bluethunder28

iTrader: (1)

Well I agree with Dean here. I've been waiting to drop in the TPI unit in my '79. Better preformance and gas mileage. Now I can't. Maybe it's time to find some lawyers and sue the State. You know lost money due to higher cost of running an un-modded car...

Seconds gens have some nice lines just like the third gens. '79 has the suspension work all done back when it was a 20 year rule. Looked forward to the 25 year rule and the 30 year rule.

Bottom line here is that the Gov signed a bill that's tougher on cars yet the trucks and SVU's pollute more Makes no sense unless you drive one of those big things. All of his Hummers put out more smog than an 100 3rd gens. Those things are terrible.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

Why cant you put a TPI unit on your '79 Camaro? You can always upgrade to a newer system, you just cant go backwards to an older engine.


Dean...

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

Well, I guess I touched a nerve - I stand by my statement, and here's why:

to respond to vsixtoy:
If you are concerned about "upgrading performance" in a car that you think will still be "yet clean burning" you should have no issue with the SMOG law.

And saying that you hope that the "not my problem/doesn't affect me attribute" (which I never said) bites me in the future is pretty rude. Last time I checked these threads were for constructive discussion, not insults. I would appreciate it if you didn't attack me for acting responsibly.

to respond to madmax:
You say you took your '89 in and it barely passed, but it seems to run fine? Well, obviously the car is not running as it was designed to. I'm sure the cat has had it, and a replacement installed is currently running $95 at most muffler shops these days. If it's something else, like a faulty EGR or O2 sensor, your car's performance is probably suffering but because the failure progressed over time you probably haven't noticed the performance losses.

Look, the SMOG laws effect me as much as anyone. My '87 was going to get all kinds of mods, but when I realized that my car (like most others on the road) was subject to SMOG checks every 2 years, I was a bit bummed out. I am still planning on one day modifying the car - LEGALLY - supercharger, AFPR, etc. And I had to replace the CAT, the ECM, and get my EGR valve working so I could SMOG the car after I bought it. So it's not like the emission control laws haven't hit my wallet. All this work I did was after having to spend $3,000 to send my motor to a machine shop because the car ate a crankshaft the day I bought it.

The real bottom line is this - 1% of the cars emit something like 95% of the hydrocarbons in this state. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) for cars is presently 27.5 mpg for cars, and 20.7 for SUV's. However, the SUV CAFE mpg requirements are going way up, starting in just 2 more models years (2007). And even today a Hummer in stock tune makes a LOT less SMOG than even one 3rd gen, let alone 100, Blue Thunder28.

The rules are not really changing - they have been aimed at 1975 cars and later, which were the first to comply with SMOG regulations, and all the new law does is hold the SMOG requirement for all cars less than 30 years old going forward. If your car came with SMOG equipment and a cat, you are required to pass SMOG - simple. There are many zip codes in California that DO NOT REQUIRE SMOG CHECKS - mostly places outside of LA such as Bakersfield, the desert, etc.

This stuff is aimed at trying to keep the air clean. If you want to mod your car, use the tons of CARB (California Air Resources Board) certified stuff. For my '87 Trans Am alone, there are superchargers, headers, mufflers, all kinds of stuff that is 100% CARB legal that will add 150 to 200hp and allow my car to be SMOG legal.

So some of you can't run plumes of black smoke, pollute the air and make my eyes water when I'm driving behind your car - and you're angry about that? Get serious! People who do that give the rest of us who own and like V8 performance cars a bad name. And it's not necessary for most cars to run that way to go fast. Part of owning a third gen car and making it fast in this state is being able to do it while passing SMOG. That's part of the reason there are so many tech articles. If you really want an old carbureted engine that will burn the hair off the inside of your nose, go pick up a 1972 Nova and throw a Holley 850 on it and have fun.

I breathe air, so does my 4 year old daughter, and I made the choice to repair my car and pass SMOG for less money than it I would have paid a 'pirate to pass is. And there were several guys who offered to do it for me here in LA.

The world progresses and moves forward, so do the laws. Balance isn't all that bad, progress environmentally is good, and it's not going to kill your car. Either maintain it and run legal mods, or work around it. Niether course means crushing our cars, so relax a little bit, and focus on legal ways to deal with it.

Guest

Sure, my car must be damaged.

In case you missed it, the cats are less than 3 years old. The o2 readings arent indicative of a cat failure, either. And also FYI the EGR is functional (and would effect NO, not HC) and the o2 is new.

Nice try though, maybe you should stick to a subject you know about.

"1% of the cars emit something like 95% of the hydrocarbons in this state."

This is what the state would have you believe, but it does not follow from their own data to have any basis in reality. You can look up the actual numbers on their website.

"The rules are not really changing - they have been aimed at 1975 cars and later, which were the first to comply with SMOG regulations, and all the new law does is hold the SMOG requirement for all cars less than 30 years old going forward. If your car came with SMOG equipment and a cat, you are required to pass SMOG - simple."

Not true either. 1966 is the quasi-accepted year for the beginning of pollution controls although some devices were in use earlier than that. Basically, you're just proving the point you dont know anything about smog controls on cars.

"And even today a Hummer in stock tune makes a LOT less SMOG than even one 3rd gen"

LOL really? I want to see that one on paper.

"There are many zip codes in California that DO NOT REQUIRE SMOG CHECKS - mostly places outside of LA such as Bakersfield, the desert, etc."

Sure sure. Bakersfield requires checks, so does Tulare, Visalia, Fresno, Clovis, etc etc.

