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

[audtatious]

Take a chill-pill cowboy

[spooled240]

^LMAO!!! And I thought you were some super-conservative cowboy from TX..o oops lol

[USAF_G35_Guy]

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

you sound Texan enough to me they musta rubbed off on ya! You do seem to be a little overly intelligent for a Texan though, so the whole East Coast thing explains it. Your wifey a medical instructor or something there? There's alot of training that goes on at that base. BTW.....retire before 40? NICE!!!

side note:....BTW....I'm looking forward for your rear ST write-up! I found a few companies that custom fab em, but no kits yet except for the Z

[WDRacing]

She teaches Plans and Scheduling...Sheppard sucks..nuff said about that.

The remote setup is pretty straight fwd really. Just a matter of running the basic plumbing with oil scavenge being the hardest part. But I think I have that figured out pretty well.

WD

[C-Kwik]

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

Problem is, the emissions test only tests warmed up cars. Turbos more than any other mod can have the biggest impact on smog inherent by it's design. With enough time, certainly it can be tuned similar to stock when off boost, but the problem is, that unless you mount the turbo after the cat, then the cold start emissions will be affected quite a bit.

[spooled240]

well there's new cars that are turboed which comply with strict smog laws. I dunno, I think a turbo engine off boost would be exactly the same as a stock n/a engine at cold start because all the turbo is really doing is passing air when just cruisin around town.

[C-Kwik]

Turbos by design are made to absorb heat from the exhaust to convert it into mechanical energy to help drive the compressor. Even if intake manifold pressure is not pressurized, the turbo is still trying to use whatever energy it can from the exhaust. Not to mention a turbo adds more mass between the engine and cat that can potentially absorb heat that could be used to heat up the cat. Some it is the same reason manufacturers have moved the cats closer and closer to the engine.

[spooled240]

ah yes I see..the differences are minimal I imagine though and like you said certain things can be done like moving the cat closer to the turbo. I strongly believe that I could get my car to pass emissions with the turbo with everything hooked up..or at least pretty damn close

[rn79870]

I’ve taken a day of so and removed myself from this thread for a little self-searching. Sometimes when we get involved in something, and the room temperature begins to rise, it is better to go for a little walk and see if 2 and 2 still equals 4. I did, and even verified with a couple of free thinking individuals that in fact, 2 and 2 is still 4. I thank them.

Spooled 240You asked

how do you suppose we "improve our image"?

After posting this-

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?

If you are not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Removing emission equipment is both illegal and unresponsible.

Your questions whether you should be able to turbo your car and justify it by pointing to new cars available with turbos. True, certain new cars are available turbocharged. Those cars are tested for emissions and certified not only to meet emission standards, but to meet safety standards as well. Faster cars require better, stronger brakes, stronger suspensions, and tires with tread on them. If you believe putting a turbo on a car without addressing all the other issues involved is safe and reasonable, then CARB has possibly saved you from making a grave mistake.

By the way, forced induction in CARB land isn’t illegal. There are several examples of aftermarket CARB legal systems for Nissan and Infiniti cars. Try Google.

There are legal Cat back exhaust systems (there is one on our 06 GT). Some headers and Induction systems also are approved. All you have to do is find one with a CARB approved sticker. Again, try Google.

C_Kwik.As usual, you dive into the issues and hit the heart of the matter pretty successfully. Thank you for your efforts. I know you too appreciate the clean(er) air that we now have in our state, I don’t even have to ask.

WDRacing. I would ask that you not take what I say personal. I may strongly disagree with what you say, but not you as a person. Just because your opinion is diametrically opposed to mine in this matter, means only that we disagree on a single subject. I’m sure there is a far greater number of things we would see eye to eye on. If we choose to debate a matter that we disagree on, it is only fair that we do it on a level playing field.

And USAF Guy… I’ve saved you for last.

Note: to keep many from being confused about USAF Guys electric car issue, an the electric car is different than the current hybrid car.

