Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday October 15, 2019
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2019, 12:51 PM   #1
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
OMGHi2U Colorado to join CARB in 2023

Colorado to become a CARB state in 2023: https://www.autoblog.com/2019/07/30/...emission-2023/

Quote:
The state, which plans to join the California program starting in the 2023 model year, has agreed to allow automakers to earn credits for selling electric vehicles in the two model years prior and use other transitional credits available in other states.
I wonder what this may portend for the CO alt fuel tax credit program. As I've posted about in my thread, in its current iteration for BEVs and PHEVs it's at $5k through the end of this year, $4k through calendar 2020, $2.5k in 2021, then vanishes.

For context here are the other states that follow CARB rules:

Quote:
CT
DE
ME
MD
MA
NJ
NM
NY
OR
PA
RI
VT
WA
DC
shikataganai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2019, 05:43 PM   #2
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

Good.
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 10:58 AM   #3
Masterauto
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 198376
Join Date: Dec 2008
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Delaware
Vehicle:
18 Alfa GiuliaTi S
LOTUS Esprit ES, ML TDI

Default

I just wonder why all those northern states totally ignore all those oil burner and even coal and wood heating systems that run 24/7 with zero abatement or catalysts ? Is this about clean air and particulate removable ? The way CA is going I would not let them make rules for anything but themselves. I think it's more an anti auto agenda and clean air needs real consideration.
Masterauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 11:15 AM   #4
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
I just wonder why all those northern states totally ignore all those oil burner and even coal and wood heating systems that run 24/7 with zero abatement or catalysts ? Is this about clean air and particulate removable ? The way CA is going I would not let them make rules for anything but themselves. I think it's more an anti auto agenda and clean air needs real consideration.
Hey, I have this cool story about the moon landing. It was staged in a warehouse in California. Also, the earth is flat, space does not exist. Would you like to hear more about this? Click here:
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 11:17 AM   #5
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
I just wonder why all those northern states totally ignore all those oil burner and even coal and wood heating systems that run 24/7 with zero abatement or catalysts ? Is this about clean air and particulate removable ? The way CA is going I would not let them make rules for anything but themselves. I think it's more an anti auto agenda and clean air needs real consideration.


Yup theyíve totally ignored this

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/...uidelines.docx
shikataganai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 11:29 AM   #6
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Boner kill city
Vehicle:
... 2017 BMW M2
2017 F-150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
I just wonder why all those northern states totally ignore all those oil burner and even coal and wood heating systems that run 24/7 with zero abatement or catalysts ? Is this about clean air and particulate removable ? The way CA is going I would not let them make rules for anything but themselves. I think it's more an anti auto agenda and clean air needs real consideration.
Just to give you some context on the history of California clean air act as it relates to cars.

Growing up, the joke in Los Angeles was that people didnít know there was mountains around them due to how heavy the smog and pollution was. You may have heard of this particular republican, some called him the Governator others called him Arnold Schwarzenegger but he is the governor who created and initiated the clean air act. Rather rapidly the pollution levels dropped and people were starting to see the mountains again.

Iím not sure what your hard on is against trying to have cleaner running vehicles. This should legit be a common ****ing sense thing. The ONLY thing I could see disagreeing with is that California has sometimes placed unrealistic goals within a certain timeline. However, thatís has forced auto manufacturers to try their damn hardest to achieve those goals and they re evaluate when they are closer.

Looks like you also donít pay attention to California news, which is understandable. But to directly knock down your argument, California is considering banning installation of natural gas into new homes in an effort to cut down gas usage.

I think you might need to do some researching and also come to grip with reality. This isnít a matter of being some tree hugging liberal (Iím not, most of us are not) but itís about having common ****ing sense that we should work towards having a cleaner environment. Go ahead and move to Los Angeles, Salt Lake City in the winter or any city that suffers from smog pollution and tell me we donít need to make an effort to make things better. Maybe try to see things from outside your Local Bubble.
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 12:12 PM   #7
Masterauto
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 198376
Join Date: Dec 2008
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Delaware
Vehicle:
18 Alfa GiuliaTi S
LOTUS Esprit ES, ML TDI

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
Just to give you some context on the history of California clean air act as it relates to cars.

