F18Rep

My old 944s have finally made it out to pasture - at least as far as yearly smog inspections go. And, I am happily running simulated catalytic converters here in Missouri. But this week I read about the excitement coming from our government owned auto companies, I guess all states will now impose the same same smog levels. Is that just for NEW cars or is there some plan within the plan to make us all comply to a uniform yearly inspection standard? Bruce

67King

No, you (we) are safe. This whole thing has a LONG history. First thing you need to know is that the auto companies are governed by three agencies - NHTSA for safety, EPA for emissions, and CAFE for fuel economy. All three have conflicting interests. Of those, state governments can set their own emissions standards, but not the others.

I was an engineer for Ford (an engine engineer, literally) until 2007, when I bailed. Anyway, at that point in time, the then-new CAFE standards were coming out, California wanted more, but they were not allowed to make their own CAFE standards. So, one way they wanted to get around it was by calling CO2 a toxic emission. I won't get into my thoughts on that, because it all centers around the global warming propoganda. Anyway, EPA originally said no, so California sued the EPA, and eventually won.

Over the past nearly 50 years, the Big 3 have made two versions of the same car - a green state (originally California, but there are I think 12 states, now), and a 49 state one. No one liked it, but it was tolerable. However, while emissions could be handled differently, fuel economy is another matter, entirely. It would basically take the car companies away from having to add a few things to existing cars, and make them build two entirely different sets of cars. Why not just sell the California car everywhere? No one would buy them if they had a choice - the F-series and Silverado/Sierra are still the two best selling vehicles on the road. And a company that would be healthy enough to make the variety would, essentially forcing everyone to. This would add costs across the board.

So, the auto companies have been crying uncle over multi-state legislation ever since the EPA lost its court case. This is what this piece of legislation was all about.

Mark944na86

Not "toxic". CO2 (as well methane, oxides of nitrogen and two other industrial gases) pollution was described in the lawsuit as a threat to "the public health and welfare." The lawsuit was to force the EPA to regulate these gases as pollutants.

http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2...2-finding-duh/

67King

Of course it isn't toxic. It is exhaled by everything in the animal kingdom, and is to plants as oxygen is to us. The point was merely that California wanted to regulate fuel economy, but wasn't legally capable. They got around it by having CO2 classified with chemicals that actually ARE detremental, such as nitrous oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. The other things regulated by the EPA are not naturally occurring, and contribute to smog.

roman944

this whole "go green" thing has got to stop ... talk about a fad ...

Mark944na86

I think you'll find that methane, nitrous oxides and even unburned hydrocarbons are in fact also all naturally occurring chemicals. It's not the fact that they are somehow "unnatural" that makes them a problem, it's the concentrations in which they occur that makes them a detriment to "the public health and welfare", or not.

But, if you have reason to believe that the EPA has it wrong, and that CO2 at above, say, 450ppm in the atmosphere is not detrimental to "the public health and welfare", maybe you should write them a letter.

But I'm glad you agree that no-one was ever describing CO2 as "toxic". A silly thing to say.

67King

Please. The EPA isn't interested in the facts any more than any other political hack from either side of the aisle. They are as interested in both sides of teh argument as Rush Limbaugh is both sides of the evolution argument.

Legoland951

944s are clean burning vehicles so I have never had problems passing smog with proper AFM adjustments and a working catalytic converter to pass the stringent California smog program. I have smogged at least 100 944s in the past which some were not my own so I have extensive experience to which some listers would not believe until they have seen it pass with their own "impossible to pass after 3 fails" cars pass by nothing more than AFM adjustment. Also, if I could modify my 944 to get 35mpg, I would try. This is why I am would swap out the short 5th gear out of my turbo for a tall one as I don't use 5th to accelerate. Last time I did that, It not only ran out of puff to hit redline, it also got me a one "lose my license for one month and double my insurance" ticket.

I never got why some people consider global warming a propaganda. What is the purpose and gain to such a propaganda? Why is it bad not to waste (hard concept to grasp in our wasteful country)? Why would so many people "conspire" in so many countries (mostly not the US) to push this "agenda" and if so what are the outcomes of such a push? A cleaner environment? Less dependence on oil (highest national security issue IMO)? Higher efficiency cars with less waste by recycling kinetic energy and momentum through hybrids or electric vehicles? Less sulfuric acid rain from fewer coal burning power plants? Yes cars will cost more but if we didn't care about that, slap a carburetor on our cars and save a bundle straight from the factory. If someone can explain why pushing a global warming "agenda" is a bad thing, let me know.

BTW, just about anything is toxic in high enough concentrations so its semantics. Though its not as toxic as HCN or H2S gas, put yourself in a CO2 tank and you will die.

V2Rocket

im going to be putting the tall 5th on my turbo box too for better cruising RPM and MPGs

but no, fuel economy laws wont affect our cars since the new regulations say that new car manufacturers have to have an average fuel economy in their company of ~35mpg. it only affects new cars.

as for smog, they would have to drastically alter the emissions limits to make a 944 "dirty". you would probably see all hondas made before 2000 removed from the road due to failed emissions before a 944.

