Saar

i would imagine that there are quite a few electronic references by this time to cover a pretty good percentage of the vehicles on the road.

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

For what? Electricity still requires horsepower and is actually only .6 as efficient at best (alternators are only 60% efficient at most) though the electric smog pumps in fourth gens do not run continuously.
You're better off doing this.

88camaroscv6

iTrader: (1)

oh lordy why are you all fighting over damn smog pumps! if your state doesnt require them then you can junk them! New york is lights and horn safety inspection only they dont hook up a scanner or even pop the hood... it freed up so much space in my engine bay, performance wise i would say would be minimal, there is weight loss so thats a definate plus there but i cant rant on anything else because i went with hooker 2460 headers

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Wrong. ALL states require them. Whether you live in Alaska, New York, California, Texas, or any of the other 46 states you choose, FEDERAL LAW requires that you have a functioning smog pump and unaltered emissions system. Now, whether you choose to follow that or not is your own business, but every state REQUIRES them. Only some choose to check whether or not they are actually there.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

As I posted earlier, that is up for legal debate if the federal government has the power to enforce EPA regulations for vehicles against individual owners. Also, again, look at the laws posted in my sate that specifically says they are only REQUIRED on vehicles newer than 20 years old.

-- Joe

The Project

iTrader: (6)

Here in Ontario, all original smog equipment must be visible on the car. The gov't likes to do random road side inspections and will fine and tow.

We have had instances of the gov't setting up outside car shows and pulling random cars over as they exit.

Also, any car 1988 and newer must pass a sniffier test every two years. New cars get I believe a 6 year exemption.

ringo234

Federal Law requires them in all States. All States won't check but it's still illegal if you get caught. I have friends in CA that meet all smog laws put down over 400 RWHP, on naturally aspirated TPI intakes. I guess if they removed the smog pump they could make over 401.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

With all due respect, unless you are prepared to fight the legal battle Joe v. United States, you might want to get on board with U.S. Law circa 1990.

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

This website will tell you everything you'd ever want to know about the Clean Air Act of 1990. It has links to the full text version as well. I am including some high points from my reading that show the federal government absolutely can enforce tampering with vehicle emissions systems by the private owner:

(emphasis added)

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...=1#quicktabs-8

This section then goes on to discern specific instances of where such modifications can be performed, mainly High Altitude modifications and temporary repairs. Nowhere in there does it mention that a private individual is not responsible to adhering to this section, nor does it mention that only businesses and manufacturers are bound by it. It merely states "any person", which includes all of us.

Please note that this act was ammended in 1990. Prior to 1990, Paragraph (3) read as follows:

(emphasis added)

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...=1#quicktabs-8

Note that prior to 1990, the individual owner was not subject to this law. They are as per the 1990 amendment however.

Section 7523 goes on to describe the jurisdiction of section 7522:

"Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by and in the name of the United States."

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...=1#quicktabs-8

And finally, what everyone is waiting for, the penalties. Under Section 7524:

(emphasis added)

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...=1#quicktabs-8

So, you, as the private owner, are liable up to $2,500 for each engine or motor vehicle that you tamper with. If you install a component designed to defeat the emissions system, you can be fined $2,500 per part installed.


Now, the only question remaining unanswered is whether the laws of the United States of America take precedence over the laws of the individual states. That question was firmly settled as of 1865 when General Robert E. Lee finally gave up his sword.

Sorry if I've busted anybody's perceptions here. To err due to ignorance is one thing, but to also encourage others to do so through ignorance is something much more harmful.

-cal30sniper

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Welcome to the Police State. People removing emissions control equipment in the U.S. should pay close attention. At least keep the stuff so you can put it back on later if need be. We have the laws in place here to enforce this stuff, all we lack are the boots on the ground to start enforcing it. It literally could happen any day.

-cal30sniper

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

I appreciate your insight and opinion on the matter. Like I said before, it's a legal debate. We're going to see a lot of "states rights" issues come before the supreme court in the next couple of years. We don't have to agree on everything other than the fact that everyone should consult their own laws and attorney before proceeding with modifying their car, no?

Hey, maybe the republicans will keep their promise of eliminating the EPA's power if Romney gets elected, and guys like me won't have to donate tens of thousands of dollars every year for legal causes.

-- Joe

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

I'm not going to get into a huffing match with you. The law is very plainly worded, there's simply no element if opinion or debate to it. I know of absolutely no legal precedent in modern times for a state law to supercede a federal law. States can add to federal law, but no state can pass a law that nullifies federal law. New Hampshire certainly won't prosecute you for not having emissions equipment on a car more than 20 years old, but the federal government can. If or when they would or not is anybody's guess, but the legalities are in place.

I salute you as a patriot, and lord knows we could stand for a lot less federal government meddling and more things being handled on a state level, but that simply isn't the legal case here.