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.

You are close, not that close.Yes, there were electric cars. Honda and Toyota leased them to the owners with the understanding that they would be returned to the manufacturer after the lease expired. The people actually bought them and loved them, even though they did not have the battery technology available now available that would have made them far more drivable. The HondaEV used Toyota-Panasonic EV-95 nickel metal hydride batteries , the only proven battery for Electric cars. This battery gave it a range about twice that of lead acid. Any old driver got 90-100 miles out of a single charge, even with no regard for conservation. Careful drivers got at least 148 miles on a single charge, and average drivers 120 miles on a single charge. http://www.ev1.org/

Want to know who to blame for preventing the better batteries being made available?

On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold control of the patent rights needed for the EV-95 batteries to Texaco. On Oct. 16, Texaco announced it would merge into Chevron (Standard Oil). The next year, Chevron funded a lawsuit against Toyota-Panasonic et al., and the battery production line for the EV-95 batteries was halted. http://www.ev1.org/

Now, are you willing to blame CARB for killing the electric car?

I remember a news cast from the GM parking lot in Burbank (I think it was Burbank) where probably 50 people were standing there with checks in their hand to buy the GM electric vehicles that GM had collected from return leases. GM would truck them, a few at a time to a crushing plant. They refused to sell them to the people standing there with money in their hand. Honda did the same thing with their electric cars. They were crushed while willing buyers watched. http://hondaev.org/acar.html

Who really has an interest in selling gasoline, CARB or Standard Oil? Who proposed 44MPG CAFÉ standards, CARB or Standard Oil?

......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!

Then what would you have to tell your grandkids about?

[Sentientbydesign]

Some math doctor did her thesis on why 1+1=2. I haven't read it, but I'm interested in knowing how someone could make something so simple, so complex to qualify for a doctorate thesis.

Anyways, aren't you guys done yet? Jacko didn't even piss anyone off this time and you're at 7 pages.

Just think about this.

Paradigms. All of our POV are shifted from reality in some way. Our POV is heavily dependent upon the environment around us and the experiences of our lives.

Those who live in cities where smog may occur a handful of days out of the year are not going to see things the same way as those who have lived with it their whole lives and may have permanent respiratory damage because of it.

On the flip side, those of us who have never been "locked up" by political red tape will not be able to understand why CARB is strangling both the consumer and the manufacturer and severly limiting free trade.

What both sides need to understand is that a solution that incorporates both ideals can be reached. Very little compromise must occur in order for this to happen. Unfortunately, none of us are in a high enough position of power to make this happen. I am definately "IN" if someone has direction as to how we can make true changes through our political "leaders".

And please stop with the name calling and the incinuations. They aren't getting us anywhere. Refer to my paradigm comments above if you have an objection to this paragraph. That statement blankets this whole 7 page conversation/debate.

[rn79870]

And please stop with the name calling and the incinuations. They aren't getting us anywhere. Refer to my paradigm comments above if you have an objection to this paragraph. That statement blankets this whole 7 page conversation/debate.

Are we talking about the same thread here? I'm confused by your comment. Could you point to my name calling and my insinuations please.

[USAF_G35_Guy]

Thanks for the awesome info rd79870! I had heard something at one time or another about the electric car scandal/coverup, but like I said, had never researched it. Nah, I don't blame CARB, honestly...I don't know enough to truely have an informed opinion... but I still like throwin my .02 in! But if I don't know 100% what I'm talking about, I say so before hand. Definitely never take what anyone says on the internet as fact...like some people are dumb enough to do. BTW, the cars were getting 100+ miles on a single charge? That's awesome! I remember reading somewhere that the average American commute is 27 miles. Of course, Cali is one of those states where the commutes are much higher, but still, elec cars could , would, and will be awesome when they are implemented. And they're still quick as hell! And will throw you back in your seat with some super fast torque!