Growing up, the joke in Los Angeles was that people didnít know there was mountains around them due to how heavy the smog and pollution was. You may have heard of this particular republican, some called him the Governator

I think you might need to do some researching and also come to grip with reality. This isnít a matter of being some tree hugging liberal (Iím not, most of us are not) but itís about having common ****ing sense that we should work towards having a cleaner environment. Go ahead and move to Los Angeles, Salt Lake City in the winter or any city that suffers from smog pollution and tell me we donít need to make an effort to make things better. Maybe try to see things from outside your Local Bubble.
T This all sounds wonderful but if you ever talk to someone who tests these units in the field they are extremely dirty . Not to mention that one wild fire from poorly managed woodlands makes more pollution than all the cars in the world make for a year. CA would also have plenty fresh water for farms and low cost clean electric if they maximized Hydroelectric.
Masterauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 12:17 PM   #8
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
OLD Family Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
I just wonder why all those northern states totally ignore all those oil burner and even coal and wood heating systems that run 24/7 with zero abatement or catalysts ? Is this about clean air and particulate removable ? The way CA is going I would not let them make rules for anything but themselves. I think it's more an anti auto agenda and clean air needs real consideration.
The EPA has performance standards for oil, coal and pellet or wood stoves. Speaking of the latter, those sold since the 1980's have been regulated by the EPA, regulations have gotten significantly tighter since then.
Current wood burning emission standards are 4.5g of smoke per hour of use, in 2020 that goes to 2.0g of smoke per hour of use (EPA Phase II). There are other particulate requirements as well, and although the EPA doesn't specifically require a catalytic converter on stoves sold, good luck meeting the requirements without one.

Note: California only allows EPA Phase II compliant wood stoves to be sold currently (2.0g/h), so they are stricter than the rest of the country (until 2020).

Heat also doesn't run "24/7" heating season in my area is late October/early November to early/late March (New England, specifically CT); light heating required in the beginning and end of the season, heavy heat usage is Mid-December Through February. You can look up heating & degree day information if you wish to educate yourself further, but we've been having heat waves since June and I sure haven't been trying to heat my house.

3 cords of seasoned hard wood roughly equals 2.5 tons of coal, or 510 gallons of No.2 fuel oil; that is about 21,000 kWh of electricity, which would be required to heat the average well insulated house in my area with electricity through a typical heating season; if it's an older house or has lighter insulation and/or cheap windows, then heaven help the owner.

My current electricity usage is just under 600kWh per month (slightly more in the summer for cooling, & Dec/Jan for Christmas lights), even if the heating was spread equally across five months that would be an increase of 4,200kWh per month for five months straight. If everyone in New England switched to electric instead of coal/oil/wood, the seasonal demand on the grid would be insane.

Now mix in the added demand of an EV (significantly less than a heating system) @15k miles per year is about 5,400kWh of demand per year or 450kWh per month, double that if it's a two car household.

Another important factor of course, is money. At the low end you are paying $0.20 per kWh in CT ($0.08 for electricity, $0.12 for distribution), what that means is the 4,800kWh per month for heat and regular usage in the winter months will cost the average person $960/month, and nearly $5,700 annually ($120 x 7 months + $960 x 5 months). That is ignoring an EV or two instead of gas burners.

Solar you say? A 44,000 watt system would be required to meet the average demand. That's about 138 panels (65"x39"), or 2,430 square feet of panel, or roughly a 50 foot by 50 foot square of panels (butted up edge to edge).
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 04:57 PM   #9
hooziewhatsit
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 143938
Join Date: Mar 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Oregon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
3 cords of seasoned hard wood roughly equals 2.5 tons of coal, or 510 gallons of No.2 fuel oil; that is about 21,000 kWh of electricity, which would be required to heat the average well insulated house in my area with electricity through a typical heating season; if it's an older house or has lighter insulation and/or cheap windows, then heaven help the owner.

My current electricity usage is just under 600kWh per month (slightly more in the summer for cooling, & Dec/Jan for Christmas lights), even if the heating was spread equally across five months that would be an increase of 4,200kWh per month for five months straight. If everyone in New England switched to electric instead of coal/oil/wood, the seasonal demand on the grid would be insane.

Now mix in the added demand of an EV (significantly less than a heating system) @15k miles per year is about 5,400kWh of demand per year or 450kWh per month, double that if it's a two car household.

