If CARB has their way, we'll be walking in California.

[in2win]

Hey lets not let anyone doing anything on there own without someone approving before hand. You sound like a communist, are you seriously saying that we should not be able to drive fast because of pollution. Wake up dumb*ss, look at every race track, every semi that goes by, every ship, every ferry , every train? Do you not think they pollute as well?

Does anyone ever question AL GORE why he insists on flying around in his jet, burning jet fuel and pollution so he can tell you sheep about some sensationalism rant that has litterally captured the attention every liberal in the world. Were coming out of an mini ice age that began thousands of years ago. I hope water levels rise and drown liberals who only follow emotion!

CARB: saving people from themselves

Dude, you have totally won me over. We need to choke the stupid out of those poor fukkers. Hell, if they can't pay extra costs to repair the car with manufaturers-spec parts (read: OEM only) then they should not have a car at all. Allowing these people to put parts on their car that has the potential of increasing performance will simply give them a reason to waste more gas, thus further pollute the air with CO2.

We simply need to mandate black-box governors to limit acceleration and speed capabilities because it's for our own good and that of the environment.

[audtatious]

Are you just being stupid or what?

[WDRacing]

Hey lets not let anyone doing anything on there own without someone approving before hand. You sound like a communist, are you seriously saying that we should not be able to drive fast because of pollution. Wake up dumb*ss, look at every race track, every semi that goes by, every ship, every ferry , every train? Do you not think they pollute as well?

Does anyone ever question AL GORE why he insists on flying around in his jet, burning jet fuel and pollution so he can tell you sheep about some sensationalism rant that has litterally captured the attention every liberal in the world. Were coming out of an mini ice age that began thousands of years ago. I hope water levels rise and drown liberals who only follow emotion!

Stop...reread this entire thread and don't thread crap in here. We're having a decent conversation and I'll not let it deteriorate to random accusations from uninformed late comers...thx.

WD

[rn79870]

CARB: saving people from themselves

Dude, you have totally won me over. We need to choke the stupid out of those poor fukkers. Hell, if they can't pay extra costs to repair the car with manufaturers-spec parts (read: OEM only) then they should not have a car at all. Allowing these people to put parts on their car that has the potential of increasing performance will simply give them a reason to waste more gas, thus further pollute the air with CO2.

We simply need to mandate black-box governors to limit acceleration and speed capabilities because it's for our own good and that of the environment.

Damn well said my friend. What do people think government is for if it isn't saving them from themselves, collecting taxes and ridding the world of tyrannical dictators. For the average middle of the roader, with slight left wing tendencies like me and WDRacing, it's hard to accept, but alas, it's true. Bless the memory of Herbert Hoover.

[audtatious]

Damn well said my friend. What do people think government is for if it isn't saving them from themselves, collecting taxes and ridding the world of tyrannical dictators. For the average middle of the roader, with slight left wing tendencies like me and WDRacing, it's hard to accept, but alas, it's true. Bless the memory of Herbert Hoover.

Damn skippy. We all know the Gov't should control all facets of our lives

Now that that bit of comedy is out of the way, let me regurgitate what I believe about CARB (or even EPA restrictions for that matter), alternative fuels and such.

1. I have no issues with setting viable guidelines at all. Pollution is bad and we should be more responsible than we were being up to the 1970's. Nobody argues that at all. Current reg's are working and pollution levels are still dropping without increasing anything from a CARB perspective against autos/lt trucks.

2. Changes to regulations should not be knee-jerk reactions and they should work towards the most "bang for the buck". As I had stated in my "list" is that things have been getting better in the country as a whole without heaping huge amounts of additional regs. EPA standards have been successful in states that do not follow CARB's extended regs as well. I have seen no proof that increasing CARB regs concerning auto/lt truck emissions will be best thing to focus on today. Let's go after the larger polluters. Instead, there seem to be a major focus on the auto industry instead of others that are currently polluting more and resolving those issues would be more appropriate even if it takes a bit more effort.

