i can not recall where i heard this, but i am wondering the accuracy of what i heard. i heard that there is no emissions testing in florida, and there are no emissions requirements. i can not imagine that this could be true, but someone told me this, and i am just wondering if this is accurate information. thanks for all of your hlep in advance.

ronnie simpson

There's no emissions testing in NH, so it could be true of Florida and other places as well.

Brian
AIM: captaindamorgan ICQ: 84483950

http://www.ravensblade-impreza.com
Don't whiz on the electric fence!

There isn't even any inspection in Florida. I had a car registered there for four years and it only was in the state twice during that time...

-tim

Yup, they let ya run wild down there! What's an inspection staion? Wadda ya mean stickah?

I know that Nebraska and Iowa have no emissions tests. I got my first dose when I moved up here to Colorado.

Emissions testing is alive and well in Duval County, Florida. Every 12 months, or no registration.

It tends to be more of a "county" based issue. For instance, most of Ohio is(I believe) emissions testing free. However, where I live(Hamilton County) and a few others near Cincinnati, we do have to test every other year.

Neil

it isn't that there is no emission testing statewide......it depends on the county you fall under. kinda dumb huh.

Wow! I live in the Orlando area and didn't know there was anyplace in Florida they did testing. I remember when they had inspections, what a pain, our Volvo brakes never tested out unless we went to one particular station that used a different method of testing the brakes and it was 20 miles away.

Dark tint on the front passenger windows is supposed to be illegal but everyone does it. We've had it on different cars for 20 years now, and I even had the windshield tinted on my 2002 OBS!! Yow!!

Hmmm... that why I haven't been pulled over for my 3.2 inch catless turbo exhaust? hehe... ;)

-Nick

none in PA at least where I live

Yes it is true, and I cant wait to make my entire exhaust catless.:D

Um, no offense, but running without cats is a pretty selfish move. If you REALLY feel the need to remove your cats, at least run a single high flow cat.

Aside from what I view as moral implications, the federal fine for removing a cat (even if you have 1 or two others) is in the thousands of dollars.

Yeah, emissions are a pain in the ass, but drive to a major metro area and try to get a breath of fresh air. It's easy to do your part to help out.

In PA two years ago, it depended on the county. For example, where I lived didn't have emissions but the major cities did. Last year, PA got rid of emissions tests altogether to get ready for next year when the anal emission laws come down.

http://www.trunkmonkey.com/pics/lil.gif Fear the Trunkmonkey. There is no cone.
http://www.trunkmonkey.com/ | sean@trunkmonkey.com
Automotive Reviews by Sean (http://uberauk.epinions.com/user-hamors) | What is a Trunkmonkey? (http://www.trunkmonkey.com/v001_Content/faq.html)
Somebody set up us the WRX. All your rice are belong to us!

I hear there's no testing in most counties in Michigan too. What would it tak to get a car registered in a state other then the one I live in

One of the people listed as an owner of the car needs to live within the state it's registered in, I believe. My father happened to live in Florida, so I registered it through him for insurance reasons.

Note: just because your car is registered in state A and driven in state B doesn't mean state B's laws don't apply. I got a tinting ticket for my Floridian MR2 in NY, and it didn't matter whether my tinting was legal in Florida, it was illegal in NY, and I had to pay the fine.

At least that's what the prosecutor told me... :rolleyes:

-tim

I live in Clear Creak County in Colorado and I have no e-tests either, although all of the counties around Denver do. Doesn't matter much for the sube, but comes in handy with the Jeep and Bug!

hehehehehhehe:lol: come up across the border dudes! We have absolutely NOTHING here! I think the emissions on our cars are different too, at least they were on my Saturn, I dynoed a few more HP than the americans....and kicked their asses on the strip too. :p I dont think our cars comply with US emissions...I could be wrong....