[C-Kwik]

ah yes I see..the differences are minimal I imagine though and like you said certain things can be done like moving the cat closer to the turbo. I strongly believe that I could get my car to pass emissions with the turbo with everything hooked up..or at least pretty damn close

Not really. Most modern cars run pretty clean once warmed up (the catalyst in particular). Enough so that they claim that cars will pollute more in the 1st 30 seconds than the rest of the time you drive. Sure, it's easy enough to build a car to pass the rolling emissions test we go through every 2 years. But it's entirely different to try and pass the tests manufacturers must go through before they can offer their vehicles for sale.

That said, when I had my KA-T, it passed the sniffer part of a smog with the EGR blocked. Barely however, as NOx was literally 1 point under at both speeds. But definitely many times what it would emit in stock form...

[spooled240]

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.

I'm not opposed to having clean air, I just wish CARB and car enthusiasts like myself could reach some sort of compromise like the one I mentioned earler^.

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.

Some of you guys already said that you personally wouldn't have a problem with it...Even if CARB required newer clean-emissions technology with the exhaust on newer turbo cars and whatnot, I would be happy just with the OPTION. Like I said and rn79870 said, there ARE CARB appoved aftermarket upgrades like headers, catbacks and cold air intakes but there are minimal power gains that are not worth it compared to forced induction IMO.

I'm not for a free for all society with absolutely no emissions control, but I just want a little more legal OPTIONS to satisfy my goals as a car enthusiast

[audtatious]

What does CARB utilize to determine future regulations? From what I can tell they are basing new requirements on the IPCC scare-tactic report that is now so full of holes it looks like a target at sniper training school. Thus, they are basing Cali requirements on what is currently being attributed as "junk science"?

Is their real goal to lower CO2 in order to help counter Global Warming or are they actually targeting real pollution issues (like what you see out your window in the morning, which is not CO2)?

[rn79870]

What does CARB utilize to determine future regulations? From what I can tell they are basing new requirements on the IPCC scare-tactic report that is now so full of holes it looks like a target at sniper training school. Thus, they are basing Cali requirements on what is currently being attributed as "junk science"?

Is their real goal to lower CO2 in order to help counter Global Warming or are they actually targeting real pollution issues (like what you see out your window in the morning, which is not CO2)?

I don’t see any evidence that Albert Arnold Gore Jr and his IPCC has played any part in the formation of CARB regulations. In fact, IPCC isn’t referenced on the CARB web site.

I haven’t looked into EPA requirements and don’t know whether they are responsible for the EPA standards or now.

However, CARB is targeting CO2. According to CARB, conversion of 1 MMT (million metric tons) of CO2, to a unit that the public can visualize. Not operating 216,000 passenger cars for 1 year, would save 1MMT of CO2. Saving 114,000,000 gallons of gas, (California uses 16,000,000,000 gallons per year), would also save 1MMT of CO2. Or following AZ’s example of trees, 26,000,000 seedling trees growing for 10 years will produce 1MMT of CO2. California seems to have an asset in the battle in that there are 800+ miles of coastline with alga helping with the CO2 problem.

From the CARB site;California is the only state with emission standards that are independent of those set by the federal EPA and cars produced under ARB limits -- typically the national trendsetter -- are the world's cleanest, vital in a state with smog problems greater than those in the remaining states combined. "All of the technology that reduces emissions from cars all over the world -- from catalytic converters to computerized anti-smog systems -- was developed because of the ARB's emission standards," he continued. "If these proposals (referring to the CARB proposals) are adopted, they could pave the way for a whole new generation of cars and technology will redefine what we consider an environmentally acceptable car for the next two decades. (1990 - 2010)

I see nothing for standards beyond 2010. In fact, they appear to be set on meeting the EPA requirements for 2010, and any thought beyond that isn’t readily apparent on their site.

The SIP is the states road map to attain federal clean air standards by 2010 and includes among its measures strategies to further reduce air pollution from automobiles and other mobile sources. When LEV II is fully implemented in 2010, it is estimated that smog-forming emissions in the Los Angeles area will be reduced by 57 tons per day, while the statewide reduction will be 155 tons per day.

