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

[audtatious]

Isn't lack of maintenance another contributing factor to pollution?. Hell, even we have a small safety check.

[AZhitman]

Sure it is.

However, CARB and the CHP can't be bothered with whether a car leaks 2 quarts of oil a month, they have cold-air intake violations to enforce.

[Sentientbydesign]

well what about the numerous ka/Sr swaps to s13s or s14s? that is not substantially changing emissions. or the l28 6 cylinder to the vg30. Im not allowed to take my s12 and put a ka24de engine which has better emissions then my ca18et, but im allowed to drop in a vg30e engine which is worse gas milage due to it being in the same car. that sort of thing makes zero sense. Thats direct quote from bakersfield PD on what was allowed or not. so if that isnt in your area i apologize. thats the info i got, Im not allowed to put obd2 or any engine that was not available in the cars production in the US. ergo i read that as above.

This actually isn't the case.

From what I've read, swapping engines to ANY other engine regardless if it was offered in your car is frowned upon, but the real kicker is the emissions.

If your swap engine produces lower emissions than the original, you should be fine. Do some CA DMV reading.

[Eikon]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Damn right!!!

I wish people understood this!

[audtatious]

Sure it is.

However, CARB and the CHP can't be bothered with whether a car leaks 2 quarts of oil a month, they have cold-air intake violations to enforce.

Who cares. They look good with their 22" chrome rims and the oil soot can be wiped off the rear bumper....

[audtatious]

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

Sure thing. I have a home office so I am enviro-mentally friendly

[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

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.

sure thing, but can you blame me? Your gonna laugh your azz off if I get my car crushed? I'll ask this: what the f***?

[audtatious]

sure thing, but can you blame me? Your gonna laugh your azz off if I get my car crushed? I'll ask this: what the f***?

I said "at them" not "at you". At this point I doubt there are laws which allow them to do anything other than not allow you to register the vehicle, BUT that could change and they could easily put something like that on the books (CA will crush cars caught street racing already).

Now, if you don't like the regulations then you need to fight them. Simply dismissing them because you do not approve means you have to pay the price if you are caught. If the results ended in you losing the car then it would be your own fault at the poor choice you made. Yes, there would be plenty of people laughing at you for it as well. It's human nature.

[spooled240]

This actually isn't the case.

From what I've read, swapping engines to ANY other engine regardless if it was offered in your car is frowned upon, but the real kicker is the emissions.

If your swap engine produces lower emissions than the original, you should be fine. Do some CA DMV reading.

You can swap any engine if it is of the same MAKE and the same year or newer.

Sure it is.

However, CARB and the CHP can't be bothered with whether a car leaks 2 quarts of oil a month, they have cold-air intake violations to enforce.

right on In japan, they have safety inspections instead of emissions testing(I think). That's how every car can have aftermarket exhausts and turbos, etc.

My basic proposal is to allow these modifications but keep the emissions testing, in other words, you can have a t4 turbo on 30 psi if the emissions out of the tail pipe are the same as stock. But since my pep boys air filter is illegal, it wouldn't do me any good to hook the EGR pipe and and catalytics-because it's still ILLEGAL.

[audtatious]

My basic proposal is to allow these modifications but keep the emissions testing, in other words, you can have a t4 turbo on 30 psi if the emissions out of the tail pipe are the same as stock. But since my pep boys air filter is illegal, it wouldn't do me any good to hook the EGR pipe and and catalytics-because it's still ILLEGAL.

Which is pretty much what a lot of us have been saying. As long as it meets requirements via a sniffer then I personally have no issue with it. Unless you and others get together and fight for it you will never get anything changed via CARB and they will continue to put more and more restrictions on you.

[spooled240]

agreed

[audtatious]

See, that wasn't bad.

BTW, your sig pic is too big (600x200 max)

[rn79870]

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.

Californians pretty much look upon the results of CARB as improving the overall quality of life. There is an abundance of evidence supporting that supposition. Californians pretty much don’t care if there is an aftermarket culture or not, and that aftermarket culture is doing nothing to improve their image. (see spooled240 previous post.)

