On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 11:15:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Exactly what are you trying to say??? My reply was to say there were
many instances of people - hobbyists and mechanics alike, screwing
with emmission controls in an attempt to defeat them and get better
mileage and power, and getting (usually) neither.


"Many instances" in a country of 320 mil people and God knows how many cars
doesn't impress me. I say it's still an insignificant percentage
of the cars out there. All the people I know, not a single one has
done it. And if they can do it and are that determined, they can
surely undo it once every two years to get the car through the
inspection that is being advocated to prevent it.





Nowhere did I even suggest any of that had any positive effect on
emmission reductions. What "laighable ignorance" are you talking
about???
Of course it was " unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, multiport fuel
injection and overall drive train computer management (MAF, MAP, IAT
... sensors, among others) of HUNDREDS of millions of cars replacing
the archaic Kettering ignition, centrifugal spark advance, coil
choke-manifold vacuum-non linear venturi based carbureted engines"
that made the difference. Where did I ever suggest otherwize??

Or are you saying the emission control inspections were not
instrumental in reducing emmissions?

I'd like to see the proof for that. Changes in car/engine design
over decades has greatly reduced emissions. I've never seen anything
that shows that inspections made any significant or more importantly,
cost effective reduction.