Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they don't, they should. The reality is that today's cars are tuned and designed for all those components to work in concert to optimize performance and efficiency. One component, say an O2 sensor, goes bad and it will eventually start a cascade of other problems.
I live in an area that tests, but my response would be 'it depends on the standard'. I'm OK with the concept of a tailpipe emissions test, but visual inspection nonsense like that found in CA is ridiculous. CARB makes it much more difficult (and expensive) for an automotive enthusiast to modify their vehicle for absolutely no reason. So long as the vehicle passes the sniffer test, that's all that should matter. What I have going on under the hood is my own business.
This is like asking if people care how much sugar is in whatever they eat or drink. Only the ones watching it will. So only the environmentalists will care here.
I care more about the inspection than emissions. It amazes me that some states don't require an inspection. You have shows like Pimp My Ride showing old crap cars in California with mirrors and bumpers hanging off while they're doing 60mph on the freeway. Do you really want to be following that car? Stupid silly. Get them off the road.
Yes, I care, but, testing has become more of yet another money making scheme than a cause for the environment. I think checking a new car, and checking every year is about making money. A car not passing inspection not for emissions, but for a check engine light is idiocy. As the poster above mentioned, if it passes the sniffer test, that is all that should matter.
As usual with the government, good intention slides off into becoming yet another revenue stream.
I live in an area that tests, but my response would be 'it depends on the standard'. I'm OK with the concept of a tailpipe emissions test, but visual inspection nonsense like that found in CA is ridiculous. CARB makes it much more difficult (and expensive) for an automotive enthusiast to modify their vehicle for absolutely no reason. So long as the vehicle passes the sniffer test, that's all that should matter. What I have going on under the hood is my own business.
Mike
I wholeheartedly agree. Years ago Car Craft (I think) magazine went to a clunker buy-back event in California where some company could earn smog credits in order to continue poluting by buying old cars. Which made no sense since most of the cars brought in had been setting for years or at most were used as backup vehicles, but that's another story. Anyway, they bought a first-generation Camaro from a guy who was waiting in line to use a project car. They changed the plugs, adjusted the carburetor, and took it in for a sniff test (all that was required since it was a pre-emission car) which it passed with flying colors.
Yes, I care, but, testing has become more of yet another money making scheme than a cause for the environment. I think checking a new car, and checking every year is about making money. A car not passing inspection not for emissions, but for a check engine light is idiocy. As the poster above mentioned, if it passes the sniffer test, that is all that should matter.
As usual with the government, good intention slides off into becoming yet another revenue stream.
A few things wrong with your post. First, smog checks are not every year, they are every other year. Second, they only check cars five years old and older, not new cars. Five years is plenty of time for a new car to become a polluter. Last, a check engine light means there is a problem with the emission system and it will not go into closed loop, therefore a gross polluter.
If you don't understand how the system works, you aren't qualified to give an opinion. That goes for a large % of the people commenting in this thread..
First, smog checks are not every year, they are every other year. Second, they only check cars five years old and older, not new cars.
Yes to every other year emissions checks but it is not just limited to 5-year old cars and older in Northern Virginia, new and several year old cars require them too.
I've had cars with the cats removed before in a county where emissions testing was not done. I don't feel bad about it, because even with the cats removed, it was a well tuned engine and didn't pollute nearly as much as some other cars on the road, even if the other cars had cats.
I really think the system should be set up like it is for industry... basically, if you want to pollute "more than your share" you have to buy smog credits. Companies with a lot of factories that produce smog do this all the time. I think the same rules should apply to individuals. If I want to run a car without cats, there should be a fee in place for those people. Instead, with the current system, everyone has to pay in every year, even people with brand new cars with perfectly functioning emissions equipment. They're forced to pay to check something that doesn't need to be checked.
I applaud the original intent of smog testing, which was to get the worst polluting vehicles off the roads. However, it's been twisted into being a burden for everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
