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

[rn79870]

These laws are all aimed at the common citizen. Greg mentions jets, but what about truckers? They are all over the place and belching blackness everywhere, yet most don't even use pollution control devices and cleaner fuel to make them 90% cleaner than today. These "big trucks" (classified as such if they are over 8500lbs) emit as much pollution as several dozen current automobiles and that number can be as high as up to 150 cars. They are one of the biggest sources of pollution (especially in urban areas), diesel soot is toxic and linked to cancer (an estimated 125,000 Americans will get cancer from diesel fumes (don't worry as that will be blamed on 2nd hand smoke) and 50,000 additional will die prematurely each year because of it) and asthma. In New York alone, diesel exhaust is the biggest source of particulate soot and in some cities will contribute 50% of all particulate soot and 30% of all smog-forming NOx.

Yet, they concentrate on cars and car MPG to solve pollution issues.....

Your point is well taken. However, using that point to justify allowing another form of pollution is unreasonable.

California also leads the way in reducing diesel emissions.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_ve....html

I understand that this is an emotional issue. Emotional responses are welcome and probably beneficial. However, in the end, will you be better informed on the issue by discussing it of by dismissing it?

[rn79870]

...Whether your exhaust is CARB approved or not, cops owuld still look at you... If CARB's original intention was for cleaner air, then it certainly changed to something else now days..

CARB and cops are two different things. One is regulatory, the other enforcement.

[AZhitman]

I respect your opinion in disagreeing with this matter. I would suggest that you become proactive in your state because it’s this is all (CARB) coming your way.

By the way. Thanks for providing this forum and the avenue it provides to express our opinions.

Agreed, we'll have to agree to disagree (in part).

I'm actually more active than you know, being an active SEMA member and participant on the Sport Compact Council.

I'm also a member of SAN:

"The SEMA Action Network is a nationwide partnership of car clubs, and individual enthusiasts who work together to impact legislation that affects car and truck hobbyists of all kinds. "

In addition, I'm a frequent letter-writer to our local legislators here, since I keep my finger on the pulse of any absurd or dim-witted measures before the Legislature.

As you know, AZ is second only to CA in stringent emissions requirements, many of which are misguided and serve only to generate APPEARANCES of "doing the right thing", all the while having minimal impact-per-dollar and fattening the pockets of sky-is-falling bureaucrats.

I could give several examples, should you ever suffer from insomnia...

Thanks for the kind words, we're glad to have you aboard!

[Sentientbydesign]

rn:

Last time I heard, we were the 3rd largest economy in the world. I've heard it a couple of times from different sources.

Also, Gray Davis may have been a dumb ***, but we're not doing so well with Arnold. He's ****ed up our economy in different ways so we now have a 16 billion dollar deficit that is resulting in massive layoffs and educational cuts.

CARB has some great policies. Forcing automakers to build more efficient cars is one of them. I personally hate that my G35 is fatter than a weight watcher's spokes person. Same thing with the Dodge Charger. That beast weighs in at over 5,000 lbs.

The point is, CARB needs some definite help and PROTEST against it's stupid policies, but not all of them ar bad. Like RN said, the organization has made huge strides in CA and the fact that other states are following suit is great. I highly doubt that the other states are going to make everyone have CARB stickers on their cone filters.

Do I think that China should be "forced" to fix it's pollution problem? Hell yeah. But I think the issue stems from world over population. The physical world is self-healing (kinda like those cutting boards), but it can only do so much. We have to stop over taxing it's resources and popping out stupid, useless children (not all of them, but to quote one of my favorite songs "...only stupid people are breeding...")

Here is a perfect video. You may not like Korn, but it's really worth watching, even with the volume off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VntFEWF8I8A

[Sentientbydesign]

Are there any qualifications to be a member of SAN?

[etschell]

lol, automaker lobbyists pay these guys salaries. 35 mpg my ***....

[rn79870]

lol, automaker lobbyists pay these guys salaries. 35 mpg my ***....

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "these guys" in your statement.

35 MPG isn't that unreasonable when you get the SUV crowd to drop the 400HP Esclades and the like. Remember, that 35 is CAFE, or average fuel economy, not the minimum for each car. 44 MPG on the otherhand, means we'll all be riding 500cc motorcycles to get to that average.

[AZhitman]

No only am I "involved" from a political and legislative influence standpoint, I'm also involved from a "do something" standpont...

