Jump to content

Calif. emissions to Florida


rhb1999
 Share

Recommended Posts

Florida was the 12th of what are now 16 states that have adopted California standards for emissions. They began the process in July 2007. The emission standards I believe are still before the state legislature, haveing been approved by the appropriate regulatory boards. Florida Panel Approves Auto Emissions Limits, Manufacturing.Net - December 03, 2008

They're also currently one of 17 states joined in a lawsuit against the EPA trying to gain the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rhb1999</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has anyone heard rumors about California emission standards coming to Florida? </div></div>

Are you talking about new car standards or testing requirements for older cars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in CA, the emission testing is a nightmare. Once a car is ten or more years old it's difficult/expensive to pass. I think the goal is to get older cars scrapped. Sadly, the poor (those who can't afford a new car) are hit the hardest. A radical new emission law for diesel trucks was just signed, it's not a good time to be in the trucking business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have emission and safety inspections here in metro NY, and if you properly take care of your car, you'll never have a problem with it passing.

There's also an exemption from emission testing if your car is over 25 years old.

Additionally if you perform $ 450.00 in repairs towards passing, and still don't pass, you get an exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dean_H.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I live in CA, the emission testing is a nightmare. Once a car is ten or more years old it's difficult/expensive to pass. I think the goal is to get older cars scrapped. Sadly, the poor (those who can't afford a new car) are hit the hardest. A radical new emission law for diesel trucks was just signed, it's not a good time to be in the trucking business.

</div></div>

I strongly disagree. I lived in L.A. for eight years and had no problems getting properly tuned stock cars to pass. Even my musclecars (with headers and other mods) passed since at the time they were not exempt. Here in VA we also have emissions testing on cars up to 25 years old, and once again a stock, properly tuned and running car has no problems passing. If you're having difficulty getting a 10 year old car to pass, it either isn't running very well anyway or it has been modified and emissions equipment has been removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loony left are at it again! They tried to get a smog thing passed here in CA for every year, vs. every other, and it went down in flames! The dumb thing is, is that how often do you see a car more than 10 years old on the road? I remember when I was little I would see a lot of 1970-1980 cars, in the early 90's in the area in which we lived, it was a poorer area, and now when I go there, it is still as poor but, you rarely see anything over 10 except my car!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one of many smog stories I have.

I bought a '85 Chevrolet in '89 with 20K miles. When I went to get the smog test it failed the 'visual' test. the tech said the EGR did not work when he pulled the vac hose off. I paid the fee, went home and did some research. I discovered it had a sensor that did not allow the EGR to open unless the engine was hot enough to produce NOX. I crossed some wires and got the EGR to work all the time, went back down to the shop and he passed it.. and I paid the second fee.

I've had so many problems getting my perfect running cars smog tested over the years, that I currently have sold anything that requires a test. CA is run by crazy's that enjoy hurting the little guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From R.L. Polk:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We continue to see increasing vehicle durability across all vehicle types regardless of last year’s increase in the scrappage rate for cars, light trucks and total vehicles. In 2007, the percentage of the car population 11 years of age and older was 41.3%, compared to 40.9% in 2006. For light trucks, this percentage was 29.5% in 2007 and 29.2% in 2006.</div></div>

Just because you don't personally experience something doesn't make it untrue.

And is the "looney left" comment necessary or for that matter even sensical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dean_H.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is one of many smog stories I have.

I bought a '85 Chevrolet in '89 with 20K miles. When I went to get the smog test it failed the 'visual' test. the tech said the EGR did not work when he pulled the vac hose off. I paid the fee, went home and did some research. I discovered it had a sensor that did not allow the EGR to open unless the engine was hot enough to produce NOX. I crossed some wires and got the EGR to work all the time, went back down to the shop and he passed it.. and I paid the second fee.

I've had so many problems getting my perfect running cars smog tested over the years, that I currently have sold anything that requires a test. CA is run by crazy's that enjoy hurting the little guy. </div></div>

Don't you understand by now, it's all about money...........?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how a question about a change in emissions standards for new cars sold automatically becomes a critique of emissions inspections. You buy a car, it has to meet the standards. If you live in area where that is critical (almost always for health reasons), you have to verify that it meets those standards through an emissions testing program.

From what I understand of the states adopting CA standards, they're doing it for the public good. The adoption is not linked to any kind of onerous testing program any different that what's in place today. If ambient air quality is or becomes dangerous, then there <span style="text-decoration: underline">may</span> be a change in testing (there are alternatives). At any rate such a test should be an effortless pass for any reasonably maintained car of any age--I lived with PA emissions testing for 15 years, and I never knew a single person who failed it.

I might be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And is the "looney left" comment necessary or for that matter even sensical?

