Finally, a [minor] mea culpa. I got nuthin' 'gainst emitting a bit in areas where there are no air quality problems. In fact, I have PMOs on my car. But here, we never have CO, NOx, etc. problems except on very hot summer days, which happen only every few years. I don't drive then. We have nasty particulate problems - mostly from wood stoves.

That is probably the most patently absurd thing I have ever read on this board.

what makes you think that?

My '84 certainly puts out more emissions than an '08 Prius. It probably isn't going to be out polluting save on early weekend mornings when traffic is next to nil.

But, as noted above, the thing that gets lost is the whole carbon footprint thing. Keeping an '84 911 in relatively good working order should have some merit compared to what it takes to build that Prius. The heavy equipment to mine the ores used for the metals, the taxing on already stretched natural resources, the plant's operating to make the metals, the manufacture of the car in the plant where it's built, the petroleum in the plastics. Then there are the batteries and the unknown problems they may cause in the future. I think in excess of 50% of our electrical power generation in this country is still from coal burning plants, so don't even mention electric cars to me, I'll blow a gasket.

The bottom line is that there is no free lunch in all of this. Too bad it wasn't really that easy to save the planet; we could all swoon when we hear the words hybrid and electric car.

Air pollution is not a local phenom. You don't think you are contributing to the cumulative on a "good day"? All pollution goes somewhere, usually downwind, so unless you don't drive on those days because the pollution burns your eyes, the statement is absurd. BTW, I have a carbon footprint of a Yeti with a broken ankle.

Thank god the previously "patently absurd" was over taken by a new amazingly patently absurd in record time...

I didn't realize that a Yeti could use a computers or live in a modern technological society where they could possibly create an equivalent impact on the biosphere to one modern North American resident.
(Unless Yetis off gas an amazing quantity of methane... But I don't think the Yeti have proclaimed that their $h!t don't stink!)


Back on course here.
Does anyone seriously think that there are enough miles driven by 20+ year old cars to even be detectable against the millions of cars driven daily on California roads? (or in any other state in the union?)
That being said... Committing perjury to register your car should make a pretty clear statement to yourself and others about your personal priorities.
Besides, most of the smog technologies don't impact performance so why not put in a little extra effort?

Well, crustychef needs to learn what the concept of "air shed" means...

For CO2 emissions, it is a global problem, not limited to just an air shed...
- EDF or NRDC has stated that over the entire life cycle of a car, the mfg. polluion in toto is ~~ 1/3 of the total. So, yes, electric cars or hybrids are not pollution free (also they can drip lubricants, still make some noise, cause congestion, hit bike riders, etc.) but buying one to add to your 911 collection is a good idea if you need > 1 car anyway.

CARB thinks that older cars are a fairly big problem.

My view is that if you want to change the rules, then work for that. But back to the original rules/forms issue.... perjury is real serious.

There's the "black letter" of the law and the intent of the law. The intent, no doubt, is that cars that no longer reside in California don't have to be smogged here. I suspect that you'd still be subjecting yourself to potential trouble if you went out of state for a day and sent the form to the DMV.

Geez, it's just a freakin' smog test. If your car is running properly and kept in tune (and still has its 0-2 sensor, isn't heavily modded, etc.) it should pass smog with no problem. Besides, it's the "green" thing to do.