Another important factor of course, is money. At the low end you are paying $0.20 per kWh in CT ($0.08 for electricity, $0.12 for distribution), what that means is the 4,800kWh per month for heat and regular usage in the winter months will cost the average person $960/month, and nearly $5,700 annually ($120 x 7 months + $960 x 5 months). That is ignoring an EV or two instead of gas burners.

Solar you say? A 44,000 watt system would be required to meet the average demand. That's about 138 panels (65"x39"), or 2,430 square feet of panel, or roughly a 50 foot by 50 foot square of panels (butted up edge to edge).
If you convert to resistive heating, then this would be mostly accurate. Going with a heat pump will cut those numbers by 2-4x. Some friends just got a dual zone HP that is good down to -13įF, so they'll work for the majority of the winter just fine.
hooziewhatsit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 01:51 PM   #10
arghx7
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 232940
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: cold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
The EPA has performance standards for oil, coal and pellet or wood stoves. Speaking of the latter, those sold since the 1980's have been regulated by the EPA, regulations have gotten significantly tighter since then.
Current wood burning emission standards are 4.5g of smoke per hour of use, in 2020 that goes to 2.0g of smoke per hour of use (EPA Phase II). There are other particulate requirements as well, and although the EPA doesn't specifically require a catalytic converter on stoves sold, good luck meeting the requirements without one.

Note: California only allows EPA Phase II compliant wood stoves to be sold currently (2.0g/h), so they are stricter than the rest of the country (until 2020).

Heat also doesn't run "24/7" heating season in my area is late October/early November to early/late March (New England, specifically CT); light heating required in the beginning and end of the season, heavy heat usage is Mid-December Through February. You can look up heating & degree day information if you wish to educate yourself further, but we've been having heat waves since June and I sure haven't been trying to heat my house.

3 cords of seasoned hard wood roughly equals 2.5 tons of coal, or 510 gallons of No.2 fuel oil; that is about 21,000 kWh of electricity, which would be required to heat the average well insulated house in my area with electricity through a typical heating season; if it's an older house or has lighter insulation and/or cheap windows, then heaven help the owner.

My current electricity usage is just under 600kWh per month (slightly more in the summer for cooling, & Dec/Jan for Christmas lights), even if the heating was spread equally across five months that would be an increase of 4,200kWh per month for five months straight. If everyone in New England switched to electric instead of coal/oil/wood, the seasonal demand on the grid would be insane.

Now mix in the added demand of an EV (significantly less than a heating system) @15k miles per year is about 5,400kWh of demand per year or 450kWh per month, double that if it's a two car household.

Another important factor of course, is money. At the low end you are paying $0.20 per kWh in CT ($0.08 for electricity, $0.12 for distribution), what that means is the 4,800kWh per month for heat and regular usage in the winter months will cost the average person $960/month, and nearly $5,700 annually ($120 x 7 months + $960 x 5 months). That is ignoring an EV or two instead of gas burners.

Solar you say? A 44,000 watt system would be required to meet the average demand. That's about 138 panels (65"x39"), or 2,430 square feet of panel, or roughly a 50 foot by 50 foot square of panels (butted up edge to edge).
There is already talk of banning natural gas, Berkeley CA just did it for new buildings. Electric heat is going to be insanely expensive for anyone in a colder climate. When I lived in North Carolina I had a heat pump at a rental house and it had to turn on the "emergency" heat to actually keep the house at a comfortable temperature (when it's below 40F out), which is like heating your house with a toaster. I'm skeptical newer designs are that much more effective... how well can a heat pump work when it's 20 F outside without some kind of inefficient supplemental heating?

In Germany they have switched to expensive renewable energy sources for electricity (and Russian gas...), but everyone uses wood stoves to heat their house which of course contributes to particulate emission concentration, same as the dirty VW diesels!
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/...rina_Rippl.pdf

There's no easy affordable answer. And I say that as someone who has a Tesla (charged at work) but runs everything else in the house on natural gas.
arghx7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2019, 02:29 PM   #11
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arghx7 View Post
There is already talk of banning natural gas, Berkeley CA just did it for new buildings. Electric heat is going to be insanely expensive for anyone in a colder climate. When I lived in North Carolina I had a heat pump at a rental house and it had to turn on the "emergency" heat to actually keep the house at a comfortable temperature (when it's below 40F out), which is like heating your house with a toaster. I'm skeptical newer designs are that much more effective... how well can a heat pump work when it's 20 F outside without some kind of inefficient supplemental heating?

