| Author | Message | ||
| Mitchell Le (Yelcab1)
Member Username: Yelcab1 Post Number: 485 Registered: 11-2001 |
My 75 GT4 does not have any smog pumps because it was removed before I got the car, and I can no longer buy the air injection rails. So, it cannot be made back up to original condition. And if you want to confiscate my car, thou shall remove the Ferrari from my dead left hand, while at the same time removing the 9 mm Baretta from my dead right hand. | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Junior Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 96 Registered: 12-2002 |
What does smog exemption mean for the owner? Nothing? Would we have to pay any sort of new taxes or fees or just continue to drive our car? Any restrictions on driving our cars? | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 284 Registered: 4-2002 |
As far as a buerocracy to fix the problem--it would be far cheaper to allow cops to stop vehicles emitting visible polutants, impound the vehicle, and give the owner a new vehicle; than creating testing programs to catch the culprets. Directly addresses both problems: bad vehicles are removed from the roads (and won't polute any more), the owners are better of than before (so they won't fight the receipt of the new vehicle); finally, the air is better. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 644 Registered: 1-2002 |
Steve, I'm not sure I understand some of your post. Whatever. Anyway, no, I am a lifelong Republican from Texas, who used to live in Calif. Remember, that horrible gov't bureaucracy/private contractor situation is there whether you like it or not--remember, it's Calf. you're talking about. Exempting old cars does NOT solve that problem. My point is that, as long as you have that bureaucracy, why exempt the exact group of cars that most need meission controls? and no one here has yet answered my question. Mitch is right--address the smokers first. However, I will venture a guess that the VAST majority of smokers are in the now-exempt group in Calif. Anyone want to take that bet? No, Steve, I am not demonizing older cars. But, if they were manufactured with pollution controls, there is NO VALID EXCUSE for exempting them from having them operational. NONE. And, as I pointed out, it is especially hypocritical of the Peoiples Republik of Kalifornia to do this while truly demonizing newer, nearly-100%-clean vehicles. Truly hypocritical. As for the rest of civilization? I'm with you on this. That is why I supported Mr. Bush for refusing that idiotic Kyoto Protocol--it exempts the largest polluters in the world: China, India, Vietnam, etc etc. See? My argument is the same: no valid reason to exempt the biggest part of the problem. And sorry, but your post did nothing to illustrate how I was distorting this fact.  | ||
| Steve Magnusson (91tr)
Intermediate Member Username: 91tr Post Number: 1285 Registered: 1-2001 |
Dave -- Are you from Boulder? (just a joke...) The facts you're quoting don't at all address the question of whether or not the older cars are significantly raising the TOTAL pollution such that it's worth the hassle of having more gov't hire a huge ineffective private contractor to run the program and torment the masses at taxpayer expense -- I say NO. As you noted, they left out the Diesels, but there's one other little detail too -- THE REST OF CIVILIZATION. Your "statistics" are such an excellent example of political distortion that it's ironic that you're using the very improvements the auto industry has made in pollution reduction (i.e., new cars are very clean) against them to further demonize older cars -- my local eco-politboro salutes you... I would suggest that those causing nearly ALL of pollution (including that of their offspring) should bear some of the responsibility & costs of this -- I'm more than happy to pay my share. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 283 Registered: 4-2002 |
The average car cruising down the hyway is emitting only about 2% of its legal limits (Car and driver about 3 years ago). The current limits are only 3% of what a new car would produce in 1970. It is unsurprising that a car emitting at the legal 1970 limts is actually producing 485 times as much emissions as a modern car cruising down the hyway. At only 0.5% of the traffic (barely visible), they already contribute over 1/2 of the total emissions. AND this is a car in New condition! Yet these are ot the problem! Those cars leaving a visible trail of smoke are poluting as much as the combined emissions of 250,000 new vehicles! These are the enemies we need to address. Visible trail of emissions--park it! Invisible--let it go! | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 643 Registered: 1-2002 |
