Smog testing opinions requested

[stray15]

I'm doing a research paper on smog testing. What is everyone's view on the subject? Do you think their should be some cars exempt from testing, or all cars/trucks?

Thanks guys!

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

I will have to speak as a private party on this one, and very definitely NOT as a representative of Pelican Parts. Remember, the following are my own personal opinions only!


Having breathable air is not over-rated. In fact, it's very nice to have air you can breathe without a mask on. But the current system that CA uses is a bit whacked...

From my view, it seems to be more about money than clean air. Let me cite a few examples of what I mean:
1) Cars less than (5?) years old can pay an extra fee so that they don't have to take the test. This is extra money for the state.
2) Cars must have their original "emissions equipment", with very limited exceptions. Those that do not are tagged "GROSS POLLUTERS". I could, for instance, put a thoroughly-modern EFI setup on my 74 914. I could tune it so that it put out 1/10th the legal limit for a 74. But it would be tagged as a "worse" violator than a 74 with OEM FI that was just under the limit. Even if the parts are almost impossible to come by, you still have to have them--as long as the state "thinks" that they are possible to find. Even if it's the "last one" and the price is 3x the value of the rest of the car. This means that people with old cars have to spend more money (at parts houses, repair shops, etc.) than otherwise.
3) Many old cars that can no longer be brought into emissions compliance will be disposed of (sent to the wrecker's, sent out of state, taken off the road permanently, etc.) and replaced with new cars. The state gets 8% of every car purchase, and new cars are almost always cost a lot more than the old ones. More money for the state! Plus you have the large extra fee that new-car owners can pay to avoid smog checks on their new ride. Yet more money...
4) Every time the subject of exemptions comes up in the CA legislature, one of the big arguments against it is always the loss of smog certificate revenue. Even the legislators understand that it's about money.

I think that an emissions-only test would be a Very Good Thing. Don't bother with checking what "equipment" the car has--if it actually puts out less pollution than it is allowed to, it should pass! I like the idea of exempting older cars, but I do realize that they are still contributors to the pollution levels. If we knew how much or how little they actually contributed (obviously more per car, with older FI/carbs and no catalytic converters--but how much with all those cars in total??) we could figure out if exempting them was tolerable or not.

I also like how the allowable emissions levels changed when "Smog Check II" came into effect. If I recall correctly, they set the new limits at somewhere between 50% and 75% of the prior legal limits, and set the "GROSS POLLUTER" limits at double the new limit. Cute little trick, that.

--DD

[bowlsby]

[Warning:Rant mode ahead]

I have a neighbor who has what must be about a 32 Ford pick-up, with a ~302 V8. The guy is about 70 years old and the truck is pretty nice but not a show car. Just a nice daily driver. He gets it repainted every few years just because he wants a change. Always to a different color than before. Im sure its paid for an cheap to operate. Those power windas, auto trans and AC are trick too.

No smog requirements. He is astute in that he doesn't have to deal with the smog cert headache every 2 years.

My car will be smog exempt soon and I think I'll keep it for awhile in part to avoid the smog process hassle. BTW FWIW, my stock 74 914 is identical in every way in a mechanical and pollutional perspective, from the same model 1973 car. The 73 is exempt and my 74 is not. Bureaucaracy. Rules are rules and I am a proud American, but common sense goes out the window sometimes.

Im not a tree hugger, but I do care sincerely about our environment. Surely there must be a reasonable solution, especially for the older cars. If a car is even still on the road some 15-20 years after it was built it should be respected, a badge of honor, like the silver hair of your grandparents. Not denigrated to shame by a suit in Sacramento. The decision makers of this state seem to care more about cash flow and essentially requiring new cars than preserving our heritage, from an automotive point of view. What is wrong with the old ones anyhoo? They have more spirit. If I wanted a common jellybean car I'd have one.

[Rant mode off]

[Joe Bob]

The problem I have with smog regs, is ADD ON CONTROLS. They choke the heck out of engines. That's why late 70s and early 80s cars sucked.....

Once the manufacturers got off their collective asses and made motors that did not pollute did the performance and pollution levels get better.

YMMV

[roadtrp204]

Nevada is a little different than California in that if your car is post '67 and older than 2 years you are required to have a tail pipe test every year. Sample exhaust is taken at idle and 2500 rpm, idle I can see but what is the point of 2500 with no load! Without a chassis roller providing load the test at 2500 is completely useless. Plain and simple if a car is getting half the mileage as original it is polluting.

