>Wrong-o. They do put out more emissions than new cars, but if one follows
>the advice you gave above, the difference is small. 600ppm HC is tiny compared
>to, say, a smoking clunker. Or even compared to spilling some gas when you
>fill up.

I stand corrected.  Properly maintained older cars aren't that bad,
especially compared to untuned clunkers or (ARGH!!!!!!!) leaf blowers.

>As long as we poor oldie-buffs are willing to keep our "horrible" cars in
>first-class shape, I hope you will find it in your heart to allow us
>to do our thing, since in fact we are hurting nothing.

Okay!  I admit I love seeing an old breadloaf going down the highway.  (And
I suspect that they're emissions saints compared to those huge old boats
some people drive.)

>P.S. Might I predict that, 20 years from now, people such as yourself will
>be screaming about those "horrible" 1995 cars, which pollute 10 times as
>much as their new 2015-year models? It's reasonable to expect that that 
>ratio will be true by then. But the '95s will be polluting the same amount
>as they do now. You'd better junk yours now, to avoid being "horrible to 
>the environment". There's always bicycles.   ;)

You're probably right, though I'll be screaming about people who are
petrochemical burners and haven't yet gone electric. :-)

I have to point out that in 2015 we'll probably have 10 times as many cars
on the road.  Any emissions cuts count.

Ron
--                                       
Ron 'Coyote' Lussier         /\_/\      ____             Chaco Communications
(408) 865-0657              (     )     \ _/__        10164 Parkwood Drive #8
coyote@chaco.com             \   /       \X  /       Cupertino, CA 95014-1533
(1990 VW Westfalia Camper)    \_/          \/    http://www.chaco.com/~coyote