Emissions

[Toughlou]

Pre 1978 cars don't have to have emissions inspection, correct?
Do you need to have cats. Where do I find out what is street legal. All I know is that you can't have slicks on the street. Canyou have a 10 second street legal car if its a classic?

 

[2nd Mustang]

Every state has different requirements. Check your state's vehicle codes.

 

[Toughlou]

All I can find is a New York dmv website which doesn't give me that info. I know federal law has the over 25 year old rule no inspection needed, but thats it.

 

[mxzx446]

I live in New York and just had my car inspected. They didnt test emissions and I dont need cats.

 

[skywalker]

I can't remember the website, but CA has the strictest requirements of ANY state in the union (yet their smog still sucks over most of the state...hrmm something to ponder for you all) If it is legal there, it is almost GUARANTEED to be legal in your state.

That being said, over 25 years, as far as I know, the law simply says you must keep the factory emission system intact (though really, who is gonna know?)

I can't remember what year they started putting cats on them, but most classics didn't have them.

 

[Toughlou]

Thanks all for the info.

 

[rbohm]

in arizona all cars 67 and newer are required to have an emission test in maricopa and pima county, or as required by the state. if the car came from the factory with cats it has to have them when you go for the emission test. federal law also requires that you maintain the factory emissions equipment the car came with. most states do allow engine swaps as long as certain requirements are followed. in california as long as the engine is the same year or newer than the car, and you maintain the chassis emission equipment for the year car, and the engine emission equipment for the year engine, and the engine DID NOT come from a truck, you are good to go. and yes, as long as you maintain the required emission equipment, and meet the emission standards laid out by the state for your car, you can have a street legal 10 second car.

 

[skywalker]

Arizona?! Why?! There's nothing for the HCs, CO and CO2 to kill there! (well atleast not when Iw as there in February!

I mean really, is smog in Arizona that bad? If it is, I doubt cars are to blame.

 

[85GTlover]

For 25 year old cars to be exempt is totally stupid. Would you not think older cars would pollute more than newer ones in most cases? As for the Questions if you have a 10 sec street car Do you think they will say "no it's a classic, not street legal" but A guy with a newer 10 sec car would be allowed? Please explain what you mean.

 

[skywalker]

85GT: It's not stupid. AFter 25 years the numbers of cars that old drop like a rock in comparison to the number of car with-in the 25 year limit. Yes, most of them pollute more, but testing them isn't going to change that for most of them. Most of them simply don't have and can not easily be retro-fitted with the smog equipment we have today. Sorry, I don't see putting OBD I or OBD II on a '66 mustang without some other serious work, especially since the '66 mustang had <u>basically no smog</u> equipment. Sure we could put cats on them, but geez, that's not the biggest part of a smog system. Plus the total numberof hours dirven by all the '66 mustangs still being driven is going to be TINY compared to the number of hours driven by say '85 GTs. So forcing all of them to put cats on will make minimal difference in the enviroment (not that car emissions are the biggest problems, as can be proven by looking at the cities that have cleaned up their smogs problems in the past 10 years versus the ones that were unable too. This is related to why passing levels are different for different cars.

His question was asked because he was unsure if he could change parts on his car such that his car would still be street legal and that fast. The same issue comes in
California where a car is no longer street legal if you put a part on it that does not have a CARB EO number. Here in GA it's not much of a problem, and probably not much different in NY (though I think they have safety inspections and we do not) so long as the car passes emissions standards for that car.

 

[85GTlover]

I do not mean stupid that I think you should have to put emissions equipment on those cars, I think the law itself is stupid. Some vehicles must some don't,different laws for different states etc. In Ontario They say it might be scrapped. Here it is less than three is ok more than 20 is ok. The rule about if the vehicle came with it ,it must have it is true too here I think. So even if my car will be over 20 but does not need to be tested I am supposed to keep the cats? That is dumb too. Think about all the toxins from airplanes or many other examples like factories. I think it is a money grab. Here before anyway if you failed but spent a few hundred bucks on your car you could do that. Even if you did not pass. There is a bit more to it than that but how dumb is that? Your car is still polluting but the gov&the shop make some money.

 

[skywalker]

I don't think it's dumb that some don't need to be tested and some do, when they reach that age there isn't much you can do about their emissions.

I DO agree about the "so much money in repairs is automatic passing" thing. That's so worthless. It's $500 here in Georgia. Although California's is crazier. In California, if you're "poor" they'll give you $500 for repairs to the vehicle! Who are the people most likely to drive a poorly maintained vehicle that is polluting? Oh yeah, poor people!

You're right about factories. Aircraft aren't that big a deal (I'm a helicopter Mechanic for the Marine Corps, trust me, they aren't) as far as contributing to enviromential problems. Plus they generally leave the smog as a higher altitude ( and that's a good thing actually! ) Factories and power plants are the biggest culprits. There is a trend to it actually: cities that have cleaned up their smog made it economically advantageous to reduce smog, through property tax cuts et cetera and allowed cities to sell off their excess smog allowances (thus making them even more money to reduce their emissions further!) These cities also turned away from coal and oil based power plants. The cities that have been unsuccessful have simply made it impossible to build a new power plant, have done verything they could to reduce car emissions and fine factories who go over their limits (and the factories simply pass the buck on to their customers.)