[audtatious]

Realize that I am on the outside looking in as I currently do not have to deal with CARB standards although I am sure that my car would pass with no issues, thus the constant questioning of CARB and "why" from my perspective as it will eventually bite me in the future. In general, anything that comes out of an environmentalist think tank should be looked further into just as much as stuff spewing from oil/coal-based research as well.

On a quick-check I find the following:

"Californias Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a plan (1493 which has since been passed in 2002) to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new cars and trucks starting in 2009. To sell cars in California, automakers will have to reduce fleet average GHG emissions by 22 percent in 2012 and 30 percent in 2016. CARBs rulemaking is a raw deal for auto dealers in California and any other state that mimics Californias plan. "

"To justify its rule, CARB cites the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) forecast of a 2.5F to 10.4F warming over the next 100 years."

The above scares the crap outta me which is one of the reasons I will argue about some of the environmental policies being put on the books. They are basing the requirements not from your own air quality but on what the UN has stated as fact (and that "ALL scientists agree" BS), etc. CARB is the stepping stone into getting additional requirements forced down the EPA, thus it only serves extreme environmentalists to do whatever they can to get these laws passed in California by any means possible.

Again, I'm not against smart laws and regulations to resolve problems. I simply check my wallet any time I see these style Califorinia requirements being pressed forth.

[rn79870]

Good catch. I searched the CARB site and found no reference to IPCC or Al Gore. In fact, I could find no standard that stated certain plans beyond the 2010 year. I did see many documents on CO2 and plans to reduce that gas.

Part of the problem is that CARB is suffering from an inflated ego.CARB feels that the current state of emission control throughout the US is the result of CARB efforts. I agree with your statement that currently environmentalist find it easier to deal with CARB than the EPA in promoting ecological plans. In fact, what I found regarding CARBs criteria for emission standards tends to indicate that their only criteria is whether or not the technologically is available or feasible. Push the standards to the limit of the technology.

Even considering the stricter emission requirements found today, the resulting technology has advanced to the point that the vehicles are performing better than ever before. Better emission, more powerful and safer vehicles are the result of all this. Performance vehicles today rival the muscle car era of the late 60s and early 70s. today's cars do it within the EPA/CARB and CAFE standards, not to mention all the Fed safety standards.

Although the standards that I've seen even for the 2010 year rely in part, on alternate fuel vehicles contributing to the overall results. They still seem to be overly optimistic. 44mpg CAFE will require a large fleet of alternate fuel vehicles in the public hands.

[rn79870]