In Germany they have switched to expensive renewable energy sources for electricity (and Russian gas...), but everyone uses wood stoves to heat their house which of course contributes to particulate emission concentration, same as the dirty VW diesels!
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/...rina_Rippl.pdf

There's no easy affordable answer. And I say that as someone who has a Tesla (charged at work) but runs everything else in the house on natural gas.
Passive house. You can heat a home with extremely little energy, essentially that toaster might be all you really need. And that point, it doesn't matter your fuel source, because anything can keep up. If we did it in Alaska, it'll work anywhere (https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...frigid-climate)

We need to start building better buildings. Period. There is no other option.

I'm a certified passive house consultant. Energy use in buildings is what I do. Code officials really need to get to tightening the ropes on our building codes to get them way more efficient than they currently are. Unfortunately that has deepening consequences as most major cities face a housing crisis, because it makes homes (a little) more expensive. The dollar calculations on payoff just don't crunch out a lot of the time, even if the carbon offset it gives is massive. Without subsidies, the market is not driving towards it. But when fossil fuel costs are artificially low because of government subsidies, it's not really an even playing field... Problem is, there's no money to be made in people paying less to live, so there's no incentive (dollars in the back pocket) for officials to make change. The people lining their pockets are the ones who stand to gain by us continuing to march down a path of burning everything that's in the ground until there's literally nothing left.
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 11:32 AM   #12
scriptkiddy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 503595
Join Date: Jun 2019
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Los Angeles
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Silver

Default

If CARB is really about emissions, why don't they do a sniffer test and be done with it?

As long as I'm not driving a race car on the road, why do my modifications matter? If the gasses coming out of my tail pipe are clean enough, why does it matter that I run an AOS?

Hell, wouldn't an AOS result in cleaner emissions due to less oil burning?

If someone can give me a legitimate answer to why CARB is so concerned with every little hose and solenoid that doesn't have something to do with making money, I'll be surprised.
scriptkiddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 12:03 PM   #13
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Boner kill city
Vehicle:
... 2017 BMW M2
2017 F-150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scriptkiddy View Post
If CARB is really about emissions, why don't they do a sniffer test and be done with it?

As long as I'm not driving a race car on the road, why do my modifications matter? If the gasses coming out of my tail pipe are clean enough, why does it matter that I run an AOS?

Hell, wouldn't an AOS result in cleaner emissions due to less oil burning?

If someone can give me a legitimate answer to why CARB is so concerned with every little hose and solenoid that doesn't have something to do with making money, I'll be surprised.
A lot of places do sniffer tests and a lot of new testing equipment can detect if there has been a change to any emission control related part.

Can you guarantee that youíll never drive your race car on the road? If so, then why would you even register it in the first place? Can you guarantee all the other people driving around in their catless cars will also not drive on the road and only for track usage? No, no you canít and we know that the overwhelming majority, probably 99% of people with modified cars drive them on the street and not for track use only.

CARB pretty much applies a blanketed requirements such as no modification to factory emission control, must meet a certain threshold for pollutants, gas mileage, etc. If you really think CARB is about making the government money, youíre foolish. Higher mpg vehicles = less tax revenue for states.

But yes, letís all cry a river about how awful it is that the governments places regulations on pollution and mpg ratings. I sure do hate that my truck runs cleaner and gets low to mid 20mpg while outperforming v8ís from 5-10 years ago.


Letís turn the tables for a minute. Give me 3 legitimate reasons why CARB should not exist and we shouldnít move towards cleaner vehicles with improved fuel economy.
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 12:37 PM   #14
Waddlz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 395275
Join Date: Jul 2014
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Brighton, CO
Vehicle:
2012 STi
SWP

Default

oh man. This just paves the way for California emissions here in Colorado.
Waddlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 12:51 PM   #15
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waddlz View Post
oh man. This just paves the way for California emissions here in Colorado.

It doesnít pave the way. It literally is the enaction of California emissions regulations.
shikataganai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 01:01 PM   #16
Waddlz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 395275
Join Date: Jul 2014
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Brighton, CO
Vehicle:
2012 STi
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
It doesnít pave the way. It literally is the enaction of California emissions regulations.
well, not entirely. At least from the article it just means colorado will allow Auto manufactures credits for selling PZEV vehicles here.