3. CARB does limit viable alternative products to the public. If these products end up failing emissions, then the purchaser will have to fix it so the responsibility of their purchase is on their shoulders. Let people start being responsible for their own choices because we all know some are swapping parts to pass CARB regardless. I understand you do not believe in the above but I am tired of everyone looking at the Govt to solve their problems with poor choice.

4. CO2 is not a pollutant. There is no such thing a Man Made Global Warming. The other crap that spews out of automobiles/trucks/planes/ships/industry, which can dirty the air should be concentrated on more than CO2.

5. Alternative-fuel vehicles, like the Honda you posted, are a good direction. Sure, that particular vehicle adds CO2 in the form of water vapor (again, not a pollutant) but solves other issues. e85 and other biofuels actually are worse than dino-fuels at this point and cause a major econimic impact, thus they are NOT viable alternative fuels. Electric is not an economical sollution either due to expense and you have to realize that they will simply put more load on already overly-loaded grids which are powered by coal-burning plants in some areas.

I'm sure there is more but as I had stated before it won't matter and anyone against CARB will be accused of being anti-envoronment.

[rn79870]

Jager,

I see that you are really trying to make sense of this issue. Perhaps if I fill in a little of the back story you'll see why this is where it is.

California is unique in many ways, one is geography, the other is climate. The population of California is primarily located in the southern 1/4 of the state between the ocean and the mountains. Everyone has a car, or so it seems. If you've never driven in SoCal in rush hour the extent of this will be lost to you.

You commented that New York had as many people, and this is probably true, but people in New Your don't use their cars like the people in California. They have public options available. In California, public options typically suck. You want to go somewhere, you drive.

Driving created smog. Bad smog. Eyes watering, lung choking smog. Not only did California notice the problem, so did Washington. So, in 1963, the Clean Air Act started the whole ball rolling. California decided it wasn't enough and started their own smog abatement program, hello CARB

In the 70's and 80's there were two types of vehicles manufactured. Those with Federal standards, called 49 state vehicles, and those for California, called California standards. California standards were more strict. A person in California couldn't buy a 49 state car and bring it into California without jumping through many hoops. That soon gave way to what we have today. One emission standard for all new vehicles sold, essentially the California standard.

In the mean time, CARB (California Air Resource Board) came into being. CARB was charged with identifying ALL sources of CORRECTABLE air pollution, not just cars.

CARB quickly determined that vehicle emissions was ONE of the major problems, and it appeared to need the most attention. They have sense recognized other problem areas and are simultaneously focusing on them.

One of the problems was the aftermarket auto enthusiast group. It didn't seem to make sense to regulate the emissions on a new vehicle and then let some yoyo put a Holly double pumper on his stock 318 Dodge. Hence, they took the "shoot them all and let God sort them out approach" and outlawed everything aftermarket. If you wanted to market an aftermarket product to the public, you had to prove, through apparently long and expensive testing that your product didn't exasperate the problem.

Here is the catch. Although many Californians didn’t appreciate or even support all these new rules, they woke up one day and the air was clear. They could breath freely. They could see the snow covered mountains to the east. They could exercise outside and enjoy it. Viola, we have found it they said. Now, as they (we) become used to the beauty of the state, and we are again able to enjoy it, we aren’t about to let anyone mess with it.

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t an off road exemption, or race cars, or desert racing or airplanes or boats or trains or trucks, etc., etc. Planes, boats and trucks are being looked at. Even lawn mower engines. Even air fresheners.

Here is the catch. Many other states view what CARB has done as successful. They feel that CARB is proactive and leading the way. Instead of investing in re-inventing the wheel, they are choosing to adopt, and maybe modify, the CARB approach. So far, 16 states have joined in a suit against Washington to allow them to apply stricter standards (CARB) to vehicle emission and CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements.

You live in Virginia, CARB has nothing to do with you, except that your state, and many others, may decide that CARB is the way to go. Hope this helps you.

Hope this helps you undeerstand what is going on here Jager.

Note to others. I welcome a discussion of the issues. It is an emotional issue to many. Please keep your comments directed to the issues and not the posters. Hurling insults and derogatory comments will only result in my ignoring your post.


