I’m happy for you. But because there’s one that even meets the new requirements doesn’t mean 100,000 could be manufactured to meet the new requirements. Yours is apparently the statistical anomaly.
I thought there were a wheel borrow full of threads because this old truck failed.
Pretty sure your car meets SERVICE limits, and that the manufacturers have to comply with different, more stringent DESIGN limits.
Be realistic, please
Your truck only has to pass the 1987 emissions standards
You know darn well that if Toyota tried to market a 2017 model year truck with a carb, there’s no way in ____ it would meet the emissions standards of now
Your truck doesn’t meet the new standards . . . don’t try to pretend otherwise
When you go to a smog test, your truck is being tested as a 1987 Toyota truck
Its accelerator pump leaked, which caused it to idle high, which caused it to fail the emissions test. Once I re-built the carburetor the engine has spec compression and everything else works well. That’s not failure. The idle had been higher than spec, but not too high for NM to fail it, for 10 years. I should have paid attention and fixed it then. I’m lazy.
I don’t know what you mean.
Mr @the_same_mountainbik wrote [quote]It’s pretty much impossible to meet modern EPA emissions regulations with a carburetor.
It meets state requirements, not necessarily EPA regulations
I know that. I looked at the standards for new cars, not the standards on my test results, when I made that claim. On the occasion of my first test, in California in 1997, I noticed that it met the standards for cars (not pickups, which have weaker standards) all the way to 2012, the most-distant year in the regs back then.
That is the way that it works.
I didn’t write that my truck met the state’s standards for it, I wrote that my truck met the state’s standards for a new car. They aren’t secrets. I looked up the law.
If it is also a manual transmission it is nearly “theft proof” now days.
I suspect no longer offered is being confused with illegal.
Plus manual emissions control.
I suspect you don’t understand the difference between de jure and de facto. Extremely strict emissions requirements have made carbs de facto illegal.
Sadly not my experience. 4 years ago thieves stole it, kept it for a week, left it abandoned too far away for me to get there before the tow truck, so I had to pay $300 to get it back. Thieves left behind another Toyota pickup (much newer & nicer! Cops wouldn’t let me keep it in exchange.) Pickup had registrations of 3 different cars in it when I picked it up. Since then I’ve removed a necessary part that a thief probably doesn’t carry around, keep it inside.
The proof is that accidents didn’t shoot up when states raised their speed limits again.
I don’t think the government actually made catalytic converters mandatory either. They are just a means to the end of meeting emission standards. Honda avoided using catalytic converters for a while by using a super lean burn CVCC engine.
The problem is when the speed limit is set to a speed other than the design speed of the road. In other words, engineers should be setting speed limits, not layman politicians.
There should be no state default or maximum speed limits. Each road should have a speed limit set that makes the design speed of the road a legal speed. When the speed limit does not match the design speed, the larger speed differential on the road causes more crashes.
Democrats overdesign the road and then set the speed limit 10 to 20 mph under the design speed, and think they made a safer road.
The speed limit was not determined by either engineers or politicians, but by insurance adjusters wanting to limit payouts on lawsuits against the government.
Elderly members of the legislator who don’t like to drive fast.
Designing residential streets to a higher speed standard so the fire engines the municipality has can be driven on them.
The real problem is tailgating, not absolute speed. The tailgater causes the driver ahead to make mistakes, causing an off-the-road accident.
I dunno. In Minnesota we have a tug of war between metro people and non-metro. The folks in the metro areas could care less about a higher interstate speed, but when you get outside the big cities, it is important.
Blame legislators for wacky speed limits:
Many states have laws requiring all roads within city limits be set to 30 mph or below, and requiring an expensive traffic study to set a higher speed limit.
Too many municipalities annex country roads into the city to be able to annex tax-revenue-producing properties that are at the ends of those roads.
Most Democrats have the erroneous belief that slower is always safer.
Too many police officers write “speed” as the cause in the report of an accident with no obvious cause.
Too many municipalities set and enforce speed limits that are too low because instruments (e.g. RADAR) are available to get more ticket revenue with lower court costs.
I suspect you don’t understand the actual meaning of my comment. I will return to the OP’s comment and attempt to explain.
Carburetors have basically been illegal for (newly manufactured) automobiles since 1990.
I suspect (carburetors) no longer (being) offered (in most newly manufactured vehicles since 1990) is being confused with illegal.
I suspect you don’t understand the difference between de jure (lawful) and de facto (in fact). Extremely strict emissions requirements have made carbs (being installed in recently manufactured vehicles) de facto (in fact) illegal.
Carburetors were commonly used to mix fuel and air in internal combustion powered motor vehicle until electronic fuel injection started becoming more commonly used and was discovered to be much more efficient in meeting increasingly stricter emissions standards. Carburetors had virtually disappeared in newly manufactured vehicles by 1990. My comment addressed the fact that many carburetors exist in still operational vehicles manufactured prior to 1990 and stocked by parts stores for repairs. Carburetors are not illegal.
Well, no kidding! Nobody has suggested that older cars aren’t “grandfathered.” (Although, it should be noted that California (or course!) has ex post facto required older Diesel commercial vehicles be retrofitted to more modern standards…just meeting the standards in place at time of manufacture isn’t enough.)
Not only is this a clear-cut abuse of the “commerce clause” of the US Constitution (i.e. Cali has no lawful right to regulate out-of-staters transiting the state in interstate trucking)…but the “precedence” nature of law means that…if allowed to stand…there’d be no legal precedent against some day applying such ex post facto standards to private vehicles. (As I say, “They came for the over-the-road truckers, and I said nothing, as I was not an OTR trucker.”)