a new law (SCS-1700) that will result in the confiscation of 90% of vintage musclecars. The reported scenario goes like this: Sweeping new emissions standards fail almost all older cars. Because of emissions non-compliance, registration will be rescinded in 45 days, and existing zoning laws prohibiting storage of unregistered cars in a residential area. Violations are subject t oimpound, hence failing the impossible emissions test sets in motion a domino effect that ultimately allows seizure of most privately owned musclecars from owners' driveways or even locked garages.
I called Govenor Whitman's office to inquire and was told by the deputy press secretary and DOT spokesperson that the law allows exemptions for older vehicles, and that the fax is getting folks all revved up over nothing. The DOT declined an opportunity to refute the fax in print. SEMA is still looking into the matter.
But what happened in California is no false alarm. There, for the first time, crusher programs will be funded by tax dollars! "It's not one manufacturer versus another anymore," says SEMA's Frank Bohanan. "It's the government versus you." Sad, but too true. The cars that you and I see as American classics, the crusaders see as "mobile source polluters" The man who's a heartbeat away from the presidency wrote of wanting to"...accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period."
Environmentalism is held up as the "good cause" for which we are supposed to surrender our freedom of choice, property rights, and common sense. But what oppresion/outrage/atrocity isn't commited in the of a good cause? Will it be necessary to scrap/crush/recycle our constitution for this cause too? Our rights are not to be surrendered piece by piece for even a good cause. Our rights are the good cause.
I believe in responsible stewardship of our natural resources, but not environmental extremism. Our musclecars are a part of our heritage and should be enjoyed, celebrated and protected, not criminalized and censored. Usually, these kinds of stories end with a call to write a letter to your representitives, but I don't believe that approach is hitting home so I'm throwing the question out to you- what can we do, cruise Pennsylvania Avenue? cles. The following brief discussion attempts to put these matters into perspective, as the U.S. and other nations prepare to implement the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change signed at Rio in June 1992.