Modified by rn79870 at 8:28 AM 2/29/2008

[WDRacing]

See, there ya go Bob. I knew you'd finally admit that CARB shouldn't be able to tell us what we can or can't do with our cars. It only took 5 pages, but you got it

Now if we can get CARB to tackle some improvements on public transport as well as the industry side of things we'll be making real progress.

WD

[audtatious]

California is unique in many ways, one is geography, the other is climate. The population of California is primarily located in the southern 1/4 of the state between the ocean and the mountains. Everyone has a car, or so it seems. If you've never driven in SoCal in rush hour the extent of this will be lost to you.

It is also borderd with Mexico so you do have a large amount of relatively non-regulated traffic crossing over and pollution drift

You commented that New York had as many people, and this is probably true, but people in New Your don't use their cars like the people in California. They have public options available. In California, public options typically suck. You want to go somewhere, you drive.

CA is supposed to be the trend setter. Why are they not providing alternative means of environmentally-friendly transportation? While not CARB related it's a valid issue if you are trying to get older non-environmentally friendly vehicles off the road or to give an alternative to driving to work and sitting in traffic.

One of the problems was the aftermarket auto enthusiast group. It didn't seem to make sense to regulate the emissions on a new vehicle and then let some yoyo put a Holly double pumper on his stock 318 Dodge. Hence, they took the "shoot them all and let God sort them out approach" and outlawed everything aftermarket. If you wanted to market an aftermarket product to the public, you had to prove, through apparently long and expensive testing that your product didn't exasperate the problem.

The process should not be a long and expensive testing process. "Hey CARB, here is the test without the part and here is the test with the part. The part has equal or less emissions than the factory part". CARB: PASS

CARB has done a good job, they just don't need to over-regulate the industry. Automakers are currently working on their own to increase fuel economy regardless of CARB because that is what the public is demanding as the price of fuel has jumped so high. Let's put the focus on where the most good can be done to lower pollution. I simply don't agree that the major next step should again be against the auto and light truck industry.

[rn79870]

I have no issues with setting viable guidelines at all. Pollution is bad and we should be more responsible than we were being up to the 1970's. Nobody argues that at all. Current reg's are working and pollution levels are still dropping without increasing anything from a CARB perspective against autos/lt trucks.

I don’t think the standards are variable. Once a vehicle is born, it adopts the standards for that year. Those standards don’t change. True, future standards will be more strict, but look at the whole picture. Certain vehicles are more powerful, faster, quicker and more sport orientated today than anything offered stock from the muscle car era. GT R, Z07, Super Shake, 911 Turbo, etc. Expensive, true, but anyone with a job/work history can buy an Altima 3.5 coupe, and join in the fun.

Changes to regulations should not be knee-jerk reactions and they should work towards the most "bang for the buck". As I had stated in my "list" is that things have been getting better in the country as a whole without heaping huge amounts of additional regs. EPA standards have been successful in states that do not follow CARB's extended regs as well. I have seen no proof that increasing CARB regs concerning auto/lt truck emissions will be best thing to focus on today. Let's go after the larger polluters. Instead, there seem to be a major focus on the auto industry instead of others that are currently polluting more and resolving those issues would be more appropriate even if it takes a bit more effort.

EPA standards would work fine. Many states, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. probably don’t even have vehicle inspection. Is CARB the answer, I don’t know. I’m not deep enough into the statistics to argue that. CARB does work, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the average Californian would rather breath clean air than listen to fart cans on Civics.

CARB does limit viable alternative products to the public. If these products end up failing emissions, then the purchaser will have to fix it so the responsibility of their purchase is on their shoulders. Let people start being responsible for their own choices because we all know some are swapping parts to pass CARB regardless. I understand you do not believe in the above but I am tired of everyone looking at the Govt to solve their problems with poor choice.

We already know what that would do. It is much easier as a smog tech some weird assortment of parts on Juniors Civic than to test every system on his car, from fuel evap. to EGR. The average enthusiast doesn’t even know what the EGR valve does. Even then, if it passed today, what in the heck will it be like in a week, in a month. I’m sorry, as unpleasant as it is, I agree, CARB Approval stickers are a necessity. In my opinion, a very large number of “mechanics” (not the professionals) are nothing more than “part swappers”. There is more to being a mechanic than swapping parts. Look at the training tech have to undergo today.

