California Law VS Classics

Discussion in '1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-' started by Banditlead, Sep 27, 2004.


  1. one2gamble

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Monterey
    what part of

    california already has the most stringent smog laws in the country dont you understand. We are fighting for the right to drive what we want to drive and not be hasseled by continually changing regulations that DO NOTHING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. As I stated earlier since the rolling smog checks went into place the air in California has gotten gradually cleaner. It has flatened now because cars arent the ones creating the poor air yet they are the only ones regulated. Im seriously starting to wonder if your some kind of socialist....I like your attempted slippery slope argument but it really makes zero sense. My buddies 91gt blows cleaner than a 96 civic....newer and smaller isnt always better.
     
    #21
  2. one2gamble

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Monterey

    I already hinted at the facts earlier. Cleaning up cars only takes you so far and in californias case we are essentially at that point. Speaking about the upper hand....
     
    #22
  3. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    :D
     
    #23
  4. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    :D
     
    #24
  5. zookeeper

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    59
    Location:
    Northern California
    Go ahead Oz, act like a robot and blindly follow the all-knowing government, after all they are only acting in your best interests. But first, try this: wander down to a busy public highway. Any highway you choose will do. Now count the amount of cars that drive by that were built BEFORE 1980. Do this for one hour and tell me out of the thousands of cars per hour, hou many are pre-1980 cars? How about pre-'76? Pre-'70? I'd say it's safe to say you can easily count the number of pre-'80 cars on that road one one hand and have fingers left over. Go to a large city, like San Fran or LA and it gets lower yet. Now lets say that there are 1000 cars total on that road per hour and you counted 2 pre 1980 cars. See the point? Eliminate those cars and you eliminate NOTHING that was the cause of the problem! THAT is knee-jerk science and that is what you and your kind choose to support. I've spent a hell of a lot more time in this state than you EVER will and I can tell you that idiots run the place and only idiots believe their rhetoric.
     
    #25
  6. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. Max Power

    Max Power New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St Paul
    First of all, if CA wants to get a leg up on eliminating pollution, they will get MTBE out of their fuel. That wouldn't cost anything.

    Secondly, we can do without the low-rent nicknames for hispanics.

    Third, Denver tosses out it's share of crud too. Get over yourself.
     
    #27
  8. gp001

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    I guess you didn't read the text of the bill, the SEMA literature, or any of my replies. You seem to think that the legislature makes it's decisions based on scientific facts and not political position.

    From SEMA
    * Existing law in California exempts all vehicles 30 years old and older from emissions testing.
    * California’s current emissions testing exemption recognizes the minimal impact of vehicles 30 years old and older on vehicle emissions and air quality.
    * Vehicles 30 years old and older constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.
    * Antique and classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven (about one-third the miles each year as a new vehicle).
     
    #28
  9. Great68

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Victoria BC
    I have to test my Mustang up here, it's more of a nuisance than anything. There are so many ways to get around it, I don't even know why they bother.

    For example, it was determined my car was running rich which is why my CO levels were failing.

    To solve that I took off the speed demon, put on my crappy old holley 600, the car drove like crap for the 1/2 hour I needed it for the test, but it passed. Then I just came home, bolted up the Demon and voila back to polluting.


    Mind you, if you want to see REAL bad smog, go to shanghai. When I was there, It was a beautiful sunny day except visibility was less than a mile it was so thick. It was gross.
     
    #29
  10. gp001

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    See, that's the ignorance of the subject I have been trying to point out to you in all my previous posts. The car in the scenario you describe WILL NOT BE AFFECTED ONE DAMN BIT BY THIS NEW LAW! I posted regarding the CAP (Consumer Assistance Program) and the Economic Hardship waivers that will allow these cars to continue to pollute.
    They also constanly change both the standards and the testing methods, making even stock vehicles harder to pass. Sort of like inspectors coming to your house and saying there are new building codes and you need to modify your house to comply, not just meet the standards of when it was built. My completely stock 1985 Dodge truck requires a full carb rebuild and new cat every test time, even though that vehicle gets driven less than 7500 miles per year.

    How bout you scrap your car so that the Colorado River doesn't get polluted? I live down river of you and rely on that water supply. Many states rely on it for farming and drinking water. Lobby your Governor to implement the California smog standards and testing.
     