You are correct Dissenter... there are no emission tests/inspections in Michigan. After they did away with our EPA sniffer tests they tried to reimpliment them in the highest polluting counties... they turned out to be the small, sparsely populated counties on the west side of the state. Everything from Chicago was blowing over into western Michigan... just like everything from Detroit blows over into Canada. Once all that was found out, they said screw it and scrapped the whole program. On a seperate note, my truck has no cat. It had 90K miles when I had my exhaust done. Just for poops and laughs I stuck a 5 gas analizer up the tailpipe and performed an EPA style sniffer test. I did the same thing after I got my exhaust done... without the cat. Guess what... the results were within a few % and PPM's. I can't really verify if the power gains from the exhaust were from the bigger pipe and hi-flow muffler or from the missing cat, but hey, wasen't doing anything to begin with.

Originally posted by Layman
Um, no offense, but running without cats is a pretty selfish move. If you REALLY feel the need to remove your cats, at least run a single high flow cat.

:pThanks Captain Planet, your my hero:p

BTW-How's mother earth these days?:lol:






PS-I have to anyway if I want to keep my CEL off.

Whatever, man. I guess you need to take your cats off because you drive a race car and need every last bit of performance you can get.:rolleyes:

Belittle my opinion all you want, but I think it's pretty lame to run without cats when it's just as easy to run a high-flow cat and get similar results.

Dude, that's crazy. I live in CA, probably the worst place to live.
Smog test every two years...
Any sort of non-approved intake exhaust mods are ilegal...
Cops are there with sniffers to inspect the exhaust on the street....

Ok... well.. if you knew anything about my car you would know that I bought the minnam turbo kit with a cat in the downpipe... however over time and running rich I destroyed the cat.

When I got my new exhaust installed, my cat was scooped out and handed to me in a shoebox.

So, I'm screwing the environment. As soon as I stop seeing beater cars driving around spewing smoke from oil I'll go out and buy a $500 super high flow cat for my 3.2 inch straight back turbo exhaust.

I didn't remove my cat... it wasn't intentional... but now that it's gone I have no intentions of replacing it until my car is completely done.

-Nick

Nick,

I wasn't really talking about you. I was refering more to the people who buy a WRX and the first thing they want to do it rip out the cats because it's an easy way to gain another 10hp or so.

In my opinion, you should be running a high flow cat like you suggested, but that's just my opinion.

And I'm sure I don't have to point out the logical fallacy in justifying your actions by pointing to others who do it. ;)

Thanks Nick, its funny how they don't directly bash at you;)

BTW-Are you going to Tower Shops tomorrow?

Hey coolguy (Ant WRX),

Why don't you stop kissing ass and just address the issue? I never addressed my original message to anybody, so how do you conclude that I'm not attacking EVERYBODY running without cats?

If you have a problem with my suggestion, why don't you argue with me like a man instead of throwing out clever quips like "captain planet" and having site owners argue in your stead.

I think emissions testing needs to be performed and enforced on older cars; but much tighter regulations need to be placed on other things like rust, light alignment, brakes, etc. I know Pennsylvania used to have very strict standards, but now there are all sorts of junkers being allowed. I couldn't believe some of the rattletraps I saw when I was living in Colorado, and my father tells me thrity years ago they had very strict standards.

Hey captin,
Argue like a man, jeeze you like conflict! Don't moderators shut down forums b/c of things like that. BTW-I thought your (in a brutally sarcastic voice) 'i wasn't refering to you mr imprezadent' response was a little ass-kissy if you ask me!:rolleyes: I also said that I wouldn't run cat-less b/c of CEL's! I have nothing to argue about. Drink a beer (if that isn't against you morals) and chill. I not looking for an arguement. Relax.

-I never asked anyone to argue at my 'stead', he responded on his own

So if running without a cat (when one should run with one) is selfish, isn't everyone who drives a car that is not the most efficient in NOT consuming fossil fuels selfish, too?

Shouldn't we all be driving Insights and Priuses (Prii?)? And riding bikes whenever and wherever we can? And protesting against rallying because they are just wasting fuel, burning hydrocarbons, and for what? Selfishness? Macho mentality? Dunno.

