Ab 2683
 

Most of us know what AB 2683 is in CA.

It's an attempt to remove the 30 year rolling exemption of CA cars for smog inspection.

My question is, would those of you who are against the measure as I am be willing to give any ground?

My opinion is that I would be willing to submit to tailpipe tests indefinitely if they waived the visual inspection.

That would give me the opportunity to put in a more efficient system that I could tune to my needs AND pass smog rather than what I do now which is tune my CIS for running and then when I have to go get tested I retune it for the test.

Thoughts?

It may be too late as the measure is slated to be voted on by the senate soon I believe. Then it goes to the Governor and then it's the law.

i dont think they are going to give us a position to negotiate from. its thier way or the highway,, or driveway would be more accurate....

Im just saying that if there were room to give ground and this measure did fail that possibly we could step up to the plate and propose our own. They'll keep trying even if it fails s it might be good for us to fight a little more proactively.

But then again you're probably right.

Well of course older cars should be tested.

See. . .here's proof on how badly those oldies pollute:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1091823189.jpg
(posted over in random picts, by Huge R )

California has some messed-up priorities if they are worried about the polution from 30+ y/o cars that are cared for enough to still bel running.

Apparently, you can burn the whole damn car for a TV show . . . but make sure it passes emisions!

I think that the politicians get-off on making the populas jump thru their hoops . . alll under the guise of "it's for our environment" . . .pff. -suckers!

I think the newer cars would burn alot faster than the car above, so I guess they technically would have less pollution.

kinda like driving faster in the rain so you're on the road for less time?

i hear you wayne, and i also agree that air pollution is a real problem. our kids are going to have it even tougher.

it is just that i want to buy a set of your SSI's. :D and the fact that it is not gonna happen is a jagged little pill. unless i move.

Older cars should have the exemption that they can pass the legal emissions for the time they were built . The standard has been getting more stringent...so a car that would pass in the eighties, may not pass now.


Though I must say, my 83 944 had better numbers than my 92 accord last year....go figure

The basic issue seems to be distinguishing between the car enthusiast who wants to tinker with his well-maintained car, and the non-enthusiast who just wants to drive his clunking, smoking, gross polluter into the ground.

I'd support using economics to regulate this issue.

If you want to drive a car that's been modified (in a way that could affect emissions) you pay an annual fee. The fee's a sliding scale - a modded engine that keeps the catalytic converter and passes the standard tailpipe test costs $X, to also lose the catalytic converter but still pass tailpipe costs a lot more ($Y), to lose all emissions devices and meet a less stringent tailpipe test costs a lot lot more ($Z).

$X would be fairly modest, like $200-300/yr. This discourages people from simply not bothering to maintain their old clunkers, but still lets enthusiasts do things like SSIs and turbo conversions.

$Y would be high enough to make it cheaper to install a catalytic converter, say $500-600/yr.

$Z would be really stiff, say $2,000+/yr. This is aimed at the guy who wants to drive something really exotic on the street - he imported a Lancia Stratos or something. It is in top condition, well-tuned, not a gross polluter although it might not quite meet standard tailpipe. Fine, he can do it, but he'll have to pay up.

The idea is, if you're a car enthusiast, you get to do all your dream mods and in the meantime spend money, support the aftermarket parts industry, generate taxes for the government, etc etc. Compared to the many $1,000s/yr you already spend on your Porsche, the fee isn't much. But if you're a clunker driver, the fee is enough to motivate you to send old smokey to the scrapyard, or at least install the missing catalytic converter.

You guys, down there are voting on a red herring.

Just what percentage of the cars on the road down there are over 30 y/o ? . . just what percentage of polution do they contribute?

Seems to me, that worrying about 30 y/o cars being up-to-snuff, (testing) is like worrying about whether farmer-John is keeping his cows washed & brushed (to keep the flys off) while they fart & crap all day long.

