AZ EPA approved March 1 no emissions for Vintage

[-Spike-]

I'd be willing to bet that fraction contributes many more times that percentage in pollution.

I'm not against the idea of relaxing the requirements on cars that see very limited road time, but I just don't see the rationale of a free ride to old cars, just because they're old. They should be held to the limitations put on them at the time they were manufactured, IMHO.

-Spike

 

[Cdaniel]

Seems like discrimination to me...If your car is 15 years old or older your exempt if blah blah blah blah BS! What would be considered a collectors car from 1991 or 1992? The only one i can think of would be the Corvette ZR1, & maybe some Exotics..

It is indeed discriminatory. That's because the law was lobbied by classic car hobbyists.
That's why I like the rolling 25 year idea. But the law is at least a step in the right direction for a more practical approach, IMHO.

 

[Cdaniel]

I'd be willing to bet that fraction contributes many more times that percentage in pollution.

I'd take that bet.

I'm not against the idea of relaxing the requirements on cars that see very limited road time, but I just don't see the rationale of a free ride to old cars, just because they're old. They should be held to the limitations put on them at the time they were manufactured, IMHO.

-Spike

I'd go for that. Check my mileage every year, if it's over a set limit then I get tested until I'm under the limit.

In fact lets do that for every car on the road. Imagine the money the testing stations would lose.

If only I could have my 1977 FJ40 tested to the standards of that year. Instead of the arbitrary limits they use. There was no emission testing in my area (Colo) in 1977. Probably not AZ either. In fact there was a time when manufactures made 2 kinds of cars.
California ones and cars for everyone else.

 

[-Spike-]

My '76 40 had standards. I don't know if Az tested for them at the time, but it was required to meet certain standards when it was manufactured, and that's the standards I had to meet 15 years later when I registered it. I had a GM 350 in it, and had an arguement every time I ran it through. The original vehicle ran on regular leaded gas, so it didn't have a restrictor plate in the gas filler neck- which they found hard to believe. It also didn't come with a cat, which they found hard to believe. Every year I had to stand around while they looked it up in their books- sometimes after they failed me and I explained their mistake. Every freaking year. In the end, the 350 ran cleaner than the F motor was required to run, so I passed.

As far as that bet, you don't believe that today's cars run many times cleaner than cars from 20 years ago? I was under the impression the newer cars ran something like 90% cleaner than something from the 80's. I could be wrong, but I'm sure a Google search will resolve that. If I were right, then if 1% of cars were over 20 years old, they could be contributing as much as 9% of the total pollution generated by cars. Of course, that assumes that 19 year old cars run as clean as today's cars, which isn't true, so somewhere between 1 and 9%. Just a hypothesis, but perhaps I can do some research to back my ideas up.

-Spike

 

[-Spike-]

Well, this took me a freaking hour to find: http://ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm

And this page ( http://www.uctc.net/access/24/Access 24 - 05 - Scrapping Old Cars.pdf ) makes some claims, but I don't know how to judge their accuracy.

-Spike

 

[Cdaniel]

Well, this took me a freaking hour to find: http://ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm

And this page ( http://www.uctc.net/access/24/Access 24 - 05 - Scrapping Old Cars.pdf ) makes some claims, but I don't know how to judge their accuracy.

-Spike

Thanks for the research. Curious, the testing history page only lists the Nox requirements. My FJ40 has never been tested for that. It's always HC (hydrocarbon) ppm and CO (carbon monoxide) % they test for. I'd really like to see what the EPA standard was for HC and CO in 1977. Funny thing is, I have a V8 Chevy under the hood and it passes. Without having any of the required emission control devices functioning. Kinda makes you wonder what good they actually do. All of the crap is in there looking good for the man but doing absolutely nothing. Except putting more load on the engine and lowering my gas mileage. Hmmm, on second thought I guess it does something. Like increase emissions due to lower fuel efficiency.

As for Jennifer Dill, PhD from University of California Berkeley and her thesis?
Ehh, whatever. Whenever I see phrases like "it appears" "seems to" and "it turns out" In something that presents itself as a valid study, I'm a bit skeptical. Particularly when there's lots of really pretty pie charts and no verifiable data. Never mind my opinion of her dubious PhD from Berkeley. If anything that document only serves to not resolve the question of scrappage programs being a solution.

I wonder what would be the result of a serious study into the amount of vehicle emissions needlessly created by the testing program itself? Millions of cars tested every year, most of them needlessly because they pass. Yet they must be driven to and from the test, idle in line, and run on a dyno. Is the amount of lower emissions from the failed vehicles brought into compliance greater than the amount tested to pass all of the others that pass?

Why is it the average car driving citizen bears the so much of the burden here? Money, that's why. How much pollution does the average NASCAR or NHRA race emit? Airline companies? Trucking companies? Railroads? I don't know, and probably can't find out. All of these polluters are powerful economic forces and our government doesn't want us to know those facts. Instead, pick on the polluters with little to no power to point a finger back.

