what's the point to vehicle emission?!
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1408439824.jpg
Fourth year in a row that its registered a 0.00. I don't think they plug in the reading machine! :rolleyes:
It's a 01 Jetta TDI with 200k on the clock running a egr delete and no cat...

Generating revenue. Our state is so whacky. Some counties have it , some don't.
Here, anything obd 2 , passes as long as there is no check engine light on. Light on, vehicle fails. Even if it is a vehicle speed sensor, Dashboard communication failure, or traction control issue that is logged in the pcm.
Pre obd 2 cars still get the sniffer. Been a long time since I have seen a vehicle fail . Of course there are some hot rods running around with carbs and no cats, but rarely are they daily drivers.
My lawn mowers make far more pollution than my hot rod sc in a years time.

Money! You had to pay for that piece of paper, didn't you?

My 993 has failed a few times with no CEL on. But the readiness monitors on the early OBDII cars can be finicky and if any of them are not in ready mode, it will fail to communicate with the reader and you fail. I could remove my cats and run straight pipes. As long as the monitors are in ready mode, it's an automatic pass.

Wow, opacity testing. I had not seen that before.

I expect that translates to checking on oily/sooty discharge (smoke) out the tail pipe.

That measurement is typically only for diesel engines, not gasoline, that's why you've likely not seen it before.

0 opacity just means you can't see the emissions. So all the CO2, H2O, N2, etc. is not included in that.

Absolutely revenue generation. Any incidental benefit to increased environmental / air quality is completely ancillary and unintended.

I witnessed first-hand as a friend of mine with a well-tuned 951 and no catylitic converter FAILED the California smog check. His CO, NOx and particulate emissions were SOLIDLY within limits. In fact the car was running cleaner than a lot of cars WITH cats. Didn't matter. The goons out there made him go to a referee station and pay over $1,000 in fees and other BS just to get the thing to pass. Finally a "disappearing cat" came into being for one day a year. Utterly stupid.

Vehicles and vehicle ownership, sales, etc. are MEGA cash cows for government. Big, big, BIG money. There is no incentive whatsoever for governments to discourage vehicle ownership or restrict it in any way (e.g. handing out licenses to idiots who really don't have any business with one).

I'm glad you had good success with the inspection but please you're being milked. Moo! Moo!

The Gubmnt's in debt you know...

Here in Ontario Canada there is no emissions test for diesels but you still have to pay the $40 just a tax grab

Revenue generation and nothing more. Frickin scam. With modern cars and essentially no way to screw with 99% of them and how they are setup from an emissions perspective, if this testing ever had any use it is long past obsolete.

In Tucson the opacity is set at 30% before you fail!!
The funny thing is I have CEL light due to the 5 speed swap; computer still thinks there's a slushbox that ain't working right. :rolleyes: Evidently they don't care since you're still running it on the dyno. I don't understand how they can see a PCV under the plastic cover, but i'll give that to them....


Rick, you might want to look into classic car insurance. I got tired of them failing my old 951 with the visual inspection. No emissions test required with collector insurance. SmileWavy

Yup, the bug failed before I was able to get on with hagerty, but once they accepted me it was smooth sailing. Bug and 944 both don't have to worry about emissions!

Yeah I wouldn't take a 944 through emissions here. My first N/A they did three runs on the dyno, plus wait time and they overheated it...

I agree with POP that it's become a money grab, more than anything else. Maybe not necessarily just for the government, but for the entire smog testing industry that has sprung up as a result.

Last time I got a smog check, I noted the long amount of engine idling and revving necessary to do the test (about half-an-hour's worth of hydrocarbons). I wondered how many pollutants collectively are released into the atmosphere from all the testing that goes on....for no real "work" done by the car. We're not transported anywhere while these cars are all getting smogged every 2 years. We're just burning fossil fuels for fun. In contrast, how many cars are actually nabbed and taken off the road or repaired to clean-air standards? Granted, we all keep cars in better/cleaner condition because we know that they're going to get tested. But each time I go to the smog station I'll see 3 or 4 cars get tested and not a single one ever fails. It made me wonder if actual smog testing (not to be confused with smog standards met by the manufacturers) has a net gain or loss with regards to clean air.

The point is, $19 fee.

$19? I wish it was only $19 here. :D

Just what I was thinking when I noticed that

Hey, $19 a year times a few million (and you can always raise it whenever you want more O.P.M. to spend) starts becoming real money pretty quickly.

The point is, $50+ to 75+ fee.

Worst part is with an OBD2 car any light fails. Brake warning light. Ugh. Or a CEL, but the test comes through perfectly clean. Not to mention "the rules" vs. "the law" here.

That's the reason I'm only looking at pre-1996 vehicles (considering a jeep wrangler as a winter beater). OBD-2 sucks. Makes life a huge pita.

The EPA dictates which counties are subject to emissions testing.

The EPA still doesn't understand that 1/8-1/3rd of California's daily smog originates from China and SE Asia.

And that container ships contribute most of that specific-chemical pollution.

California......instead.....chooses to infect/subject the rest of the west coast with draconian regulations.
Micro management.

Hate to give this a little update, but I just received my card statement in the mail. They have the emission testing as "Gordon Darby".... Not even Arizona Department of Eviro Quality!!

I don't know about y'all; but that just rubs me the wrong waaaay.