Car guy enviros are funny.

Ant WRX,

Just in case you forgot, I entered this thread by making a legitimate statement about my opinion regarding people who run without cats on their cars. You're the jackass who jumps in calling me Captain Planet. Sure you don't want conflict.:rolleyes:

Regarding my reply to Nick, I wasn't talking to him specifically, but you can clearly see that I also told him that I thought he should be running a cat as well. I'm not entirely sure how that makes me a kissass, but whatever. I'm certainly willing to drop it if you are.

Blaster,

I'm certainly no hippie, but I believe that something as easy as keeping a modern car emissions compliant shouldn't be met with such resistance. It's a simple function of bolting a cat onto your exhaust. BFD. If you can't do that and still get aqequate performance gains from your car, maybe you try tuning something a bit more simple - like a moped.

IMO, it just comes down to personal responsibility. I know you work downtown - I've "raced" you down Conn Ave. You know all too well what the air quality is like there. You also know full well that it can't be blamed on industry as it can in other cities - there IS no industry. No, DC has crappy air because of auto emissions more than anything else. I don't think I'm out of line for wanting cleaner air and a better atmophere in my hometown. I'm not asking for much. If you can afford the $3k for a turbo kit, you should be able to factor in the cost of a nice, high-flow cat so you too can do your part to help keep the air that you and I breathe clean.

Crawl under my car and take a gander at my hi-flow cat, if you would.

But my point is that in the quest for high performance, those "environmental" things go by the wayside. If some guy in Florida takes off his cats in pursuit of more power, I hardly think it will affect the air in DC that you and I breathe.

Besides, I bet that a new WRX, even catless, makes less emissions than any existing Buick Electra 225. Or an Escort with a busted head gasket. Or a Beretta with burned out rings.

You can see those daily on the streets of DC.

Performance cars and motorsports must be a quandary for enviro folks. I mean, the WRX is going to burn more fuel than, say, an RS, or a Civic EX, or Volkswagen TDi. An RS more than the other two. Couldn't one be expected to drive a Civic rather than an RS? You know, to protect the air we breathe? I mean, you don't really need all wheel drive, do you?

Note to self and all I-club members:
Don't joke around w/ Layman. Some peoples insecurities override their ability to take a joke, Layman is one of them. Maybe it's his appearance? He even bashes his looks on a previous thread, and judging by the picture, I could see why.

Captain,
I'm sorry that I have offended you so much. I promise to never run a catless setup and to always respect the enviornment. Together we can make a difference. The power is OURS!:lol:

PS-Don't bother to right back at me, I am no longer responding to this thread, there is no way of getting it through to you, I'm just f***ing with you. It's a joke. CHILL!;)

Here's the deal with Florida...In the early 90's 6 counties in Florida did not meet the EPA's Clean Air Act requirements and were required to start an emissions testing program. By 1998, the emissions testing program had reduced pollution enough that the counties were now meeting the EPA's requirements. In 2000 the State of Florida decided to axe the entire emissions testing program.

I know this because I worked for a company called Gordon Darby, Inc. that built, maintained and ran the emissions testing facilities in several of the Florida counties that were required to test. Now the only emission requirements we must follow are the Federal requirements. You can get fined for having no cat, smoking exhaust, etc. The fine can be levied by a regular police officer (lower fine & fix-it ticket) or by an EPA official (Federal offense, very high fine, somewhat unlikely).

Now for a quick jump on the soapbox...for many of the cars we tested while designing the testing system, removing the cats did not "increase" horsepower, many times the loss of backpressure resulted in a horsepower loss. Some car manufacture's do use cats that are more restrictive than others so your best bet to increase horsepower would be to replace the factory cat with a more free-flowing performance cat (Random Technologies makes these for many cars, including the 2.5RS). Cat's only work when the car is cool (not warmed up) or when you accelerate quickly, at these times the engine cannot burn all of the fuel that is getting dumped into it so some of it escapes through the exhaust. The cat gets super-heated very quickly and burns off the excess fuel as it passes through the cat.