-cal30sniper

EDIT:

This link is a bulletin put out by the EPA in March of 1991 to exhaust repair facilities. It clearly states that private owners can be held responsible for modifications to the vehicle emissions system:

(emphasis added)
Source: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resour...hsysrepair.pdf

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Finally, to put the dual converter issue to rest, here's an excerpt from the same bulletin:

So, according to the EPA, it would be okay to upgrade a single cat exhaust system to a factory dual cat exhaust system. You would still have to check with state emissions laws before doing so, however, as your state laws may amplify the federal law in such a way as this would no longer be accepted.

-cal30sniper

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

I'm not looking to get into a huffing match either. I debate law in court. That is why we have courts.

-- Joe

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Alright, then in your opinion, which obviously has at least some experience to back it up, what is it about Federal Emissions Laws that is in question here. The wording of the law is clear, so I don't think there's any question of what it means. Federal Law dictates that it is illegal for any person to modify the vehicle emissions system, check. That establishes the offense. Federal Law states that they can be prosecuted in any U.S. District court, check. That establishes jurisdiction. They even go so far as to establish the maximum penalties. That really only leaves one thing up for debate, the issue of which law supersedes what.

Are you suggesting that because New Hampshire and the United States of America have two laws on the same topic, that the New Hampshire law supersedes Federal Law for New Hampshire residents, even though it is less stringent?

If so, is that based on the assumption that:

1. All State Laws should supersede Federal Laws for said residents as long as they do not directly violate constitutional rights?

Or

2. The Federal Government has no Constitutional Right to make laws dealing with emissions standards?

I'm no law student or trial witness, but I do have a decent background in Constitutional Law and the UCMJ. From what I understand, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution eliminates all doubt of which law takes precedence in an area which the Federal Government has Constitutional Authority to make laws in.

Therefore, I'm guessing that you're going for #2, and claiming that the Federal Government does not have the authority to make laws considering emissions standards and their adherence by private individuals. I see this as a more logical assumption. Congress takes most of their regulatory law-making power from the commerce clause of the Constitution. The argument I see being most likely to have any success is that a private owner does not impact commerce, and is thus not subject to the interstate commerce clause, where a business or manufacturer would be. However, the logical counter-argument would roughly be that the private individual does impact clean air standards, which do impact commerce (I'm sure that could be justified fairly easily given the other stretches the federal government has gone to in order to justify its authority).

Please correct me if I'm stating your argument wrong. That's the only topic I can see that is possibly up for debate in this consideration.

That being said, the fact remains that right now, it is illegal for any person, private individual or otherwise, to tamper with any emissions equipment on their vehicle, and law is in place to fine them if they were caught. It will remain illegal for any U.S. Citizen to remove the emissions equipment from their vehicle, until a court case goes high enough in the Federal Court system to overturn the current Federal Laws in favor of state laws which might be in place that are less stringent. So unless you are prepared to fight a lengthy battle to the Supreme Court, and possibly still lose, you could be forced to pay up to a $2500 fine if you are caught removing the A.I.R. system from your vehicle. Federal Law is in place, and will continue to supersede state law until it is overturned in federal court. Do you see any of that as being up for debate?

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, you seem to have quite a bit more experience with the legal system than I do. You have claimed multiple times in this thread that the ability to enforce Federal Law against a private individual is up for debate, without ever clarifying how. I'd really like to know your viewpoint on that.

-cal30sniper

abray1

Well Chargerbill I enjoyed your post and like seeing anyone with any interest in our cars. I own several of them and they all have the smog delete pulley so I can relate. I didn't know how much power it robbed or when it worked or really what its function was other than an air injection pump into the exhaust manifolds and a pain to work around. Don't let the other guys get you down. Anyhting you are curious about probably has already been investigated and perfected but can be hard to find at times. I have beeen trying to figure out how to keep a 3rd gen cool since the 80s and finally figured it out this summer. So, keep tinkering with your car and enjoy it like we all do and when you have a question or notice something throw out a post and enjoy the show. I know I do. Just remember that in all crowds there are people that the only way they feel good is to try and make someone else feel bad; sad but true. Most of the people on here are great and very knowledgable and I have learned a ton on here from them but you will get attacked now and then.

lotsofsparepart

I love NW Washington, clean air, mountain views, and no emission testing in my area. Not that it is a bad thing in regions that needs the testing to maintain air quality. I think it is the weather up here....... rain keeps the air clean...... kind of a crappy trade off but oh-well. No A.I.R. system on my engine..... wouldn't do a bit of good anyways since I have no Cats. Really cleans up the engine compartment too.

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

I love reading arguments on the EPA, emissions testing and "clean air"

Everybody on this board should know by know the emissions is bull****

Here in MD you go through a visual when you purchase a car

Once you pass that it's emissions every 2 years, but no more visual(minus them walking around your car with a mirror and not looking at it)

If you have ever been through the testing here you know it's just a way for the state to get $14 per vehicle every 2 years its on the road

They could care less about how clean the air really is because the EPA's numbers on the issues of air quality and global warming have been proven a lie.

My final rant, what is a plants job on this earth? The grass around you and the trees and flowers we plant year after year?

Ill tell you, to clean our air for us, they use it as food ad produce oxygen!

