At 21:21 14/07/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Wagner Lipnharski <wagnerl@EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
>> Other point:  I read in some sport car's magazine, about a device that
>> reprogram your car's engine computer to increase efficience from 10 to
>> 30% and also saves fuel.  Ok, they say it reprograms the computer much
>> better than the factory does... let's see... it means that my car's
>> manufacturer did intentionally a bad programming in by car's engine
>> computer? and that they could do it better today and save gas, but they
>> choose not to do?  it means I can sue them, right?  we go back to the
>> ridiculous discussion about "When we release the new version we don't
>> care (and we will not be responsible) anymore for the previous one..."
>Please don't be offended, but do you believe everything you read?
>
>No, it means that their first priority was emissions (required by law), and
>that their second priority was fuel economy (no legal minimum, although if
>you fall below a certain level, there is a "gas guzzler" tax).
>
>Yes, there is a minimum fuel economy standard Called the CAFE standard, and
>if it was so easy to make cars more powerful and fuel efficient you wouldn't
>hear the manufactures complaining about complying.
>    It costs millions of dollars every year to meet emission standards, not
>something the car magazine people are likely to attempt.
>
>
>There are many other factors that may be involved also, such as temperature
>(of the engine, and ambient), wear, etc.  It's not as simple a decision as
>"let's make the engine inefficient to screw the customer"
>
>Absolutely, the Mitsubishi Galant failed to pass in it's original version,
>1994 model year, because of the tires it had, requiring a tire manufacture
>change, the tests the EPA uses are very elaborate and complete tests of the
>entire vehicle not just the tailpipe like some tests performed around the
>country at "Tag" time.
>Tracey DeChambeau,
>Master ASE Technician
>Master NISSAN Technician
>Master Mitsubishi Technician (expired)
>
>


Is that so!
Humm. let me see the 1988-1992 buick 3.8 litre V6 is a good example of not
caring what the emissions are!
I think that we should get back to the original artical, and ask the
question "What do you mean by 30% more efficent", and you may get the
resoponse that it is better under some rediculus high speed high reving
situation, no hard for ANYONE to reach. These adds in these types of mags
are aimed at the stuipd (Personal opinion only).
But on your basic somments I agree, I have lost large amounts of hair in
attempts to get engines and controllers operating within a manufacturing
environment at the highest possible level of efficency thoughout the engine
life and all sorts of conditions (At least we don't have to deal with long
term sub zero temperatures, and high changes in tourque requirements)

Dennis