Also, for the record, any gasoline burning engine can be "tuned" to pass an emissions test, with or without a cat. If you fail an emission test and the reason is because of a missing cat, it is because the technician visually noticed that the cat was missing, not that the machine testing the car noticed it.

Just thought a clear answer to the original question was needed.

Blaster,

Again, I really wasn't singling anybody out, so my comments about people lacking high-flow cats were not directed at you. But if you want my congratulations regarding your responsible attitude, then you have it.

Regarding the proximity of the offending vehicles, you couldn't have missed the point more, but if trying to see the forest through the trees makes you happy, please be my guest.

Yes, there are more offending vehicles out there, but most seem able to pass emissions somehow. I'm certainly not going to advocate big brother tactics that would single out people for their type of car. I'm only suggesting that people try to play within to rules, even if they bend them to their limit.

And once again, you keep infering that I am an "envrio folk." Yes, I care about the environment. Yes, I would like to have cleaner air to breathe. Yes, in an ideal situation, we would have 500hp zero emissions cars. But in my overwheming wisdom, I've somehow come to the conclusion that this is an imperfect world and that life is full of comprimises. Thus, the only rediculous, outlandish suggestion that I'm making is that people retain at least one, high-flow cat. I know this somehow makes me a hypocrite in your eyes; a walking, talking oxymoron who, somehow, has the capacity to enjoy motorsports AND clean air, but trust me, it's not as difficult as it seems.

Wow, yet another intellectually stimulating post by Ant WRX. Let's see, so far he's:

Called people names.
Insulted people's appearance.
Made absolutely no constructive posts.

It's clear that I'm outclassed here, but if I could make one little request of your highness - please step aside while the adults have a discussion.

Anyone from the Atlanta area out there? Bet they've gotten stricter about emissions. Air pollution is getting so bad there they are in risk of losing federal highway money if they don't get the air cleaned up. Hope our city is isn't down the line!

Captain,
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but you are such a hypocrite that I had to! I was joking around until now. I believe the name calling started w/ a sarcastic "hey cool guy" and if that isn't enough then with "jackass"! If you think that me calling you Captain Planet is name calling then you are way too oversensitive. It was a joke. I made that clear. Insulting of appearances, yea you got me, I was wrong; but that was nothing more than me reacting to you calling me a jackass. No constructive points? I didn't try to. I was just having fun. You didn't either though. If by what opie said is true (which it sounds), I could run catless and still pass emissions (although it is illegal, but legality had nothing to do with OUR conversation, it was purely ecological). Do you have any proof that catless cars caused your smog problems, or is it just b/c of cars in general (which yu drive, therefore you are worsening your smog as well)? I think we both know that answer. BTW-You really do have a complex w/ this 'being a man' stuff and 'leave this conversation to the adults'. Like I said, I was just trying to have fun. At the expense of you was obviously a bad move, it won't happen again. Lighten up, get a hobby, whatever...just do something to relax, you'll live longer (with or without smog).

if you guys wanna insult eachother do it throuh pms or something but not here. you're only ruining this guy's post. hopefully it'll be locked so you people cant ruin it even more.

anyways, about the original post, does anybody kno if south carolina requires emissions testing, particularly the city of charleston?

I'd really like to see you guys try running a catless exhaust. The downstream o2 that monitors the cats performance will be nice and confused. I hope you like your check engine light and a car that does not run properly!

FYI, modern matrix style cats cause almost no restriction. Especially when compared to the older pellet style cats.

I'm planning on registering my RS in Nevada. Only 2 counties have emmisions testing (NO Visual) If you pass you pass, no matter what is under the hood. Also the test is for only residents who live in the "urban" areas of the counties.

I'm tired of the California NAZI control of what we can and cannot do....thanks Sierra Club :mad: As you can see I currently live in Cali. "The land of constant enviromental protesters"

All I want to be able to do is have some mods that give me some more NEEDED power, and not be harrassed by cops all the time. I'd say 1 cat Minimum......keeping to Fed. emmisions is fine by me. I want air to breath too.......been in China where a good day there, is like the Worst day in LA/NY......no exageration.

