TULSA'S WATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN!

[Red Arrow]

Probably so.  In real world, I probably wouldn't expect more than maybe 25hp.  And if it is just throttle body, maybe not that - does nothing to evne out fuel/air mix.  If direct inject, it gives much better control of fuel/air mix to individual cylinders, which can help depending on how bad things are to start.
Yeah, the other mods are gonna be the big thing...and anyone doing injection would definitely be doing that.  Else why bother?

Direct cylinder injection for gasoline engines has not been common until the last couple of years.  Sequential port (not in-cylinder) injection has been the most common for several years.

You may be interested in the links below but they are getting a bit off topic (pollution) by including seat belts.

Early PCV Valve links

http://www.caddydaddy.com/1957-1958-1959-1960-1961-1962-Cadillac-PCV-Valve-p4803.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86689488/103/HISTORY

http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=31991

The two links above appear to have the same source, used below. 

In 1952, Professor A. J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, postulated that unburned hydrocarbons were a primary constituent of smog, and that gasoline powered automobiles were a major source of those hydrocarbons. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory (Dr. LLoyd L. Withrow) it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube was a major source, (about half) of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. GM's Cadillac Division, which had built many tanks during WWII, recognized that the simple PCV valve could be used to become the first major reduction in automotive hydrocarbon emissions. After confirming the PCV valves effectiveness at hydrocarbon reduction, GM offered the PCV solution to the entire U.S. automobile industry royalty free through its trade association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA). In the absence of any legislated requirement, the AMA members agreed to put it on all California cars voluntarily in the early 1960s, with national application following one year later.

(Emphasis is mine.)

I also saw a history page on the Fram filters web site indicating they had Positive Crankcase Ventilation Valves in 1950.


Seat Belts

http://www.squarebirds.org/picture_gallery/TechnicalResourceLibrary/seatbelt_installation.htm

http://www.stnonline.com/resources/seat-belts/the-history-of-seat-belt-development

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5008257_seat-belt-law-history.html

http://www.corvettefever.com/thehistoryof/corp_0512_chevy_corvette_seatbelts/viewall.html#ixzz26P4xqODP

During the first three years of Corvette production, seatbelts were not offered. Unless someone installed a set of aftermarket seatbelts later, a truly restored '53-'55 Corvette will never have a set of factory-installed belts. Beginning in 1956 and continuing through 1957, seatbelt-anchor provisions were utilized and installed at the factory for seatbelts that were dealer installed as an accessory. The '58 Corvette was the first to come equipped with seatbelts as standard equipment.

Seatbelts were available but not too many buyers wanted them.  I don't remember if dad's 59 BelAir had them but I know his 62 did.  The lap belts in his 65 LeSabre kept his face out of the windshield in 1967.  The 59, 62, and 65 were company cars.  The family 54 Buick Special did not have seat belts but the 63 LeSabre did.  Tonight's research and finding Ford's push for seat belts in the 50s makes me surprised to have to report that my sister's 63 Falcon did not even have anchor locations for seat belts, even for the front seats.  We retrofitted front seat belts in the Falcon.   My 63 Buick Service Manual has several pages regarding installation of front and/or rear seat belts in factory provided anchors.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Direct cylinder injection for gasoline engines has not been common until the last couple of years.  Sequential port (not in-cylinder) injection has been the most common for several years.

You may be interested in the links below but they are getting a bit off topic (pollution) by including seat belts.

Early PCV Valve links

http://www.caddydaddy.com/1957-1958-1959-1960-1961-1962-Cadillac-PCV-Valve-p4803.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86689488/103/HISTORY

http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=31991

The two links above appear to have the same source, used below. 
(Emphasis is mine.)

I also saw a history page on the Fram filters web site indicating they had Positive Crankcase Ventilation Valves in 1950.


