Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.

Arnold Schwarzenegger a wobbler

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 09:53 AM
  #21  
MrFatbooty's Avatar
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Default

Well if all cars prior to 1975 are exempt then I don't see the big deal.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 09:54 AM
  #22  
TheOtherDave™'s Avatar
TheOtherDave™
Apathy Kills
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 60,714
Likes: 0
From: The Left Lane
Default

God DAMN IT! That's it... I have officially had it with CARB, Assemblywoman Lieber, Arnold, the whole goddamn lot of them. :rant: :upset:

Bastards, thieving ****ing bastards. ALL of them.
__________________
:: :ToDspin: - supermod - but who gives a shit?

:: HAN Integra FAQ: If, by some miracle, yours hasn't been stolen... check it out!
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 10:03 AM
  #23  
MrFatbooty's Avatar
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Default

I still don't like this, but I don't think it's as bad as I originally did.

I think 1976 was the first model year to have any sort of government-mandated emissions controls. If the law were set up to only require that cars from model year 1976 or later have to meet the emissions standards from when they were originally sold, that would be no problem. But if they are required to meet emissions standards which they were not even designed to meet from the factory, that's asking a bit much.

Of course the article above doesn't really get into much actual detail of the regulation, so who knows what the hell it actually says.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 10:21 AM
  #24  
TheOtherDave™'s Avatar
TheOtherDave™
Apathy Kills
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 60,714
Likes: 0
From: The Left Lane
Default

Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
I still don't like this, but I don't think it's as bad as I originally did.

I think 1976 was the first model year to have any sort of government-mandated emissions controls. If the law were set up to only require that cars from model year 1976 or later have to meet the emissions standards from when they were originally sold, that would be no problem. But if they are required to meet emissions standards which they were not even designed to meet from the factory, that's asking a bit much.

Of course the article above doesn't really get into much actual detail of the regulation, so who knows what the hell it actually says.
Fortunately, you don't live with the unmitigated wrath of the California Air Resources Board breathing down your neck. Now these despotic bastards have reign over our cars forever. :rant:

And yes, the emissions requirements are unreasonably high for civilians as it is. It chaps my hide to see enthusiasts get screwed again, while mass transit buses spit raw diesel fuel, and heavy industry buys "air credits" that pad the state budget and do nothing to improve air quality.

I am sick and ****ing tired of this disproportionate regulation. :rant:

Here's an analysis of the bill - as signed.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/...asm_floor.html

The bill's history:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...3_history.html

And the bill as it is chaptered into California law:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...chaptered.html

:rant:
__________________
:: :ToDspin: - supermod - but who gives a shit?

:: HAN Integra FAQ: If, by some miracle, yours hasn't been stolen... check it out!
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 10:33 AM
  #25  
MrFatbooty's Avatar
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Default

Yeah I guess maybe California has stupid laws.

My Miata actually has California emissions equipment which is unnecessarily complicated. The stock Miata exhaust is like this:

exhaust manifold>downpipe>front pipe>midpipe w/ cat & resonator>rear section w/ muffler & tip

The California Miata exhaust is like this:

exhaust manifold>pre cat>front pipe>midpipe/main cat>rear section.

Luckily since I'm not in California I can convert it back to Federal emissions controls by getting a header and moving the oxygen sensors to be in front and behind the main cat in the midpipe.

By doing that I don't have the precat to die and the oxygen sensors are further downstream so they last longer.

But--I guess part of the reason California has such strict emissions controls because of places like LA which are covered in smog?
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 10:49 AM
  #26  
TheOtherDave™'s Avatar
TheOtherDave™
Apathy Kills
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 60,714
Likes: 0
From: The Left Lane
Default

Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
Yeah I guess maybe California has stupid laws.
...
Luckily since I'm not in California I can convert it back to Federal emissions controls by getting a header and moving the oxygen sensors to be in front and behind the main cat in the midpipe.

By doing that I don't have the precat to die and the oxygen sensors are further downstream so they last longer.

But--I guess part of the reason California has such strict emissions controls because of places like LA which are covered in smog?
Basically, yes. There are still areas that have air quality problems. But the duty to clean up emissions needs to be made fair and just for all polluters.

Under CARB's reign, auto enthusiasts are unfairly targeted and over-regulated, while mass transit and heavy manufacturing industries are under-policed.

The other issue is the bureaucratic nature of CARB. Rather than staying on task and worrying about what comes out of the tailpipe, we are stuck with arbitrary laws that have no meaningful effect on cleaning up the environment.

The worst of which is the CARB Exemption Order process. A system designed solely to raise state revenue, manufacturers who don't recieve approval from CARB can still sell their parts in CA, but the consumer will automatically fail the visual inspection due to the lack of an E.O. number for the aftermarket part. They won't even bother to run an emissions test.

AB2683 reinforced CARB's disfunctional bureaucracy.

And now it is law.
__________________
:: :ToDspin: - supermod - but who gives a shit?

:: HAN Integra FAQ: If, by some miracle, yours hasn't been stolen... check it out!
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 12:16 PM
  #27  
Tobra's Avatar
Tobra
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: Sacramelto, home after 10 years in Texas
Default

"I think 1976 was the first model year to have any sort of government-mandated emissions controls. If the law were set up to only require that cars from model year 1976 or later have to meet the emissions standards from when they were originally sold, that would be no problem. But if they are required to meet emissions standards which they were not even designed to meet from the factory, that's asking a bit much."

Au contraire Fat Man, they started the smog deal years before that. Smog pumps, intake air heaters, EGR filters and all that started prior to 1976. I know for a fact that the emmission controls on my VW did not change from 1975, when fuel injection started, to 1979, when they stopped making them.

"Of course the article above doesn't really get into much actual detail of the regulation, so who knows what the hell it actually says."

I have read it several times, what would you like to know? If your car is 1975 or older, there are no checks or requirements. They are starting a rolling exemption for classic cars, which they set out to repeal with this law, that requires tailpipe checks for cars more than 35 years old, but does not require the visual inspection. Ostensibley, this will require that the car be original, but if they can't do a visual inspection, how would they know?

"But--I guess part of the reason California has such strict emissions controls because of places like LA which are covered in smog?"

On paper, that is the intent. If this were truly what they wanted to do, they would not have exemptions for everything that is not a passenger vehicle, motorcycles and commercial vehicles are not checked for example. The reality is that they have created a morass of regulation, differing from county to county. The enforcement process is a HUGE money making machine. They get fees from everyone running the smog test stations, and from everyone getting their car checked. It is in essence a regressive tax on everyone naive enough to register their vehicle in California.

Last edited by Tobra; Sep 28, 2004 at 12:18 PM. Reason: 'cause I type poorly
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 12:22 PM
  #28  
antarius's Avatar
antarius
Large Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,735
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

I personally don't mind. I think all cars driven on the roads in California should adhere to SMOG standards, plain and simple.

I'm no tree hugger either, but if you want to register it - then it best pass smog every 2 years.

That's how I feel about it, *shrug*.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 12:25 PM
  #29  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

I think it is funny how the tree huggers complain when nothing is done to help polution and then when something is done, they complain :chuckles:

I personally think this is stupid since those vehicles didn't have the sources to make them clean vehicles in the first place but whatever. It doesn't affect me and I doubt it ever will
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2004 | 01:37 PM
  #30  
Bumnah's Avatar
Bumnah
So OG it hurts.
 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: VA
Default

Did sema try to stop this?
__________________
Project EVA - The Track Package
-----
Project EVA
-----
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:25 PM.