Cheers

EddyL.

Scooby Newbie for eternity and beyond........+ 1 post.

I agree about one thing. It's not easy being a car enthusiast and caring about the environment. There are definitely a lot of trade-offs involved.

In defense of "environmental car enthusiasm", the very cars that most of us here like are, directly or indirectly, the products of environmental consciousness and laws. If you'd asked people in 1970 if there would be 2 liter cars that made 227 hp, they would have said "No way." The emissions laws led to FI and engine management systems that maximize the power from every molelule of fuel. You could argue that commercially viable turbos were arrived at for the same reasons. If there had been no smog laws (and no oil crisis, but that's another topic), we'd all be just driving around with bigger engines.

As far as I'm concerned, if your car beats the CAFE standards, which ours do, you're doing your part. Having a car that runs reasonably clean doesn't hurt too. Like someone pointed out, just having a car that's in reasonable tune and repair makes you a lot better than others out there. I'm betting if that Electra 225 belongs to a big Buick enthusiast, then it probably has a decent set of plugs in it and a properly adjusted carburetor, and runs fairly well. Better and cleaner than a non-maintained 1995 Hyundai.

Do any of you have a conscience? How can you do that knowing you are hurting the earth? Why do you think their are tests on emmisions!?!? Hmmmm...probably to improve air quality. Think of it this way: If everyone does their part, then it will help the air everywhere. To say that taking cats off in FL wont affect air quality in DC is a little obsurd. Maybe not today, tomorrow, or next year, but when you and others in diffrent states do the same thing, that hole above our heads gets larger and larger. Infact, the largest hole is over Antartica...real cool, especially since it is melting the continent:rolleyes:

Here in NY, AWD and 4WD vehicles do not have to be tested. IF you do your part, and stay honest about your cats, you are just making up for the redneck with a oil drinking, lifted Ford, who paid off the inspection guy with a 24 pack of cheap ass Bush Beer.

Even if the car meets standards without the cats, why not go above and beyond to clean the air a little more.

People always e-mail me, PM me, ect, ect when I voice my opinion on this board. If you do that, you will be wasting your ****ing time because I dont have time to read through crap like that...I simply press delete, and you just wasted your time. Dont pull that **** with me. I am going to school for Land Management and Forestry (not all forestry involves cutting trees down, so I dont want to hear about that either), and I have my environmental opinions as a result.

Do you fricken part, its not a big deal....seriously, try it sometime:rolleyes:

First and foremost, let me state that I do not believe that ANYONE is against the environment. Even dogs are smart enough not to crap in their own beds.

What does bother me though is that someone thinks that if they have a catalytic converter, they are now among the annointed protectors of our air and waters. That may sound a little extreme, but I can't figure why anyone who is driving one of these Subarus we drive, particularly someone who is a performance enthusiast, would take out after someone and call them selfish because their exhaust doesn't have a catalytic converter. Sounds a little holier than thou to me.

If you compete in any motorsport event - autocross, rallycross, rally - you are consuming fossil fuels that didn't need to be consumed and producing hydrocarbon emissions that didn't need to be generated.

Plain and simple.

And if you aren't driving a Honda Insight right now, you are using more fuel and making more emissions than you could. WHY AREN'T YOU DOING YOUR PART?!?!

See the silliness of this line of thinking? I am doing my part because my car gets better than the CAFE standard (that one kills me - your car gets better mileage than a bunch of gasbags in the Congress decided they could enforce, so now you get to be holier than thou, too!) even though I put my foot in it deeper than it needs to for fun, but you, well you took a cat off your car.

I simply don't get it.