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.

There are many people who believe that. In fact, a new car like a G37 is no more desirable to them than a new trash can. It is a means to an end. Go ask that same question on the Dr. Phil forum and see how many people jump on the car enthusist bandwagon.

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.

I agree. Public transportation needs attention. It just never seems to be going near where I need to go.

[AZhitman]

Californians pretty much don’t care if there is an aftermarket culture or not, and that aftermarket culture is doing nothing to improve their image.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

The car culture put SoCal on the map. In fact, few things are more closely tied to Southern California than hot rods, except maybe brainless bimbos, smog and vapid self-indulgence.

Spooled points out the EXACT problem - Instead of seeing the forest, CARB focuses on individual leaves of individual trees.

Instead of emissions testing cars annually and being satisfied, they impose scattershot enforcement of arbitrary and poorly-considered restrictions on individual parts of a whole.

AZ has a much better system. Not perfect, but better.

And don't give me any yap about AZ not having the pollution problem CA has - We live in a giant bowl, and "inversion" makes sure the brown cloud STAYS right over the Valley. No coastal breezes for us to shift the haze. We're reducing it in a much smarter way.

[WDRacing]

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

I couldn't agree more Bob I've been saying that for 6 pages now.

[rn79870]

^

Finally - A free-market thinker who GETS IT.

Yeah AZ, I saw a little of your Free Market Enterprise in action today. Some dimwit had chosen to unload his trash, old sofa, cushions, trash bags and a mirror, etc in the middle of the road. He could have chosen to PAY to dispose of it at the dump. But free market economics dictated that he chose the cheaper of the two options and make his problem someone else's. Financially the better choice I suppose.This is exactly where emissions would be if the free market was allowed to dictate emission compliance.

I suppose a cop would have ticketed him, but to do so would have meant he left his Crown Vic idling by the road and that wouldn't have been worth it. As I think about it, we better just leave it there, because sending crew out to remove it only means more emissions too.

Your idea of free market enterprise will result in cars that look like the owners sprayed them with contact cement and drove through Pep Boys seeing what Chinese aftermarket crap sticks. A horse designed by a committee would look better. Then you want some poor smog mech to try and figure what in the hell the dimwit did so he can test and certify the car.

See the errors in your position?

[rn79870]

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.

Yes, there is no longer a mandatory safety inspection program, nor are there roadside inspection programs. We do have quite a few sobriety check points and others that insure compliance with drivers licenses/insurance/registration requirements.

[WDRacing]

Yeah AZ, I saw a little of your Free Market Enterprise in action today. Some dimwit had chosen to unload his trash, old sofa, cushions, trash bags and a mirror, etc in the middle of the road. He could have chosen to PAY to dispose of it at the dump. But free market economics dictated that he chose the cheaper of the two options and make his problem someone else's. Financially the better choice I suppose.This is exactly where emissions would be if the free market was allowed to dictate emission compliance.

You have stated yourself multiple times in this thread, please stick to the facts. Someone commiting a crime isn't Free Market Economics...so your post is exactly what we're trying to get away from here.

If I'm going to keep others inline, I expect you to follow the same rules.

Agreed?

[rn79870]

I disagree wholeheartedly.

The car culture put SoCal on the map. In fact, few things are more closely tied to Southern California than hot rods, except maybe brainless bimbos, smog and vapid self-indulgence.

There was just an article in the paper discussing all the brainless bimbos we have sent to ASU to be educated, (because UC system didn’t have classes at their level) and how they always managed to find their way home. Were perplexed too.

Spooled points out the EXACT problem - Instead of seeing the forest, CARB focuses on individual leaves of individual trees.

California/CARB have sufficient resources to concentrate on both, in fact, that is what they do. Leaves, roots, stalks, stems and the shadow they cast.

Instead of emissions testing cars annually and being satisfied, they impose scattershot enforcement of arbitrary and poorly-considered restrictions on individual parts of a whole.