How long have you lived here? Were you here in the 70's? Probably not... I was. If you want to talk about bad, lets talk about 1977. That was bad. Today the air is so clean that I can see Saddleback mountain EVERY SINGLE DAY. For years I didnt even know there was a mountain there. That, to me, is proof enough that the system they put in place is working. It doesnt need a revamp or a bunch of nitpicking by bureaucrats that are only trying to secure their jobs and make themselves look good. I read their information and reports, and I wonder where the balance point is. I probably wonder because there is no balance point and no tolerance, its a none or all situation. That only tells me they are ignoring the people that actually understand the data that is being collected (the environmental engineers) and going with what activists and their hearts tell them. Part of my required study and my current employ I deal with pollution issues, and its funny how the state operates. They end up eventually doing things because of federal requirements that are based probably on information from South Dakota, and they also want things done that make no sense at all and will have little to no effect. At the same time, they arent interested in things that are being done that actually work. Of course this should be no real surprise, the state only knows how to follow their nose and look 2" in front of it and cant comprehend that something they didnt think of is something that works.

Anyway I am getting way off subject and so I'll stop here but not before I say that if you think you understand the stuff about SMOG and smog checks I'll just put it short and say that you dont and maybe you should keep your thoughts to yourself until you do, otherwise I'll spend some time tonight and dissect 90% of your post with references as to why you are wrong. Lets not go there, ok?

vsixtoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TransAm90210
[B]Well, I guess I touched a nerve - I stand by my statement, and here's why:

to respond to vsixtoy:
If you are concerned about "upgrading performance" in a car that you think will still be "yet clean burning" you should have no issue with the SMOG law.

And saying that you hope that the "not my problem/doesn't affect me attribute" (which I never said) bites me in the future is pretty rude. Last time I checked these threads were for constructive discussion, not insults. I would appreciate it if you didn't attack me for acting responsibly.

-----------------------------------------

Do you know about, or happen to read the part that I stated there is a "Visual" inspection? Guess not. That visual part of the California smog check program is what makes my "clean burning alteration" illegal. A '77 has the most dinosaur technology smog equippment that function in a manner that chokes the motor at anything above 2500 rpms. This car is in perfect shape- I will repeat this- this car is in perfect shape, it is basicaly in show condition (lf anyone were obstinate enough to show a '77 ElCam). Point being in is not a clunker. I maintain this vehicle myself inpecably and tune it to where it passes smog, In doing that, it falls on its face with any lkind of load in the bed (It was designed for this) and especially going up hill and I gaurantee it is spewing massive HC's when the throttle is 100% tring to maintain 30 mph with cars backing up behind me going uphill. I can just smell the gas. This car gets terrible milage and I burn 1/3 more fuel in it than I do when I disconnect the smog crap. Same carburator, same intake, same exhaust, same ignition and with the smog crap off- I bare have to touch the pedal to maintain 65mph down the highway and use 2/3rds the fuel to get somewhere! 18mpg instead of 12. Yet it will not pass and I have to reinstall the smog crap to do so. Then this car is so gutless you have to lay on the throotle ALWAYS to keep it up to traffic speed.

Now tell me I'm wrong again- please

Edit- I have to add that the irony of this car is it has a "fuel economy" guage instead of a tach. It reads less.........more with a needle pointer just like a speedo- You can't gret down a 25mph schoolzone with it lower than half way with the smog crap on the car.

vsixtoy

As for my quote to TransAm90210,

[Hope that "not my problem, doesn't affect me" attitude bites you back in the future.]

It people like you that have practically banned cigerettes and I'll explain why.

This is were everything started. I personally don't smoke, I never have. However, I am the first person to step forward to back smokers rights and to fight rediculous taxes levied upon them. I could see this as a start of the infrigment on our pleasures by politicians looking to find an excuse to gain revenue. They used a venue that was frowned upon 50% of the population and the politicians ran with it when the stupid people backed the smoking ban in certain facilities like bars (People that go to a bar and drink, generally always like to smoke also. The watress that doesn't like it should not have applied for employment there to begin with- knowing the enviroment!). With that backing, the politicians where able to then grossly raise the cigarette tax even through the other 50% diagreed because even the ones that didn't smoke but felt that this was excessive just figured "Oh well, it doesn't effect me". You my friend fall into that catagory with the post you made above. Someday my friend, a law will be passed the will affect you and you won't like it- it will be too late to look to me for help.

I chose to support the smokers from day one because I believe in someone having a bit of personal enjoyment in this shortening free society. A society that will soon tax everything to death for the growing socialistic programs the state has developed to maintain a democratic vote.

What you fail to realize is , the politicians don't want to take a car awy from you, they want you to have a car. They just don't want you to have a car that is free of smog revenue and has a very low registration fee. They lose revenue. Rather they want to make owning that vehicle impossible so you are forced to always purchase a new vehicle and pay the ungodly high tax and license fee associated with it. The smog laws are not the same for every V8, or every V6, or evey 4 banger, etc- why not? They have much more stringent requirements on the older cars. Look at the test results and the "acceptable levels" for all vehicles. Regardless of engine size being the same the acceptable levels are not.

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

Dean:
You are dead wrong on this one! (and could be someday) (dead that is, from smoke)

Thank You for Not Smoking

"Cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure.
It contaminates my lungs and polutes my hair and clothes.
This is without my consent.
My pleasure is having a beer now and then.
The residue of my pleasure is urine.
Would you be annoyed if I stood on a chair & pissed on your hair and clothes without your consent?"

I read this sign and totally agree with it.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

MadMax,

I missed the part about your cats, it was around midnight when I posted. But your sarcasm isn't needed, and it's people like you that take the fun out of this.

If your car 'barely passed', it probably isn't running the way it was designed. And even three year old cats can go bad if you had a leaky head gasket, etc. But I don't now that much about your particular car's condition, and you're not saying.

I have seen the numbers on hydrocarbons, but I suppose you don't want to confuse the issue with facts. If you wish to challenge my assertions, and you are the expert you claim to be, lay out your facts. Otherwise, don't tell me I don't knwo what I'm talking about.

1975 was a year in which many things became commonplace - cat converters were on many cars, unleaded gas, and pollution was really making the front page.

A Hummer does not pollute more than 100 3rd gens as BlueThunder28 claims. Data I found shows limits that are better than my car did on it's SMOG check. My point was valid - compare a new Hummer H2 to a 2002 TA or Camaro with a V8 before you refute my point.