CO2 is not a pollutant. There is no such thing a Man Made Global Warming. The other crap that spews out of automobiles/trucks/planes/ships/industry, which can dirty the air should be concentrated on more than CO2.

I think many people have used CO2 and CO interchangeably here, albeit unintentional. CO2 is part of respiration, and I’d hate to see CARB regulate that.

Alternative-fuel vehicles, like the Honda you posted, are a good direction. Sure, that particular vehicle adds CO2 in the form of water vapor (again, not a pollutant) but solves other issues. e85 and other biofuels actually are worse than dino-fuels at this point and cause a major econimic impact, thus they are NOT viable alternative fuels. Electric is not an economical sollution either due to expense and you have to realize that they will simply put more load on already overly-loaded grids which are powered by coal-burning plants in some areas.

I wish there were more alternatives. Right now, I believe fuel cell vehicles are the best choice. Besides, the Honda I linked is not a bad looking car. I’d drive one.

I'm sure there is more but as I had stated before it won't matter and anyone against CARB will be accused of being anti-envoronment.

Expressing disapproval with a system, even a system designed to benefit the environment doesn’t make one anti-environment. Anyone with an opinion has a right to rationally express it. Deliberately modifying a car, like adding a test pipe in place of a cat so someone can have a few more horsepower is anti-environment.

[rn79870]

See, there ya go Bob. I knew you'd finally admit that CARB shouldn't be able to tell us what we can or can't do with our cars. It only took 5 pages, but you got it

Now if we can get CARB to tackle some improvements on public transport as well as the industry side of things we'll be making real progress.

WD

Okay WD, I think we have partially agreed again. ::wipes forehead:: CARB can't tell YOU, and shouldn't be able to tell YOU. You live in Texas. Your wife is in the Military so you sort of get a free pass on the whole thing anyway. (licensing your cars in your "home" state if you chose, and not being required to return to that state for vehicle inspections). However, If I were a betting man, I'd bet it will not be all that long before other states see their own version of CARB.

Public transportation in California is not really feasible for many reasons, not the least of which is the land necessary to develop it (rail), or tunneling through earthquake faults.

[rn79870]

It is also borderd with Mexico so you do have a large amount of relatively non-regulated traffic crossing over and pollution drift

Amen. CARB tests the air in San Diego, and it is dirtier than the other areas of the state, so the assumption is that the vehicle inspection program and the inspectors are not doing their job. Needless to say, every beater that can’t fetch more than $100, or fails too many smog tests, up gets shipped to Mexico and sold at an inflated price to the poor folks down there. Then the emissions just float across the border.

CA is supposed to be the trend setter. Why are they not providing alternative means of environmentally-friendly transportation? While not CARB related it's a valid issue if you are trying to get older non-environmentally friendly vehicles off the road or to give an alternative to driving to work and sitting in traffic.

It’s a geography problem. I can take the Coaster (train) to San Diego and then the trolley but I’m still miles from where I need to be. Now, a 35 minute trip to a destination in San Diego turns into a 1.5 hour trip with a 30 minute walk, cab ride. It just isn’t efficient here.

The process should not be a long and expensive testing process. "Hey CARB, here is the test without the part and here is the test with the part. The part has equal or less emissions than the factory part". CARB: PASS

That’s pretty much what it is, only CARB adds a “prove it” factor to the statement.

CARB has done a good job, they just don't need to over-regulate the industry. Automakers are currently working on their own to increase fuel economy regardless of CARB because that is what the public is demanding as the price of fuel has jumped so high. Let's put the focus on where the most good can be done to lower pollution. I simply don't agree that the major next step should again be against the auto and light truck industry.

CARB is definitely involved in the entire air resource situation. It is simply that they identified vehicles as one of the major causes of the problem in California.

