Tigers List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Thomas Witt" <(email redacted)>

>>>And the Mustang II has the last laugh ...<
>>>Can you even find one in a wreaking yard anymore.?<<<

As someone who uses Mustang II's for source parts for my Turbo Pinto
conversion the answer is - yes. The So. Cal. Pick A Part type yards have
anywhere from 1-3 most times. The most common item removed is the 8" rearend
as it has the narrowest of the stock configuration.

Being they were the first heavily smogged Mustangs they got a bad rap. Also,
being built on the Pinto platform (and engine in lesser form) didn't help
(though the early Mustangs being built on the Falcon platform didn't hurt).
Tom


Checked by AVG - avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 8/27/2008 7:01 AM
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Rense, Mark (GE Indust, ConsInd)" <(email redacted)>

Ah, the early '70's and the Mustang II. I was in college and driving a
V-6 Capri at the time and test drove the new 1974 Mustang II Mach I, it
was almost embarrassing how slow it was compared to my 140 hp
English/German hybrid even though it shared the same engine. I guess the
Mustang II King Cobra with its anemic 302 was a little better, but only
after you trashed all the EPA and Ralph Nader crap. Or do as Jere did
and swap out the whole drive train.

Man, the '70's were pitiful for us car guys, no wonder I switched to
motorcycles for the "need for speed" rush...

Bugz

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Witt
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:59 PM
To: (email redacted)
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers and lack of discussion (Mustang II'S)

Being they were the first heavily smogged Mustangs they got a bad rap.
Also, being built on the Pinto platform (and engine in lesser form)
didn't help (though the early Mustangs being built on the Falcon
platform didn't hurt).
Tom
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Many of the early 70 General Motors cars helped meet the new emission
standards by not allowing vacuum advance in the first 2 gears (3 speed standard).
They has a solenoid in the vacuum line that only opened when you shifted into
3 rd gear. Also on the 6 cyl. that I was familiar with they had changed the
timing from 8 before to 2 degrees.
Well, a piece of rubber hose to by pass the solenoid and a change of the
timing back to the old setting and the 'in town" mileage went from 10 mpg to 16.
I could never figure out the science behind that technical madness. How
could there be less pollution if someone was using 50% more gas;-) Thankfully
they have overcome the problems. We now have pretty darn good gas mileage
and create very little pollution.
mark



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "William Lau" <(email redacted)>

This is exactly what I am talking about; Government mandating something that
even ordinary hot rodders know is wrong and deficient. All of the tanks
that people drove in the 60' and before got 20 miles to the gallon and
everything after about '72 got ten. The science to that madness is that the
government people may have given a mandate that was faulty and deficient but
they sure felt good about doing it even if they knew it would be wrong. It
is kind of like Chrysler buying Rootes to make Tigers with their engine and
then finding out it won't fit. Why didn't they ask some 16 year old hot rod
kid. He could have told them. Y2K----Global Cooling--- uhhh global warming
anyone. -- Bill --


Many of the early 70 General Motors cars helped meet the new emission
standards by not allowing vacuum advance in the first 2 gears (3 speed
standard).
They has a solenoid in the vacuum line that only opened when you shifted
into
3 rd gear. Also on the 6 cyl. that I was familiar with they had changed
the
timing from 8 before to 2 degrees.
Well, a piece of rubber hose to by pass the solenoid and a change of the
timing back to the old setting and the 'in town" mileage went from 10 mpg
to 16.
I could never figure out the science behind that technical madness. How
could there be less pollution if someone was using 50% more gas;-)
Thankfully
they have overcome the problems. We now have pretty darn good gas mileage
and create very little pollution.
mark
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Frank P. Marrone" <(email redacted)>

I think the idea was to reduce a target component of emissions. NOx I think
but I'm not looking it up. For a few years in California you had to install
a NOx 'kit" in certain vehicles. These all reduced ignition timing under
various conditions. The cheapest one I ever saw consisted of plugs for the
vacuum advance hose and a sticker for the speedometer that cautioned against
driving over 55 MPH (or something like that). Back then the HC limits were
pretty loose. There was definitely a trade off made to reduce certain
pollutants while allowing some others to increase.