    #30
  11. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    none


    :D
     
    #31
  12. one2gamble

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Monterey



    no im saying the california smog laws for its citizens are as tough as they should be. The air quality can be improved through other means that are being avoided due to the big pockets of industry.

    what sounds socialist is your support for increased government regulation on our every day lives, regulations that are not needed.
     
    #32
  13. pabear89

    pabear89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    High in the Hills of So Ca with the Voices in My H
    Well My main complaint is If they WANTED to do something about cleaning the air, Then do not let the Corp,County,City,State Ect vec's of the hook for smog testing.
    They are exempt from testing, Why they have MORE miles and Run time on them then your Average Taxpayers car.

    The new tests have the OBDII must be plugged in when the test is done,
    If there is ANY history in its memory it could be a test failure.
    Even if the tailpipe readings are well under the limits.

    Take out the Mtbe from the fuel that makes for poorer gas milage and MAJOR Ground water Contamination.
    They want clean air but the Heck with the water?
    Our own clean air watchdogs are killing us faster then those few non emission passing car.

    Just my 2cts from a Voter that will show them my opinion at the Polls.

    PB
     
    #33
  14. 2nd Mustang

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Southern California
    All this talk of old versus new cars polluting has merits on both sides, BUT, the facts are that the most polluting vehicle is the gas tanker trucks. The pollution (evaporation of gas while pumping into the tanks at your gas station) is higher than driving any kind of car. The simple fact is that there are just too many people, hence too many vehicles in any given metropolitan area. Colorado is a great example. Many years ago it had really good air quality, then as the population grew, so did the pollution. There really is nothing we can do, unless they outlaw babies. Who knows, maybe we'll mutate into smog breathing mammals.
     
    #34
  15. mustangracer

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 1999
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Oz....I was about to ask where you stand on the other great debate...gun control, but then if I remember correctly you are ATF...so that pretty much sums it up.

    It's pretty clear that there are a lot of sheeple out there, to borrow a term coined elsewhere. Enough hype and outright lies and they can be convinced of anything and everything.

    They simple fact is that the gross pollutors you saw are ALREADY covered under the current CA smog laws. In fact, any year vehicle can be cited for being a gross polluter, wether subject to testing or not. The backers of the newest crap laws like to spout that old cars pollute 2.5 times that of newer cars, but fail to mention there are only 1.7% as many old cars versus somewhere around 5 million new cars (not including trucks and SUVs) sold just last year alone.
     
    #35
  16. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    none


    :D
     
    #36
  17. 351carlo

    351carlo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Well ****. It's California's fault my '70 has a crazy system on it already. So tell me this. If I completely restored my '70 to original specs with all their emissions lines run and working....would I pass these new tests?

    If not, I'm 100% against this. Even if I would pass....I'm still against this. You've gotta look at how much pollution our classics put out. Recently CA passed a law requiring new vehicles to decrease emissions by 25%. That will only lower the pollution rate by .01%. How much do you really think our cars being off the road will lower the pollution?

    Not enough that I'll care. I'm living in Delaware. We can get through with just about anything. I'm breathing just fine. Remember people air masses move. Just because I pour my used oil down a storm drain in Delaware doesn't mean it only affects DE. California putting these laws in place won't do jack***** in the long run.
     
    #37
  18. 351carlo

    351carlo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Oz,

    Your viewpoints are awfully interesting. You seem to be very concerned about that which directly affects you and only you. Imagine the byproducts of destroying the forests, or drilling the arctic. You will be destroying major ecosystems which may not seem like much to our ignorant mainstream society, but after looking in depth at our modern day problems...the last thing we want to do is wipe out all of our habitats for wildlife. Frankly, I don't care too much for the whole 'save the wildlife' type of people, but I do realize that it is the relationship between the wild and the living that has allowed us to prosper.

    It's just like the age old population growth equations. Kill the plants, you kill those that eat the plants, then you kill off those that eat those that eat the plants.

    Hope at least one person can understand the logic behind that all.

    Carlo
     
    #38
  19. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    none


    :D
     
    #39
  20. Ozsum2

    Ozsum2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page