[audtatious]

I don’t think the standards are variable. Once a vehicle is born, it adopts the standards for that year. Those standards don’t change. True, future standards will be more strict, but look at the whole picture. Certain vehicles are more powerful, faster, quicker and more sport orientated today than anything offered stock from the muscle car era. GT R, Z07, Super Shake, 911 Turbo, etc. Expensive, true, but anyone with a job/work history can buy an Altima 3.5 coupe, and join in the fun.

You misread. I said viable, not variable.

EPA standards would work fine. Many states, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. probably don’t even have vehicle inspection. Is CARB the answer, I don’t know. I’m not deep enough into the statistics to argue that. CARB does work, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the average Californian would rather breath clean air than listen to fart cans on Civics.

Nobody is saying that CARB does not work. I don't like fart cans either. I see existing reg's setup for both CARB and EPA that are working as they are set today. Obviously some areas are more prone to pollution than others as well. I simply do not want a constant heaping of more and more regs that cost way more to the public than they are solving from a pollution standpoint. More and more older cars are being scrapped due to age so just sitting around with current standards would still result in cleaner air.

We already know what that would do. It is much easier as a smog tech some weird assortment of parts on Juniors Civic than to test every system on his car, from fuel evap. to EGR. The average enthusiast doesn’t even know what the EGR valve does. Even then, if it passed today, what in the heck will it be like in a week, in a month. I’m sorry, as unpleasant as it is, I agree, CARB Approval stickers are a necessity. In my opinion, a very large number of “mechanics” (not the professionals) are nothing more than “part swappers”. There is more to being a mechanic than swapping parts. Look at the training tech have to undergo today.

It's not the mechanic, it's the owner. You also cannot ensure factory parts will last through the next week either. A car should be passed based upon the merrits of what it scores when tested.

I think many people have used CO2 and CO interchangeably here, albeit unintentional. CO2 is part of respiration, and I’d hate to see CARB regulate that.

Possibly. I know a lot of the environmental kooks are trying to press for more stringent testing as automobiles themselves are the cause of global warming (at least as their main target). They are pretty much in bed with anyone who can get cars off the road and you can be assured they are pressing for additional CARB regulations for the "greater good".

I wish there were more alternatives. Right now, I believe fuel cell vehicles are the best choice. Besides, the Honda I linked is not a bad looking car. I’d drive one.

The technology has to grow to the point that they are feasable to the public and can be made cheaply and that is quite a number of years away and a large amount of infrastructure has to be in place. Increasing MPG simply will pull financial resources away from alternative fueled vehicles which is the wrong thing to do.

Expressing disapproval with a system, even a system designed to benefit the environment doesn’t make one anti-environment. Anyone with an opinion has a right to rationally express it. Deliberately modifying a car, like adding a test pipe in place of a cat so someone can have a few more horsepower is anti-environment.

It's only anti-environment if they use it for daily use. If they use it on the track, where it's legal, then there is no real issue. There are numerous test pipes that still connect to a cat and simply have a removable bypass section for race purposes.

[spooled240]

I hate Gay people, I hate illegals, I hate stupid people and think that an IQ test should be given and anyone recieving a sub par score being forced to live in CA, I have an uncontrollable urge to burn tree's for no better reason then to see them burn, I think the ER should refuse people with no medical insurance, I think we should build a fence around the border of the entire US and enforce it with snipers, I think we should all own guns, I think we should pull out of the middle east...right after we drop in a few high yield nukes, I think we should ally with China and take over the world.

Yeah...I'm a Liberal

OMG, I don't think I found one thing on there that I really disagreed on...WD for pres! well cept the alliance with china-they pay their workers dirt and kill small businesses with no respect to patents and what not.

Only thing I have to say about CARB is I think they have their priorities all screwed up like many of you said earlier, they aim at the average joe who owns a 10 y.o civic missing a vacuum line for the EGR or whatever..

I'm Ka-t and have a straight 3" pipe no cat, no EGR, with a fat JWT tune and I don't feel guilty at all. What I wish CARB would allow me to do is to do whatever I want to do with my engine (turbo, etc.) and just monitor the emissions coming out of my pipe. I mean I can drive my car smog-legal balls to the wall and get lousy a$$ mileage but I can't put a turbo on?