Frank



> -----Original Message-----
> From: tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)
> [mailto:tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)] On Behalf
> Of (email redacted)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:25 PM
> To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers and lack of discussion (Mustang II'S)
>
> Many of the early 70 General Motors cars helped meet the new emission
> standards by not allowing vacuum advance in the first 2 gears (3 speed
> standard).
> They has a solenoid in the vacuum line that only opened when you shifted
> into
> 3 rd gear. Also on the 6 cyl. that I was familiar with they had changed
> the
> timing from 8 before to 2 degrees.
> Well, a piece of rubber hose to by pass the solenoid and a change of the
> timing back to the old setting and the 'in town" mileage went from 10 mpg
> to 16.
> I could never figure out the science behind that technical madness. How
> could there be less pollution if someone was using 50% more gas;-)
> Thankfully
> they have overcome the problems. We now have pretty darn good gas
> mileage
> and create very little pollution.
> mark
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Thomas Witt" <(email redacted)>

>>>I think the idea was to reduce a target component of emissions. NOx I
>>>think... There was definitely a trade off made to reduce certain
pollutants while allowing some others to increase.<<<

That is pretty much it - back then. I can remember the guy at the gas
station smogging my first car back in 1976 (Datsun 510). He would turn the
idle mixture screw and as one level (CO I think - maybe NOX???) went up the
HC would go down and visa versa. The agony was that even at the most
balanced setting one or both were still out of range. :-(

From my understanding the HC can go up if you are too lean. Seems strange,
but apparently there is not enough fuel to adaquately burn the mixture. That
unburned fuel from the lean condition creates high HC reading.

One thing that people often say is to put Premium fuel in the car before the
test. Some indicate it is an old wives tale. Since NOX is typically formed
from a combustion chamber that is too hot there might be something to it on
a car that has high NOX levels. If the Premium lessens the liklihood of
pinging under load I would think that NOX could possibly be lowered in a
marginally failing car.

Something else to remember is that the smog laws typically require an
unmaintained car to pass even after 10's of 1,000's of miles. Thus, I'm sure
they have to overshoot the regulations from the start.
Tom


Checked by AVG - avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 8/27/2008 7:01 AM
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "William Lau" <(email redacted)>

It is great for someone to have an idea but you can't double the fuel usage
and expect to make less pollution because you will cause some other problem
like maybe not enough gasoline to go around and that is if the NOX went
down, which I doubt. Every few years we hear new buzz words that are going
to kill us all unless our government acts immediately. This way we are
coerced into thinking that they are necessary so we will vote for them, and
against big anything. -- Bill --


I think the idea was to reduce a target component of emissions. NOx I think
but I'm not looking it up. For a few years in California you had to install
a NOx 'kit" in certain vehicles. These all reduced ignition timing under
various conditions. The cheapest one I ever saw consisted of plugs for the
vacuum advance hose and a sticker for the speedometer that cautioned against
driving over 55 MPH (or something like that). Back then the HC limits were
pretty loose. There was definitely a trade off made to reduce certain
pollutants while allowing some others to increase.

Frank
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Frank P. Marrone" <(email redacted)>

Hey, didn't say it made sense. Just stating the facts Jack. I for one
totally agree with you.

On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm going to admit this, the EPA
regulations that started out here on the left coast in the mid-sixties
actually resulted in an irrefutable benefit for mankind. The air got
cleaner and ultimately the cost increase became low and the fun reduction
factor negligible. I'm using new car performance and emissions as my proof
of this.

Not saying I agree with the means to this ends. 20 years (1967 thru 1987)
of seemingly and actually silly regulations, 10 years (1974 thru 1984) of
cars that sucked with respect to performance and hobby-appeal, and arguably
the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance. All this because
technology had to catch up to legislation.

Frank




> -----Original Message-----
> From: tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)
> [mailto:tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)] On Behalf
> Of William Lau
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:28 PM
> To: (email redacted)
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers and lack of discussion (Mustang II'S)
>
> It is great for someone to have an idea but you can't double the fuel
> usage
> and expect to make less pollution because you will cause some other
> problem
> like maybe not enough gasoline to go around and that is if the NOX went
> down, which I doubt. Every few years we hear new buzz words that are going
> to kill us all unless our government acts immediately. This way we are
> coerced into thinking that they are necessary so we will vote for them,
> and
> against big anything. -- Bill --
>
>
> I think the idea was to reduce a target component of emissions. NOx I
> think
> but I'm not looking it up. For a few years in California you had to
> install
> a NOx 'kit" in certain vehicles. These all reduced ignition timing under
> various conditions. The cheapest one I ever saw consisted of plugs for
> the
> vacuum advance hose and a sticker for the speedometer that cautioned
> against
> driving over 55 MPH (or something like that). Back then the HC limits
> were
> pretty loose. There was definitely a trade off made to reduce certain
> pollutants while allowing some others to increase.
>
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html
>
> You are subscribed as (email redacted)
>
> (email redacted)
> autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
> team.net/archive
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Frank P. Marrone" <(email redacted)>

By the way, no I won't have to admit the same thing 20 years from now about
the elimination of lead wheel weights. I believe any benefit from the lead
wheel weight ban will always be a matter of passion, opinion and
imagination.

