Yeah, it's totally "ridiculous" that people want to be able to breathe without dying.
The world's first auto emissions control regulations were indeed in California...and they took effect in 1961.

Clearly you have absolutely no idea how awful the air quality was prior to effective vehicle emissions controls. That doesn't mean the laws are "idiotic" or "ridiculous", it just means you're blissfully unaware, and you have that luxury precisely because those "ridiculous" and "idiotic" regulations have thoroughly cleaned up the air to the point where it's much cleaner than it was back then, even though many more people are driving many more miles in many more cars.
The one doesn't follow from the other. There are many one-year-only, two-year-only, three-year-only parts and design features on your car. For that matter, the A-body had a 17-year-only run, so by your logic they weren't such a great idea. Pfft. C'mon, McFly, think!
Old cars are gross polluters. Each and every one of them. No amount of boasting about misunderstood emission test results changes that. It doesn't matter much, though, because there aren't enough of them left on the road to materially affect air quality. In effect, the extremely clean exhaust of new cars "subsidizes" the extremely dirty exhaust of old cars. Those are the facts; they do not require your belief.
Live with it, then. :shrug:

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Dan,no need to be so hostile,at least that's how it comes off. You're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. It's nothing personal. I didn't say anything you said was ridiculous or idiocy. Just a few of the regulations we have in California. For what it's worth I have read many of your posts before joining this site and think you are very knowledgable,I actually followed your advice about oil and filters I read here and had wanted to ask you about which air filters you think are best and what your opinion is of vintage nos mopar ones from the 70's and 80's vs the filters of today. (The older ones seem to have many more pleats but don't know if they filter as well as modern elements).
I also stated several times the same thing you just said,that there aren't enough of these cars on the road anyway to make a difference air quality wise.Obviously you love these mopars too and drive them daily instead of a modern car. We are all here because we share a love of these cars,not to argue and belittle each other. One of the reasons I didn't want to join the Abodiesonly site was because of the tendency for people to start political fights over there. This site seemed nicer and more car oriented. This is the only Internet forum I have ever joined. Im not into talking to people on the Internet,I am old fashioned that way,I guess. I figured though that this was my best shot at getting some advice on the locking cap.

This filler tube/tank design was flawed,As I understand it,the reason this tank design was scrapped was because it posed a serious fire hazard and safety threat in the event of a rear end collision,correct? according to what I read on the abodiesonly website upon impact the vent tube inside the trunk would spray gas inside the car and the dome light switch could ignite the fuel. At least that's what a mopar "expert" said over there. I have no proof one way or the other if it's true I am only stating what I read.

And yes,I do remember quite well how bad the air was back then and the smog alerts we had in the 70's. The sky was actually brown some afternoons.
I am also aware that the smog controls started in California in the early 60's,I have a plymouth that had some of them installed. What I had meant was that I was unaware that by 1970 the darts already had fuel tank vapor recovery systems,I didnt think things got to that level until 1974-75 when the catalytic converters and air pumps,etc came along.

I am all for clean air,but the smog control devices then were primitve and they hadn't gotten to a point where they worked efficiently.Now as vintage collector cars,things like this special gas cap become problems to overcome because they experimented with something and it didnt work out and was only around for one and a half years. these cars no longer even have to be smogged but I still am keeping it stock and not altering the ecs setup,right? So obviously I want it to still meet the emissions standards of the day. What I Was complaining about and referring to as "ridiculous"and "idiocy"is that we have a tendency these days to take things too far today in the name of "saving the earth",to the point where we embrace unproven technology,like the waterless urinals businessesrushed to put in,only to rip out later once they started smelling bad enough to peel the paint off the walls and the cost of maintaining them proved more than the cost of the water the old ones used. And we come up with stupid ideas like ticketing people for underinflated tires and having them go to state certified garages to have them filled in order to get the tickets signed off. (Thankfully that got shot down).

another example a lot of car guys out here hate,is that 76 and later classic cars still have to be smogged when there aren't enough of them on the road as daily drivers to even matter anyway. as a result anyone with those cars can't alter them much from the factory setup or swap motors or hop them up,as they have to be pretty much stock with all original smog devices to pass smog inspection. the exemption kept moving up each year but stopped at 1975 and had been frozen there for years.
Another stupid idea is the ethanol is gasoline,I've heard you complain here before about the ethanol in our fuel as the cause of problems in our older cars And many automotive magazines have written about how it burns less efficiently and undergoes phase separation and attracts moisture,etc. sorry if what I said was misunderstood,or if I came across the wrong way. I certainly DONT like smog or think their is anything stupid about wanting clean air.

I'm not sure what you mean about one doesn't follow the other about the tank and neck design,but it was obviously not a good design and was changed for a reason,right? Besides I said I was going to try and keep it stock so it would still perform as originally intended,so that should make you happy,right? The vapors won't foul the air.

I do appreciate your advice and didn't mean to offend you by wanting to keep my car stock....even if it turns out to be a chore finding the correct cap. I have no problem with others choosing to change tanks or alter their vehicles if they so wish,it's a personal choice.

Anyway,just wanted to say again,that I do appreciate your advice and information on the cap and special neck used on these models. This is the newest car ive owned so I wasn't aware that 70's and 71's had that rare cap.

P.S. What year is the blue dart in your photo? Is it true the build quality of the pre 67 Darts was much better than the 67-76 cars?

I got my classic industries mopar a body catalog today and belive it or not they sell a Stant locking gas cap for 1970 California cars! The part number in case anyone here needs one is ST10806 and its $14.99 they show that same cap fitting all pre April 1971 cars too!

Yes, I am indeed hostile to willful ignorance. I don't apologise for it. Some people don't like me as a result, and that's fine.
Absolutely, and neither of us is entitled to his own convenient set of facts. We both have to live with the facts as they are, not as we'd like them to be, even (especially) when the facts don't comport with our pet opinions about what regulations are ridiculous idiocy.
I understood you perfectly: you said the emissions regulations that applied to your car when it was built were ridiculous idiocy.
Thanks. I don't talk sh*t; I ask rather than tell when I don't know what I'm talking about.
My daily driver is a '91 model with a reasonably acceptable (though outdated) complement of safety engineering and equipment and reasonably clean exhaust. None of that can be said of my '62 Lancer.
No. It was not. There was and is absolutely nothing wrong with the design. Your tube might be damaged or worn out, your cap might be damaged or incorrect for the application, but none of that means the design was flawed.
It was changed, yes. The part about "because it was not a good design" is a product of your imagination. It's a guess, an assumption with no basis in fact.
I don't know who made that up for you, but someone made it up. Pulled it right out of thin air. The '70-'71 tanks were no more of a fire hazard than the average fuel tank in that size car of that time. All fuel tanks got a lot safer with the advent of meaningful requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 (fuel system integrity) which took effect for the '77 model year.
Whoever you read was spouting what they thought they remember of what they think they understood of what they think they heard way back when. This description matches up pretty well with the problem with the Ford Pinto, though.
'70 was the first year in California; '71 in the other 49 states.
They worked out just fine. They didn't cause problems or fail early or anything else. The design change to the cap and filler neck for '72 was very minor: the fuel cap retainer tabs were made a slightly different shape, that's all -- most likely because it cost half a cent less to make that way. The cap you need is not "special", it is not of an unusual, experimental, or faulty design, it just happens to fit a relatively small number of vehicles, so not as many were made compared to caps that were used across more years. It wasn't a problem when these cars were numerous on the roads, but parts availability is a constant issue when you have an (any) old car.
How far is too far? How far is just far enough? How do you know? What qualifies you to make that call, or to issue a statement on the matter? There would need to be a hell of a lot of very high-level hard scientific education and experience in your answer.
Businesses "rushed" to install them, perhaps. They were not forced to do so. People have been selling products with bogus claims for as long as people have been selling products. Sometimes they succeed in that venture, sometimes in very big ways, but that hardly equates to ridiculous idiocy in regulations.
People have been floating unrealistic ideas ever since the dawn of democracy. Most of them get shot down. That's the system working as designed to prevent ridiculous idiocy in regulations. It proves my point, not yours.
There probably aren't enough '76s to matter, no. But there sure as heck are enough '86s, and those are 29 years old, old enough to be considered "classic" by most registrars and insurance companies.
...except for the truly giant amount of performance equipment with CARB EO certification permitting them to be installed on vehicles subject to Smog Check. Carburetors, ignition systems, headers, catalytic converters, on and on and on...all significantly better than stock, all completely legal in California on emisison-controlled vehicles.
...because that was the first year for the catalytic converter, and removing the cat makes a vehicle emit vastly more pollution.
That's a case of political interference (by the powerful ethanol lobby) despite a great deal of evidence. But even so, it's a matter that has evidence behind it. There is no evidence behind the idea that evaporative emission controls on cars are ridiculous idiocy.
That was a '64.
Build quality of all our cars was pathetic (sloppy, just plain bad) compared to even the worst car you can buy in the American market today. It got worse in '73 and declined steeply in the '74-'81 timeframe in accord with Chrysler's declining fortunes.

If we're honest with ourselves, new cars are better than old ones no matter how you slice it. We don't like old cars because they're better, we like them because we like them. That's fine, but it doesn't make any sense to pretend there's another equally-valid reason.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Dear Suddenly,

Welcome to the site and we hope you will stick around. I am glad you found your locking gas cap for your 70 Dart. Enjoy the car!

Best wishes,

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Hopefully,I figured out how to use the qoute feature correctly,forgive me if I don't,I am new here.
I misspoke,and apologize for that. What I was actually directing those comments at was stuff like the ethanol in gas,I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that simply because I was frustrated to learn the cap was difficult to find.
That's an admirable trait. Unfortunately it's often hard to tell who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't online since you don't know the person or their "qualifications" to prove their expertise. People can and do pass on all sorts of things as facts,that's where research comes in.
Sorry,I didn't realize that. I guess I saw the photo of you happily driving your dart and assumed it was your daily driver. My mistake.

That conclusion wasnt a "product of my imagination",it was formed based on what I read in a thread over on Abodiesonly when searching info on a cap for my car. A member there posted that the tank was changed because it was a bad design and posed a fire hazard during a rear collision. It's not something I made up. I had no way of knowing if it's true or not. It's easy for anyone to say anything on the Internet without backing it up with proof. I didn't work at Chrysler at the time and I have no knowledge of it being true or not.

Nobody "made it up for me",and why make deliberately antagonistic comments like that? I've been civil with you. As I stated it was something someone already posted on abodiesonly,and I found it there when searching for info on the 70-71 cap. I can try and find the thread again and post a link. I don't know anybody there,It surely wasn't posted or "made up for me" and I have no way of knowing if someone's misinformed,making it up or misunderstands something and is passing along bad Info as fact. I was just repeating something I had read and assumed was true,since the design changed after a year and a half I thought it might have validity. I don't know where that person got their "information" and since I'm not a member there I couldn't ask. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on 1970 & 1971 chrysler safety and gas tank design.

-----
EDIT- It took me a while to find it again but here is a link to the thread on forabodiesonly that contains the comment about the 71 gas tank/filler neck posing a fire hazard,the member who made the comment was "oldmanmopar" http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/sho ... 938&page=2

"Oldmanmopar" wrote-
"You got it thats a 71 cap. These are hard to find. They came on 71 abody cars with collision impact protection. They were stopped because of the dome light ignighting the fuel when opening the door after a rearend collision. That little pipe in your trunk is the culpret. The cap is forced off when the tank is smashed. Putting the fuel into the roof of the car to contain it. But when you opened the door you would ignite the fuel. Those four hoses coming from the tank are not vents.This was hushed up and taken out for 72 .Everything was changes so you couldn't put this in later years. 70 on back were all the same but they were not vented. so they changed th size of the ears so you couldn't replace a 71 vented cap with a 71 nonvented."
That may well be true.the Internet is full of people setting themselves up as experts on all kinds of subjects with questionable/unknown credentials making statements about all sorts of things as though they are facts that are often accepted at true when they shouldn't be. I am no expert on this specific subject. I assumed the person knew what they were talking about. I guess they didn't.
r.

Everyone will have different opinions on that. "Too far" for me is blindly embracing and implementing unproven technologys or continuing to support ideas proven later to be counterproductive or laws designed merely to push a political agenda and create stifling regulations in order to generate revenue.
Some people blindly embrace anything the government does and feel they always know best and Shouldnt be questioned. Again,willful ignorance. others see the corruption and hypocrisy and the damaging effects certain laws cause and the libertys lost. There are those in the middle and those at extreme opposite ends. Nothing you or I say will change that.
there are some people out there who do truly feel these cars shouldn't be driven at all.there are some who think auto racing should be outlawed because it is a waste of fuel and gross polluting vehicles are being driven pointlessly around in circles for recreation. Some want a V8 tax to steer people into buying smaller more fuel efficient engines,etc. Thankfully there aren't yet enough of them to do harm and take away our ability to enjoy them.
So called "qualified" people,people in positions of power do not always do the right thing. As you pointed out Some are outright corrupt. I am not a fan of ethanol for reasons many people have already discussed.
As far as people making statements without scientific fact,it happens all the time. People have started many threads complaining about the lack of zddp in modern oils,supposedly damaging older engines with flat tappet cams,etc,I've heard conflicting info on that subject too,some say the new low zddp oils are just as safe for older engines,some say they aren't. It's hard to know who to believe. I've seen scientific facts presented on the matter in threads and many still consider them inconclusive or discount them. I think you had even posted some tests a lab did saying the modern low zinc oils seemed to protect older engines just fine. Many still will want to err on the side of caution.
I never said they were "forced" to install them. The state gave incentives and many goverment buildings foolishly rushed to put them in,only to have the contractors come back later and tear them out and reinstall traditonal "water flush" urinals. A similar thing happened years ago to laundromats who got rebate incentives from the state if the bought new energy star "water saving" top loaders which got rid of the rinse cycle where it would fill the tub and rinse the clothes and instead after the wash cycle would just keep spinning the tub and periodically spray water against the clothes as the spun. A guy I knew who owned a laundromat got suckered into buying them and after complaints from angry customers who wound up with dirty clothes with soap Crusted on them he broke down and replaced them with traditional full cycle washers.
I agree about people falling for bogus claims. The idiocy is blindly embracing unproven technologys for the sake of a "go green" feel good political movement without proof that what you are embracing is actually an improvement above what came before it. That happens fairly often. It's almost like a religion with some folks. They don't question the technology,they just accept it on faith.
I agree to a point. "Most" get shot down,not all. The "system" doesn't always work,there are people who are in positions of power who are corrupt and shouldnt be. The system isn't perfect and gets abused. I don't want to get into a political argument though. That's not what this site is about and I don't enjoy arguing with people. We aren't going to solve the problems of the world here anyway.
.

That's true,and I should have been more specific in what years I meant,but many other states have already made cars from the 80's completely exempt too. And yes I am aware there are certain mods people can do to smog era cars still required to pass,but it would seem most don't want too. It's a common complaint in the classic car community.
.. 1975 model year cars ARE exempt from smog in California and they did have catalytic converters. I know someone with a 1975 Trans Am who took the cat and all the smog devices off when it became exempt. So if 75's are exempt and have cats,why not 76's or the rest of the 70's cars? There are practically none on the road as daily drivers anyway.

Another stupid idea is the ethanol is gasoline
.

You are 100 per cent correct. The system isn't perfect and gets corrupted by special interest groups. And I don't think the ecs is idiocy. Sorry if I came off that way.


Nice 64! I love that color of blue. Sorry to hear the quality wasn't better than the 67-76 cars. I didn't realize those even got worse after 73. I personally don't care for the front and rear end designs of the 73 and later darts anyway.
I am curious,how bad were the 73 and later cars,which specific area declined in quality? I know on the 67-76 cars the drivers strikers develop sheet metal fatigue and crack. Most have been welded and repaired in that area based on the ones I've seen. Did chrysler address this issue with later model darts?

My personal favorites are the 57-61 Forward Look cars,many of those suffered from quality control issues and leaks and rust,but I love them with all their flaws and would rather have them then any modern car. But I realize we all have our own opinions. To me they are works of art.

Anyway,hope we can drop this now,we're beating a dead horse, and move on to other subjects,that's what I'm going to do,and our future exchanges can be pleaseant ones. I'd rather make another friend than have an argument.
Do you have any advice you could offer on air filters for our cars? Which modern brand is the best filtration wise? I am using Wix right now. The reason I ask is because some of the filters I looked at in the store seems poorly built with very thin elements with few pleats and I noticed I could by nos chrysler ones for the same price. Those to be much better constructed, but I don't know if the filtering media they were using during that era is up to par with today's.

Thanks for the kind words "Dart270". I do really like my dart and have been enjoying it so far. it's been a really good car and even has working air conditioning which is great in the summer. It's fun to pull up next to someone in a modern car on a 95 degree day with the windows rolled up,it seems to shock them that a 45 year old car still has working a/c.

Thanks for the welcome. I'll try it here and see how it works out. I'm honestly not usually on the computer much. I tend to be old fashioned and talk to people in the real world,not the virtual one. hopefully it won't be all arguments and friction here. One thing that turns me off about the Internet forums is that there often seem to be people who live to have endless debates and argue constantly over everything. I am pretty easy going and dont enjoy that sort of thing. There are enough real problems in the world without that. I know my 45-50+ year old cars can't compete in some
areas with certain advancements feautured in modern cars,but I didn't come here to hear that or engage in endless debates about new vs old technology.everyone can drive what they like. I made my choice.
This is a site for fans of old Mopars with slant six motors. Let's embrace the interest that brought us here.
I am sure most folks agree with me and are friendly and prefer to have Pleasant conversations centered on our cars.As I said I had looked around other sites and was put off by some of the things I read,the constant bickering,political arguments and of course the overly opinionated guys who set themselves up as know it alls and pick on other peoples cars and berate them if they disagree with them.
Yes,reality is our cars aren't perfect,but many here love them and are passionate about them and don't want to listen to them constantly being picked apart. I live with them and know their strengths and weaknesses. Most classic car people have emotional connections with their cars,feelings that far trump their shortcomings. No guy wants to hear someome call his girl ugly or have her flaws picked apart.

A guy who rides a motorcycle is aware riding a bike isnt as safe as driving a car and that it doesn't have a/c,smog equipment,seat belts,air bags and other comforts and advantages a car has,but that's beside the point,he rides a bike because it offers a different kind of experience and enjoyment a car doesn't.

Not everyone shares the same concerns. Different people have different things that are important to them and that's fine. Someone shouldnt be shamed for driving an old car by someone who feels self righteous because their new car is "better",more efficient,etc. live your own life and drive what you like. As for myself,I personally don't care about air bags,fuel injection,etc.if I did I'd be driving a Honda or a volvo. Nothing anyone says is going to change that.I love my old Mopars,drum brakes,breaker points,carburetors and all.

I appreciate your balanced view of life. We hope you stick around, despite the friction in some instances. I prefer to focus on the cars here.

All the best,

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Yes, what Lou said! And welcome to the site.

And no fuel injection for me either. I can barely get the 4 wires hooked up on my HEI correctly. I have to use the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid. That's me!

Rick

_________________
2 Mopars come with Spark plug tubes. One is a world class, racing machine. The other is a 426 CI. boat anchor!

12.70 @ 104.6

Suddenly,
I used to frequent this board often but I found a lot of Dan's comments irritating and impolite. Some of his comment seemed to be written to feed his ego. I didn't need this unpleasantness so I stopped visiting the forum. Your reply's were quite interesting and tactful keep up the good work. Perhaps I should have mentioned those issues earlier and the problem would have been solved.

_________________
Patricks 225 64 dart 2 dr
Cam 252o adv .435 Clifford shorty 3 in to 1 2 into 1. Holley 390 4bbl automatic, 3.23 gears 8 3/4 sure grip, 10 inch Crager 14 X 7 poly