I WOULD comply with CARB if they gave me the option of being ka-t and legal by simply hooking up the EGR or installing the necessary catalytic converters and such, but they DON'T- so f*** it, I'm going all out with my catless straight pipe ..just my experiences/opinions..

EDIT* o yeah, and I thought that was pretty ironic when Al Gore was promoting his movie on being green while flying in his PRIVATE jet...sure that's being green: flying a jet across the country to move 8 people..very efficient /sarcasm

[rn79870]

It's not the mechanic, it's the owner. You also cannot ensure factory parts will last through the next week either. A car should be passed based upon the merrits of what it scores when tested.[

You have a lot more faith in owners than I do. If it wasn’t for bailing wire and bubblegum, how many Civics would be running? Testing them would prove nothing but the bubblegum held long enough to pass the test.

The technology has to grow to the point that they are feasable to the public and can be made cheaply and that is quite a number of years away and a large amount of infrastructure has to be in place. Increasing MPG simply will pull financial resources away from alternative fueled vehicles which is the wrong thing to do.

I disagree. Increased MPG requirements will require that alternate fuel vehicles be considered as a means to meet the requirement. One 20 MPG car, and one car that uses no gasoline would produces a pretty healthy CAFÉ result. To be sure, CAFÉ has forced the auto industry to think outside the box of gasoline powered vehicles.

It's only anti-environment if they use it for daily use. If they use it on the track, where it's legal, then there is no real issue. There are numerous test pipes that still connect to a cat and simply have a removable bypass section for race purposes.

True, CARB allows for off road activity. However, you too have seen many threads here requesting info on adding a test pipe, even info on how to fool the ECU after such a modification. The intent is clearly other than “off road.” I’m not here to judge, after all, I have extensively modified my G with chrome license plate frames. Incidentally, they didn’t require CARB approval.

[rn79870]

OMG, I don't think I found one thing on there that I really disagreed on...WD for pres! well cept the alliance with china-they pay their workers dirt and kill small businesses with no respect to patents and what not.

Only thing I have to say about CARB is I think they have their priorities all screwed up like many of you said earlier, they aim at the average joe who owns a 10 y.o civic missing a vacuum line for the EGR or whatever..

I'm Ka-t and have a straight 3" pipe no cat, no EGR, with a fat JWT tune and I don't feel guilty at all. What I wish CARB would allow me to do is to do whatever I want to do with my engine (turbo, etc.) and just monitor the emissions coming out of my pipe. I mean I can drive my car smog-legal balls to the wall and get lousy a$$ mileage but I can't put a turbo on?

I WOULD comply with CARB if they gave me the option of being ka-t and legal by simply hooking up the EGR or installing the necessary catalytic converters and such, but they DON'T- so f*** it, I'm going all out with my catless straight pipe ..just my experiences/opinions..

EDIT* o yeah, and I thought that was pretty ironic when Al Gore was promoting his movie on being green while flying in his PRIVATE jet...sure that's being green: flying a jet across the country to move 8 people..very efficient /sarcasm

Thank You. You have unwittingly done more to prove my point than anything so far. What say you audtatious now, care to reevaluate the "let the driver" theory?

[spooled240]

I'm aware of that rn79870, I know that owners can't be trusted with staying stock-there are thousands of cars on the road with illegal mods and engine swaps I'm just saying that these rules for emissions contradict themselves. How can one CARB approved CAI be more "smog legal" than a non-approved one?

To me, their purpose for regulating emmissions is blinded by their selling of patents to make millions.

BTW, there's currently no CARB approved ka24de turbo kit.

[audtatious]

Amen. CARB tests the air in San Diego, and it is dirtier than the other areas of the state, so the assumption is that the vehicle inspection program and the inspectors are not doing their job. Needless to say, every beater that can’t fetch more than $100, or fails too many smog tests, up gets shipped to Mexico and sold at an inflated price to the poor folks down there. Then the emissions just float across the border.