I was looking in the wrong place. The information was found in the California Health and Safety Code, section 43018.5. Maximum reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; Adoption of standards and regulations(a) No later than January 1, 2005, the state board shall develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.(b) (1) The regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may not take effect prior to January 1, 2006, in order to give the Legislature time to review the regulations and determine whether further legislation should be enacted prior to the effective date of the regulations, and shall apply only to a motor vehicle manufactured in the 2009 model year, or any model year thereafter.(2) (A) Within 10 days of adopting the regulations pursuant to subdivision (a), the state board shall transmit the regulations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature for review.(B) The Legislature shall hold at least one public hearing to review the regulations. If the Legislature determines that the regulations should be modified, it may adopt legislation to modify the regulations.(c) In developing the regulations described in subdivision (a), the state board shall do all of the following:(1) Consider the technological feasibility of the regulations.(2) Consider the impact the regulations may have on the economy of the state, including, but not limited to, all of the following areas:(A) The creation of jobs within the state.(B) The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state.(C) The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state.(D) The ability of businesses in the state to compete with businesses in other states.(E) The ability of the state to maintain and attract businesses in communities with the most significant exposure to air contaminants, localized air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both.(F) The automobile workers and affiliated businesses in the state.(3) Provide flexibility, to the maximum extent feasible consistent with this section, in the means by which a person subject to the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may comply with the regulations. That flexibility shall include, but is not limited to, authorization for a person to use alternative methods of compliance with the regulations. In complying with this paragraph, the state board shall ensure that any alternative methods for compliance achieve the equivalent, or greater, reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the emission standards contained in the regulations. In providing compliance flexibility pursuant to this paragraph, the state board may not impose any mandatory trip reduction measure or land use restriction.(4) Conduct public workshops in the state, including, but not limited to, public workshops in three of the communities in the state with the most significant exposure to air contaminants or localized air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both.(5) (A) Grant emissions reductions credits for any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles that were achieved prior to the operative date of the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a), to the extent permitted by state and federal law governing emissions reductions credits, by utilizing the procedures and protocols adopted by the California Climate Action Registry pursuant to subdivision (j) of Section 42823.(B) For the purposes of this section, the state board shall utilize the 2000 model year as the baseline for calculating emission reduction credits.(6) Coordinate with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the California Climate Action Registry, and the interagency task force, convened pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 25730 of the Public Resources Code, in implementing this section.(d) The regulations adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not require any of the following:(1) The imposition of additional fees and taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled, pursuant to this section or any other provision of law.(2) A ban on the sale of any vehicle category in the state, specifically including, but not limited to, sport utility vehicles and light-duty trucks.(3) A reduction in vehicle weight.(4) A limitation on, or reduction of, the speed limit on any street or highway in the state.(5) A limitation on, or reduction of, vehicle miles traveled.(e) The regulations adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (a) shall provide an exemption for those vehicles subject to the optional low-emission vehicle standard for oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) for exhaust emission standards described in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 1961 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.(f) Not later than July 1, 2003, the California Climate Action Registry, in consultation with the state board, shall adopt procedures for the reporting of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources to the registry.(g) By January 1, 2005, the state board shall report to the Legislature and the Governor on the content of the regulations developed and adopted pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the specific actions taken by the state board to comply with paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (c), and with subdivision (f). The report shall include, but shall not be limited to, an analysis of both of the following:(1) The impact of the regulations on communities in the state with the most significant exposure to air contaminants or toxic air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both.(2) The economic and public health impacts of those actions on the state.(h) If the federal government adopts a standard regulating a greenhouse gas from new motor vehicles that the state board determines is in a substantially similar timeframe, and of equivalent or greater effectiveness as the regulations that would be adopted pursuant to this section, the state board may elect not to adopt a standard on any greenhouse gas included in the federal standard.(i) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:(1) “Greenhouse gases” means those gases listed in subdivision (g) of Section 42801.1.(2) “Maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” means the greenhouse gas emission reductions that the state board determines meet both of the following criteria:(A) Capable of being successfully accomplished within the time provided by this section, taking into account environmental, economic, social, and technological factors.(B) Economical to an owner or operator of a vehicle, taking into account the full life-cycle costs of a vehicle.(3) “Motor vehicle” means a passenger vehicle, light-duty truck, or any other vehicle determined by the state board to be a vehicle whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation.

If you read the statute, there are so many IFs and UNLESS provisions that it is hard to see it as much of a threat. It seems they want the authority to think about it, but not eliminate certain vehicles and activities.

[audtatious]

Maybe, maybe not. Once something is "on the books" it is much easier to get changes made which will remove a lot of the "safety factors" of the wording, without requiring any major verification. While pressing the maximum that current technology can sustain, they are also pressing forth the most costly.

Which brings up something else, why is this not all within CARB and instead spread across multiple agencies? Easier for each section to get apporved a "baby step" that would not have been approved en-masse? If the "whole" cannot pass alone then are they breaking it down to get the individual subsets passed which, when put together, is equal to what could not pass? Finally, why concentrate on CO2 when it is the other pollutants that make people sick and dirty the skies? Man Made Global Warming efforts? Seems that way.