This is a project I'm involved in at the moment that's quite promising: http://www.desertfuel.org

Bottom line? QUIT relying on the government to solve everything and let the market decide. It works.

Throwing money and laws at a problem is not the answer. Government mandates simply promote loopholes and circumvention, and are needless expenditures of money and effort.

[rn79870]

This is a project I'm involved in at the moment that's quite promising: http://www.desertfuel.org

Bottom line? QUIT relying on the government to solve everything and let the market decide. It works.

Accolades for the Desertfuel project. May they be successful in their endeavor, and win the X prise!

I find it hard to believe that a free market economy would have ever addressed the air pollution issue. In fact, I believe the opposite. The auto industry fought the implementation of the 1963 CAA (Federal Clean Air Act) tooth and nail. I believe the CAA, and the 1970 amendment to it, is the only reason the auto industry developed pollution control devices. Left to their own, we would still be driving massive carbureted V8s. The same with CAFÉ. You can blame Washington, not Sacramento for for these requirements.

I doubt big oil cares one hoot what we pay at the pump. I question whether the states are the least bit concerned either, given that many of them collect sales tax on the price of each gallon sold. Higher fuel prices means more money for their coffers.

Yet, even given all the regulations and standards, no one can argue that a modern 213 cu in V6 engine producing 306HP isn't a major improvement over engines of 20 years ago.They are cleaner, more fuel efficient (except the G ) and have improved longevity.

I doubt we would have seen the investment in engineering necessary to achieve that without the nudge from Washington. The free market approach only goes so far, and doesn’t exist unless there is a financial, or other reward for the development.

[rn79870]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The end goal should be clean air for all, I'd be stupid to think that was a bad idea. However, like you said and or I said, a cone filter isn't going to effect your emissions output. But the police can and will give you a ticket for having one. That's my issue...

I take offense to people telling me what to do when they have no bases for doing so.

WD

I couldn't agree with this more. I think CARB's position is that the aftermarket needs to prove that their equipment is both clean and efficient (environmentally) . I imagine testing to prove this is expensive and time consuming. Do different air filters produce different emission levels? I don't know. But it would be an interesting experiment.

[AZhitman]

I imagine testing to prove this is expensive and time consuming. Do different air filters produce different emission levels? I don't know. But it would be an interesting experiment.

The testing IS expensive and time-consuming, and an asinine waste of time and money.

There's no need to conduct an "experiment", because the fact of the matter is this:

Whether you breathe through one nostril or both has no bearing on how your farts smell. That's a function that's influenced well beyond that point.

An intake will have NO impact on emissions. Period. Combustion occurs in a combustion chamber, and the intake simply serves to allow entry of air.

Likewise, exhaust restrictions are retarded as well. The by-products of combustion are pre-determined by the time they leave the cylinder. Regardless of the size / brand / color of pipe that carries them past the bumper, there's no change (obviously, catalytic converter notwithstanding).

We're JUST getting started here....

Requiring a consumer to maintain a car with OEM parts is the epitome of ignorance.

Let's take Johnny and his 1989 240sx.

Car runs well, passes emissions, gets 20 mpg, and might leak a drop or two of oil. His exhaust has rusted out.

Johnny's REQUIRED to replace the exhaust with an OEM one. Nissan charges $1375 for an S13 exhaust. Johnny reports this to his parents, who decide to SCRAP the S13 ("it's falling apart and expensive to maintain" they whine). Off to the scrap heap, where it'll hopefully be recycled, but many parts will end up in landfills, and fluids will leach into the groundwater. Oops.

Parents buy a 2007 Corolla for Johnny, because it's reliable, gets good MPG and has a warranty....

Great car, but how long must it be driven before its increased fuel efficiency offsets the sum total of its environmental impact? CFC's released by its new carpet and upholstery? Petrochemicals used to make the vinyl? Petroleum used to transport all its parts from hither and yon for assembly? Pollutants created in the manufacturing process? Big trucks that deliver the shiny Corollas to Tard Toyota? The trees cut down to make the paper for the lengthy contract Johnny's parents signed? All the CO2 emissions of the cars of the factory workers driving to work to build that Corolla?

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but the MOST beneficial car for the environment is the one you're driving, maintained well and driven until it's no longer recognizeable as a mode of transportation, regardless of its emissions. Period.

