Bureau of Automotive Repair Flier

[leosnake]

I just got in the mail a BULLSHIT ad from B.A.R. ...It has "Drive healthy for California" ...with a partial image an orange 4 door emitting black ballons from the tailpipe!

They should of taken a photo of commercial truck or something that really pollutes but not a DATSUN!!:mad:

[ariascarlos1990]

I just got in the mail a BULLSHIT ad from B.A.R. ...It has "Drive healthy for California" ...with a partial image an orange 4 door emitting black ballons from the tailpipe!

They should of taken a photo of commercial truck or something that really pollutes but not a DATSUN!!:mad:

 

Thats funny post a picture of it..

[zerow]

Amen Brother. They had the billboard with the B-210 up around here for a while. Profiling? The B-210 is smog exempt for two of the four years of its run here in CA! Do Some Research!

I say go after the idiots with the newer cars that have expired tags. Watch while on the freeway, you'll see plenty of them. To the Governator: Get your money that way. :fu:

[gokiburix]

here...taken from the website:

 

:fu:

[datzenmike]

I just got in the mail a BULLSHIT ad from B.A.R. ...It has "Drive healthy for California" ...with a partial image an orange 4 door emitting black ballons from the tailpipe!

They should of taken a photo of commercial truck or something that really pollutes but not a DATSUN!!:mad:

 

That's not as funny as you helped pay for it. :fu: :lol:

[Jesse C.]

Well, thank the Global Warming craze for this and a Goverment being run by fucking idiots!

 

So, next time you Vote, make it matter!

 

Global Warming is a HOAX!

[DanielC]

I would suggest that an older Datsun getting 35-40 miles per gallon emits less pollution per mile than a newer car not getting as good fuel mileage.

[datzenmike]

I don't know if mileage equates to less pollution or not, but I would want the car with better mileage.

[zerow]

I don't know if mileage equates to less pollution or not, but I would want the car with better mileage.

 

I say that everyday. If the thing gets 30+ MPG, but has a little smoke, it has to be a whole lot better than the car or truck with 12 MPG and no smoke. Who has the bigger impact on the environment?

 

Its like having a date with a girl who eats a lot and puts out and a date with girl who eats less and does the same thing, I would rather keep the cheaper date.

[ggzilla]

New Ford or Chevy sedan that gets 20 mpg pollutes a whole lot less than a Datsun 510. Most of the pollution in old Datsuns is evaporative emissions.

[DanielC]

Starting in 1971 Datsuns had evaporative emission controls on them.

As far as polluting more or less, depends on how you measure pollution. As a percentage of exhaust gas, new cars run cleaner. Measure grams of Co, co2, NOX or hydrocarbons per mile, and I would still suggest that if you can travel 40 miles on a gallon of gas in an older vehicle, or you travel 40 miles on two gallons of gas in a newer vehicle, the older vehicle is polluting less.

If an engine is running efficiently, it is using about 14 parts of air for every part of gasoline. With all the modern controls that are on an engine, that does not change. Tha modern engine is way easier to keep at that optimum, but a well tuned 1200 engine in a B210, with good rings is still going to be a very clean method of transportation.

 

Never mind the environmental cost of making a new car, or the issues of mining the heavy metals that are needed to make the batteries in a modern hybrid.

Edited December 30, 2009 by DanielC

[HRH]

I just sent the following email to Russ Heimerich, who had an email address listed off the BAR site. I'm guessing he's a representative or something. Anyway, I doubt it will do anything, but hey, squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

Hi Russ,

 

It seems you're using an image of a Datsun 610 four door in your drive healthy campaign. May I ask why? I could think of several examples that polluted much more, even during the 70's when they were introduced. Why not an air-cooled VW bug? Or better yet, how about a '73 Chevy? Oh wait, no, everyone loves Chevy, even though a classic like that is more likely to be seen bellowing smoke from 5.7 liters of displacement vs. the 2.0 liters of the 610.

 

I don't even live in California, but this was brought up on a forum and it seems Datsuns have been unfairly picked on, when the reality is like many careful owners, people with old Datsuns still have them running because they already rebuilt the engine to brand new, and the cars last well over 200,000 miles if properly maintained. Not to mention it takes no new steel or manufacturing to drive a car that was made 40 years ago, thus no new carbon footprint, unlike the grotesque Prius, which is undoubtedly worse long term for the environment than the humble Datsun.

 

In short, stop portraying inexpensive, economical, classic Datsuns as evil polluters. Find a new, more appropriate whipping boy.

 

Sincerely, Matt Albertson

Washington State Resident

[lynchfourtwenty]

good call matt, fuck that guy lol

[leosnake]

Matt Albertson...The image of the Datsun is of a 4 door B210!

But I applaud your efforts in contacting the B.A.R.

[HRH]

Matt Albertson...The image of the Datsun is of a 4 door B210!

But I applaud your efforts in contacting the B.A.R.

 

 

Ahhhh, dammit!!! It looked like a 610 rear window cut to me, my bad. Oh well, the point's been made I suppose, although now it pisses me off even more. WTF, bag on the 1.4 liter? (or 1.2,3?) Hell, you could run that thing full rich and it still wouldn't have enough gas to power a Chevy 350!

[ohpyramids]

i only get 10mpg, but you can blame it on the mazda heart. apparently an rx-7 would have been a better poster child! Even a wrangler! In 2007 i walked past a chrysler dealership every day to work. constantly amazed that a brand new wrangler got only 14mpg! id buy american if it didnt suck. :rolleyes: