lazybummm

iTrader: (3)

lol i can't count

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

So any time a new smog regulation comes out that your car wasn't designed to pass are you going to volunteer to retrofit your suby or stop driving it? Pre-1975 cars were never designed to pass modern smog regs and pre-'74 cars were never designed with cats, so how can they be expected to pass smog? There is more to passing smog than cat converters so adding those wouldn't change anything. So, in effect, if you tried to make older cars pass modern smog laws you'd be making it impossible for any owner of a classic car to drive their car. Subys were designed to pass modern smog and we change them ourselves in a way that causes them to fail. If we get busted we deserve it. Like they say, you pay to play.

-Chris

Keisatsu

+12345

Really, where.

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

I ****ing hate people that hate smog excempt cars. Mainly because those people don't understand the system, the reasoning or even why those cars are excempt.

Another thing is, think about how many of those excempt cars are daily driven. Most of them are sitting in storage 90% of the year and are taken out when it's nice and sunny. My bet is a 2002 Corolla with 150k miles (not unhear of) has polluted more in it's short life than a 60's car that gets driven 5k miles a year.

And on top of that I love classic cars and always will. Let's see how many of today's plastic cars are around in 30 years.

OneManArmy

iTrader: (7)

thank you. not all of us have the money to dump $15,000-20,000 into a new motor and smog equipment to pass modern smog.

-j-

iTrader: (2)

Even a vehicle built in 1985 have a very difficult time passing SMOG now. They have made it so difficult that you would have to really know what you are doing to make these cars pass and they will barely pass. CA is trying to take these cars off the road that people are going around the rules to save money on trying to get them to pass. Not that I would know anything about that

WillisW555

iTrader: (1)

I don't belive that reasoning as a 1960 car at 5K miles per year would have traveled about 125K miles. Thus making far more pollution than an 02 anything with modern pollution control.

But to argue the point for 30+ year old cars not having to meet smog... there are a lot less 30+ year old cars running around than civics, camrys, etc. So if you think about it, if half the WRXs ran catless, and half the 60s muscle cars run catless, which group would make more pollution?

verc

iTrader: (12)

Of course, HellaDumb, that is why cops are COPS and not judges. Because we need people like that to concern themselves with only those details that don't really matter in the big picture.

my point is, think hard about how many people in the world run catless. Now, how many people dump their used motor oil and WASH THEIR CAR (yes, washing your car at home is illegal).

Now, think a factory where SOLAR CELLS are made: a silicon fab, because solar cells are made the same way integrated circuits are made. Christ you have no idea what it takes to run a silicon fab. To be class 100 clean to make average quality solar cells (100 particles 100 microns or more in diameter per cubic meter) you consume around 10 megawatts for a medium sized fab in fans to drive the HEPA filters alone.

A silicon fab also puts out the absolute worst chemcals known to man. The absolute worst. I am no expert on this pollution thing but it probably takes more than the entire population of catless cars in the world to equal the detriment directly and indirectly caused by a fab the size of say one of Intel's facilities.

Cause when you think about it, it's the concentration but the actual quantity of pollution a catless car puts out isn't very much. The only thing you can really argue about catless cars is the "every litte bit helps" thing. But yes, that's why I said society needs people who can't work on actual solutions to problems, to care about the "every little bit" things.



And that is why, if I were a cop, I would not nail everyone who runs catless. Just the ones that run catless and don't make good power. That's just polluting for no reason

krzyxrevver12

iTrader: (3)

i like this cop.. haha

thesnowboarder

iTrader: (6)

i agree he had 35 on the front but wanted it darker, he gets what he deserves for illegally modding his car just wanted to share the story

STi-owns-evo

iTrader: (4)

Why pollute that much more for an extra 10whp? Hell, I only have 1 cat, but it's a damn lot better than my friends who are running catless. I think there was a study that said a catless suby creates the same amount of pollutants as 26,000 subys. Even though there are other pollutants out there worse than cars, how the hell can you justify polluting as much as 26k times your one car?

BoxerRumble

iTrader: (7)

I agree, just because other people do it doesn't make it ok. I don't like it when people use the argument "but you do it too" or "but Mikey's mom let him eat cookies before dinner!" There are some things that cops pull you over which is stupid and unfair and you should get pissed ex. no front plates, louder (but legal) exhaust, spoiler, intake, and other stuff but if you're running catless or having limo tints all around..you should get pulled over. I HATE people with tints so dark I can't see them. It's so hard to make eye contact at a 4 way stop. I know when I drive I look at the driver and see if they are paying attention, soemtiems I can just see an accident waiting to happen because of oblivious drivers.

ldivinag

iTrader: (3)

doesnt anyone know the 5th amendment???????

Kostamojen

iTrader: (2)

The cutoff date is permenatly at '75 now... Which sucks for my '78 wagon

There are going to be more and more actually educated in terms of mods officers out there. I highly recomend people stick to stealthy mods.

ucbsti

iTrader: (9)

CVC number please. I think this is BS

This is true. Not only in terms of waste, but in terms of water/c02/n2/energy consumption

<---designer in the industry