
03-23-2007, 01:27 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 643
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Dragon
Let me first state, that I am in no way a proponent of these draconian mandates. My spider is modified to the limit of the meager bosch system. The exhaust uses the pre-smog 2 piece manifold instead of the one piece log. With the addition of a high flow OBD II cat, I have no trouble passing smog. In fact, it tests barely above the minimums across the chart.
|
I hear ya....I have tube headers on my Spider and a modern cat----it passes with flying colors, but if I take it to the wrong smog shop, it will be labeled a gross pollutor and I might as well take it to APE at that point.
I too have fallen to the dark side....the Alfetta is non-op registered right now, and I'm honestly thinking of selling the spider while I drive the saab. I love my Alfas but it's just becoming too much of a hassle to keep them to the wierd CA standards. I get that odd feeling in my stomach when I think that, because it's like knowing I've been beaten and 'the man' has won.
__________________
Stacy Faught
'87 Spider Quadrifoglio
'78 Alfetta Berlina (in storage  )
'00 Saab 9-3 Viggen
|

03-23-2007, 02:17 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,196
|
|
|
If it was like that here I'd really consider moving to another state.
|

03-23-2007, 08:29 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,137
|
|
In the U.S., coal burning power plants collectively contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the road vehicles combined. Why isn't anybody talking about coal burning power plants? 
__________________
Bill ---- 1977 Alfa Romeo 4C2000 ---- 2000 Aprilia Mille
|

03-23-2007, 08:45 AM
|
 |
pffffffffffffffffffffff!!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Broomfield, Colorado U.S.A
Posts: 3,794
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill77
In the U.S., coal burning power plants collectively contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the road vehicles combined. Why isn't anybody talking about coal burning power plants? 
|
I think the original rant was just about Alfa owners potentially losing their cars. However, you are right about the coal burning plants. We got away from nuclear plants after the 3 Mile Island incendent. I think it scared a lot of people. However, it is a great way to produce electricity.
Personally, I'd rather see more homes with solar panels. I think for the average home, you can get a system for about $25K. After the all the tax credits and whatnot kick in, the system costs about half. As the technology gets better, the prices decreases. I was considering it for my home, but it looks like the city is going to put a fricken Walmart (that's the subject of a separate rant) in my backyard. So, it's probably going to be time to relocate. I'm thinking Utah or Idaho.
__________________
__Oh Boy ____yeah ______wow ____cool ______yippie ____wahoo __yeah baby _pfffffffffffft
|

03-23-2007, 09:10 AM
|
 |
but this one goes to 11..
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Alfaville
Posts: 2,153
|
|
|
Having spent 90% of my life in California and having dealt with emmisions for over twenty years I have a few gripes. But compared to states that have inspections for windows, brakes, tail lights etc. I guess it could be way worse. I do have an issue with the legislators changing to law to require 15 year old or older cars to pass smog. This is just a gross attempt to ring more money out of the state with the most motorist.
One word of advice to California drivers. Never bring your vehicle to the smog shops that also do repairs! They have the $14.95 smog check for a reason. To get you to fail the visual and try to make you pay for junk like a valve cover leak or any other dirt of oil related expense. Take it to a smog only shop, pay the $40 or so dollars and if it blows clean you are golden. Only if the tech sees a on going leak that is lets say dripping into you spark plugs or vapor pouring from a charcol canister you will pass. All older cars have leaks of some sort but unless it's visable at time of inspection and the tech deems it a pollutant they will pass you. These techs are not allowed to do service so they will not tell you things just to get extra cash.
Oh and as far as losing our cars go, I still think the $400.00 repair applies. This means if you are a gross polluter and you spend $400.00 trying to fix the problem, you can get a waiver from smog. You must show receipts from a licensed shop though, not one for a super cat that you tacked on at home. It is still the state mind you.
__________________
currently: 1984 GTV6 (Sabrina) 1992 164L (Jill) 1992 164S (Kelly) 1989 Spider Veloce (Julie)
|

03-23-2007, 09:32 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: brea, ca
Posts: 7
|
|
|
My .02 The smog laws have very little to do with clean air, and more to do with getting money/revenue, in the form of higher registrations.
The testing process is a farce. I had a '74 914, completely stock, about 6 years ago. Even though it passed, the inspector told me "this car should be illegal" Even the "objective test only" shop owners seem to have some agenda.... Then I had a '78 911 SC, with the cat removed, and it somehow passed the visual and the emissions twice. The point here is the former laws (which it seems they are trying to get back to) did nothing for getting cleaner cars. But I can imagine some folks having real headaches over this and not being so fortunate, and either spending money on repairs, or money on a new car (and subsequently much higher DMV registrations).
|

03-23-2007, 09:47 AM
|
 |
but this one goes to 11..
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Alfaville
Posts: 2,153
|
|
|
smog
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillibilly
My .02 The smog laws have very little to do with clean air, and more to do with getting money/revenue, in the form of higher registrations.
The testing process is a farce. I had a '74 914, completely stock, about 6 years ago. Even though it passed, the inspector told me "this car should be illegal" Even the "objective test only" shop owners seem to have some agenda.... Then I had a '78 911 SC, with the cat removed, and it somehow passed the visual and the emissions twice. The point here is the former laws (which it seems they are trying to get back to) did nothing for getting cleaner cars. But I can imagine some folks having real headaches over this and not being so fortunate, and either spending money on repairs, or money on a new car (and subsequently much higher DMV registrations).
|
Well said. I'll bet there is much lobbying from the new car dealers assoc on this one for sure. Remember a few years ago when some legislator tried to explain that on a $400 DMV bill that only $125 was for the vehicle reg? What a crock of SSSS... She went on to say the rest are for fees and different agencies. OMG! I don't know of ANY person who considers only a portion of the bill they pay the DMV as registration but the total amount charged to get your sticker! I could have smacked that women. Thank god Arnie did something right on that subject.
__________________
currently: 1984 GTV6 (Sabrina) 1992 164L (Jill) 1992 164S (Kelly) 1989 Spider Veloce (Julie)
|

03-23-2007, 09:58 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
I have an idea! Buy carbon offsets like Al Gore and pollute all you want. That way you can do the ultimate swap, put a 40 year old CAT diesel from an old school bus in a Spider and feel good about it.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|