Last time I check plants(and water for that matter) are a natural and renewable resource,

These "scientist", lobbyist and politicians are looking for nothing more than to take your money after you have paid your taxes!

So long as my state doesn't require me to have a smog system(20 model years or older) why should I care what the Feds have to say? They are too busy voting themselves raises to care about my cars!

abray1

I do heat and air work and years ago when they outlawed r12 for killing the ozone we all knew it was a load of crap. The methane in the refrigerant is what hurts the ozone but methane is very heavy. That said how does a heavy gas make it all the way up to the ozone to destroy it. The main killers of the ozone are cow flatulation, jet air planes and volcanos. But R12 went from $39 a 30lb drum to several hundred. And they complain about drug dealers and the mob. They could make purification machines and place them in targeted areas or one of a hundred things but it always comes down to money.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Okay, I'm going to start debunking BS with this one. I'm guessing by heat and air work you mean you drive a truck for an A/C install company? There's absolutely no way you are involved on the thermodynamics or chemistry side of this operation if you're spouting this kind of mess... Even though you thought you "knew it was a load of crap," you clearly have no idea what you're even talking about.

There is no "methane", as you are referring to it, in R-12. The type of methane that you are speaking of (cow flatulation) is "CH4". It is 56% as dense as air, meaning it will rise readily through the atomosphere when released (it is not a "heavy gas" as you claim). Regardless, there is absolutely no "CH4" methane in R-12.

R-12's proper name is Dichlorodifluoromethane, or "CCl2F2". The only thing it has in common with common methane "CH4" is its bonding structure. Both are Carbon molecules with four bonds. The similarities stop there. R-12 has a carbon atom bonded with 2 chlorine atoms and 2 fluorine atoms. Methane is a carbon atom bonded with four hydrogen atoms.

Pure R-12 is more dense than air, but being a gas, it begins to diffuse immediately upon exposure. If the atmosphere were perfectly quiescent, then yes, R-12 molecules would settle below the atmosphere, and none of them would make it up to the ozone. However, there are these things called currents, storms, and wind, that all contribute to waft R-12 (and other CFCs) all over the atmosphere.

Once they reach altitude, CFCs react with sunlight and one of the chlorine atoms breaks free. This chlorine atom then proceeds to attack ozone, breaking each ozone molecule into an oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom.

And yes, the main killers of Ozone are CFCs, of which R-12 is a prominent member. Virtually none of the other sources for chlorine that reaches the upper atmosphere are in gaseous form. It is much, much, much harder for solid particulates to diffuse that high.

Nice try, but no. Plants synthesize carbon dioxide into oxygen. Limited studies have shown that certain types of plants can filter carbon monoxide and NO2 out of the air. They can't do a thing about unburnt hydrocarbons however, and most plants don't process CO either. It's not useful for them, so they don't intake it.

Plants are also ground dwelling species. The moment an air current wafts your exhaust above tree level, plants can't do a thing about it. Even the cleanest exhaust still has CO2, which is a very effective greenhouse gas. Catalytic converters (and their supporting A.I.R. systems) aren't in place to get rid of greenhouse gasses. They are there to get rid of the poisonous gasses in automobile exhaust that kill living, breathing things, and cause all sorts of other environmental problems.

There is a natural balance for everything. Plants are there to turn CO2 into O2, and animals do the opposite. That works just great in a "green" world full of plants, and they might even be able to filter out most of the CO, NO, and NO2 if that were the case. That's not the case though. Most urban development areas (coincidentally where you find the highest concentration of automobiles) are heavily deforested. In fact, the vast majority of photosynthesis actually takes place in the ocean, and the last time I checked, not many people were driving their cars out there on the water.

Adding in hundreds of millions of automobiles doesn't help the natural balance of things at all either. You are burning carbons that have been locked away beneath the surface of the earth for millions of years, and churning out all kinds of nasty little byproducts in the process. Catalytic converters are there to make that process cleaner, and they do a very good job of it.

You have to be a special kind of ignorant to think that all of this junk being output into the environment and atmosphere is not harming it. How much of an impact we are having on global warming, or whether it in fact exists at all, could be up for debate. But the fact that we are slowly destroying our environment with industrial byproducts is a undeniable fact of life. You should care about the actions of the EPA because they are trying to curb that effect. Who would say they are against cleaner air? That's just stupid.

Why is it that most liberals base all of their opinions off of a few biased and questionable experiments, and conservatives don't seem to base their ideas off of any facts at all? Can't people go out, research the topic for themselves, and form educated conclusions anymore? Become part of the solution by learning the facts, not part of the problem by spouting BS.