Sort of like the little Dutch boy plugging the leak with his finger. He should have just left it alone, right?

AZ has a much better system. Not perfect, but better.

And don't give me any yap about AZ not having the pollution problem CA has - We live in a giant bowl, and "inversion" makes sure the brown cloud STAYS right over the Valley. No coastal breezes for us to shift the haze. We're reducing it in a much smarter way.

Do you like the smog? Doesn’t sound like AZ has been too efficient in its approach to removing it as CA has. You can come over and enjoy our clean air and clean beaches anytime though.But you’ve explained why AZ was the first state to jump in and join CA in the lawsuit to allow stricter restrictions.

[rn79870]

You have stated yourself multiple times in this thread, please stick to the facts. Someone commiting a crime isn't Free Market Economics...so your post is exactly what we're trying to get away from here.

If I'm going to keep others inline, I expect you to follow the same rules.

Agreed?

You missed the analogy presented. The point was that the individual would always gravitate towards what is financially best for him, not what is best for society. A free market driving an unpopular regulation is not likely to happen.

You owe me an apology.

[WDRacing]

Your idea of free market enterprise will result in cars that look like the owners sprayed them with contact cement and drove through Pep Boys seeing what Chinese aftermarket crap sticks. A horse designed by a committee would look better. Then you want some poor smog mech to try and figure what in the hell the dimwit did so he can test and certify the car.

See the errors in your position?

You are speculating 100% and doing so from a BIASED point of view. I find it argumentative at best. Please refrain...

There are very easy ways to enforce compliance, but I can't go over them with you because you fail to acknowledge that there may indeed be another alternative.

WD

[WDRacing]

You missed the analogy presented. The point was that the individual would always gravitate towards what is financially best for him, not what is best for society. A free market driving an unpopular regulation is not unlikely to happen.

You owe me an apology.

No sir I do not, you're saying that we all do whats easiest by nature. That in fact insults me...if anything I expect you to realize that. Don't continue on this course please.

[spooled240]

I couldn't agree more Bob I've been saying that for 6 pages now.

i actually said that, he refuted:

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

and while we were on topic of out of state emission laws, there are other states that allow a turboed engine such as a ka-t as long as the EGR is hooked up and the necessary cats to comply with emissions..

with AZhitman's metaphor of the forest(I'm getting into poetry shyt haha), CARB focuses on the small trees instead of the "sequoias" of pollution like big rigs, trains, jets. But instead, they are trying to squeeze out every last mpg and force stricter emission laws on the common person's cars. Next they will have CARB approved vacuum lines at an outrageous price..anything to make a buck IMO.

[spooled240]

Californians pretty much look upon the results of CARB as improving the overall quality of life. There is an abundance of evidence supporting that supposition. Californians pretty much don’t care if there is an aftermarket culture or not, and that aftermarket culture is doing nothing to improve their image. (see spooled240 previous post.)

how do you suppose we "improve our image"?

[C-Kwik]

yet there are places much more crowded and similar population density as so cal in general with less red tape and less smog issues.

as it was said above yes geography plays a part and a very large part, but still you dont see NYC or Norfolk/Dc area area doing that and they have the same population density as most Cali cities.

It's not just density. Consider this. If it rains or gets windy here, the air actually clears up. 2 days later, it's right back to where it was. Certainly, if the smog could leave the area with relative ease, it might not be so bad, but the reality is, it simply isn't so simple.

There are solutions that can be effective, perhaps moreso, than current laws, and still be enthusiast friendly. However, despite California's high level of enthusiasm for cars, it still makes up a relatively small number of the actual voting population. It's enough to be able to fight off certain overzealous legislative attempts that are fairly narrow in scope, but trying to undo what is already done when it has a much broader scope (at least in appearance), requires many many more votors to accomplish.

[C-Kwik]

with AZhitman's metaphor of the forest(I'm getting into poetry shyt haha), CARB focuses on the small trees instead of the "sequoias" of pollution like big rigs, trains, jets. But instead, they are trying to squeeze out every last mpg and force stricter emission laws on the common person's cars. Next they will have CARB approved vacuum lines at an outrageous price..anything to make a buck IMO.