Frank




Hey, didn't say it made sense. Just stating the facts Jack. I for one
totally agree with you.

On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm going to admit this, the EPA
regulations that started out here on the left coast in the mid-sixties
actually resulted in an irrefutable benefit for mankind. The air got
cleaner and ultimately the cost increase became low and the fun reduction
factor negligible. I'm using new car performance and emissions as my proof
of this.

Not saying I agree with the means to this ends. 20 years (1967 thru 1987)
of seemingly and actually silly regulations, 10 years (1974 thru 1984) of
cars that sucked with respect to performance and hobby-appeal, and arguably
the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance. All this because
technology had to catch up to legislation.

Frank




> -----Original Message-----
> From: tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)
> [mailto:tigers-bounces+itswonderful=(email redacted)] On Behalf
> Of William Lau
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:28 PM
> To: (email redacted)
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers and lack of discussion (Mustang II'S)
>
> It is great for someone to have an idea but you can't double the fuel
> usage
> and expect to make less pollution because you will cause some other
> problem
> like maybe not enough gasoline to go around and that is if the NOX went
> down, which I doubt. Every few years we hear new buzz words that are going
> to kill us all unless our government acts immediately. This way we are
> coerced into thinking that they are necessary so we will vote for them,
> and
> against big anything. -- Bill --
>
>
> I think the idea was to reduce a target component of emissions. NOx I
> think
> but I'm not looking it up. For a few years in California you had to
> install
> a NOx 'kit" in certain vehicles. These all reduced ignition timing under
> various conditions. The cheapest one I ever saw consisted of plugs for
> the
> vacuum advance hose and a sticker for the speedometer that cautioned
> against
> driving over 55 MPH (or something like that). Back then the HC limits
> were
> pretty loose. There was definitely a trade off made to reduce certain
> pollutants while allowing some others to increase.
>
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html
>
> You are subscribed as (email redacted)
>
> (email redacted)
> autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
> team.net/archive
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "William Lau" <(email redacted)>

Well said,

This is probably the biggest of all of the issues. -- Bill --

You said:
and arguably the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance.






Hey, didn't say it made sense. Just stating the facts Jack. I for one
totally agree with you.

On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm going to admit this, the EPA
regulations that started out here on the left coast in the mid-sixties
actually resulted in an irrefutable benefit for mankind. The air got
cleaner and ultimately the cost increase became low and the fun reduction
factor negligible. I'm using new car performance and emissions as my proof
of this.

Not saying I agree with the means to this ends. 20 years (1967 thru 1987)
of seemingly and actually silly regulations, 10 years (1974 thru 1984) of
cars that sucked with respect to performance and hobby-appeal, and arguably
the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance. All this because
technology had to catch up to legislation.

Frank
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I lived in Montebello in the early 50's. We had an incenerator in the back
yard. There were times when you couldn't walk outside because of the smog. It
was terrible. Thank The Gods for the EPA.


In a message dated 8/27/2008 7:48:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
(email redacted) writes:

Well said,

This is probably the biggest of all of the issues. -- Bill --

You said:
and arguably the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance.






Hey, didn't say it made sense. Just stating the facts Jack. I for one
totally agree with you.

On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm going to admit this, the EPA
regulations that started out here on the left coast in the mid-sixties
actually resulted in an irrefutable benefit for mankind. The air got
cleaner and ultimately the cost increase became low and the fun reduction
factor negligible. I'm using new car performance and emissions as my proof
of this.

Not saying I agree with the means to this ends. 20 years (1967 thru 1987)
of seemingly and actually silly regulations, 10 years (1974 thru 1984) of
cars that sucked with respect to performance and hobby-appeal, and arguably
the beginning of the end for US automotive dominance. All this because
technology had to catch up to legislation.

Frank
You are subscribed as (email redacted)

(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive





**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net team.net/donate.html


(email redacted)
autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

team.net/archive