Bad news for OREGON SMOG RULES

[Bertram65]

What!!! Emisions testing is a bunch of garbage. It has nothing to do with clean air and everything to do with gov't control over YOU and taking more of your MONEY ..... PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!



The air has been clean for years ... its all a bunch of hoooie.

Interesting, so there is no need for emissions equipment on vehicles to reduce pollutants or testing to see that they are in compliance? Further more the introduction of them in the early '70s has not done anything to help reduce the amount of pollution in the world?

 

[jwduke]

Whats a smog test? :-laf :-laf Guess thats the good thing about living in the midwest!

 

[EEdmondson]

I grew up in L. A. and I remember smog. I remember my chest hurting when trying to get a deep breath at football practice. I hated not being able to see the hills about a mile away. Now, most cars are clean and the air is cleaner, but every once in a while I get behind a smog belching car or truck and the gas ones are the worst. I still hate them!



As the population increases and more and more cars are on the road, they have to be clean or you will be living in 1960's L. A... Yuk!

 

[JWHays]

I ain't the tree-huggers, gents- it's the 'gumment' and BIG business behind all this. I just paid 3. 31/gal for diesel yesterday. I look to the west and see all the refineries belching black smoke from their flares, and they're worried about a Cummins engine??

It just doesn't add up.

 

[AMink]

04. 5 with the intro of the 600HO.



Everything before that is "catless"... unless sold in cali.

My '97 came with a cat and it wasn't a CA version. In Nevada, you have to make sure you specify that or you may end up with one.

 

[2Gen3Gen]

:-{} :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-{}

I think every state should have california emmisions. i don't see why people are against clean air. is has nothing to do with "liberal tree hugging hippes", is has to do with doing the right thing. i can't stand getting behind some stinky ***** caprice or any other car. the north east is suffering because all that crap from the midwest combines with the other smog already here and makes it twice as worse. that is why so many healthy young people are getting asthma. just my . 02

 

[steved]

Actually... the "emissions" equipment on cars only does one thing... it takes the pollution that cars made in the 70s and turns it into another form of pollution... it just hasn't caught up to us yet... it isn't like they can take car exhaust, run it through a cat and have it breathable.



And if you drive in the midwest, you can see when you are approaching a large city by the orange "bubble" of pollution encircling it... so much for "emissions" control on new cars.



And, if you do some reading and some research, you will find guys that took a late 60s car (I believe a 396SS Chevelle?) running high octane fuel (like that of the time) and had less emissions than a 1984 buick skylark with a emissioned-to-death 4 cylinder... and getting better fuel mileage to boot... plus they had power. My buddy has a 1968 Chrysler New Yorker with the only-option 440 4bbl and gets 25 mpg on the highway... 5000 pounds of car, no lockup converter, no OD, NO EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT...



To me, fuel in equals exhaust out... it is a direct relation... the better fuel mileage a car gets, the less exhaust (and therefore emissions) it will expel.



In reality, the cars need the fancy high-tech emissions control to clean up the exhaust because of THE FUEL we are forced to run through them... again, we are getting the shaft from the oil companies. Regenerated fuel?? Oxygenated gasoline??? Not existing in the 1960s/70s.



steved

 

[AMink]

I am always amazed...government agencies, at least around here, are required to have their fleets be a certain percentage of "alternative fuel" vehicles. There are propane, cng, diesel , and some others. What they have found with the propane and cng especially, the milage and power dump, thus making the range of the vehicle very small. It's also a pain to fuel up. So they have half the emissions, but take twice the fuel to do the same job. Net gain? Can't be much.

 

[EEdmondson]

To me, fuel in equals exhaust out... it is a direct relation... the better fuel mileage a car gets, the less exhaust (and therefore emissions) it will expel.



steved

Wrong! I used to think that too when I was 16. Why don't you research it?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Wrong! I used to think that too when I was 16. Why don't you research it?

Well, he's sorta right - the better the MPG, the greater DISTANCE the emissions are distributed over.



For instance, a vehicle that exhausts 1 mg of polutant over 30 miles distance MIGHT be a better deal than a similar vehicle that does the same over 15 miles distance.



Concentration of pollution spread is a valid argument...

 

[JWHays]

Good post, Gary.

Everyone repeat after me: The solution to pollution is dilution...



... John

N6JWH

 

[Diesel Nut]

I think people who dont really have an understanding of how some engines work should not be so upset. The guy going off about the Big rigs. This one grabbed my attention. He is complaining about the smoke they make in a traffic jam. Why does a diesel smoke? Not enough air, right? No boost. Why would a big rig make a bunch of smoke in a traffic jam? Because the engine needs to produce that 450 hp th move 80,000 lbs at freeway speeds. It has a turbo the size of your transfer case. No, it wount spool up fast. Yes, it will smoke. It is not designed for that application. Rigs are designed to drive at 55-65 for ever, not do the stupid drag race that the freeway becomes. Be realistic when you look at the topic of smog and polution. I for one think its Bull ***** and thats me.