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

I can't wait for the EPA to be rolled back, I'm all for anti-litter laws, I hate seeing trash on the ground as much as the next guy,

Like I said the scientist behind global warming and the deteriorating Ozone have already admitted to fudging numbers

It's BS that the average joe gets a fee every 2 years(in md), in order to operate a private vehicle, but the planes flying into BWI are openly dumping raw fuel over the surrounding neighborhoods before landing

It's all a load of crap, air pollution may be a problem in crowded industrial cities but it is not a country wide or even a global problem as Mr.gore would have you believe

I'll remove my smog bs and just be happy it's gone and not cluttering my engine bay, if the big bad Feds wanna fine me I guess I'll see Um in court

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

Oh and one more thing, if its too high for the trees to breath it in, wouldn't that mean its not affecting the air a human is breathing in? The average human is no taller than 6.5-7 feet, I'm sure plants reach heights much taller than that

peterc005

The science behind global warming is solid, and has been proven by more than twenty years of scientific and academic peer-review.

Don't get sucked in by those "climate sceptic" cranks and crazies.

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

I never said global warming isn't real, I'm saying its not as big of a problem as most greenies want society to believe, and the scientist who have been studying it for 20+ years have admitted to fudging wild numbers to back the green movement

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Oh really? Then you must realize that trash out the exhaust pipe is the same as trash on the ground. The only difference being that you can't see trash out the exhaust pipe because it is a gas. Unfortunately, also because it is a gas, it means you breath it, and it goes inside your body. Now, how would you like all the trash you see on the side of the road to be inside your lungs? That's what you're doing to yourself (and unfortunate bystanders) when you remove the smog equipment from your vehicle...

This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or ozone depletion. How can I break this down any simpler? The emissions equipment on your car is solely there to prevent AIR POLLUTION.

If you think testing standards on private individuals is hard, you'd faint if you saw what the commercial industry has to go through... EDIT: Also, raw fuel is a very nice substance compared to some of the stuff coming out of a non-catalytic converter tailpipe.

I'm guessing that you think air is completely stagnant, and never moves throughout your entire life? Ever heard of weather patterns? Heck, have you ever been anywhere in the western U.S. when there's a wildfire burning somewhere? Air pollution is by NO means a local problem. It's as global as it gets.

No dumb***, it means that trees and plants can only filter out a tiny fraction of what comes out of your exhaust pipe. Unlike you, who intake your air through breathing, they ingest air through diffusion across the surface of their "skin". That process takes much, much longer than it takes you to take a breath. Even for the plants that do filter out pollutants, it is by no means an instantaneous process. In an enclosed room with no mass flow in or out, they might be able to filter out all the pollutants over a period of several days. However, in the wide world, where air currents air constantly stirring things up, they just aren't going to be effective at filtering stuff. Plants are focused to gather carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, that's it.

Any pollutants that don't stagnate and manage to make it inside the plant (i.e., most pollutants in a free environment), are whisked around until eventually you take a breath and they end up in your lungs. Some of the nastier stuff that doesn't get breathed in goes higher in the atmosphere and combines with atmospheric moisture and sunlight to make all sorts of other nasty stuff. Can I paint the picture any clearer? What exactly are you missing here?

I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that by the way you present your argument, you're a teenager that's been drinking a little bit of somebone's in your family (or another respected person's) kool-aid. I say this because your arguments are very unsound, and mix a number of counterpoints from a broad range of ultra-conservative, anti-environmental, anti-government viewpoints, most of which may be loosely based on fact in some context but are completely inapplicable to this case. Strangely enough, I used to think like you, until I actually exposed myself to the science behind the matter and started to think for myself. Let me emphasize again, we are ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING HERE. In many areas of the scientific community, global warming is up for debate. However, when it comes to smog equipment, it's sole purpose is to CLEAN UP THE POLLUTANTS IN YOUR EXHAUST. Global warming may or may not be a problem, but air pollution is a VERY real and UNDENIABLE fact of life.

Please do yourself and every one else a favor and spend some time really studying the subject before you make any more stupid comments. Much like the A/C system guy, your ignorance is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit of chemistry, combustion science, and biology.

-cal30sniper

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

As a final aside to all this smog debate, I'd like to simply add that removing the smog equipment from a car really doesn't pay off on a daily driven vehicle. You lose a few pounds, and maybe, maybe, maybe gain a few horsepower. You certainly clear up a little space under the hood, but that's about it for the benefits.

On the flip side, your emissions go WAY up, and you have to start worrying about changing laws, legalities, and if/when/were you can safely get away with running your current setup. Even if you don't get caught or ever pay any financial consequences, you are contributing way more than your fair share of emissions to an already cluttered atmosphere. Is that a world you want to leave to your kids and grand-kids so you could save a few minutes on a spark plug change every 5 years?

If your emissions system is inoperable, or if a previous owner partially or fully removed it, it probably doesn't make financial sense to try and get it working again if you don't have to worry about it for inspection purposes. What I can't understand, is destroying a perfectly good emissions system for the very few benefits you actually gain from doing it. If it breaks, fine, but there's no tangible reason to go hacking it apart if it's working fine to begin with.

Gumby

your post makes me want to remove 3 spark plug wires and go drive through a tank of gas belching smoke like a semi.