I'm not going to spend all day on this post, but you are completely WRONG on your comment re: zip codes where smog checks are not required - here's a link to the DMV page regarding that: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/smogfaq.htm#BM2539 (read where is says that there are six countied that require SMOG within certain zip codes only...)

I didn't live here in the 70's, I lived in New England where the air is MUCH cleaner overall. Maybe that's why I don't like air quality here in LA and other areas where the air is yellowish and burns your sinuses.

Lastly, let's keep to the topics at hand (thirdgen cars and SMOG), banning cigarettes wasn't one of them.

"Someday my friend, a law will be passed the will affect you and you won't like it- it will be too late to look to me for help. "

We're not friends, so please stop calling me 'friend', and unless you're running for Governor I'm not sure why I would ever ask you for help. Again, we're off the subject.

8T8IROC

iTrader: (3)

I think that regardless of the print of the smog law that everyone can see that the money is not in letting people own cars that will actually run for decades, the money is in getting people to buy new cars that have the high registration fees, though are smog exempt for 4 years (unless that has changed), and that require people to accumulate more debt. The funny thing is look around, how many people have bought in? Look at all the SUVs on the streets, most of these people have never even seen a dirt road let alone will ever use their 4x4s. But it's the style, I am sure when moods change again and people want to see let SUVs on the streets then we will see more restrictions on vehicle weights, for example my Wife's Dodge Ram (just like our old 76 Power Wagon) had to be registered as a commercial vehicle because of the weight, just like the buzz of late that you can actually get a ticket for driving your SUV/Truck on some city streets because of the weight.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

vsixtoy,

Yes, I know about the visual inspection. Why do you say 'guess not'? I'm not defending SMOG crap as the best thing around - but even you would admit that on MOST (not all) cars, it helps reduce emissions.

No, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong 'again - I never spoke about that way your El Camino runs, and I don't want to spend all day arguing about a 1977 El Camino, which is NOT a third gen car.

Again, this is a third gen board, and my SMOG comments were originally about how it relates to my T/A and other third gen cars, and hwo there are lots of mods to do that are legal, etc.

Everyone - enough arguing about other cars and cigarettes, please.

vsixtoy

Don, I will agree with you to a point-

That degree is smoking in a public venue like an airplane, a crowded football stadium, etc..

These are confined places where someone next to a smoker can not get away from the smoke or smell and yes I agree with the ban.

A bar or resturant however I do not agree. Even though I wouldn't frequent ones that do allow it. These are privately owned places that should yes post a sign if they allow or disallow smoking- but it should be their choice! You have other options. If the guy want to have smokers in his bar, post a sign yes, If he looses business from it then so be it. The flip side is smokers will only frequent resturants that have a smoking section availiable to them, and if non-smoking patrons still don't like if the smoking section infringes on their non-smoking section for any reason, they can choose to go somewhere else and not support that resturant with business. Let the people decide by who they choose to support financially. Its an americans right to choose what he wants in his own home or business if he/she owns it- and if business is loss because of it, they will have to change their ways whichever way seen fit- but its still their choice and should not be taxed into making a decission.
They are starting to so far as to wanting to bann you from smoking in your own home!

This directly relates to the smog check program- I agree with clean burning cars- Just don't regulate us visually to have to keep original equipment!

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

I agree,

My wife has an SUV, something we bought for our family because of kids, car parts, plane parts, etc. And we do take it off paved roads, and the four wheels drive helps when I launch my boat.

However, for several reasons, we bought a Mitsubishi Montero with a fairly small V6. It has enough power to do what we need, and runs clean.

I don't think that many of the large V8 powered SUV's make sense, at least not here in SoCal. Sure, there are people who use them for work, who need the space, or who actually do use them off road. But most people don't.

Here in Beverly Hills, every police car is a Chevy Tahoe SUV. I'm not kidding. So, I have to agree that they are 'trendy'....

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

vsixtoy,

I will agree with your last point - if a car runs clean enough to pass, it should not need to pass a visual. Especially if someone wants to transplant a newer, cleaner burning engine into an older, not so clean car.

bluethunder28

iTrader: (1)

Every place that I asked has said no to a TPI because they weren't available. A new 350 is okay.

Dyno Don, is it true that I can put in a TPI?

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

I wonder if there is anything CARB certified for your car? If I had to assume anything about the emissions stuff, you would probably have to retain it. Which would probably not work out that well.

I wonder if a waiver could be obtained for an older car to use a newer, cleaner burning engine or fuel system... maybe I'll go surf the DMV site later and look for an answer.

Agent13

iTrader: (6)

You can put any '79 or newer engine in if you wanted to. You could even put an LS1 in and make it legal.

BretD 88GTA

My understanding is that you can upgrade the engine/fuel system in any vehicle to a newer system. However, the upgrade must inlcude the related smog equipment for the particular engine you install and it must meet the smog standards set for that engine.

So, Glenn could drop an LS1 into his '79 if he wanted provided all the LS1 smog equipment is included. The car would also be required to meet the LS1 smog standards.

vsixtoy

And please correct me if I'm wrong but doens't a typical LS1 smog setup have 4 different cats in the exhaust system as well as many o2 sensors.

I had a TPI unit and harness that I was going to put onto the El Camino. I ended up just giving it to DynoDon because I found out the hassle of having to go to a smog referee to get it cleared and pay the BS fees associated with the new smog profile- if they would even clear it. I picked this setup up for free from a buddy in Hawthrone and was saving it for when the '77 went exempt. Before I even knew this law was going to be submitted, I finally just realised after years of living in this BS state that things would eventually come to this and just figured at that point screw it. I had this problem with my Vette in the 80's when it went exempt, then 3 years later thay instated the 25year law and I had to wait about 5 years more until '93 to be able to drive it on the street again!