And kevinSUBARU, good Lord, son, what ARE they teaching you at school these days? There's a hole over Antarctica and its melting the continent? You've got your environmental disaster theories all mixed up. The "hole" which you refer to is in the ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet rays, which will cause us all to have cancer. The continent melting is because of out of control greenhouse gas emissions contributing to Global Climate Change (its GCC now because it is difficult for some people to comprehend how "Global Warming" makes it colder).

Just for all of you in New Hampshire, just because you don't have emissions doesn't mean you won't get snagged. My friend who is able to go to that gas station who does inspection in NH in the backwoods and get approved, got stopped in the town we went to school in (Rindge, NH) and the cop there was going to give him a ticket for his car being loud but thought he'd be nice, so be careful up there (Just a friendly warning as if you didn't know --- although FYI Rindge, NH cops are A$$holes!!!)

Blaster,

This isn't a black and white issue. You don't have to an extremist on either side of the arguement. There are certainly various level of commitment to any "cause," and this issue is no different.

On one end of the spectrum, you have people who don't give a rat's ass about the environment and do what they please. These people run poorly tuned cars, leave lights on, and only concern themselves about conservation when it affects them personally - usually in the wallet.

On the other end, you have people who, for whatever reason, feel it is their mission to try and eliminate as many pollutants as possible. These people either walk, bike, take public transportation, or use low emissions vehicles. They may also try to get others to agree with them, whether it be through argueing, protesting, lobbying or whatever.

In between these two extremes lie the rest of us. We all have different views about our personal responsibility (or lack thereof) to the environment. Just because some of us are able to find a happy medium does not mean we are conflicted in our views. If I really cared to, I would sit down with you and argue with you for hours about this. I've done it before, and I doubt that you would change my convictions.

I've always enjoyed the outdoors and only got into motorsports after breaking my knee twice effectively ended what was a 5 year amature mountain biking hobby. Maybe it's that tie to the outdoors that, in my mind, causes the general good of the environment to take precedence over personal enjoyment of my car. Whether or not my insistance on running cats on my cars is technically misguided, it certainly does not make me a hypocrite. I stand by my belief that if we all even did the simplist or things (run cats, conserve energy when reasonable, don't litter, etc), this world would be a far better place in which to live. If you disagree, that's fine, but please don't assume that I'm a conflicted, contradictory person simply because you disagree.

Never said anything about personal confliction or hypocrisy.

Just that it seems odd to pick that one point - a catalytic converter - and use that to propel yorself to moral arbiter of the world.

The guy or gal driving the Insight is going to call you selfish.

Get it?

It is one thing to say to someone "You really shouldn't remove catalytic converters from your car. It is illegal, and it degrades the environment."

It is quite another to ascribe a character flaw to someone because of that.

If you use some arbitrary line in the middle to cast aspersions at someone, somebody else can draw the line to exclude you.

:rolleyes:

Fair enough. "Selfish," by itself, was a poor choice of words, though I'm not sure that I could come up with a better description.

I'm only sorry that this entire debate came down to a matter of semantics.

I'm not focusing soley on cats. It just so happens that they are the topic of this discussion. My "line" is far from arbitrary. It only seems that way because you and I are discussing a single facet of a much larger issue on a mostly superficial level. Again, if you and I actually cared to do so, I'm sure we could delve far deeper into each other's personal philosophies and the origins thereof, but I doubt either of us have the inclination or time to do so.

However, I do "get it." I am comfortable enough in my position to be able to both defend myself and make suggestions to others that their actions may be less than helpful. If I wasn't, then I would truely be a hypocrite. :)

Hahaha. I just noticed something funny.

Ant WRX told me:
Drink a beer (if that isn't against you morals) and chill.


I'm StraightEdge. That's some funny stuff, even if it was unintentional.:lol:

from last i heard... yep yep yep!!:)

I thin there is a bit of misunderstanding going on here. What everyone seems to forget is that cats are not neccesarily the best way to get lower emmisions. The problem as ever started with governments messing where they have no business.

They wanted lower emmisions - fine, but why should they tell the auto makers HOW that is acheieved? GM had a great little engine in European markets, that was lean burn, right up until they mandated the use of cats, lean burn and cats do not mix, so fuel economy went down and emmisions go up.