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

I see you have resulted to name calling, good for you

You are the one that stated once the pollutants are whisked away above the trees there is nothing plants can do about cleaning it from our air,

Once it gets whisked back down to a level I can breathe in, that would mean plants can clean it

Plants may not be able to clean the air as fast as we can breathe it, but I'm pretty sure there are more plants on this planet than humans/vehicle/factories combined

Like I said its all a load of BS, in place simply to crack down and impose tax on citizens

I'm also not saying that air pollution is not real or a problem in crowded cities, but it's not as big of a problem as the govt and groups who recieve govt funding want you to believe

Anyone with a brain can see air quality has neither increased or decreased over the past 20 years(I'm 24 btw), do you really think that's due to air pollution laws that a private citizen has to follow? Even with missions testing in place here in MD all you have to do is pay the $14 fail the test and get an extension every 2 months until they deny one, go back, pay $14 and repeat the process

Shows how much they really care about your old beater right?

I can see being very strict on the commercial side of pollution, but the average person doesn't emit nearly the same amount of pollution in their lifetime as a factory would in a 5 year period with no regulations in place.

It's all about the money good sir

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Thank you for your for adding absolutely nothing to this thread. I can see that you clearly don't care the least bit about your quality of life, or that of any of those around you. Strangely enough, the excess hydrocarbons dumped out by popping off three cylinders still wouldn't be nearly as bad for the environment as a bunch of people running around with non-catalyzed exhaust. You don't have to be a flaming liberal to see why CO, NO, and NO2 in your exhaust is a bad thing, you just have to have half a brain and the ability to do some research. Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, that's probably not something you're going to come around to. Be that as it may, if you don't have something constructive to post, there's no need to blabber here.

I'm referring to your ability to continue to repeatedly claim the same unfounded and illogical BS without ever stopping to think or research what you are saying. Your claims about plants filtering vehicle emissions from the air and turning them into food before you or I can breathe them are simply outlandish. It may have little bearing on your overall intelligence, but you come across as being an idiot when you make such strong claims based on nonexistent and/or faulty information.

Yes, not only am I saying that, but I'm also saying that they can't clean it when it's at ground level either. Much like your argument that the average old beater won't hurt the environment significantly (you are quite correct in that, comparatively speaking), plants can only filter in a tiny, insignificant fraction of air pollutants, compared to what is being output. See below for explanation.

No, this is where you are still failing to see basic scientific principles. For plants to remove pollutants from the air, it requires air that is stagnant enough that the pollutants are stationary on the surface of the plant long enough to be pulled in, and even once the pollutants are inside the plant, they still must go somewhere. Even a plant that pulls in some CO or NOx very likely won't do anything at all with it. The plant is designed to process CO2, and likely can't do deal with the very different chemical bonds of common air pollutants. So, rather than being broken down, a lot of it is going to go right back out the other side along with the oxygen it produces.

Yes, there are more plants than pollutant sources, but that still doesn't help much. It's all in ratios. Even though there are more plants, they intake incredibly less air than we do. They are stationary lifeforms that expend very, very little energy to carry out their life processes. We are constantly in motion, heat our own bodies, and expend vast amounts of energy on thought processes, all of which are significant energy drains that plants simply do not have. All of those processes require excess oxygen, which results in us processing an incredibly higher amount of air than any plant ever will. Think of it from an oxygen-CO2 atmospheric balance persepective. Air is 21% Oxygen, and about 0.04% carbon dioxide. For that level to remain constant, that means that animals are converting oxygen to carbon dioxide roughly 500 times faster than plants converting CO2 to oxygen. Considering that humans are some of the most energy hungry organisms in the animal kingdom, we end up using a lot of that air.

Then it gets even worse for us. Not only are we required to convert much more oxygen to CO2 for plants to survive, we still only process about 25% of the oxygen that we breath in into CO2. That means for every amount of air you convert for plants to breath, four times that amount has passed through your lungs. Unlike plants which filter out turbulent air, your lungs represent a fairly quiescent environment during the time between exhaling and inhaling. That makes it much easier for pollutants to diffuse across into your body. Your lungs have evolved to process vast amounts of air over very short times, vs plants which process very little air over very long time scales, making your lungs much more effective at mass diffusion.

If you can't see by now that plants are completely ineffective at filtering vehicle emissions from the air that you breath, I can't help you any further. If that's the case, you need to grab a high school biology book and pick up on the large amounts of information that you seem to have missed along the way. Vehicle emissions are not food for plants, they are poisonous substances in the air that you and I breath, move in, and look through.

You continuing to claim that it is BS without providing any information that someone with a high school or higher education could debunk does not make your claim any more valid. It only highlights your ignorance.

If it is in fact a real problem, as you are finally beginning to allude to, then why would you condone making it worse by taking vehicles that were once quite well filtered and uncorking them on the environment? Think of it this way, what would have happened if the "Big Bad Feds" hadn't started cracking down hard on vehicle emissions back in the mid-70s? You would NOT like the quality of air that you breathe today, I can guarantee you that. This stuff doesn't simply just go away. One of the main problems with these forms of air pollution is that there aren't any naturally evolved organisms around to break it down. Any bit that gets put out hangs around for years in varies niches within the environment, including your very own body.