Well, I respect everyone's opinions here. However, here are 2 nugget facts to consider: 1) in every metro area in the US, roadside (infrared) emissions sampling attributed 90% of all emissions coming from all of the cars (thus, not including diesel emissions) on the road on those sample days to be from the relatively few older cars driving. 90%!!! 2) An new Honda Accord (for example) produces exhaust that is CLEANER than the air on an average day in Los Angeles. Both of these are FACTS. The relatively few older cars still contribute the VAST majority of car-related smog. And newer cars produce less pollution than they consume. Robert, I'm with you on the SUV's, but the reality is that one old car will pollute approx. 99 times as much as a new SUV...and get about the same mileage. I am merely suggesting that those causing nearly ALL of the car pollution shoud bear some of the responsibility & costs of this. | ||
| Ben Lobenstein 90 TR (Benjet)
Member Username: Benjet Post Number: 965 Registered: 1-2001 |
Robert, It's my understanding that current diesel trucks, farm equipment and a variety of other equipment - almost ALL diesel powered products (altho I'm not too sure about boats), are checked for emissions or conform to some standard, in CA. I have an associate who works providing temporary power via diesel generators, was told they had to retrofit everything that's less than 20 years old (within the past 1-3 years). All of them now have some form of "sticker", not sure if there is ongoing inspection tho. Also beginning in 2003 all motorcycles sold in CA will have to be smogged just like cars. At least that's what I hear. -Ben P.S. My '65 Mustang passed smog without any form of smog related equipment (cuz that's the way it came). | ||
| Robert W. Garven Jr. (Robertgarven)
Junior Member Username: Robertgarven Post Number: 90 Registered: 2-2002 |
I fought to have the law changed and I totally disagree. There are not many 30 year old cars on the roads anymore that are not collector cars in good shape. The 1000 miles I drive a year is more than offset by all the mega SUV's most drive just as a fad which have no benificial impacts to society. At least the old cars are a historic treasures. Dont forget motorcycles, boats, airplanes and the most polluting disel trucks are not and never have been subject to inspection. The smog check system was only set up to fleece the taxpayer. I am proud to be a conservationist, have less children, live close to your work, ride a bike, but dont touch my Ferrari! :-) | ||
| Don Vollum (Donv)
New member Username: Donv Post Number: 50 Registered: 1-2002 |
Also, Dave and Hubert, the total number of miles driven by cars 30 years old and older is going to be very, very low. Thus, the environmental impact will be nil. | ||
| Mitchell Le (Yelcab1)
Member Username: Yelcab1 Post Number: 483 Registered: 11-2001 |
Dave and Hubert, It makes sense what you said. However, try to get the correct smog equipment for a 30 year old car that is not even supported by the original manufacturers and you will quickly find that it is no longer available. So, to make 30 year old car comply with smog equipment is impossible. Might as well exempt them then. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 414 Registered: 1-2002 |
Dave- I'm w/ you, in part. I think it's strange that newer cars are made to be smogged, while older cars, that burn more fuel, eat more resources, and, on average, cost more to keep running, if even in whorthwhile condition, are made exempt. The law should be the reverse; smog checks made mandatory after a car is 10, 15, 30 years old. Not the other way around. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 640 Registered: 1-2002 |
Actually, this is HORRIBLE news for those of us who like ot breathe. Isn;t in a bit absurd giving a complete bye to the very vehicles that contribute the most--probably 90%--to auto-related emissions? And yet those same geniuses in Calif. government who now are giving the most polluting vehilcles in the fleet a full smog exemption also wanted to mandate electric cars by (fill in rolling deadline date here) to "reduce pollution". Unbelieveable hypocrisy--the registered trademark of a socialist society. OK, flame away! | ||
| Mitchell Le (Yelcab1)
Member Username: Yelcab1 Post Number: 482 Registered: 11-2001 |
They are exempted from all smog checks. | ||
| Jeffrey Caspar (Jcaspar1)
Junior Member Username: Jcaspar1 Post Number: 55 Registered: 5-2002 |
Are they exempt from the check required with transfer of ownership or just the biyearly checks? Great news either way. | ||
| Mitchell Le (Yelcab1)
Member Username: Yelcab1 Post Number: 480 Registered: 11-2001 |
I just checked, and this is the first year that there is a rolling 30 years smog exemption rule in California. It is based on year of Manufacture (not model year). So that 1974 models are manufactured in 1973, therefore all 1974 and earlier cars are now exempted from smog inspections in the state of California. Next year, it will be 1975 and earlier cars. That means my car too will be exempt from the blasted smog police in 2004. |