I have waited and waited to legally run my headers on the V6 Camaro and I finally with luck have the proper credentials to run them- this they can't take away after a legal part E.O.# has been established. This fight took years. Now I can finally put headers on this car and make it run better. Up until now, I "Visually" cound not.

For the record, I have always had mulitple connection over the years to smog cars- To this day I have connects even in "test only" stations that will take car of me. I'm am licky to have these contacts but I don't like to have to rely on manditory use of them in the future and the chance they will disappear. For that reason, I now only try and do things legally even if I don't have to- You never know what law changes are to come.

12secSS

If I may Dean? The LS1 has two cats right next to the engine block on either side. It has four heated O2 sensors, one in fornt and behind each cat. They measure what the air fuel mixture is entering into the engine (for air/fuel mixture) and to measure the emission after the cats (to verify air/fuel mixture).

vsixtoy

Thanks for correcting me George. Good to here from you also. You have to make it out to one of the TCRA evnets next year and buzz your car around the course.

I wasn't certain on the LS1's, however I do know for a fact that my neighbor's Tahoe has 4 cats on it.

injdinjn

Smog equipt has been on cars since the late 1960's. With temp controled air cleaner intakes, PCV valves, and temp controled distributer advance.

73 F-250. Running vehicle at Calif smog settings results in 6 mpg and no power. Running vehicle at Federal smog settings 14mpg and plenty of power. Some smog items for this vehicle have not been available since the mid 1980's. Therefore impossible to pass visual.

TA90210-I disagree with your quoted numbers, would be best to back them up with links to CARB or AQMD or??.

Mid 1980's G bodies, Grand Prix, Cutlasses, etc will probably not be able to pass the sniffer in 4 to 6 years. Why? because they keep lowering the pass score in order to fail these vehicles.
Can you upgrade to a newer engine-legally yes- practically very unlikely. Your new engine has to have ALL receipts, All smog equipt for that year, and believe me it is more then just the engine. And the STATE referee DOES NOT want to legalize your modified car.

EVERY new law is a infingment on our civil liberties. One new law equals one new thing you can't do and we get hundreds of new laws every year.

The Calif AQMD spent millions in the late 1990's on the most extensive air quality test ever and determined that 70% of the cancer causing pollution was from diesel and 90% from mobile sources, ie cars trucks boats trains and they have done NOTHING to restrict diesel emissions. (I have the link posted everywhere, look for it). Why spend millions on a study then ignore the results. Want cleaner air start cleaning up diesels. The Ports of LA and LB have just completed a 6 year doubling of container traffic in and out of the harbor, now they are starting on a 5 year 50% increase which works out to a 300% increase in just over 10 years. And EVERYTHING that moves a container is diesel powered. Boats, cranes, trains and trucks.

As others have stated, they want you to sell your car to a eligable polluting corportation so the corp can get smog credits and you have to buy a new(er) car which requires paying sales tax and higher license fees thereby filling the State coffers so they can fund their "social" programs.

For one of their latest cons see Prop 67 in your voters book, you do vote don't you. I hope all of you who voted for "Meatheads" programs to be supported by cigarette taxes choke on this one.

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

Yes ...it is true ...as I have one in my '87 El Camino & certified by the referee It didn't cost anymore than a regular smog check, in fact it was less $38

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

injdinjn,

I am found myself spending WAY too much time on this topic - this morning I realized my daughter was going to be late for school if I didn't get off the computer and get going. I don't know when I will have time to research links to display, and even so Hummer H2 emissions aren't really a third gen topic, and I don't know how I let myself get sucked into an off topic argument.

I do know this -

I am in favor of clean burning cars when possible, especially newer ones that, at least to me, seem to run 'OK' in a state of tune designed to meet SMOG limits.

I would rather have a way to get an exemption for our cool cars, something based on actual tailpipe emissions, as an alternative to simply failing us.

I don't like too many rules and people telling me what I can't do.

I recognize the need for some rules, or I think (my opinion only) that too many old, beat up, crappy, oil burning gross polluters might be still on the road choking us to death.

I do feel bad for those of you whose cars are trapped between different sets of rules, especially when you could quite possibly make your old car both faster and cleaner with simpler SMOG rules in place for older cars.

As for my third gen car, I am OK (not thrilled) with the fact that I need to use CARB approved mods for now. Maybe when they are less available I will likely feel differently. I am enjoying my car immensely in it's near stock form, and I look forward to a legal supercharger to add some fun to the equation and still know that my car isn't grossly polluting the air.

I hope those of you with older cars (even some third gens, I suppose) can find salvation in solutions like Dyno Don mentioned (newer motors with referee certification) - that would help some.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

injdinjn - one note - I read somewhere recently that Bush recently passed legislation that hammered on diesel particulate pollution, which is the stuff I beleive you were talking about. (this isn't about Bush vs. Kerry, I'm just pointing out that this was considered a big deal, especially for a guy not generally known for eco-friendliness).

Also, California really clamped down on emissions on diesel vehicles around the early 1990's - did you noticed that for years there were almost no diesel cars at all? Now there a couple, Merecedes, for one, makes what is considered to be a very clean car.

I still think City buses are disgusting, as are so many trucks and other diesel powered vehicles. You make a good point on that one.

cali92RS

The problem is not the people on this board, whom are generally concerned with the state of their cars (why else would they be on this board).
The problem is for every nice, well maintained 3rd gen, you see 20 absolute piles of $hit. It is kinda rare to see a 3rd gen that isn't on the brink of catching on fire.
Its like evrything else in life, its the the actions of the a$$holes that dictate the lawmaking, fair or unfair. Thats the reason for stricter gun laws, smog laws, drug laws etc.
It isnt the government's fault though. Its the moron who keeps his gun on the coffee table where his kids play, or the guy who hasn't changed his cat. convertor in 20 years, or the guy who drives drunk killing a pedestrian.
Unfortunatley, they are the reason these laws are necessary.

injdinjn

Yes, I think the FEDs have been negotating with diesel engine mfgr's for some time to reduece emissions.
But, Calif, in its "leading edge" mentality has only gone after the individual gas car owner, and has done nothing to restrict diesel emissions in this State.
And I know most of them know about the report because I forwarded it to them.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

I have to admit, whenever I see a really clean third gen on the road, I do stop and stare. There are quite a few in need of 'rehab'.