With a handful of jets I was able to get my 75 to pass with no air pump or cat (those are only required after '80 if equipped). The other thing that drives me nuts is this freeking oxygenated fuel we get from Oct to March. First and foremost is that it rots really fast and older cars don't care for it. Next is that I have noticed a 2 to 3 point drop in mileage in my 97 VW, which tells me that it may have less pollution per volume but more volume comes out of my tailpipe when I use it.

They should start charging by the size of the engine like Europe. I would have to say that in Vegas at least 80% of the cars are 10 years old or newer on the road and our pollution levels are only getting worse. All these new V8 and V10 trucks and SUVs pass smog just fine, but don't tell me that they put out the same levels as a 4 cylinder.

I would rather see a vehicle safety inspection over smog tests. I can't believe how many people think that red tape is a permanent solution for a broken tail light.

[BenI]

The idea of having clean air to breath is a good one, but as long as the lawyers are making up the rules, emmision testing will always be flawed. Take big rigs-if there were standards for them we'd see a lot more trains, but lobbiests have taken care of the trucking industry. SUV's standards are low too. When they were first being developed, Detroit lobbied for no emmision testing for SUVs because, they argued, barely anyone drove them so it didn't matter. Now it's the most popular vehical in the country and the rules remain more lax than those for cars, which inherently are less destructive to the enviroment. You can't tell me that a little carbed 914 is going to do more damage to anything (air, roads, deers...) than a brand new Expedition. And you can even fit your 914 in your garage!

[914GOD]

I saw a documentary somewherer that said that something like 3% of all air pollution came from common yard tools (lawnmowers and the like). This may or may not be true but it illustrates a point. Poorly running cars (even though there are FAR fewer of them) are the major contributors to air pollution. While you guys are right, SUV's do put out more pollution than little cars, it is also true that one poorly running car will put out more pollution than 50 SUV's.

I know these things sound hard to believe, but it's true. Todays modern engine management systems, combined with catalytic converters, air injection, etc. put out essentially NO pollution.

So here's what I propose...Dave is right, tailpipe test only! If I decide to put a brand new honda VTEC (with Cat) in my 74 914 (not that I would, perish the thought) I should be able to with minimal hassle. At the same time, if I let my car go to the point where it barely runs I don't see a problem being forced to fix that. THat is as long as the requirements don't change. It is not fair to impose modern smog requirements on older cars. But it is fair to ask those older cars to meet the appropriate specs.

All in all, you guys are right...it's a money making scheme. The only correct way is tailpipe test only (interval is open for debate).

Sean

[Joe Bob]

SUVs have a higher standard because they are classed as light duty trucks, even though they are used as passenger vehicles.....

So.....SUVs not only pollute more but get worse mileage.... gee, kind of ironic ain't it????

[Will98D]

But the worst SUV today is probably decades cleaner than the 914 or any other classic car we enthusiasts drive. The main issue with the larger engine and lower mileage is CO2 production and of course the energy used to refine the fuel. These old cars spew HC, NOx, and CO, so a few thousand miles a year probably equals a dozen daily driver SUVs. When someone has a Toyota Prius or the like (or better yet walks or bikes to work), at least you know they are committed to the cause. Plus, many sports cars don't get much better mileage than an SUV or large sedan. Sort of reminds me of a joke.. a guy asks a woman at a bar "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"Well... yes, I think I would."
"Would you sleep with me for $20?"
"No! What do you think I am, a whore?"
"I already know what you are... now we're just haggling over the price."

[Joe Bob]

Actually my SC is cleaner than an SUV, gets 16mpg compared to 10-12 mpg. Since the SUV weighs 6,000 lbs, it is harder on the roads requiring more maintenance.

I do own both an SC and a SUV, but my point is....the SUVs need to play under the same smog rules.

[Will98D]

I can see that you're the one that gets paid to know this stuff, so I will defer to your expertise, especially re: your SC. Hopefully I wasn't too far off the mark, as I was looking data that goes back to 1979 that shows allowable limits.

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/suv.AppA.pdf

I can't say it's unimpeachable, but I have some faith as it appears to be the union of concerned scientists. Maybe someone knows the limit for 1974, but even in '79 a car was allowed 3.50 g/m of HC + NOx. New small SUVs (RAV4, CR-V, Escape) are at 0.28 the same as cars, midsize (Trailblazer, Explorer, 4-Runner) at 0.50, large (Tahoe, Land Cruiser, Expedition) at 1.02 and humongous (Excursion, HD Suburban) at 1.49. {California limits may be different/lower probably}. Having said all that, I agree fully with your proposition that the limits be the same. The technology exists, it's just a matter of applying it and paying for it, which I would. At 6'-4". being all folded up like some origami is not going to be an easy sell for those that want me to downsize.