</div></div>

It's necessary, it needs to be said.

Keep voting them back into office and see whre we end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bchevy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And is the "looney left" comment necessary or for that matter even sensical?

</div></div>

It's necessary, it needs to be said.

Keep voting them back into office and see whre we end up. </div></div>

Will there be any threads left here before long? mad.giffrown.gifmad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once owned a 1987 Chevy ElCamino I bought while living in Florida. When I moved back to RI I had to get it inspected after reregestering here. This car ran absolutely beautiful, was great on gas and never skipped a beat and never used a drop of oil. When I went to get a test it failed. The guy testing said I needed a new carburator. $$$$$$$ ouch!

I went to another shop and paid that guy $150.00 to get a sticker. It's all about money. Wait, it's going to get worst!!!!!! mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very hesitant to enter this discussion... and probably should no better than to enter it, and sure should know better than to admit what I am about to admit next...

I am a conservative. I have met (and have a photo of us both to prove it) our next President.

I really don't want to talk politics here. I wish we could talk about old cars here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I once owned a 1987 Chevy ElCamino I bought while living in Florida. When I moved back to RI I had to get it inspected after reregestering here. This car ran absolutely beautiful, was great on gas and never skipped a beat and never used a drop of oil. When I went to get a test it failed. The guy testing said I needed a new carburator. $$$$$$$ ouch!

I went to another shop and paid that guy $150.00 to get a sticker. It's all about money. Wait, it's going to get worst!!!!!! mad.gif </div></div>

While we can debate the merits of periodic emissions testing, the problem you described above is NOT a testing problem. It's a lack of skill problem. One of the reasons I do every bit of the work on my cars is because of the horror stories I hear from friends and coworkers. I'm sure there are still well-trained, skilled mechanics (er, TECHNICIANS) out there, so hold the cards and letters, but it seems that most are simply parts replacers with absolutely no skill in actually diagnosing a problem.

The factories don't help here either. For example, the Chassis Service Manual for my 99 Chevy pickup (six - count 'em - SIX total volumes) is dominated by troubleshooting flowcharts. EVERY SINGLE flow chart at some point has a step that says "Replace ECM with known good unit and repeat test". Pretty easy when the dealership parts counter has one; tough for the home mechanic. A coworker who is having an intermittent rich-running problem with his 5 year old VW has paid to replace numerous parts, including the fuel pump relay (?!?!). Somebody tell me how, if the car is getting TOO much fuel, the fuel pump relay could possibly be the problem. Of course, the latest recommendation from his mechanic is to spend $1500 for a new ECU.

Back to your original post, the only reason to replace the carb would be if it were the wrong one and thus the car failed visual inspection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, as far as I was concerened the car ran good. What came out of the tailpipe was far less than what came out of the busses & tractor trailers in my area. As I stated, the rules & regulations is all about the money they can squeeze out of us, the taxpayers! Florida doesn't need this bull crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Bob says follow the money. In New York city emmisions testing requres special equipment that cost the shop thousands of bucks. In upstate NY where our shop is its a visual thing. Is the gas cap on? Is there a leak?? You get the picture. The state has done away with ball joint testing, what the he** they only hold the wheels on, and H/light adjusting is no longer required, who needs to see?? but BY GOD that PCV Valve better work. Now we are trying to tax the poor farmer for the gas his cows let loose. God help us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rhb1999</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW! I didn't know there would be this much response to this topic. My cars all run good, but I wondered how difficult they would be in getting an older car to pass emissions. </div></div>

When <span style="text-decoration: underline">and <span style="font-style: italic">if</span></span> you ever have to worry about one, getting an old car to pass a legitimate emissions test is not a problem in the faintest for any car in good running condition. Hundreds of thousands of old cars pass these tests every day in every part of the country.

Simply put, the car will have to pass the standards that applied to it when it was new (not new cars today, CA standards or no), with a fairly generous allowance for age granted in the form of reduced stringency. If the car was produced before 1967 there aren't any standards, and if the car runs without making anyone sick you've pretty much passed.

<span style="font-weight: bold">However, once and for all: THE INSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS ON NEW CARS SOLD DOES NOT REQUIRE OR EVEN IMPLY A NEW OR ALTERED TESTING REGIME WHERE YOU LIVE!</span> It simply means that cleaner cars will be sold at dealerships in FL. Emissions inspection programs are keyed to <span style="text-decoration: underline">local</span> air quality. Unless <span style="text-decoration: underline">that</span> changes, which it may regardless of what the legislture does or if the legislature does <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span>, your emissions testing (if any) won't change. In fact cleaner new cars will probably improve local air quality, and make it <span style="text-decoration: underline">less likely</span> that an emissions program be instituted or enhanced in your area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact cleaner new cars will probably improve local air quality, and make it less likely that an emissions program be instituted or enhanced in your area. </div></div>

Now, if we can only get the rest of the world to care about clean air! frown.gif

We clean up. the world spins and we end up eating China's exhaust, as an example, not to even mention their factories.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with Dave on this one.