Again, I think that those of us who care about our cars and take care of them will be okay, even when we want to go faster - and don't we all?

BretD 88GTA

The problem with CARB approved parts is that they are expensive. I miss the days of owning my '72 Monte Carlo and '69 El Camino when I could buy a high performance intake manifold for $99. For another $200 you could get a nice carburetor to go with it. $100 bought a decent set of long tube headers.

Now, it costs us $400 for just the darn intake manifold. Another $400+ goes toward headers that use less tubing than a traditional set of long tubes.

There's no real serious difference between a TPI manifold and good ole pre '76 manifold that warrants a 400% price increase other than the CARB emissions testing. I'm with everyone else and think the visual inspection should be done away with. All that should matter is what comes out the tailpipe.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

I agree, what really hits the air is all that should matter, assuming of course that maybe your fuel vapor recovery stuff is in order. But that is a lot easier to deal with than the smog pumps, egr, etc.

Incidentally, I priced out a set of SLP headers for my car with A.I.R (to meet CARB requirements here) - $650 or so at Hawk's Third Gen, which I think is basic retail pricing. Not cheap!

I had a '71 Monte Carlo, my first car back in '86 - yes, headers were somewhere around $100 to $150 dollars. Everything that helped you go fast seemed so much less expensive back then!

vsixtoy

I just want to point out the real fact as to why most people aren't educated on this subject. It is in fact that we all do have responsiblities like TransAm90210 have stated above that take priority in our lives and most fail to take the time to learn what is happing under our noses.

Fact is, most poeple are not car savy and buy new vehicle for reliability. They don't know how to work on there own cars and have to resort to this- nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when the 95% that own new vehicles every 5 years or so don't ever worry about smog checks and or failures due to older vehicle restriction. They hereby neglect seeing the importance of how these laws affect those of us that have and maintain the older vehicles. They assume that the older cars we drive polute because they are "Old"- and sensebly a fair conclusion draw as to why these laws sound good from what is said in legislature. Thus no understanding or effort to back us.

From here its the feeling of unimportance to them and the result is that the 5% of us that do have older vehicles we cherish suffer form lack of vote #'s.

This is the only reason I can see why the hot rod capital of the world (So. Calif), with all of the hotrod related event functions that are present here weekend after weekend, that no organization has ever tried to get the word out and successfully have a petition signed to do such an effort to keep the smog test fair for the older vehicles that do fall under the smog requirements. The real problem here so far is that the true "Hot rod crowd", owners and spectators alike, are not hampered yet with the mostly popular pre 70's cars. I think when the day comes- and it hopefully will be sooner than later because we need help- Sacramento targets these cars also then you will here the voices. At that point they will be on the 9th yardline like we are now with '76-2000 vehicles and some of us may end up loosing them due to lack of ability financially to fight the overbearing and tighting tailpipe limits. They are tighter restriction on each individual car now than were on that same car 4 years ago- and its going to get worse if they can get away with it. Some of us will loose our cars from the unability to use them legally on surface streets.

The fist is tightening and it started with the cigarette tax- this is why I brought the example to the table. Please don't be a hypocrate and neglect laws being passed each day because they may not pertain to you personally- because someday Sacremento will get enough of a footing to justify banning every older car form surface streets ever again.

Where do we go from taxing cars and homeowners? Hamburgers are next(Use your imagination as to what it will be) Don, let me use you as a example. You say you don''t smoke but don't mind a occational drink. Most of us here fall under that catagory. The next MAJOR tax will be alcohol. Just like cigarette, the price will go through the roof. Why?- because society frowns upon drunk drivers. Look around and see how aclcohol consumption has been limited in the last 20 years (Blood alcohol restrictions). This is the same affect as smoking cirgarettes in resturants (even worse because it impairs the driver). Your alcohol purchaseds ARE going to be affected next just like cigareete have been. Its labeled a drug just like cigareetes and since they have successfully taxed cigs, they will contest that alcohol be lumped into the same catagory. You now wish you supported the smokers right?

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

Oh, man, it's good thing I don't smoke OR drink!

There is one point that you could make as well that I just thought of.

For those of us with collector cars, any older car really, it becomes harder and harder to maintain smog equipment because of the expense of the replacement parts, some of which might not always be available. And not every mechanic knows alot about, say, codes on an '87 T/A. And in ten years, fewer still will remember how to make them run correctly (not everyone knows to come here for advice!).

So, to that end, I want to give vsixtoy some credit. I suppose there are good reasons behind his objections.

I'm not sure about the hamburger, but hey, you never know.

BrandenCali

So let's cut to the chase about this new smog law.. What exactly do we need to worry about owning 3rdgen's other than we will still need to smog..

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

"0" ...well, nothing more than you do now

Guest

Oh boy, here we go. I did ask you not to reply, but you did. As such I will hold to my word and spend a few hours on a reply. This is not intended as a flame so dont take it that way, its an education. We all need this at times so I'm giving it away for free.

Well, I am going to try to be nice, but when I disagreed I was simply relaying what I have seen happen in the industry and I'm greeted by a reply suggesting you know it all and I dont. I noticed its obvious there are numerous mistaken pieces of information... some of which you have fessed up to already.

As for my car, it has 68k miles, doesnt use oil, water, overheat, use excessive fuel, or anything like that. The actual line that the state uses in 1989 is 108ppm according to my printout. Now, take my 86 for example, it has a limit of 180ppm (at least the last go-round) with nothing different as far as emission controls are concerned. The change in maximum levels is just because the EPA required it, and there it is. I dont think the car is running that badly, however I do know that the limits allow no room for error. I am going to take a look at it and see if there is a problem but with what I know of the car, whats been done to it, how it ran and passed 2 years ago no problem, and how it runs now I dont see how there was that much of a difference even possible. I've only driven it a few thousand miles since then and I've done more to keep it clean and happy than the car has probably ever seen in its life. And for sure if the cats were shot I'd either see a loss in power or lots of free air in my exhaust, but I have neither of those problems.