[rn79870]

According to the citation below, 1 gallon of fuel turns into 19 pounds of C02. I've heard estimates as high as 24 pounds per gallon.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152685

If this site is correct, the little Corolla will quickly become the greener choice.

[audtatious]

Your point is well taken. However, using that point to justify allowing another form of pollution is unreasonable.

So, you are happy as a lark with the Gov't taking aim at the small-time polluter instead of stepping up and knocking down a heavy hitter? How do you justify it as the gains from continually targeting the auto industry is FAR lower than simply taking basic steps with the big truck industry? Based upon your link, 40% of smog in CA is from Diesel (and that article is only targeting Govt-provided public transportation and not addressing solutions for commercial use). Based upon research, 30-40% of smog in LA comes from overseas. Diesel + overseas = 70-80% of the LA smog problem which means only 20-30% of LA smog can be attributed to other sources (automobiles, industry and other means). Increasing vehicle efficiency in this case would lower auto-generated smog and pollution by what, 1% or so? Does it make economical sense to keep targeting auto's if this is the case?

[AZhitman]

Don't forget smog contributions due to dust (construction), commercial air flight (including cargo), fireplaces, and military exercises...

Private vehicles are a minimal contributor. Period.

[WDRacing]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're being the typical Liberal that refuses to be swayed from anything other then what they think.

There are 8 Bazillion reasons why CARB can be replaced with a better and friendlier means of removing the greenhouse impact of the common automobile. Yet everytime we state something, you post some link that supposedly makes your point. But you haven't actually made any points other then, yes cars make pollution and it needs to be dealt with by CARB.

Why CARB.

Did you not even read Gregs last post? You justify a fvcking Corolla purchase as reason to scrap a 240SX because the exhaust is bad.

Step away from the crack pipe for a second.

Don't post anymore links, just read this next statement I'm going to make.

Emissions testing for all cars will completely and utterly remove the need for CARB to be asociated and concerned with the automobile. Because if the car can't pass the test, it can't be driven. BAM...done...over...nothing to argue.

Now CARB can then use it's resources to examine other sources of greenhouse pollution. Which would be to the gain of ALL not just CA. You tell me why that's a bad idea.

WD

[AZhitman]

If this site is correct, the little Corolla will quickly become the greener choice.

By whose math?

Assuming it gets 40mpg, and the old 240 gets 20mpg... Over 100K miles, the Corolla saves 2500 gallons of gas, or $7500. About half of the price of the car.

Wanna know how many gallons of petrochemicals undergo combustion to transport all the parts? How many pounds of CO2 are released during the manufacturing of the steel panels? How much CFC is released into the atmosphere by the plasticizers in the interior components and the urethane bumpers? Let's not forget the disposal of ol' 240, and the fuel we'll use to transport / dismantle / recycle her carcass.

I remain, as always, a skeptic.

[AZhitman]

We've established that CARB's restrictions are arbitrary and capricious.

Ever wonder how they come up with the cut-off limits on certain specific emissions? It's quite interesting, and not scientific in the least, given our limited knowledge of the EFFECT each component of exhaust has on the environment...

FYI, CARB doesn't mandate minimum fuel efficiency standards. That's CAFE, and I'll pound no them in a different thread.

[rn79870]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're being the typical Liberal that refuses to be swayed from anything other then what they think.

I would agree if you had said conservative instead of liberal. Maybe even a neocon, but not a liberal.

Did you not even read Gregs last post? You justify a fvcking Corolla purchase as reason to scrap a 240SX because the exhaust is bad..

I think you misunderstood the post. Scrapping a car when it can be fixed it is likely the more economical way to go. A faulty exhaust is not only bad for the environment, it is a health hazard to the occupants within the car.From an environmental point of view, the issue is different. 2500 fewer gallons of gas used would result in 48 fewer tons of CO2 in the atmosphere over the life of the car. Multiply that by 1/2 million +/- cars. That's 24 million tons of CO2 that didn't make it into the atmosphere. Is that a bad thing?

Step away from the crack pipe for a second.

Ad Hominem arguments are rarely productive.

Don't post anymore links, just read this next statement I'm going to make.Emissions testing for all cars will completely and utterly remove the need for CARB to be asociated and concerned with the automobile. Because if the car can't pass the test, it can't be driven. BAM...done...over...nothing to argue.