FRporscheman

I for one would love to see the rest of the country join us in modern times and take responsibility for their share of pollution. I pay fees and do my part to keep the air clean while someone else across state lines is crapping up the atmosphere for both of us?

But I think as far as 944s and other oldies are concerned, I think it will remain the way it is.

dmalo810

Hey, I heard the government is also issueing corks for everyone. Also, you can only have mexican food once a month. Is that true? They said it has something to do with methane? Please explain!

Really, you want to spend trillions of dollars impacting less than 1% of the atmosphere? Let's go ahead and bankrupt the world. Also, if China doesn't sign on, then nothing changes.

Actually, we are in a global cooling state right now. So it that why it's refered to as "climate change" now?

67King

Well, I've no desire to get into a political discussion here. Sorry for bringing it up, I was just trying to explain the background that has led to the recent events, and positioning from the auto makers. Anyway, I'm all for conservation and improvements in efficiency. I'm actually in the process of forming a company that is working in the field of lighting, with a technology that can double the efficiency of CFL's. My personal motivations are centered around impoving efficiencies, and energy independence. I personally think that there is room for both sides to work to a common goal if we can remove the hysteria around A) terroristic threats and B) global warming. We've just switched our focus from A to B, recently :-)

Regardless, there is a PLETHORA of evidence that contradicts the hysteria surrounding global warming, not least of which was the 35 year trend from the mid 40's through the 70's where CO2 levels went up, and global average temperatures went down. History has shown that balderdash can be called science, and get implanted into popular culture. Look into "Eugenics" as evidence of this. And unfortunately, the environmental movement has shifted from well intended, data driven people, to radicals who have shown a willingness to sabatoge things to push their agenda, which is not always about the environment (ever look into exceptions in the Kyoto treat? Why are developing countries exempt, when they are the largest source?).

As for our 944's. CARB pushed OBD I - GOOD THING. I'm glad they did, for many reasons. CARB also pushed OBD II. Again, good thing, and I'm glad they did. But, you may be surprised to know that OBD I cars pollution levels are about 20 times higher than modern cars. Anyone driving a car made before 1996 isn't doing the envronment any favors.

Legoland951

So far, there have been no retroactive smog laws to vehicles that were exempt before that I know of so I agree that 944s will not be affected. However, if there is an affordable way for me to install solar panels on my roof to get me off the grid and economically convert to an electric 944 with some super batteries getting similar performance, I would do it in a heartbeat.

67king, I agree with you that the laws are BS in many ways. Look at the refinery down the street spewing chunks of junk onto my windshield as I drive by and they want to limit OBDII emissions and even monitor car emissions by telemetry in real time? Yes it has been proposed. I like to see emissions testing on all these Texas and out of Ca. coal fired power plants before any more limits are placed on my cars. Also, the maximum numbers to pass smog for a pre OBD standard 1987 944 is 118ppm, 0.75%, and 799ppm for HC, CO, and NOx at 15mph respectively 93, 0.63, and 739 at 25mph. The max for my 2000 Honda OBDII odyssey is 47, .60, and 494 at 15mph and 31, 73, 747 at 25mph. As you can see, California does not allow that much difference between pre OBD to the OBDII maxes and in 25mph CO and NOx the OBDII has a HIGHER limit than my pre OBD 944. With a good cat, my 944 can beat my honda emissions in all 3 measured catagories though.

Bankrupt the world? I think $4 a gallon gas killed the SUV fad and caused a good amount of the recession going on right now so lets wait until its $10 a gallon before we do something. Many of the OPEC members are anti US and you want us to depend on them? Also, I thought action for anything including creating a new industry create jobs especially in the US. Instead of having new jobs here in the US, you would like us to ship all our $ to Hugo Chavez and the arabs in the middle east?. Kicking our oil addiction will bankrupt idiotic people running idiotic companies like GM. It will reward companies like Honda and Toyota. Maybe we should go back to leaded gasoline as its only 1 percent of the atmosphere as you claim. So lets waste on and trash on. Lets litter on our streets as I am sure paved streets represent less than 1 percent of the surface of the earth or maybe let someone **** on 1 percent of your bed.

V2Rocket

ill dig up my latest smog sheet later, i got it done about a week after i got a brand new cat welded onto the car and i believe i had some pretty low numbers on there

also did the trick of running the tank down super low and then filling it with high-test and adding fuel system cleaner too lol, along with a fresh gas cap, new plugs, and...and....

M758

The worst that will happen to the 944 is that places with out smog/emissions testing may require them. However they cannot require a car to pass emissions limit that exceed the limits when new. Even if the car is perfect you cant' expect an 84 car to pass 2010 emissions limits.

Now I a few years ago I bought and old beat up 83 944 for $1200 and with exception of gas tank cap it passed emissions testing here in Az with no issues. This was despite some cracked rings.

Point is these car will pass their model year limits easily if they are resonably sound.