It hasn't decreased (much) because of the very, very stringent laws placed on new vehicle emissions. The vast amount of vehicles on the roads are newer models which are held to very tight standards. Thus, the air is much cleaner than it would be without regulation, and your and my lungs are much happier. Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like by now if the Feds hadn't stepped in and done something about it?

Do you really think they make much money off of $14 an emissions test, when the machines required to properly test require tens of thousands of dollars to purchase, and require constant expensive maintenance and calibration to make sure they are working correctly? The $14 fee is there to cover the cost of equipment, not line the pockets of local bureaucrats. The only people possibly benefiting from this are the emissions testers themselves who get paid to do a job that wouldn't otherwise exist, and the companies that produce vehicle emissions and testing equipment. So in reality, the money you think is being ripped from your hands is actually going to provide jobs for Americans. When did that become a bad thing?

And no, they don't care about your old beater, they care about the aggregate of vehicles on the road, of which your old beater makes up only a very small part. The $14 fee and hassle you have to keep paying when you fail emissions is supposed to be a deterrent to either restore a working emissions system, or purchase a car that already has one. A single vehicle running without an emissions system is not going to kill the environment. Every Tom, Dan, and Harry running around in his 80s or 90s jalopy with the cats and AIR system hacked off might just do some damage though, and that's why there are laws in place that attempt to prevent that.

You would be surprised. Factories go through very stringent (and incredibly expensive) emissions testing. Not only that, but energy unit for unit, factories are much, much more efficient and clean than your automobile. They run under stationary conditions, with a relatively constant load, and their engines are highly engineered to be very efficient under those particular conditions.

So yes, the sum of private vehicle operators on the road does output a significant amount of emissions compared to the relatively few but large factories, which are much more heavily regulated than the private automobile owner. As of now, the amount of individuals running around in 20+ year old cars on a daily basis makes up a very small percentage of overall vehicle emissions, hence why they cut emissions testing for these older vehicles. It actually saves the Govt money not to test those vehicles, because they don't have to maintain older emissions testing equipment indefinitely. If there is a compromise being made for money's sake, there it is.

Finally, your main argument against this being some kind of money laundering govt scheme just doesn't hold up. The amount of money put into making sure our air stays clean vastly outweighs the small fees that you have to pay to keep your vehicle inspected. Vehicle registration and titling are a tax. Vehicle safety emissions and safety testing are a quality of life service that you pay for. The money that you pay the test center to do it goes directly into purchasing/maintaining that test center's equipment, and paying the salary of the guys who work there.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

You also drive a computer controlled V6. Good luck on getting it to run or move under it's own power using only three cylinders.

-cal30sniper

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

You seem to think the people removing their smog pumps are also removing their cat, I've seen plenty of people in 20+ year old vehicles pass emissions testing using only a high flow cat, and no other smog equipment I've also seen cars fail testing and be run again with no additional work and pass

I will remove my smog pump without fear of the govt and keep my cat on my exhaust, it has been proven to be just as efficient in reducing emissions

Hope I don't effect the quality of life that surrounds me

Saar

i've actually purposely disabled three cylinders on a 95 monte(3.1 liter) before to test the theory of whether or not you can quit providing fuel flow to cylinders to decrease pumping losses.... the closed loop logic didn't like that at all(it was staying in closed loop and dumping fuel into the other cylinders to compensate), but it was able to maintain ~45MPH.

Gumby

The family also owns land in a township where its legal to burn your garbage, ill set a tire a blaze in your honor with some used motor oil. I was just going to pour it down the sink any ways. Keeps the lead pipes lubed in the leach field.

Caveman305

iTrader: (8)

If our forum had a "thank" feature you would have gotten 2 from me just on this thread

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

You are quite correct about the modern high-flow cats not needing an A.I.R. system. Notice that new vehicles don't come with A.I.R., because new cats no longer require them. A.I.R. just happened to be a system that was already developed and in use on cars that helped primitive catalytic converters work better.

A car that is on the borderline as far as passing emissions very well could fail and then pass. Ambient temperature, pressure, what fuel you put in your tank, and a number of other factors influence how much emissions your vehicle actually put out. You should be able to reason why that is.

If you get rid of the A.I.R. system, it would be advisable to also upgrade to a high-flow cat like your friends that you mentioned. They are designed to work without an A.I.R. system, unlike your original cat.

You still have added absolutely nothing useful to this thread. Just because it's legal doesn't mean its smart. Lots of things used to be legal that people wouldn't think about doing today. Anyways, don't do it in my honor, do it for the next person you know or love who will die from cancer. You can know you had a small part in helping them get there! Maybe they'll even "thank" you too!