"This agreement will ensure that Coloradans have access to the range of clean car choices that are increasingly available to consumers in other states," said Colorado Transportation Department Executive Director Shoshana Lew.

What will be interesting is that the majority of the state has no emissions requirements. I live in Weld County, and its heavily Republican/Red, and their dislike for Polis is extreme. We have no emissions in the majority of the county due to it being a rural farming county.
Waddlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 01:37 PM   #17
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Boner kill city
Vehicle:
... 2017 BMW M2
2017 F-150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waddlz View Post
well, not entirely. At least from the article it just means colorado will allow Auto manufactures credits for selling PZEV vehicles here.

"This agreement will ensure that Coloradans have access to the range of clean car choices that are increasingly available to consumers in other states," said Colorado Transportation Department Executive Director Shoshana Lew.

What will be interesting is that the majority of the state has no emissions requirements. I live in Weld County, and its heavily Republican/Red, and their dislike for Polis is extreme. We have no emissions in the majority of the county due to it being a rural farming county.
It still boggles my mind that being republican = must like coal and oil. Before I left the right, I was very much pro clean energy. You canít claim to be some United States loving patriot while also wanting the surrounding environment to look like complete ****.

Iíll digress before this becomes too political.
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 01:42 PM   #18
Waddlz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 395275
Join Date: Jul 2014
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Brighton, CO
Vehicle:
2012 STi
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
It still boggles my mind that being republican = must like coal and oil. Before I left the right, I was very much pro clean energy. You canít claim to be some United States loving patriot while also wanting the surrounding environment to look like complete ****.

Iíll digress before this becomes too political.
Agreed. its very Pro O&G where I live and anytime I question it I am met with extreme vitriol.

Hell my house was vibrating enough to make me think we were having an earthquake(never experienced one before, Lived in Colorado my entire life) and it was from the fracking.
Waddlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 01:54 PM   #19
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
It doesn’t pave the way. It literally is the enaction of California emissions regulations.
It is not the end of the world.

WA state follows CARB rules. For us, that just means that the vehicles sold here need to meet those standards at the time of sale. We don't have the CARB nazi pulling people onto ramps on the side of the road to look for modifications. In fact, we don't have any vehicle inspections or emissions testing if you have a vehicle newer than 2009, and I think they're starting to phase that out for older cars, likely in an effort to not over penalize those with limited resources who can only afford old cars. Because while lots of righties want to look at WA and say we're uber liberal, our tax system is one of the most regressive in the nation, significantly favoring people who make a ton of money. One reason why lots of rich people who want to shelter their money from taxes live here... i digress.
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 05:51 PM   #20
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwf137 View Post
It is not the end of the world.

You should know from my post history that Iím very much in favor of CARB regulations being adopted.



The way I read it is that as of model year 2023 cars will have to meet CARB emissions standards for sale in CO. That 2021 and 2022 model year ZEVs will give credits in CARBís system to the manufacturers to bank forward wouldnít make any sense were the whole regime not adopted.
shikataganai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 06:27 PM   #21
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
You should know from my post history that Iím very much in favor of CARB regulations being adopted.



The way I read it is that as of model year 2023 cars will have to meet CARB emissions standards for sale in CO. That 2021 and 2022 model year ZEVs will give credits in CARBís system to the manufacturers to bank forward wouldnít make any sense were the whole regime not adopted.
twas more of a response to the other guy, than you directly, just clicked the wrong "quote" i guess...

either way, it will have basically zero effect on the average consumer, and depending on the way CO chooses to enforce the regulations after sale, it might have no impact on tuners either... as is the case in WA state, since we have literally nobody checking up on whether or not our emissions systems are working. Legislature here is relying on the fact that check engine lights come on and people are taking their cars to the shop to get fixed...
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 02:24 PM   #22
scriptkiddy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 503595
Join Date: Jun 2019
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Los Angeles
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Silver

Default

Quote:
Can you guarantee that you’ll never drive your race car on the road? If so, then why would you even register it in the first place? Can you guarantee all the other people driving around in their catless cars will also not drive on the road and only for track usage? No, no you can’t and we know that the overwhelming majority, probably 99% of people with modified cars drive them on the street and not for track use only.
Maybe I should have been more clear. I'm not advocating for people being able to drive race cars and gross polluters on public roads. I'm just saying that if emissions reduction is the true goal, why does it matter that I have a modified exhaust if the gasses coming out of it meet requirements?