Seat Belts

http://www.squarebirds.org/picture_gallery/TechnicalResourceLibrary/seatbelt_installation.htm

http://www.stnonline.com/resources/seat-belts/the-history-of-seat-belt-development

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5008257_seat-belt-law-history.html

http://www.corvettefever.com/thehistoryof/corp_0512_chevy_corvette_seatbelts/viewall.html#ixzz26P4xqODP

Seatbelts were available but not too many buyers wanted them.  I don't remember if dad's 59 BelAir had them but I know his 62 did.  The lap belts in his 65 LeSabre kept his face out of the windshield in 1967.  The 59, 62, and 65 were company cars.  The family 54 Buick Special did not have seat belts but the 63 LeSabre did.  Tonight's research and finding Ford's push for seat belts in the 50s makes me surprised to have to report that my sister's 63 Falcon did not even have anchor locations for seat belts, even for the front seats.  We retrofitted front seat belts in the Falcon.   My 63 Buick Service Manual has several pages regarding installation of front and/or rear seat belts in factory provided anchors.

I have 95 and 97 Grand Marquis with direct cylinder injection...Crown Vic was the same.  And the Lincolns.  Many cars got some type of injection as part of effort to control emissions (by regulation).  Either type helps.

Caddy didn't have a pcv in pre-61 years.  I have worked on 54 to 59 of different models from El Dorado to Deville, and never seen one, either.  Not sure what they are advertising, unless it is for retrofit effort.  Have read that 1952 history in a couple different places over the last few years...that seems to be the most agreed to story. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Act of 1960 required study of pollution and possible control mechanisms.  California wrote the first requirements in the nation in 1961 between the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board - later combined to form CARB under Reagan.


Seatbelts
Were available as options from the mid-50s.  As you said - few bought them.  They were installed as accessory kits at the dealers mostly.  Our 57 Chevy had them, as did the 61, 65 and everything after that point - 57 and 61 were dealer installed, as was the 57 A/C unit.  It was about 65 or 66 when it finally became a regulation that ALL cars had to have them.  Decades after they were proven to be extremely effective at saving lives.  Some old Europeans from distant family tree branch said they had seat belts that were required to be installed in the 30's.  (German in laws)

Our 51 Ford had the window torpedo "A/C unit" - fancy fan system.  Not Select-Aire.... 

FRAM - bless their little pea-picking minds...(that's Southern for "they're stupid") did not actually have them back then as a standard production product.  The concept hadn't even been idealized yet...

[Red Arrow]

I have 95 and 97 Grand Marquis with direct cylinder injection...Crown Vic was the same.  And the Lincolns. 

I cannot find any info that those vintage Ford products had direct in-cylinder injection.  They do appear to have had multiport injection where each cylinder has an injector but the fuel is injected when needed near the intake valve, not in the cylinder, diesel style.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2587
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1041590_why-new-ford-v-6-and-v-8-engines-dont-have-direct-injection

Caddy didn't have a pcv in pre-61 years.  I have worked on 54 to 59 of different models from El Dorado to Deville, and never seen one, either.  Not sure what they are advertising, unless it is for retrofit effort.  Have read that 1952 history in a couple different places over the last few years...that seems to be the most agreed to story.

O'Reilly Auto Parts seems to think Caddys as early as 1957 have a PCV valve.  Click on Compatibility then click on Cadillac.
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/BWD0/PCV255/02180.oap?ck=Search_02180_1320556_-1&pt=02180&ppt=C0023

Maybe the early PCV valves were for farm equipment rather than automobiles:
http://www.farmworldonline.com/tractor/

The John Deere 60 was built from 1952-57 as an improved successor to the John Deere Model A. Two innovations introduced with the John Deere 60 were positive crankcase ventilation, which prevented formation of sludge by drawing clean air through the crankcase with an air pump; and an automatic fuel shut-off valve operated by engine oil pressure. When there was no oil pressure, the flow of fuel to the carburetor was stopped.

FRAM - bless their little pea-picking minds...(that's Southern for "they're stupid") did not actually have them back then as a standard production product.  The concept hadn't even been idealized yet...

Then I guess they decided to photoshop a product box for their website.
http://www.fram.com/enca/company/history
Click on 1950.

Seatbelts
It was about 65 or 66 when it finally became a regulation that ALL cars had to have them.