If the governments of the world are serious about emmisions, they should set a level of nOx, CO, hydrocarbons, on volume produced per mile travelled basis, any other way is just fiddling the figures. The current system of %age of exhaust volumes simply encourages lunacies like post combustion air injection, and the ridiculous system in the US of "clean" SUV's doing 10mpg.

What is the point with the current system, when you can fail for producing just over the limit, and the guy next door driving a car getting 1/2 the mpg, just passes. He is producing almost double the emmisions you are on an absolute basis.

Cat or no Cat? I don't care, I haven't got one, but my exaust is clean

Not that anyone cares, but for the record there is emissions testing in Ohio and it's called e-check. It's required for any vehicle that isn't 25 years old. You have to get it done once every two years and it's about 40 dollars each time. It's mandatory to have it done if you want to renew your plates.

Only reason I mention this is because someone said there wasn't any emissions testing in Ohio, which I believe was inaccurate.

motorob -

Guess what - your 97 Legacy wagon does not meet the CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg on the EPA combined cycle.

YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR PART!

I am not sure how Subaru is going to meet the standard at all this year. In 99, their corp ave. was 27.5 mpg, and they still sold 2.2's.

Now, the 2.2's are gone and the H6 is added, and the 2.0 in the WRX has a lower combined EPA number than the 2.5.

However, they will be just below the average, and they don't sell many cars, so the fine should be relatively small.

SUBARU IS NOT DOING ITS PART!

Why are you guys all arguing, look ... who cares who has what on their car ... you can't go making decisions for everyone ... look I don't necessarily agree with someone pulling their cat off their automobile, but I'm not going to stop them, and I'm not going to start giving them **** because they did it ... WHO CARES ... all I know is that I have one ... and that's all I need to care about ... and the other thing, there are bigger issues on the roads other than who has a cat or who's car is polluting and who's is not. Why doesn't everyone stop medling in what everyone else does. This is America, home of the free, right?

Sorry for all of this, just sick of the fighting ... can't we all just get along?

Matty

thanks for making me well-educated when it comes to emission laws and regulations.

Hey Paul from UK and Blaster88-

Thanks, those are all very interesting points.

I guess I struck a nerve with the CAFE comment. I jsut kind of tossed that out there. Although it is intersting that SUbaru may have trouble meeting that standard. Maybe they need to bring back the Justy?

I've always thought it sucked that we spend a lot of time driving all four wheels when we don't need it. I wish there was some sort of "quick-acting" diff. that would allow the car to be 2wd most of the time. It seems that both form a standpoint of performance and economy that our drivetrains soak up a lot of power.

Maybe a better comment would have been that it would be nice if one's car gets better mileage than the overall fleet of vehicles.

For what it's worth, I use my car for a lot of the same things that knuckleheaded friends of mine use 4wd trucks for, and they're getting about 15 mpg. It irritates the crap out of me, and a lot of them are bigger tree huggers than I am. Totally hypocritical.

I just think it is all kind of funny how what people have heard makes them think that somehow they are earth friendlier than someone else.

I mean, the CAFE standard is a very, very arbitrary thing. It is a number that some guys in Congress could agree to, appearing to "do something" about energy policy, that people have turned into an environmental icon.

So people now say if the CAFE standard was increased, everything would be hunky dory.

Grand silliness. Cars that get more than 40 mpg have 2% market share. Why? People do not really want them.

And what if your car had a better EPA combined number than the current standard, and then they increased the standard, and now you are below it? Did your moral standing somehow get decreased? Are you going to sell your car to get one that beats the new standard?

If you don't, will people call you selfish?

Is the energy and resources expended in the production of a new car more or less than the difference in energy and resource consumption from just keeping the old one?

If its more, is it more selfish to replace the car or to keep it?

What if you are a truck driver, and to be able to afford the newer car, you have to drive more miles?

Grand silliness.