So, now we have a percentage of emissions that we cannot solve via CARB regulations and the percentage of those vehicles will be growing as our population are getting the less-pollutant newer-version 2nd/3rd hand cars.

It’s a geography problem. I can take the Coaster (train) to San Diego and then the trolley but I’m still miles from where I need to be. Now, a 35 minute trip to a destination in San Diego turns into a 1.5 hour trip with a 30 minute walk, cab ride. It just isn’t efficient here.

Somewhat no, somewhat yes. I was in San Diego for the last two weeks (damn rain) and think they can somewhat abate traffic by utilizing other means. If you solely focus on areas which would have a higher number of older vehicles (less income areas) then you stand a better chance of making an improvement when discussing public transportation. Those of us with good jobs and decent incomes would not consider those ultra-cheap Chinese parts you don't like anyway and would not really use public transportation so why waste time on that perspective for the whole area. Still that's small compared to getting the trucking industry to come to standardized requirements.

That’s pretty much what it is, only CARB adds a “prove it” factor to the statement.

Which is relatively simple but full of red tape and expense. Realize I'm talking intake and catbacks as Greg was talking, not major modifications. Even something like headers could be covered by the same things as post-installation test results would show if the vehicle is compliant to requirements. No need to put it in front of "X" number of scientists and some review panel nonsence. Could there be cheaters? Sure, but simply making the cost of being caught high enough will end that.

CARB is definitely involved in the entire air resource situation. It is simply that they identified vehicles as one of the major causes of the problem in California.

Yet they keep focusing on the easy target. Go get the unrestricted large trucks next instead of already regulated auto's and lt trucks.

[spooled240]

Yet they keep focusing on the easy target. Go get the unrestricted large trucks next instead of already regulated auto's and lt trucks.

I agree, they keep tightening the already strict smog requirements w/out even regulating all the other major sources of pollution.

[AZhitman]

Enthusiasts such as our man with the KA-T make up such a small segment of the driving population that it's patently ABSURD to target them.

Unfortunately, Bob has strayed from fielding the TOUGH questions and chosen to flail away at the softballs lobbed by others.

I'm still waiting to hear why big V8 Vickys are idling by the roadside to ticket a 1.6 liter car with an aftermarket intake.

[audtatious]

You have a lot more faith in owners than I do. If it wasn’t for bailing wire and bubblegum, how many Civics would be running? Testing them would prove nothing but the bubblegum held long enough to pass the test.

Not from a visual inspection perspective. I assume as part of CARB testing they do a safety inspection too? Should be quite easy to do two things. 1. sniff to pass. 2. mechanically sound

I disagree. Increased MPG requirements will require that alternate fuel vehicles be considered as a means to meet the requirement. One 20 MPG car, and one car that uses no gasoline would produces a pretty healthy CAFÉ result. To be sure, CAFÉ has forced the auto industry to think outside the box of gasoline powered vehicles.

At the point where the alternative-fueled vehicle is cost effective (talking primarily about a "zero-emissions" vehicle like your Honda) then the dino-burners will start to deminish. While I have no clue what a timeframe would be I would assume that the focus-shift to a 44MPG standard could push out the zero-emission vehicles availability by 10+ years?

True, CARB allows for off road activity. However, you too have seen many threads here requesting info on adding a test pipe, even info on how to fool the ECU after such a modification. The intent is clearly other than “off road.” I’m not here to judge, after all, I have extensively modified my G with chrome license plate frames. Incidentally, they didn’t require CARB approval.

Those chrome frames can blind tailgaters

Again, visual inspection at the check-up. Of course it's not right to punish everyone because some people can't play by the rules.

[rn79870]

I'm aware of that rn79870, I know that owners can't be trusted with staying stock-there are thousands of cars on the road with illegal mods and engine swaps I'm just saying that these rules for emissions contradict themselves. How can one CARB approved CAI be more "smog legal" than a non-approved one?

To me, their purpose for regulating emmissions is blinded by their selling of patents to make millions.

BTW, there's currently no CARB approved ka24de turbo kit.

How can one CARB approved CAI be more "smog legal" than a non-approved one?