Get this;
"Only 2 percent of the vehicles on California's roads are diesel-powered and yet, diesel vehicles account for 31% of the total smog forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 79% of the total particulate matter (PM) emissions produced by on-road vehicles. " (source)

I'm right there with you buddy. The thing that gets me is that this bill has extremely little in the way of supporting evidence. It just "sounds" good to the public who likes new cars and who can afford new cars. What you have there is that the real serious polluters are those trucks that provide the country with it's GDP - well...we can't mess with that can we. No...in fact, let's allow mexican trucks into the country as well. What's mexico's air quality? It's crap and it's mainly because of those trucks and other diesel powered contraptions.

I also wouldn't mind paying a fee to bypass emissions to some extent but the thing is I DON'T WANT to bypass emissions I just want to modify my car and still pass.

I hate to call bull$hit on our host but the tests that I am aware of only test for the common green house gases if I'm wrong I'll admit it but it seems that the only measurements I see are NOX, CO, CO2 and HC. All of which are gathered with a tailpipe test and on later cars can be gathered via the on board computer. On early cars though, checking the emissions equipments existence does nothing if the car passes the tail pipe tests for those gases.

The Vehicle License Fee is a tax based on the value of the car (not sure how the state calculates that one). That is why fees go down as the age of a car goes up - the value is less according to the state.

Like I said, I don't know how they calculate that...I'll do a search.

Here we go:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2002/2002_pandi/pi_part_5d_vlf_anl02.html

I guess Personal Property Tax isn't how CA catagorizes it but the Federal Govt catagorizes it as such and it is tax deductible under that catagorization. Because of that - I really didn't mind so much when they rasied it to cover the budget shortfall. Too many people didn't read into that what they could have. If your CA taxes go up especially if you don't have many deductions you're Federal Taxes are likely to go down.

Again, this is one way the state generates money - new car sales. I'm sure the woman who has proposed this knows exactly how new car sales are going to help her local.

I don't have a problem with smog test, even for older cars to keep them in reasonable tune, because polluting to the atmosphere is free if not regulated. You belch out pollutants on your old V8 that's only running on 5 cylinders, it costs you nothing (except poor gas mileage) but it pollutes the air that I and everyone else breathes. What I don't like is the financial exemptions, if you can't afford the repairs, you can get a waiver. Someone above pointed out the car tax is based on the value of the car. So someone with a high polluting old truck with bad suspension that beats up the road pays less in taxes than someone with a new low polluting car with good suspension, it ought to be the other way around.

thats why i LOVE NY....cuse i can get away with no cat on the porsche..or the colt for that matter :D . Air quality is pretty good here, even tho we do have a lot of trucks. There arent that many beat up smokin oil cars and what not, and most diesel trucks around here are very clean burning (none of that thick black smoke like the ol mack trucks) but the Jake brake at 2AM flying past my house needs to be outlawed (they already have in my town, but the cops never enforce it...heck half of them dont know what a Jake brake is)

Now that i think of it...this girl i know is moving to cali for an internship..and she has a turbo infiniti G20..i wonder how that is going to pass smog?

I won't back down on this...

I keep my old cars because I think they are in some ways better for the environment, not worse.

I own a 1969 VW bus and a 1974 Porsche. First off, I have kept these vehicles on the road for a long, long time. They run well, and get gas milage that is equal to or better than the modern cars I drive. My Porsche gets over 25 mpg, which is better than my 1996 Jetta Vr6. I'd guess it gets 3x better gas milage than your average Ford Excursion, which makes it close to 2-3x less polluting overall in all probability.

Second of all, I have avoided supporting any industrial emissions created in the manufacturing of new automobiles, which I note are mostly made of plastic, a non-biodegrable blight which won't go away for millions of years.

Realistically, AB2683 is the first of many steps we'll be seeing over the next 20-50 years to discontinue the use and enjoyment of the internal combustion engine.

I have spent many hours writing to my representatives each time this bill has come up for vote, but I'm pretty much assured of failure in the near future, even if we stave if off another year.

JCM

They made the G20 in a stock turbo version, she should be OK if it's not boosted to hell or totally modded out.

JCM

I'm registering mine in Arizona this year.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2683_cfa_20040809_122618_sen_floor.html


we need this thing to swing 9 or 10 votes... check the list at the bottom and see if your rep is a yes vote and get on the horn,,, please