True, to a point. Unleaded gas was a requirement of catalytic converters, the removal of lead was a side benefit if you want to call it that. Pollution though has been a concern since way before 1975 though, as evidenced by emissions controls way before that date. For example:
As early as 1966 introduced smog pumps. 1973 introduced EGR valves. I'm leaving out things like PCV's, EFE's, thermostatic controls like air valves, vacuum advance cutoff, etc.
I dont think thats why the state picked 1975, I think they picked it because 1974 is the last year on the current smog list and by the time this is implemented, 30 years ago is 1975. They did hear lots of complaints about a rollback to 1966 testing again and I think thats why they moved away from that idea. Thats just my opinion though.

I posted about the 1% emits 95% garbage before, here on this board. I have links up there as well and an explanation. Basically given the data that the state has published, its a physical impossibility for the 1% to emit 95% of the pollutants or anything remotely close to that. Some 97% of all vehicles fall under strict limits and given the pass and failure rates, the limitations for the older vehicles, and some number crunching you'd find that the 1% would need to emit somewhere around 20,000 ppm of HC. I've done my share of working in shops, and I never saw anything much worse than around the 2000ppm range. Something stinks, and its the state and their publishing of new lies. And I'm sure what you really said (that 1% of the vehicles comprise 95% of the HC emissions in the state) was a misquote on your part, but if you look at this
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/stdPAge....s-Sep_2003.htm
You'll see that vehicles only compromise 42% of the pollution (and this is in total disagreement to the report that my dad has posted, its even less) so 95% of all pollution sources is a physical impossibility. You can also refer to these articles/pages and determine on your own where the numbers really fall instead of believing ol' Rocky Carlisle at the BAR.
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/StdPage....escontents.asp
Also I noticed the reference to CAFE ratings and smog. Unfortunately, the two are not directly related. I'd explain but then I'd probably be talking to a wall. Just as a quick example though, the state mandated the use of a carcinogen (MTBE, aka butane) in gasoline to add oxygen and reduce pollution levels. So they said. They also admitted that this would reduce fuel mileage, but far from the 1% or whatever it was they claimed. Ask anyone here, it was more like 2+MPG.

As for the Hummer,
Ok, didnt find exactly what I wanted but:
http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/coa...eet%5B1%5D.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...3701/story.htm
Granted, those are both doomsday type articles from enviro junkies, but then again if its 8,600GVW then they dont have to meet much for standards. The state allows 1.5 times as much on the sniffer test for an 8600# vehicle under hydrocarbons, 150ppm vs 100ppm for the car or 61ppm vs 34ppm for the ASM test barring any 'adjustment' to the standards that the state allows. http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/stdPAge....e-Apr_1997.htm http://smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfdocs/asm_ph43.pdf http://smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfdocs/asm_ph51.pdf If you have some hard data to the contrary that you have found for those vehicles then post it because I'd like to see it.
Here's a quote:
"We're not technically part of the CAFE equation," said Hummer division General Manager Michael DiGiovanni.

See, now this is where I'm getting irritated but because I'm being nice I'll just bite my tongue and list the facts. Per your own link,
"Which counties require a smog inspection for the registration renewal?"
Listed below that in a table format are 35 of the 58 counties in California of which the entire county must have a smog inspection. Kern County is one of those listed, along with Tulare and Fresno counties. Just like I said. Then of course there are the other 6, making it 41 out of 58 counties that you might be under the umbrella. Then of course you have enhanced areas, where they run the IM240/ASM test rather than just stuffing the sniffer up the pipe, and FYI Bakersfield is going to join that wonderful status soon enough... reason being that Bakersfield is an even worse basin for containment of air than the Los Angeles basin is. Top that off with the fact that Bakersfield gets the joy of breathing San Francisco's pollution along with their vehicular and agricultural pollution.

I dont blame you but I have a suggestion then. Move. The indians called this area "Smoke Valley" and that was before we even had internal combustion engines. No matter how clean our vehicles run, the state is refusing to do the right thing and control where the pollution is really coming from. Until that point in time, there will be no further significant improvement. They're looking at lowering overall pollution maybe 1% at best and ignoring where the other 99% is and how easy it would be to reduce that to more than likely IN HALF.

None of this I said so, I'll ignore it.

You know who they dont affect? Poor people. They get waivers for their gross polluters and still will. The state is also willing to pay for some repairs to these pollution creating devices but for what they are willing to pay they could ante up a few more bucks and just buy them a used but clean running car. Not only that, but these so-called 'legal'/'CARB approved' parts are not all that. Firstly, if you fail the test you can start kissing those parts goodbye. They might be legal, but if your car doesnt pass with getting everything else in perfect order they will tell you to start removing those non-stock parts. You can look that up for yourself, its in the state code regarding Smog Check II and CARB approved parts requirements. The other thing is they will never in a million years let you remove a smog control device from your car. I've run cars without numerous devices and sniffed cleaner than a brand new car, but they arent legal because the state thinks it knows better. The current system is pretty stupid, its a federal violation for me to put a catalytic converter on my 66, even if I wanted to. I cant express to you my feelings on how utterly stupid I think that is.


While this new deal doesnt change the 'rules' as you say, the rules do change day by day. They dont have any real standard for NO, so they've been jockeying around the number (to lower figures of course) on the same vehicle... in fact making a stricter standard without allowing the owner of that vehicle a way to comply by adding devices that could help. If you want proof its not a problem, my dad has this on paper from testing of one of his cars. Pretty black and white. I addressed your Zip code mistaken identity above.