-cal30sniper

Gumby

I totally agree


Business, Industry and the 3rd World make any such changes remove/keep moot/mute

like taking a wizz or not in the ocean

like me making a useful post or not, the big picture won't change, till the mods stop laughing too.

irocZ281986

Not that anyone cares at this point but as for me, gone with the air system and to hell with the dog crap cat. Not worth the money to fix and a pain in my rear. If you don't like it then in the words of kid rock "F*ck all y'all"

Rob's 92 gta

I live in Newport News va. I had my 92 gta inspected and it was going to fail. I asked the inspector why and he said, because you have two converters on your car. I him it came with two and he said he was a inspector for 15 years and never saw a third/gen with two.. Itold him to get his boss over here and talk to me. This man agreed with the inspector. Itold them not to fail my car until they looked up the stock no. Of converters it came with. He came back after 20 minutes and said I was correct. He passed my car with no more problems. The problem I had with this is if my wife took the car it would have failed.They would have told her what they needed to to to fix it and if she let them change it to a single cat then it wouldn't pass anywhere else. The only good thing is now they have a new rule to check the book before they fail any car.

WyoJames

Emissions? The only emissions people know of in this state are those coming out of all the cows rear ends!
In the last 10 years that I've been driving I've had one vehicle with an exhaust system that wasn't built for "Offroad Use Only" and every exhaust system I've ever had always came with a sticker that said "Not for use in the state of California" Hell, with the right amount of sweet talk and maybe a few extra bucks, even legitimate exhaust shops will shop your cat our for you.

Not that it pertains to the thread...just thought I would throw it in there to stir the pot

jdawg1276

this is great I am breaking the federal law I have No none nodea emissions on mine bought it like that it stinks to hate that part but here in the great state of nc like others sniff test is for 1996 and newer 13 for older cars and ether 26 or 32$ can't remember for newer cars but my question is if I put a newer cat on my 350 will I lose a lot of hp or none and Would I have to upgrade anything it's running a Holly Carb my guess is 650 bought the car like 3 months ago and like I said it smells like a gas station bad what mods can I do without slot of power loss?

BlackenedBird

iTrader: (5)

Put on a good 2-way cat, like a Magnaflow, & you'll lose a whopping 2-4 horsepower & it will no longer stink like gas.

jdawg1276

thanks I can't drive it to far afraid I will get high lol and two to four horses ain't nothing thanks alot

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Sounds like you are desperately in need of a carburetor tune, those are the symptoms of running pig rich. Check the float levels on that holley, and adjust your jet size as necessary. You are leaving far more power on the table by running that rich than you would lose from any catalytic converter. A stoichiometric air fuel ratio from a carb will smell the same with or without a catalytic converter. Basically all the cat should be doing is converting CO to CO2, both of which are odorless gasses.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Also, running rich is a major cause of failed catalytic converters. You wouldn't want to put one on there only to ruin it because you were running too rich.

midnightfirews6

iTrader: (1)

^High flow cats don't rob much power and will make your wallet a good bit lighter, but you can rest easy knowing your car isn't hurting the environment as much. Honestly, if it were me, I'd either go 100% legal and run the AIR crap and a legal cat, or nothing at all. It's illegal without the AIR system so other that being able to rest easy at night not worrying about my impact on the environment, it'd be hard to justify the cost of a high flow cat that doesn't make the car any more legal if it doesn't have AIR. I can't tell you what to do because running no emissions violates federal law and if everyone does it, it makes the air quality suckier. But what I'd do is whatever it takes to make sure the car passes local testing if it's subject to it, and whatever it takes for me to rest easy at night... if the car has smog, I'd either leave it alone or box it up and store it if I took it off, and if it didn't have it I wouldn't worry and waste the cash unless there are checks in my area.

jdawg1276

Can we end this post already please it against federal law just like California let's you smoke drugs for medical reasons but it is still against the federal law that being said you lost charger bill Joe was right enough about it please

TPI_BLAZER

iTrader: (1)

Dont end now, I spent 45min reading it and it was just getting good...

Reid Fleming

iTrader: (2)

I'm not sure why AIR pumps get people up in arms so much. Here are two smog test results on third gen GTA's done here in Texas. Mine and Stephen's.

Mine has AIR, Stephen's doesn't. All other emissions system components are there on both cars.

HC 220 maximum
Stephen: 4
Reid: 71

CO% 1.20 maximum
Stephen: 0
Reid: 0.23

The bottom line is that AIR pumps do have a scientific function. But not much in the real world. His car runs cleaner than mine. I suspect they do a better job up north during cold starts (which don't really exist in southern TX.....It's 75° outside today)

One of my friends put his new at the time LS1 on the dyno smog test and had the guy run the numbers just for the heck of it (with no catalytic converter). The car passed the tests! Two factors though: This wasn't an official yearly test because his car was a 2000 and it used the no numbers given OBDII plug in test instead. I've seen the print out from this day. So it's not just "some guy" saying that his car runs clean. Secondly, LS1's are very efficient in terms of power vs pollution. So it doesn't really apply to 3rd gens.


The emissions numbers to me are the real guide to running your car on the road. If you can pass an emissions test with an LS1 with no cats and do it as clean as my 3rd gen with a cat, then go ahead. And if you do run a cat, then pretty much any catalytic converter sold today will be light years better than the original cats that came on our cars 25-30 years ago.