First, I have to say that we still never got the answer to my question about the original post, which was, did the OP refer to new car standards or periodic testing standards. We've gone off on the periodic testing without even knowing if that was the original question.

As for the usual comparison to buses and trucks, sorry, it doesn't apply. Light trucks and SUVs are also subject to less stringent standards that cars, though that is changing.

Look, I have a kid and hope to have grandkids someday. I may not subscribe to the global warming panic, but I do believe that we can do simple things to clean up the air. Frankly, the main reason that cars fail to pass emissions tests are because they are poorly maintained. Fixing what's wrong usually improves gas mileage as well as emissions. And while I've been a critic in the past (the early 70s emissions equipment were poorly-conceived bandaids, at best), the current equipment does not impose a performance penalty. Consider the fact that the lowest HP engine available in a new Corvette produces more NET horsepower than almost any previous small or big block Chevy ever did from the factory.

Do repair shops gouge customers? Sure. Does the repair industry lobby for more and tighter testing requirements as a potential revenue stream? Sure. Is this a reason to ignore environmental impacts of our hobby? I don't think so.

I DO think that there has been a complete lack of common sense by the environmentalists, which is one reason why their cause sometimes gets a bad name. The philosophy that any environmental law needs to be implemented without consideration of cost or value makes no sense. I fail to understand why states mandate testing of cars 25 or 30 years old when these cars represent an unmeasurable percentage of the vehicle population. In this case, yeah, I DO believe this is simply a revenue stream for the repair lobby. If the feds or the states want to have cars this old be inspected, then they should also mandate the availability of parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If the feds or the states want to have cars this old be inspected, then they should also <span style="font-weight: bold">mandate the availability of parts</span>.</div></div>

That's a very good point, Joe! wink.gif

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The philosophy that any environmental law needs to be implemented without consideration of cost or value makes no sense.</div></div>

Joe, as someone who earned multiple degrees and worked professionally in the field of environmental science and regulation, hearing this is like telling a nursing home employee that the only reason for their job is to rifle through the patients' belongings for checks and credit cards. The "environmentalists" you speak of lacking "common sense" bear no resemblence to the hundreds of dedicated professionals I dealt with regularly. Those "environmentalists" you speak of are a pure creation of the right-wing media (<span style="font-style: italic">yes, there is one, a huge one</span>), designed to manipulate and frighten you into doing what they want. They bear no resemblence to the degreed professionals who are the only ones who even get close to the kind of power you apparently fear your "environmentalists" have.

The "cost and value" of <span style="text-decoration: underline">every</span> environmental regulation/law (<span style="font-style: italic">usually referred to as cost/benefit analysis</span>) are so explicitly and thoroughly explored before you ever hear of <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> related to them that it's absurd to suggest otherwise. There are whole graduate degree curricula in the subject, and vast staffs of people who do nothing but this in every Federal/state agency in the U.S. (when they're not under the control of an administration that pays them to do nothing for 4 or 8 years--a frequent occurrence).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I fail to understand why states mandate testing of cars 25 or 30 years old when these cars represent an unmeasurable percentage of the vehicle population. </div></div>

Few if any states e-test registered antiques. Beyond that, for cars of that age still used regularly, there is the simple legal concept of equal treatment under the law. Your neighbor can't be getting away with skipping stuff/fees you have to do/pay. The regulator that even suggests such a thing would be shot down by the agency's legal staff immediately, much to detriment of the regulator's career.

When I bought my 1960 Buick, for practical transportation reasons it made more sense for me to register the car in PA normally for the first year. This meant an emissions test. It passed, or course, because there are no standards for 1960 cars. But I still had to submit to it to keep my neighbors from thinking I was getting away with something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...[The "cost and value" of <span style="text-decoration: underline">every</span> environmental regulation/law (<span style="font-style: italic">usually referred to as cost/benefit analysis</span>) are so explicitly and thoroughly explored before you ever hear of <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> related to them that it's absurd to suggest otherwise. There are whole graduate degree curricula in the subject, and vast staff]...

Totally disagree, environmental regulations are knee jerk reaction that typically cause more damage than good. Examples are MTBE added to gas for cleaner burn. They took it out after our water sources were poisoned. We're still paying.

Another example are the creeks and rivers near me. Years ago land owners would clear out trees and debris to allow the water to flow unobstructed. The environmental "professionals" decided no one should be allowed to clear out creeks. A few years ago we had some heavy rains and there was extensive flooding, fallen trees and other debris created dams. The resulting broken levies led to towns being flooded. After the water receded, common sense prevailed and trees and brush are now once again cleared.