Like I said above it might be legal but if it doesnt pass you are in a world of hurt. Also there is absolutely no guarantee that if you add every CARB part available that its possible to pass the test even with a perfect running car in a perfect state of tune. Just keep that in mind when you or anyone else goes modifying things, if the car cant comply you are going to be putting stock parts back on until you do comply.

Guest

I dont know how to address this, except that the state's intent isnt to remove most of these cars from the road. They hand out way too many waivers for cars that pollute that badly, simply because the owner claims they cant afford repairs and all of a sudden that POS is legal. And I get to pay for them to drive that car and stink up the place. Infuriating.

Diesel trucks dont have to test. Ever driven the 60 freeway lately? I dont, because I cant breathe and the state doesnt care about it.

I guess you didnt see the crush the car for emissions credit that Arnie just signed. Fact is, none of the greenies want old cars on the road, they'd rather see them in a landfill. I'd wouldnt be so mad about a stupid change like this, but when I know that they are ignoring numerous areas that will have much more significant effect it really pisses me off. As my dad has probably mentioned, they are ignoring their own agencies' report... the AQMD if I remember right... the people that actually do the testing on the air. From an engineering standpoint it makes NO sense. From a benefit standpoint it makes NO sense. However, from a money standpoint it makes ALL KINDS of sense. Funny how thats playing out, if you ask me. Ask the trucks to comply to smog, state loses money. Ask the container ships to comply, state loses money. Ask the owners of passenger vehicles to comply, state makes money. Unfortunately this change isnt going to affect a single thing besides my pocketbook and my headache level. I'm far from against pollution control, but when the stupidity rises to new levels I get irritated. They have tried to pass laws to put catalytic converters on things like lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and I'll bet they are thinking about barbeques. They have already done things to make our barbeques emissions friendlier, among other stupid ideas... and yet they are totally ignoring the largest shipping port of goods from China in this country from a pollution standpoint. That shouldnt just **** me off as a classic car owner, a normal car owner, a citizen, an engineer, and a true California resident, but it should **** everyone off here. If you are really concerned about the air you're breathing, call those idiots up every single day and complain that they are not doing a single thing to reduce pollution from diesel engines or powerplants. Nothing. Our chemical smog is what they call photochemical, it requires particulate matter to form into the brown stuff you see. Plenty of this comes from diesel engines, not to mention sulfur and other byproducts that are emitted by the ton. Even at least one of the manufacturers, Caterpillar, has taken steps on its own to reduce pollution levels and at the same time the STATE IS STILL IGNORING THEM! Tell me that makes any sense. THAT is why I am pissed, they are being totally senseless about really giving us a better quality of life and lying to us about it.

Here's some great pages for you, has a bunch of information
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/StdFolde...TextOnly=False
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/stdPage....TextOnly=False

I also wanted to mention that I totally forgot about something else the state is ignoring, street signal light synchronization. Idle and acceleration are the two worst things for pollution with a car, and this will make more than a significant impact as well. So far, not a single one of the letters I have written have they talked about this and agreed with me or done anything to start analysis or testing, probably because it will cost the state money and they cant charge us directly for it. Until the state does something that makes sense and will really do something effective, I will continue to harp on their BS ways of solving our 'problem'.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

Wow. Well, I suppose I had that coming by responding.
I will give your posts the time they deserve when I'm not so tired, but at a glance, they look interesting and fairly chock full of goodies. So I look forward to hopefully reading them tomorrow.

And no, it wasn't taken as a flame, I understand you're trying to make a point, and I'm open minded and happy to listen, especially when you take the time to make your case.

Stoplights - don't get me started on that. It drives me NUTS.

I need to go to bed now or this stuff will keep me up all night!

cali92RS

Whoever actually read through all that deserves to be paid.

8T8IROC

iTrader: (3)

MrDude_1

ahhhh.

good ol' south carolina.
nice beaches
pretty women
no smog checks
no inspections
and no smog.

cali92RS

C'mon buddy dont fool yourself. There's a reason for 30 million people living here and the astronomical cost of living. Everyone wants to live here (including you), smog rules or not.
I would crack on South Carolina, but I dont know anything about it because no one cares about your boring state.

injdinjn

Someone made mention as to how these new laws would affect them if they keep their car running good.

Well, they keep lowering the pass/fail numbers.

They apply new rules to vehicles built before that item was part of the original smog equipt. For example my LG4 has no NO devices on it and when tuned properly for the other emissions the NO increases, but Calif has placed a NO limit on these engines and keeps lowering it.

Another example. In the late 1970's I purchased a 1957 Pontiac. In order to register this California vehicle I had to install a PCV valve and a temp controlled distributer advance and remove the factory crankcase ventilation system. There were no smog equipt requirements for vehicles built in 1957, but Calif require(s)(d) aftermarket devices to be installed. If they did it in the 70's they can do it in the future.

And this bill requires gas cap inspections. If it doesn't hold a vacuum you buy a new cap. My 73 F250 has a closed fuel system, so closed that when the full fuel tank sits in the sun the fuel boils out the gas cap since the open vents were factory removed and nothing was done to relieve the pressure.

Emissions tests vary in Claif. There are countys that only require a inspection on transfer of ownership, then there is this area, and areas like this are increasing yearly.

Again my bitch is that they know where the pollution is coming from but refuse to go after the diesel pollution.

Timed traffic lights. Having the lights controlled to the traffic and posted speed would reduce pollution (hwy 39 from the 22 to Ball road), but would also reduce traffic tickets and revenue from red light cameras. As such the traffic lights will never be timed to the traffic.

MrDude_1

actually, id rather live in dallas.

id move (again) but the job market in dallas sucks, and they keep throwing more money at me here.

the crazy rules are why i honestly never had the urge to live there. i mean its nice and all, but i live on the ocean here, and its just as nice (only not overcrowded) ... mostly because of people with attitudes like yours.... frankly, im not going to try to sway it because i like it that way.

one thing i still wonder is, why does the performance auto industry stay there, even with all of this?


in anycase, my personal belief is cali should be like every other state... leave the emissions laws to the federal level, and local goverment can control specific problem regons... like in dallas... theres smog checks and such in the city, but over in other areas theres not.

they shouldnt have to make a special car, just for cali.

vsixtoy

We finally agree on something There is hope for us. I can't tell you how many times I have used that exact line in the past 20 years-- Every time someone trys to tell me how wonderful "Gawds country" is in some BFE part of the US.