Quote:
CARB pretty much applies a blanketed requirements such as no modification to factory emission control, must meet a certain threshold for pollutants, gas mileage, etc.
The thresholds for pollutants makes sense. I also mostly agree with the gas mileage thresholds. However, the specific parts I have on my vehicle shouldn't matter as long as I meet those numbers.

Quote:
If you really think CARB is about making the government money, you’re foolish. Higher mpg vehicles = less tax revenue for states.
I personally believe there is a lot of kickbacks taking place around California emissions laws. That said, I doubt I'd be able to convince you, so we'll leave it at that.

Quote:
But yes, let’s all cry a river about how awful it is that the governments places regulations on pollution and mpg ratings. I sure do hate that my truck runs cleaner and gets low to mid 20mpg while outperforming v8’s from 5-10 years ago.
I'm not against emissions regulations at all. I'm against the fact that literally changing one piece of steel pipe to another piece of steel pipe makes my car fail an inspection even though the actual produced emissions have not changed.

Quote:
Let’s turn the tables for a minute. Give me 3 legitimate reasons why CARB should not exist and we shouldn’t move towards cleaner vehicles with improved fuel economy.
I never claimed CARB shouldn't exist. I just don't like the seemingly arbitrary parts regulations. I understand requirements like: You must have a catalytic converter, but I don't understand why anything other than an OEM catalytic converter on my downpipe will cause me to fail inspection even before my actual emissions are tested.
scriptkiddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 03:02 PM   #23
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scriptkiddy View Post
I'm not against emissions regulations at all. I'm against the fact that literally changing one piece of steel pipe to another piece of steel pipe makes my car fail an inspection even though the actual produced emissions have not changed.
really, it's not that hard to understand... there are engineers working for a manufacturer who create a system that works and is tested to comply with a set of regulations.

Joe Dirt who works at the local muffler shop making aftermarket downpipes is almost certainly not a licensed engineer and does not have the equipment or sophistication to make sure what they're doing meets those regulations.

But large manufacturers do have that ability. And there's a process in place for their products to be approved. (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/aftermkt.htm)

If you purchased a downpipe that wasn't carb certified, how would they know your car met the requirements? Run a test on your car, and then what, give you some sticker? If you're already messing with your car, chances are you're gonna mess with it more. So you need to keep getting re-certified? And the guberment is supposed to just deal with your requests for free? No. They're going to get manufacturers pay for CARB testing and put CARB labels on their products.
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 07:07 PM   #24
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Boner kill city
Vehicle:
... 2017 BMW M2
2017 F-150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scriptkiddy View Post
Maybe I should have been more clear. I'm not advocating for people being able to drive race cars and gross polluters on public roads. I'm just saying that if emissions reduction is the true goal, why does it matter that I have a modified exhaust if the gasses coming out of it meet requirements?



The thresholds for pollutants makes sense. I also mostly agree with the gas mileage thresholds. However, the specific parts I have on my vehicle shouldn't matter as long as I meet those numbers.



I personally believe there is a lot of kickbacks taking place around California emissions laws. That said, I doubt I'd be able to convince you, so we'll leave it at that.



I'm not against emissions regulations at all. I'm against the fact that literally changing one piece of steel pipe to another piece of steel pipe makes my car fail an inspection even though the actual produced emissions have not changed.



I never claimed CARB shouldn't exist. I just don't like the seemingly arbitrary parts regulations. I understand requirements like: You must have a catalytic converter, but I don't understand why anything other than an OEM catalytic converter on my downpipe will cause me to fail inspection even before my actual emissions are tested.
Show me which aftermarket exhaust except for maybe Dinan which have gone through the testing to be CARB certified. Is your exhaust CARB certified? How many vendors are going to go through the expensive process to do it?
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 05:31 PM   #25
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: your spreads like plague
Vehicle:
.... ****s in public
socializes in bathrooms

Default

There are different types of pollution as per exhaust regulation in Cali.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2019 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.