One of my previous links indicated the law was passed in 1966 which would have been to late to cover the entire 1966 model year.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I cannot find any info that those vintage Ford products had direct in-cylinder injection.  They do appear to have had multiport injection where each cylinder has an injector but the fuel is injected when needed near the intake valve, not in the cylinder, diesel style.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2587
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1041590_why-new-ford-v-6-and-v-8-engines-dont-have-direct-injection

O'Reilly Auto Parts seems to think Caddys as early as 1957 have a PCV valve.  Click on Compatibility then click on Cadillac.
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/BWD0/PCV255/02180.oap?ck=Search_02180_1320556_-1&pt=02180&ppt=C0023

Maybe the early PCV valves were for farm equipment rather than automobiles:
http://www.farmworldonline.com/tractor/Then I guess they decided to photoshop a product box for their website.
http://www.fram.com/enca/company/history
Click on 1950.
One of my previous links indicated the law was passed in 1966 which would have been to late to cover the entire 1966 model year.

Looking at the GM again, yeah, I can see the injector is at the valve...that's probably why they don't cost that much to replace...

I see O'Reilly's picture - but have never seen anything like that anywhere on one of those engines.  Plus the Caddy went away from PCV valve back about 10 years ago.  At least in Seville (will have to check the Deville) and now use what they call a metered orifice.  

And the FRAM thing is a positive crankcase ventilator - that isn't the same as a valve.  It just provides pressure relief to the crankcase and doesn't go to the air filter input.  Or feed back through the fuel system.  Chevy used a 'vent' cap on the valve covers to do pretty much the same thing.


All this information just emphasizes what I was getting at...technology that would help items related to car operation (or whatever) is NEVER voluntarily or widely adapted in a proactive fashion.  It has required a government regulation to make it happen.  That is one of the best incarnations of government and private enterprise working together (voluntary or not) to advance technology and quality of life.  What is sad is how much of it in recent years has had to come from California, then deployed to the rest of the country.

You home air conditioner - another great highly visible example.  My 1976 A/C is probably near a SEER 5.  Today, you cannot buy one less than SEER 13 for residential.  And that is going up.  California started that ball rolling, and the Fed got on board later.  Which all boils down to the fact that a new A/C today is gonna use close to 1/3 the electricity mine uses.  Thanks to Federal regulations.


Water standards are right there in the middle of it, too.  We have taken those deaths down to virtually nothing in this country.  Not too shabby.  I'll take my chances with chlorine ANY TIME over typhoid or any other water borne plague.  Public Health Rules!!!

[Red Arrow]

All this information just emphasizes what I was getting at...technology that would help items related to car operation (or whatever) is NEVER voluntarily or widely adapted in a proactive fashion.  It has required a government regulation to make it happen.  That is one of the best incarnations of government and private enterprise working together (voluntary or not) to advance technology and quality of life.  What is sad is how much of it in recent years has had to come from California, then deployed to the rest of the country.

You and I still see it slightly different.  I believe that the car companies were better about improvements in the 40s and 50s than now.  Certainly not as good as any of us would have liked but better than "NEVER".  The bean counters certainly had too much influence.  The PCV valve is an example.  It was being worked on before government mandates.  Another example is the Buick brakes in the 50s.  Long story short is the engineers were finally able to convince the bean counters that the brake system had to be upgraded to the power and weight of the cars they were selling.  Your 65 Wildcat was a beneficiary of that development.  To me, most government mandates result in the proverbial "never enough time to do it right the first time but there is always time to fix it later".   The way the government mandates automotive requirements, it would be foolish for the companies to make improvements on their own initiative.  If the car companies improve something by 50%, the government will call for an improvement of 50%.   By the time the law takes effect, the required improvement is 50% over the original 50%. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

The way the government mandates automotive requirements, it would be foolish for the companies to make improvements on their own initiative. 

Car companies made bigger fins and more color choices on their own - sales and marketing stuff.  1949 Chevy ad I saw last night was bragging about "your choice of color"...   

Brakes were definitely made bigger, as the fundamental need to actually stop 5,000 lb of steel.  Government mandates brakes, it is up to the responsible party to make sure they work.  Some early trucks had levers in the cab that you pulled to try to stop - just like the old wagons that they were modeled after.  Ancestors drove those trucks.  Some only had brake on 1 wheel!!!  How scary is that?   And carbide lamps were another thing - there were electric lights in the 1890's but the industry waited a while for that innovation.

And Honda has proven that wrong back in the 70's with their CVCC engines.

And Toyota has proven it wrong with the Prius.

They understood Deming and how continuous improvement can make a business difference.  We still haven't quite got there yet.  Many have been working on it for last couple decades, but lots of catching up to do.