Fine, no more links, but tell me, who will set the standards? The mech? The owner? The car club? Who will enforce them?

Now CARB can then use it's resources to examine other sources of greenhouse pollution. Which would be to the gain of ALL not just CA. You tell me why that's a bad idea.WD

I can't. It is a good idea. (un)fortunitely, CARB has the resourced to do both.

I realize that these rules are directly affecting your hobby, possibly even your livelihood. Environmental issues are becoming more front page every day. This is but the harbinger of what the future holds. Emission/economy regulations are problematic, but they are doing what they were designed to do. There is certainly room for change, and that change will come about through efforts like AZhitman is pursuing. I applaud any effort to improve a system by responsible means.

[audtatious]

I think you misunderstood the post. Scrapping a car when it can be fixed it is likely the more economical way to go. A faulty exhaust is not only bad for the environment, it is a health hazard to the occupants within the car.

No, you missed his point. Allowing the owner to spend $100 to replace the bad exhaust with non-OEM products instead of forcing the purchase of OEM-only products at $1300 (which results in it being scrapped) is the more viable solution. Realize, the people pushing for these standard changes are relatively the same people who tried to have all "old" cars crushed in the 90's. It seems to me they are simply working on alternative solutions to get older vehicles off the road.

I'm all for doing things the smart way and taking the time to come to economically and environmentally sound solution sets. No issues there at all. Unfortunately most of this is wholly knee-jerk reactions that don't really solve the overall problem or it does it in a way that will economically bankrumpt us (or hurt the "little people" too much).

[AZhitman]

I've presented MULTIPLE examples of why CARB is a bad idea, implemented poorly.

I'm not anti-environment, I just don't ascribe to the unproven notions that:

1) CO2 in miniscule amounts (such as those created by private vehicles) are the planet-altering bugaboo that the greenies make it out to be.

2) Mandating arbitrary emissions tests and penalizing people for running non-OEM parts translate to a meaningful and beneficial long-term impact on the environment.

As a side note, let's not forget all the pollutants spewed by Crown Vic V8's patrolling CA highways and pulling over "offenders" who've done nothing more heinous than slap a fartcan muffler on their Civic, while said Crown Vic idles on the roadside with the A/C running.... Absurd.

[rn79870]

FYI, CARB doesn't mandate minimum fuel efficiency standards. That's CAFE, and I'll pound no them in a different thread.

That is absolutely correct. However, CARB has thrown the 44 MPG standard into the equation. And the feds have ruled in the Green Mountain Chrysler case that the states have the right to impose stricter standards, hence CARB now has some authority in the matter.

This was the point of the original post. If CARB has their way, we'll all be walking here in CA, 'cause no one is going to meet their CAFE standards, and we'll be stuck driving the Smart car.

I have problems with this particular issue, but not CARB in general. I think the results they have accomplished speak well for their efforts. Now, they may be going too far though. Time will tell.

Thanks for your responses.

[AZhitman]

A faulty exhaust is not only bad for the environment, it is a health hazard to the occupants within the car.

A rusted-out exhaust is FAR from an environmental threat. The same emissions come from a new exhaust as an old rusted one.

So no, a faulty exhaust is NOT "bad for the environment".

Naturally, and what you may have meant, is this: Catalytic converters must be maintained in operable condition, and when they do, they do a great job.

Unfortunately, the making and disposing of cat cons creates FAR more dangerous pollutants than the car they "clean up" after. Any idea what's in them?

[rn79870]

No, you missed his point. Allowing the owner to spend $100 to replace the bad exhaust with non-OEM products instead of forcing the purchase of OEM-only products at $1300 (which results in it being scrapped) is the more viable solution. Realize, the people pushing for these standard changes are relatively the same people who tried to have all "old" cars crushed in the 90's. It seems to me they are simply working on alternative solutions to get older vehicles off the road.

I'm all for doing things the smart way and taking the time to come to economically and environmentally sound solution sets. No issues there at all. Unfortunately most of this is wholly knee-jerk reactions that don't really solve the overall problem or it does it in a way that will economically bankrumpt us (or hurt the "little people" too much).

And no one said they couldn't. Yes, the owner can choose the $100 option. They simply must find an option that carries a CARB endorsement. It doesn't have to be a Nissan manufactured system.