I assume you mean "efficient" not "legal." If you meant legal then the answer is simply because it is approved. If you meant efficient, then the answer is that one is proven to work, and to not detrimentally affect the cars emission performance. The other is a large question mark.

To me, their purpose for regulating emmissions is blinded by their selling of patents to make millions.

CARB doesn't sell patents or profit from patents. Patents are under the jurisdiction of the US Patent office.

[audtatious]

Thank You. You have unwittingly done more to prove my point than anything so far. What say you audtatious now, care to reevaluate the "let the driver" theory?

Nope. And I will be laughing my azz off at them when they are caught and fined or have the car impounded and crushed

[rn79870]

audtatious, hold your thought. I actually work for a living and need to pay a little attention to the business. Back by noon.

[Kendahl]

We simply need to mandate black-box governors to limit acceleration and speed capabilities because it's for our own good and that of the environment.

I hope you are satirizing the arrogant, self righteous, would be tyrants who want to force their personal life style choices on everyone else.

One of the problems with single mission organizations like CARB is that they have no incentive to consider the cost of accomplishing their mission in terms of overall quality of life. In that respect, they are no different from businesses that focus exclusively on profit without considering the impact on employees, customers and the community.

It would be a shame if driving becomes just another chore like mowing the lawn or taking out the garbage. If it does, I will treat cars the way I treat my lawn mower and garbage cans. That is, the less spent, the less wasted. My car will be will be an old, cheap, tin box that receives just enough maintenance to keep it running. Forget anything like a G37.

Public transportation is not a panacea. It places no value on people's personal time. Some examples:- I knew a guy who worked in New York City and lived in Connecticut. Each day, he spent six hours on trains and buses commuting to and from work.- When my wife and I were young, broke and down to one car (which she needed), I spent two hours a day riding the bus to and from work. We bought a second car as soon as we could afford one.- When my wife and I were looking for our current house, one of the criteria was that she be able to leave work at 5 pm, come home for supper and make it to an orchestra rehearsal in another part of the city by 7 pm. This was feasible if she drove, but not if she had to ride the bus.

[AZhitman]

One of the problems with single mission organizations like CARB is that they have no incentive to consider the cost of accomplishing their mission in terms of overall quality of life. In that respect, they are no different from businesses that focus exclusively on profit without considering the impact on employees, customers and the community.

^

Finally - A free-market thinker who GETS IT.

[spooled240]

yeah I don't think that my ka-t and some of these other sr20 guys or even civics with a stock b16 swap are pumping as much emissions into the atmosphere as a trucker who drives 500 miles/day chuggin black smoke...there are certainly WAY more sources of major pollutants than us car enthusiasts, it just makes sense to me to target the BIGGER source, not the EASIEST.

[spooled240]

Nope. And I will be laughing my azz off at them when they are caught and fined or have the car impounded and crushed

You remind me of a politician who doesn't give a **** about the common man's hobbies and imposes stupid *** laws that just give the government more power. I'm assuming you're OK with wire tapping and other infringements on privacy that the gov. can now do for the "common good"?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is about half-assed now IMO

[audtatious]

I hope you are satirizing the arrogant, self righteous, would be tyrants who want to force their personal life style choices on everyone else.

If you read the whole thread you would know if I was serious or not

[audtatious]

You remind me of a politician who doesn't give a **** about the common man's hobbies and imposes stupid *** laws that just give the government more power. I'm assuming you're OK with wire tapping and other infringements on privacy that the gov. can now do for the "common good"?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is about half-assed now IMO

My suggestion to you is to watch your tone in this thread. If you care for more information on my statement then ask instead of going off on a rant. We are having a discussion here.

[AZhitman]

I'm just thankful for my "Collector Car" status.

No emissions, no bureaucratic nonsense.

Incidentally, I love how CA has CARB, but you can drive on bald tires at freeway speeds - No vehicle inspection programs to speak of.

Why? I'll tell you. Because in politician parlance, it "unnecessarily targets the working poor".

Bullcrap. If you can't afford to maintain your car, walk. Better yet, leave the Kommunist Republik of Kalifornia. Driving is a privilege, not a right.