[Red Arrow]

Car companies made bigger fins and more color choices on their own - sales and marketing stuff.  1949 Chevy ad I saw last night was bragging about "your choice of color"...

That's not what we are really discussing beyond the fact that if a company doesn't sell cars, they cannot make technical improvements. 

Brakes were definitely made bigger, as the fundamental need to actually stop 5,000 lb of steel.  Government mandates brakes, it is up to the responsible party to make sure they work.

They were made better in ways in addition to being bigger.  The point is that Buick recognized the problem and fixed it without being told to do so by the government.  I'll admit that it took some adamant engineers.

And carbide lamps were another thing - there were electric lights in the 1890's but the industry waited a while for that innovation.

I expect early cars were somewhat like early airplanes, lacking an electrical system to power those electric lights.

And Honda has proven that wrong back in the 70's with their CVCC engines.
And Toyota has proven it wrong with the Prius.

How do you correlate the two statements above with the one below?   Automobiles are a world market and have been for several decades.

technology that would help items related to car operation (or whatever) is NEVER voluntarily or widely adapted in a proactive fashion.

I forgot to say earlier that the car companies appear to have been at least interested in seat belts in the 50s and 60s before being required .  It was the customers that rejected seatbelts.  Even after seatbelts were required in automobiles, customers refused (some still refuse) to wear them.   Refusing to wear seatbelts is hardly the fault of the car company.   My sister-in-law didn't wear seat belts because they messed up her blouse.  My brother was finally able to convince her that more than her blouse would get messed up in an accident.

[RecycleMichael]

Is this the car care thread?

[Red Arrow]

Is this the car care thread?

It would seem that way.   

[Red Arrow]

Back to the regularly scheduled thread.

[Teatownclown]

Troll the trolls
roll away the stone...

[Conan71]

Troll the trolls
roll away the stone...

That's some funny donkey smile right there!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Is this the car care thread?

Not too much...at least give me a little credit for trying to steer back some with:

"Water standards are right there in the middle of it, too.  We have taken those deaths down to virtually nothing in this country.  Not too shabby.  I'll take my chances with chlorine ANY TIME over typhoid or any other water borne plague.  Public Health Rules!!!"


Regulation for the public health is not just an acceptable function of government, but should be a mandatory function of government.  All the wacko-anti-environmentalists aside...

[nathanm]

"Water standards are right there in the middle of it, too.  We have taken those deaths down to virtually nothing in this country.  Not too shabby.  I'll take my chances with chlorine ANY TIME over typhoid or any other water borne plague.  Public Health Rules!!!"

I upset my neighbor with the "dysentery or cancer..I'm not sure which I prefer" line when he brought up the chloramine thing. There are times I suspect he might actually be one of our more eccentric posters...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ozonation as a pre-treatment reduces the amount of chlorine or chloramine needed to safely disinfect water but it doesn't appear to be a stand-alone process for municipal drinking water.  It's also become a common disinfectant for swimming pools and commercial HVAC cooling towers.  There really are no drawbacks or safety concerns with ozone that I'm aware of.

According to this article on the L.A. Calif. water system, they say using chloramine rather than chlorine reduces the amount of THM's in the water when it's got a high content of organics which means it's less carcinogenic using chloramines.  The EPA backs this up as well.

With any sort of man-made intervention into disease prevention there is always some drawback to go along with the benefits.

Either you don't treat the water and you have diseases which will kill you in a short amount of time or you treat it with agents which may elevate cancer risk for some people.

I suspect secondary smoke ingestion is far worse than showering in chloramine-treated water.

Ozone seems to be good supplemental or spot treatment.  I remember from a previous life that there were municipalities doing that from time to time, but they depended on chlorine for the "heavy lifting".

Ultraviolet seems to be pretty good "spot" treater, too.  Don't know how it would scale up to municipal sizes.

RO can be eliminated due to massive amount of water it takes to do the process.  (RO -- reverse osmosis.)


TTC...
Still haven't heard any viable ideas....


As a review, we have to consider all aspects from effectiveness over time, versus health risks, versus cost (chemicals and equipment), versus ease of deployment, versus impact on finished water product cost.  In other words, what gives us the 'best' bang for the bucks?  It can cost more, IF there is a  benefit to be gained.

Still centers around the question; "how do we beat plain old chlorine gas injection to the finished water?"