 

[A66Auto]

In California the law for a car not having to smog is not 25 years...I think it was for a while now it is cars built in 1974 and older. It might even be 1972 and older that need to pass smog. I am not exactly sure because my car is a 66. Those are the non-smog cut off years in Sacramento any way in Nevada it depends what county you live in to determine if you even have to smog test or not.

I hear New York has some bad smog laws too. I would just go down to your DMV and try and find out. I am guessing your laws are like ours and not a rolling 25 year thing, but a set year.

Hope this helps you.

 

[85GTlover]

That pollution credit thing blows my mind too. Here there are two big steel mills Stelco and Dofasco. They can sell their credits to another factory then that factory can pollute more. There are so many things wrong there. As for my opinion it just seems crazy someone can buy a 400 junk box but drive it with no worries but somebody else can pay 30 grand and have to pay every two years. When the newer car likely is way cleaner than the older ones. As for the airplanes I read somewhere the pollution during take off is the same as many, many cars. I forget the number so I will not guess at a number and that is not high altitude. I get all your points and please do not think I am trying to argue about this I am not. Just conversation is all. Here the gov says thy will eliminate all coal fired hydro plants by 2007, yet have no way to make up for the lost power production. Make no sense to me.

 

[skywalker]

They ought to consider nuclear or hydro dams. Nuclear is for all intents and purposes, the most clean...except for the nuclear waste afterwards (though researchers here at tech who research cold fusion and similar things - i know, it surprised me to find out people still researched cold fusion too - they're finding a way to deal with nuclear waste) Hydro is clean except it disturbs the enviroment directly and it doesn't produce as much power. Wind is very clean but...very little power...solar...well solar is very clean but a very poor power source.

I'll disagree about air craft, but like I said... I deal directly with them. They produce smog, but it's not a big as it is made out to be. Jumbo jets might, but I don't deal with them.

I understand about the 400 dollar clunker. But in reality, how long is that clunker going to stay on the road?

 

[85GTlover]

That is what the story probably meant..Jets. I agree with the nucleur but many people oppose due to 5 mile island, Chernobyl etc but what are the odds of meltdown? But, around here they are millions over budget just trying to get the Nuke facilities back on line. However fellow tradesmen are making 100,000 plus to work there so that is good. As for tha 400 just an example. I vote wind power, and work on the situation make them more efficient,it is free. Progress is happening along those lines in North America. Holland is full of windmills works for them.

 

[Toughlou]

NYState has a rolling 25 years according to the NYstate website. I was wondering though if you needed to have the cats in the car if you were ever pulled over by a cop and wanted to confirm that emissions weren't that big a deal for older cars. I don't want to buy another fox mustang or any other 80s muscle car because any kind of engine swap would make the emissions really hard to pass every year. I figured a 60s mustang would be safe from the harassment.

 

[85GTlover]

That is true I guess if it wasn't factory equipment which in those years obviously was not. What if you bought a 80's car and said all the emmisions were not on the car when you got it or someone else swapped motors before you. Do they expect you to return it to factory specs? Got to be some way to get around it. I am not saying you should get 80's car just wondering what if...

 

[skywalker]

That is what the story probably meant..Jets. I agree with the nucleur but many people oppose due to 5 mile island, Chernobyl etc but what are the odds of meltdown? But, around here they are millions over budget just trying to get the Nuke facilities back on line. However fellow tradesmen are making 100,000 plus to work there so that is good. As for tha 400 just an example. I vote wind power, and work on the situation make them more efficient,it is free. Progress is happening along those lines in North America. Holland is full of windmills works for them.

I vote nuclear as it is the most efficient as far as space and cost.

I know a good amount of information on 3 mi island and chernobyl.

3 mi island didn't meltdown. Why? Because the engineers designed failsafes to protect from meltdown and they worked! They also had what's called a containment around it, so even if it had a meltdown, it would likely have not had a major effect like at chernobyl. In short, 3 mi island is proof that the systems work!

Chernobyl ont he other had it/was atypical soviet engineering: no failsafes. Why would it? They weren't permitting to fail right? So when the same thing happened at Chernobyl that happened at 3mi island (Well it was a little different but basically the same...) there was a meltdown because there were no failsafes. To add to this, the Soviets couldn't afford to put their plants in containments so when it melted down...boom! Huge radiation cloud.

3 mi island should be used as an advertisement for nuclear power really, but the enviromentalists have twisted the information on it around. Chernobyl should be known as an example of communist know how.

 

[2nd Mustang]

Here the gov says thy will eliminate all coal fired hydro plants by 2007, yet have no way to make up for the lost power production. Make no sense to me.

Along those same thoughts, there are areas in this country that outlawed wood burning fireplaces in some colder areas because of the smoke pollution. Some of these areas actually use fireplaces to generate heat in the winter while most new homes here in So Cal have fireplaces which are just decorative, but can still burn wood, and yes we have a big smog pollution problem.