MrDude, The major aftermarket car part industry is here because this is sunny California and this is where the business is. People here can cruise their weekend hotrods to any number of events every single weekend over the entire course of the year. We are the hotrod capital of the world and that is a undeniable fact that will never change.

MrDude_1

yea, i know the history and the roots behind it.

and it isnt a bad place... athough technicly, my car is illegal there.. lol

i hope somthing changes.... if not cali law, then the location.

if it wasnt for the weather, and streets, id already be in michigan... the OTHER car capital.

vsixtoy

Make that "new" car capital- Not "Hot rod" capital. Especially if you are fond of Fords. Before anyone gets on my but about not liking fords- 1) My *** in my truck is a Ford, 2) An immediate relative of mine is one of the top executives in Ford Motor Company and is reponsible for overseeing every Ford dealership in the western U.S.- If they don't produce, Matt shuts them down and finds someone who will produce. I am not pushing for a free Ford car from him- I want my own dealership! Wishful thinking, but I'm serious.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

I'm not a Ford guy, but... I have to admit that '05 Mustang does look really good. In my opinion, they took the best looking parts of all of the models to date and blended them into one car. And I hear it has 300hp and a 5 speed. I would rather own my third gen, don't get me wrong. It just underscores the need for a new, affordable performance car from GM. I know the GTO is a step in the right direction, I just want to see GM take another step!

I just hope hope hope that we get at least a new Camaro soon, even if it is the 400hp twin turbo Buick motor I have heard about.

We can always hope for a Firebird/Trans Am, right?

Maybe when GM has finished up it's business with Canada over the St. Therese (spelling?) plant...

Mikos_89

Whatever happened to all the neo-conservatives who said: When Bush is in office, gas would be cheap and stay cheap? Gas prices have nearly doubled since he took office. Whatever happened to all the neo-conservatives who said: When Arnie is elected, things would get better here and car enthusiasts would enjoy the 30 year rolling exemption? Nope, apparently I guess not. Whatever happened to all the neo-conservatives who said: When Arnie's in office, he won't get bought-off by special interests or associated with conflicts of interest? It looks like Chevron has significant influence with the members of his cabinet and his association with those supplement drugs and AMI (owner of Weider products?) makes that another fallacy I guess. What I'd really like to know is what's going to happen to all these neo-conservatives when Bush introduces the MANDATORY draft again? I can just hear them all say in their winey little voices; not my little babies, not my little babies!



TransAm90210,

You have to give it to Ford though, they stuck with the basic "ponycar" concept for over 40 years and made it very successful over the run. Yeah, the '74-'78 versions may not be the most popular models with enthusiasts, but they were indeed very successful in sales for their time.

I'm not a Ford guy either, but I do have to admit the '05 Mustang looks exactly like what a "new" Mustang should be like. I think Ford has hit a home run with this one. What does GM give us? A warmed over Holden coupe from the outback called the GTO. Hopefully, the new ones will look a little better due to the more aggressive styling accents slated for the '05MY.

Unfortunately, the Firebird is dead. Dead as the Dodo bird. If a new (F-body like) car does emerge from GM in the future, it's going to be a Camaro or a car similar to it from Chevrolet. This time around, Pontiac will not share the platform with Chevy. Of course, this information is based on what I've been able to gather on the 5th gen board over at CamaroZ28.com. Their "sources" do seem pretty credible though.

A 400hp Buick twin turbo? No way. Why would they do that? The current LS2 in N/A form makes over 400hp. I'm sure there's alot room for improvement too in the coming years.

Also, I believe GM has finally cleared up the contract negotiation settlement with the St. Therese plant auto workers and the use of the "Camaro" nameplate. In fact, the plant has already been demolished for a new shopping plaza that's being built.

Guest

I think Arnolds mind on special interest groups changed when the money started flowing in. Amazing what greed will do.

cali92RS

You guys should've known, he's really a democrat who calls himself a republican (you know which way i swing).

But honestly, why did you guys vote for him, he is a frickin ACTOR!! How does that make him qualified? Because he has opinions and has the guts to back them up? Because he has integrity? This is the most populous and important state, and you guys voted in "The Last Action Hero." He is an ACTOR. I mean, how much worse would it have if we would have elected that **** star, she has as much experience and is as qualified as this guy.

'87 IROC VERT

iTrader: (4)

Mikos_89,

Interesting stuff on what might/might not come down the road for 5th gen stuff. I'll have to check out that sight. I think it would actually be interesting if Chevy and Pontiac did make two separate cars as you suggest might happen, instead of the brand engineering that we saw starting in the late 70's/early 80's with so many of their other cars.

I read about the twin turbo Buick angine in a magazine, either Popular Hot Rodding or GMHP - I'll have to go check my bathroom!
The article was very speculative, and I agree, why a twin turbo with all the associated headaches when the V8's are so powerful...

As for the other guys re: Arnold, I hear you, it can be very hard to like a guy who straddles the line. I'm a republican, and I voted for him because in my opinion only, he was the best alternative to what was going on. He is definitely a republican, in my opinion, especially given his words at the RNC.

I can't speak for any large donors influencing him, I'm sure it's a factor somewhere, but I will say I think he'll get more done than most people, if for no other reason than people on both sides generally want to work with him, and he is good at getting some much needed compromises worked out.

That's not to say I like everything he's done, I don't. I am happy with some of the progress so far. And remember, he's not in office much longer without running in the next race, and this time I think the novelty will have worn off and he will have to run on what he has or has not accomplished according to the voters - us!

(how cool would it have been to have a **** star as governor? oh, the possibilities!)