We had a thread here that looked at the legality of aftermarket cats, and there are many out there. There are CARB legal headers, etc. I know of no requirement that a 240 exhaust system may only be replaced by a Nissan manufactured system.

I'd post a cite but I think I was told not to. I'll follow your rules, it's your forum.

[rn79870]

A rusted-out exhaust is FAR from an environmental threat. The same emissions come from a new exhaust as an old rusted one.

So no, a faulty exhaust is NOT "bad for the environment".

Naturally, and what you may have meant, is this: Catalytic converters must be maintained in operable condition, and when they do, they do a great job.

Unfortunately, the making and disposing of cat cons creates FAR more dangerous pollutants than the car they "clean up" after. Any idea what's in them?

By faulty exhaust I assumed you meant one that failed to perform as it was designed to perform. If it was a matter of cat back, there would be no issue with replacement. If the fault occurs cat forward, then , yes, I would say it is an environmental issue.

Funny you should mention what's in a cat. I just saw a show where they made cats, and they were abound with environmental regulations and requirements. Another thread all together.

There are also safety/health issues with defective exhausts, but that is another matter.

[AZhitman]

I find it hard to believe that a free market economy would have ever addressed the air pollution issue. In fact, I believe the opposite.

I doubt we would have seen the investment in engineering necessary to achieve that without the nudge from Washington.

I'd like to revisit a comment you made earlier, and provide a counterpoint.

However, one of my favorite authors, Csaba Csere, does so FAR more eloquently than I could.

The free market has, historically, demanded higher-MPG cars:

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...olumn

[AZhitman]

And no one said they couldn't. Yes, the owner can choose the $100 option. They simply must find an option that carries a CARB endorsement. It doesn't have to be a Nissan manufactured system.

The point is, why must CARB endorse something it knows nothing about and should have no jurisdiction over?

It's a hollow pipe. It requires NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

$100 systems can't GET approval. Wanna know how I know? I own an exhaust manufacturing company.

Big government run amuck.

[WDRacing]

As usual, you missed the point I was making IN FULL. You sound like a smart dude, yet here you are arguing against the very thing you think you believe in. It troubles me greatly to see people like you that have a passion for improving something, fighting and arguing against themselves when other very clear options are available.

Who sets the emissions standard? OK CARB does, by making ONE decision. Here's the number...done. They can make a new number every year as the course gets evaluated.

Then the state uses inspection stations that are already in place to implement the testing and issuing of said pass/fail stickers. If the car passes the emissions test, has a full exhaust system to include a cat the driver is then free to go on his marry way.

I've made a clear and concise argument that can not be debated.

If you're a conservative, then why are you all for wasting tax dollars on things that can so obviously be improved. That my friend is what I call a Liberal.

[rn79870]

I'd like to revisit a comment you made earlier, and provide a counterpoint.

However, one of my favorite authors, Csaba Csere, does so FAR more eloquently than I could.

The free market has, historically, demanded higher-MPG cars:

You are absolutely correct AZhitman, the free market does gravitite strongly towards better fuel economy. You need look no fruther than the advertising on TV to see how important the manufacturers feel fuel economy is in car sales. My comment however, was directed at whether or not the free market would have ever demanded improving vehicle emissions.I don't think that would have happened. I say that because, as we see here, emission systems are not popular, in fact, they are just a step or two above satan in the minds of many.

RE: your comment about the exhaust being merely a hollow pipe is correct. And I'm not the one saying that the hollow pipe is illegal. If you own an exhaust manufacturing company you are probably in a far better position to make that statement than I am to critize it.

In California, A part that has been issued a CARB exemption has been subjected to strict laboratory testing as required by CARB in order to demonstrate that the replacement part will not increase emissions. In these cases, they are legal replacements.

[WDRacing]

For the record...I am never wrong

Just wanted to get that noted

[WDRacing]

One other thing...CNG and or Propane can be made into a win win right now. Within a year the entire infrastructure could be set in place. We'd then just have to have our vehicles modified if possible for the current existing platforms and have the manufacturers build the new cars to propane/cng specs.

I'm not an engineer but I could do it myself right now on my K5 Blazer and or my 240SX.

CARB could totally get behind something like that and seriously revolutionize the way we look at transportation today. I'd even donate 10% of my income to see something like that come into fruition. So would a lot of Americans...

Just food for thought.