I could list many more, the fact is environmentalist are ruining our state and costing us money. Now they are going to Florida and elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Totally disagree, environmental regulations are knee jerk reaction that typically cause more damage than good. Examples are MTBE added to gas for cleaner burn. They took it out after our water sources were poisoned. We're still paying.</div></div>

MTBE was forced down the EPA's throat by the first Bush administration's friends in Haliburton.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Years ago land owners would clear out trees and debris to allow the water to flow unobstructed. </div></div>

...creating the Dust Bowl, allowing the rest of our soil to be eroded in quantities not seen on earth before or since (until the Chinese did essentially the same thing to the Yellow River valley), drastically lowering and eliminating water tables, and eliminating most of the fish and wildlife in this country..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could list many more, the fact is environmentalist are ruining our state and costing us money. Now they are going to Florida and elsewhere. </div></div>

,,,creating jobs by the thousand, saving millions in unnecessary illnesses and environmental damage, and helping to eliminate our dependency on Middle East oil and other fossil fuels.

========================

My information is the result of an America that used to exist. Where education and knowledge was not the enemy of the people. Where parents wanted their kids to grow up and go to the best colleges to learn everything they can to become professionals in important fields and help make the world a better place. Where I got one of those educations, and became one of those professionals, gaining first hand knowledge and informed insight on these particular matters.

Yours comes from (ultimately) <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span>.

The last 10-15 years has been the beginning of a the United State's decline and fall. We can play the pessimistic blame game and insist on not learning why others hold concerns we don't, riding the fear and loathing train to hell together (sending our kids along for the ride), or we can change back to what we were...., world leaders.

The conservative Republican governor of Florida has made his choice. I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dean, those same fellows are in Virginia too.

Save the Bay! They've spend millions, but nothing has changed. frown.gif

Wayne </div></div>

The improvements in the Chesapeake Bay's water/environmental quality have been relatively modest in the 30+ years of intensive efforts to "Save the Bay", but they <span style="text-decoration: underline">are</span> improvements. Given that they've occurred over a period of explosive growth in the area's population (<span style="font-style: italic">tripled?, quadrupled?</span>), and that suburban and urban runoff <span style="text-decoration: underline">are</span> the pollutants of concern in the bay, treading water is actually an accomplishment of some distinction! cool.gif

You can color it differently if you like, but just like minimizing the other environmental issues of the day you'd only be fooling/hurting yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, your bitterness surprises me. Bragging about your education and putting others down shows a condescending attitude and insecurity. In the next four years your wildest dreams will become reality. Why is there such attack and hostility in your posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The last 10-15 years has been the beginning of a the United State's decline and fall. </div></div>

Dave, try the last thirty! It's been that many............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bragging about your education and putting others down shows a condescending attitude and insecurity. </div></div>

If you were online with a heart surgeon trying to tell <span style="text-decoration: underline">him</span> what's wrong with LDL vs. HDL cholesterol measurement, what would you expect him to react like.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why is there such attack and hostility in your posts? </div></div>

There isn't, by and large.

Mainly when ignorance on this subject raises it's head with typical pride, I react with facts. If you read any of my posts, including that one, you'll find it's mainly fact that's written on the screen.

It must be uncomfortable to percieve that your fun has come into conflict with scientific realities, and the easy way out (denial) must be very appealing. I've been able to integrate my interest in this hobby with a responsible attitude towards the environment. I don't have to call thousands of degreed professionals degrading names, or tar them with association with extremists, to live with my interest in old cars. In fact I've said many times here that the highest concentration of car enthusiasts I ever met were among environmental professionals. They're generally interested in preservation of all sorts.

The past 15 years of divisive politics have made for a society that only sees negatives with regard to other's interests. Fact and reason don't matter, it's just red vs. blue, left vs. right, etc. The idea that we all share interests is lost, largely because it serves to unite people against those who profit from division by selling (what is in some cases) "information".

The next time somebody tells you that someone else's reasoning or desires are invalid (usually using words like "loony lefties", "nazis", "wacko", etc.), question why they don't explain their own reasoning instead. If you're expected to accept that criticism of someone else's position is the promotion of another position, stated or otherwise, you're being played.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the next four years your wildest dreams will become reality. </div></div>

I can only hope, but in reality nothing's going to happen that we don't make happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it was Mark Twain who said "Never argue with a fool".

</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The next time somebody tells you that someone else's reasoning or desires are invalid (usually using words like "loony lefties", "nazis", "wacko", etc.)... </div></div>

"Fool"? Yeah, "fool" is a good one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...