While I don't disagree that there can be improvements with the "big" polluters, that doesn't mean they should focus their attention away from passenger cars. Can they approach passenger cars differently? Sure. But we should not ignore it.

I'm not opposed to better gas mileage. But it can become taxing if the government tries to raise efficiency faster thean technology allows. That might put a big burden on everyone, not just those who want the fast sports cars or gas-guzzling "toy" trucks and SUV's. It puts it on the soccer mom who is forced to drive 5 kids and gear in a Corolla. Sure, she can still own an SUV or Minivan, but if it doesn't meet the CAFE standards, its likely not going to be as affordable. Multiply that by millions of soccer moms and it takes a toll. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence better gas mileage on the consumer by making efficiency a more affordable option, but it should really only affect the "luxuries. Not the reasonable necessities. CAFE standards should mimic the mainstream autos. Not the most efficient cars.

[USAF_G35_Guy]

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.

whoo hoo! I concure! Even though he is from Texas and I'm an Okie! We still see eye to eye very much so!

........As far as this thread is going.....I think, look to the future (50+ years) and think about where the world is gonna be as far as fuel/cars/emissions and anything along those lines are concerned. Then use all current technology to get there!

Humm.....how about lets all pimp out our houses with solar panels! run everything off of free power from the sun. Recharge your electric near zero emmisions electric car and also dump some power back onto the grid and get paid for it! Sure, the initial investment is high, but will pay for itself AND clean up the air and world we live in! And yes, I know that solar panels are not cheap to make, and also create their own emissions to produce (like everything else in the world) but again....the long term is what we're looking at here!

I haven't researched it, but didn't Cali do a test run on electric cars in the 70's or 80's or something? They Leased (not sold them) to a test market. All of the people loved the cars and wanted to keep them, but after "THE MAN" saw how good they were and how much they would hurt the economy and oil industry.....they scooped up the Leased Cars upon their lease being up. Destroyed them, and then they were never heard from again! Ya....CARB is looking out for everyones interest! not saying CARB did it, but I'm sure someones uncle or cousin from CARB was on the GM elec car board, or whoever built it. And just think of the technology today.....wow, we are really holding our greedy *** selves back. As far as Hydrogen goes...I guess we can watch Europe and some parts of the USA that are already using hydrogen cars and have Hydrogen Highways with hydrogen fillup stations every 20-50miles or whatever it is. Just review the before reading of pollutants and 5 years from now....check em again and see how hydrogen is doing.

......oh BTW, don't nuke Iraq until I leave. You can even wait until I'm on the plane and can look out the window and see the mushroom cloud!

....oh ya, WD for pres!!! it's time to get back into the, what is that thing called again? OH ya! the Constitution! a little bit, and use that as a good source of reference when we're thinking about our next president.

[spooled240]

While I don't disagree that there can be improvements with the "big" polluters, that doesn't mean they should focus their attention away from passenger cars. Can they approach passenger cars differently? Sure. But we should not ignore it.

Yeah we shouldn't ignore the passenger cars, but I wish CARB would allow modifications that would still pass the emissions test(even if a turbo with stock exhaust is required, I wouldn't mind)..all I could've done to my engine to be street legal was a NISMO CAI and a CARB approved header to gain 3 hp at redline, screw that

[spooled240]

whoo hoo! I concure! Even though he is from Texas and I'm an Okie! We still see eye to eye very much so!

haha, dude I'm from CA about an hour from Hollywood and I see eye to eye with the Texan

[WDRacing]

whoo hoo! I concure! Even though he is from Texas and I'm an Okie! We still see eye to eye very much so!

haha, dude I'm from CA about an hour from Hollywood and I see eye to eye with the Texan

I'm from Boston you poopyhead!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this part of TX, I'm only here cause my wife is still active duty. If I have my way, we're either gonna move to NH or FL and retire in 5 years.

Anymore more mentioning of TX from you two and I'm breaking out the BAN stick