Also, I do agree with the effiency thing. I can bet my 20mpg ram puts out less smog than my dads 15mpg ford. And, I m using less natural resources to do it. 2 birds with one stone! Theres some food for thought!

 

[tgbol]

Here in California as an operator of a large fleet of trucks we have to do an opacity test on them once an year. In the past any of our mechanics could do it, but no we have to have a licensed mechanic to do them. We don't have to send the results anywhere, just put the result sheet inthe truck package so that they can be reviewed if needed.

 

[steved]

Wrong! I used to think that too when I was 16. Why don't you research it?

Then explain it to me... you burn 5 pounds of fuel to produce 5 pounds of pollutants (including heat and water vapor which are ALSO pollution. ) for a given distance. If you burn 5 pounds in your truck, and I only burn 3 pounds in mine to go the same distance, WHO PUT OUT THE MOST POLLUTION???)



If you factor in heat, you actually produce MORE pollution from a given amount of fuel... thermal pollution is an issue. As is noise pollution. And water vapor emission, etc, etc, etc.



According to you, you end up with less pollution than the fuel you introduce. When indeed, according to simple chemistry, you cannot lose mass. Explain yourself.



steved

 

[steved]

JWHays - Ha Ha... very good point... even pollution in something like ground water is treated this way... say you have 5 pounds of pollutant... if that pollutant is put into say an acre (just to provide a size in the case) of ground water, it will exceed a given regulatory level... that same 5 pounds of pollution in 100 acres of ground water might not even be detectable... is it still pollution?? Yes, but it is dilluted to the point it is "safe"... for now.



Most of you don't know about pollution in your nearby communities... lookupo "Superfund" on the EPA's website, you might be surprised what is in your backyard.



And most of you probably don't realize that some things are measured in parts per billion as cleanup levels. A part per billion isn't very much...



steved

 

[EEdmondson]

Steved, I agree on the quantity part of your argument... if you're putting out the same pollutants. Smog equipment is supposed to convert harmful pollutants to harmless gases and reduce harmful exhaust. Follow a motorcycle with no smog equipment getting 50 MPG and then follow a new small car getting 30 MPG. My unscientific built-in smog detector (nose) tells me that the motorcycle stinks thus is polluting.



I'd rather follow a semi getting 4 MPG on diesel than follow an old stinkin' van, VW, or 240z to name a few. Of course, the diesel isn't good to breathe either but it doesn't bother me as much.



Now do you want to talk about my neighbor who burns his fireplace 6 months a year and his smoke comes down into my house and yard? I put up with it because he is a good neighbor. As you can tell, I don't like breathing other people's smoke. So, please keep yours in PA.

 

[SThorud]

The problem with that view is that the bike and the car don't weigh the same. The bike is getting 50mpg because it weighs 1/5th of the car's weight. Not because it has an efficient combustion process.



Give the bike the same efficiency as that car and even without the smog equipment it's not going to put out that same smell and it will get much better mileage.



Smog equipment simply takes unburned fuel and turns it into "harmless" emissions. Or, another way of looking at it is it makes up for what the combustion process wasn't able to do because of its inefficiencies.



Every drop of fuel contains X number of molecules. How those molecules exit the tailpipe is the problem automotive engineers face. Your engine is always going to make some "unwanted" gases, but it's up to the efficiency of the engine to determine how "much" of those gases is produced.

 

[TSpecht]

I much prefer the smell of a non emissions control engine is versus an emissions controlled engine. For some reason it smells more right, although maybe it's just because it also corresponds to an era of automobiles I prefer over the new stuff. I also dislike the smell of the new diesels with the cat. Maybe I'm weird.

 

[jimnance]

I just called the local muffler shop and he told me that within the next year, all of Oregon will have the same smog rules as California. That means KEEP YOUR CAT ON YOUR TRUCK! It will be a $2500 or more fine if caught. I have seen nothing that supports this but my guess this is true, as he could have made a few bucks from me making a "test pipe" for my truck. I think ill just pass on this and keep my truck totally STOCK.

High fule prices and now we get to SMOG our rigs! The end of the world is near! :{

Phil, are you stirring the pot again????? :--)

 

[2Gen3Gen]

Phil, are you stirring the pot again????? :--)

:-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf :-laf Who? Me? :-laf :-laf

Actually, this is FACT from the guy at Grants Pass Custom Muffler. I too was a bit shocked.