The only time I had an inspector at my yearly test check the car for a cat was when he heard the car idling in the shop after they'd backed it onto the dyno rollers. The GMMG catback is LOUD in the shop. So they thought I didn't have a cat. Imagine their surprise when they saw that I did.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

Well put Reid, that about sums it up. As was said before, the A.I.R. pump is only really doing anything for the cat during startup. Here in TX, we really don't have cold startup problems that often. Up north, your entire daily commute can be on a cold motor. Just depends on the conditions.

You're right on the money about the more efficient combustion of the LS1 motors. There's a lot of combustion science that goes into head design in order to prevent pollution formation where it starts, long before the products even reach the exhaust. That's why the Oldsmobile motors came in so many cars during the late 70s and 80s. They were a lot cleaner burning engines than their Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, and Cadillac contemporaries. GM took advantage of this by stuffing Oldsmobile motors into every vehicle they could. It's all in the head design of those engines. A 6 degree head, among other things, allows them to burn extremely clean. The LS1 and other modern engine designs are light years ahead of even those. People think that internal combustion engines aren't really advancing, but you'd be amazed at the amount of research that is still being poured into gasoline combustion. It's still easier and cheaper to get them to burn cleaner than to try and develop a new propulsion technology.

Reid Fleming

iTrader: (2)

I think most people would be surprised to find out that mowing their lawn for an hour puts out as much pollution as driving their car for a couple hundred miles. To think that mowing the back yard pollutes as much as driving from Houston to Dallas sure did surprise me.

The above is why it's recommended to mow your lawn either early in the morning or late at night, when afternoon smog is minimized.

Personally, I think that a good tune up on a car would do as much if not more than AIR vs no AIR. The creation of air injection stems from the 1960's when cars had carbs and typically ran rich. Adding some air to the exhaust helped with the air/fuel ratio and thus a more complete burn occurred.

Today, with fuel injection, good ECM's, and oxygen sensors, a lot of the problem above has been solved. Solved to the point that AIR isn't the wonder cure that it once was. Let's not forget that AIR was around 7 years before the first catalytic converter showed up on US vehicles.

Sure, AIR doesn't hurt a vehicle's emissions. But let's be real here. A well tuned car without AIR should put out less pollution than an average tuned car with AIR (as referenced by my emissions report numbers vs Stephen's)

When I bought my car, it didn't have a cat on it. I put one on. I see ZERO reason to remove the EGR or the evap canister. I have stock manifolds on my car. And I don't see the point in taking the AIR system off it. But if I bought headers for my car, I probably would buy a no-AIR setup.

With my SuperRam setup and AIR box on the passenger side, it makes it real hard to do any work on that side. And I already burnt my hand on the driver's side last time I was changing out my O2 sensor. I changed the O2 from a Bosch to an AC Delco because I heard they work better (cleaner) and also changed from a 160° thermostat to a 180° for better fuel mileage and more complete burn.

But AIR tubes on headers? I'd say they can go. I'm already breaking the law by having an "off road use only" adjustable fuel pressure regulator (that's set at stock psi)

Regardless of all of the above, my car passes the emissions tests here. And that's good enough for me.

86White_T/A305

Im also from Ontario Canada and when I had my tpi car I removed all my smog equipment on my 87 t/a.I was young and was chasing solely hp.I can say that I gained no extra power by doing this until I installed my march serpentine pulley kit and retune.

With my current setup having the lq4 I dont need to do an e-test but I could be pulled over by MTO and given a visual roadside inspection.I have dual cats,non egr ls6 intake,ls6 pcv valley cover,Im installing longtube headers this winter.It will look clean and might pass a visual except for my car not having a charcoal canister.If my car was an 88+ with a motor swap..it would be tested as a hot-rod but you have to have the smog equipment from the new motor intact.The conditions to pass are not as strict.

I do have a question for you guys state side..I know it cant be easily answered but seems rather dumb.Regarding those fine lines in California about tampering with exhaust..engine swaps and the like.If you have a classic car..and do a modern engine swap..have single or dual cats and the car would pass an etest..even with having mods done like heads/cam etc.Although non of this is factory original to the car....but the car now produces far less harmful emissions vs its factory original motor.Why does it matter so much about it not a dual catted car to begin with,or having an egr etc or not.What should matter most is what exactly comes out that tailpipe right? If you swapped a motor and had no smog equipment on it but the car still runs clean and would be within the passing tolerences from the sniffer..isnt that good enough?

I was reading a thread over on tech about a guy with a very nice bandit transam who has to change from his very clean ls1 swap that had dual highflow cats etc..he was picky about the build.I believe the laws there do not allow you to alter anything such as gas tank,he would need to swap the dash etc.But in all fairness for it being a stock ls1..it would have ran way cleaner than its original 70's motor.He has to now ditch the entire setup to swap to an gm e-rod motor and still hope to pass just to plate the car? It would be cheaper to replace the original motor..maybe add heads and cam,not be nearly as efficient..spit out more harmful gasses than 2 stock ls1's probably side by side but he would pass a visual and the emissions required for that yr car..does that make much more sense?