Average Joe cars are emitting less and less every year. With every passing year "old" cars become less significant in the picture. Right now cars from the 90's are "old" and those vehicles were doing a much better job on emissions. Testing a "classic" is just pointless and that's why the law that started this thread is a good thing. Even if it is narrowly focused. A better law would take actual mileage driven into account. I'd even be for bringing back the remote sensing program and actually nailing the real gross polluters Instead taking money from those that don't.

I'm not out to pollute the planet with my old clunkers. I just think the government should be kept from sticking their freakin bureaucratic hands in the pocket of the people whenever possible.

Another point of view
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/Emission_Testing.html

 

[-Spike-]

I'd have to agree with your view here. Arizona had roadside testing for a while, I'm not sure what happened to it. That was a great idea, in my opinion, except that they continued with the yearly inspections. I'd be fully in support of a program that did away with the inspections as long as there was a way to make sure people kept their cars running right. I don't see any way they can give waivers based on mileage though, as they'd have to inspect the car's odometer at the very least, and there'd have to be a system to do that, which would of course cost money. The roadside inspection system seems like a good alternative.

-Spike

 

[inkpot]

Howdy! The verification of mileage for waivers is left up to the insurance agent. He can loose his license for fraud.

Silly question: Does it create more nasty industrial emissions to build a low emisson car? And how much crude petroleum does it take to make a car? Also, same question for fuel. Do we create more emissions in order to make the blended fuels that are suppposed to burn cleaner?

And; how much coal smog is generated to make the power to run an electric car for one day?

All forms of energy require $$$ and some amount of pollution to harness,control, store, market, and consume . John

 

[Relix]

Seems like discrimination to me...If your car is 15 years old or older your exempt if blah blah blah blah BS! What would be considered a collectors car from 1991 or 1992? The only one i can think of would be the Corvette ZR1, & maybe some Exotics..

It is indeed discriminatory. That's because the law was lobbied by classic car hobbyists.
IMHO.

Why would a "Classic car collector" lobby for something like that? I mean they were already exempt from emmissions.. Seeing as how it will be 2007 in 7 days that means cars up to 1992 will be eligible for this new exemption..

 

[Relix]

Howdy! The verification of mileage for waivers is left up to the insurance agent. He can loose his license for fraud.

Silly question: Does it create more nasty industrial emissions to build a low emisson car? And how much crude petroleum does it take to make a car? Also, same question for fuel. Do we create more emissions in order to make the blended fuels that are suppposed to burn cleaner?

And; how much coal smog is generated to make the power to run an electric car for one day?

All forms of energy require $$$ and some amount of pollution to harness,control, store, market, and consume . John

You're right, it's just one of those feel good BS enviromental laws.. How much energy & waste does it take/make to produce a car with 500lbs of batterys in it? & to top it off adding all the extra emmsions devices onto the car makes the engine run at a lower effecency like, restictive intakes, good for sound deadening, bad for fuel mileage, restrictive exhuast, good for sound deadening bad for fuel mileage, small catilytic converters great for sound but nowhere as effecent as a high flow cat at removing/burning unburnt fuel & they restrict the exhuast flow & again lower the fuel economy of the car..

For instance my 1992 Honda Civic, when I swapped out the stock engine for a 1.8L and kept the stock exhaut(1.5")/cat(stock 1.5")/intake the car got 22mpg & made 154whp & would barely pass emissions... When I upgraded the Intake to a 3' tube intake & high flow air filter, the exhaust manifole to a 4>1 header with 1.5" primaries and a 2.5" collector, a carsound high flow car with 2.5" inlet and outlet(you should have seen how big this monster monster was) and a 2.5" exhaust system, my fuel mileage went from 22mpg to 29mpg before tuning & my HP went from 154whp to 169whp before tuning, and my car passed emissions far easyer then it did with the stock stuff on it..Keep in mind this is on a loaded roller test...

Now even though I am the least tree huggenist person most of you will ever meet, I still don't see the point of this new rule, if you have a car that's fuel injected all you have to do is keep it maintained and tuned to pass our current emmsions standards..It just makes no sense to me what so ever...

 

[Cdaniel]

Why would a "Classic car collector" lobby for something like that? I mean they were already exempt from emmissions.. Seeing as how it will be 2007 in 7 days that means cars up to 1992 will be eligible for this new exemption..

Why? because right now if you own anything 1967 and newer it must be tested. A lot of collector cars fall in that window. Particularly the muscle cars that the enthusiast would prefer to not have all of the BS restrictive equipment on. A lot of those devices can be very hard if not impossible to find. If it doesn't have the equipment on it you fail, period. No matter if the sniff test shows you're operating a well tuned machine that can pass without the tinker toys attached. The 15 year part is what they probably were asking for when they starting pushing the legislation well over 10 years ago. Still 15 years old is only part of it. You still have to convince a company to insure it as a collectible/special interest car. Not likely to happen with an 85 Cavalier.

 

[yldbill]

My 40 has a hard time meeting emissions but I bet that all of the offroad motorcycles and quads that get driven in just the sycamore creek area create more pollution than my cruiser does all year but they don't get tested.

 

[Roadnoiz40]

It makes perfect sense to me. I am tired of the damage to my vehicle.