LOL! I love Bugle's:
Bugle wrote:.... to cheat emission tests..
Not that I want to hijack, and not that it's something I am in to - meaning I have never had reason to investigate air pumps etc (all my road vehicles are pre-1973 ADR)...
But I
had thought that the pump actually lessened emissions rather than converting emissions. I know that is the same thing, but maybe it's best explained by my anti-emissions view at the time.
When emission legislation first appeared, many systems were add-ons, eg charcoal canisters, air pumps, retarding ignition by 3°, etc.
I felt that was a waste since it decreased fuel economy and performance. Essentially it meant more exhaust gases per
mile albethey better (ie, less CO and NOx).
It was understandable at the time since manufacturers could not change their engine designs overnight.
Since then however the proper "front end" engineering has occurred - ie, better combustion efficiency, sealed fuel and breather systems, etc. And EFI has added to that through its dynamic compensation of fuel-air mixtures and delivery matching to engine loads & RPM (unlike chokes and
pedal to the metal on carby systems).
I do wonder if a true unrestrained market would have beaten legislation to emission standards, but vested interests exempted that (eg, the plethora of other fuel savers etc that were bough and shelved; GM preventing GMH from developing (mechanical) fuel injection in 1957).
Nevertheless I found Bugle's "
cheating" comment amusing - though in hindsight it's probably not so funny. IMO it is a valid description no matter how it is viewed - other than the bottom line where it did reduce the targeted hazardous emissions (though now we add CO2 to that list even though its hazard was known and predicted in the 1800s and observed as early as 1976).
Alas such descriptions - or even "
bullshit" - can be applied to so many things these days. Luckily - or sadly - most people don't seem to realise...
Not that I meant to hijack, nor get (socially) political...
IZU069 - ISUZU means a lot to me.