Reply to "New Smog Legislation for California"

Visual inspections serve no other purpose than to fail a car for failure to have a piece of equipment. Failing a car generates dollars. Whether its through retesting, fixing, or replacing the car.

If the goal is emmisions reduction and/or maintaining stock emmisions levels why should any gov't agency care how I obtain those levels as long as it passes?

A number of years back Hot Rod did a comparison of a stock Nova and one that was modified with a larger than stock engine (454 I beleive)and blown. The blown motor ran much more efficiently than the stocker but because it had none of the original smog devices even in the engine compartment much less working, it failed. So the owner of the blown Nova has two choices: fix it to get it to comply visually (big $$$$) or scrap it and buy something else (like the Nova that failed/more $$$). Did the gov't accomplish its goal? Nope.

I don't have an issue with annual inspections but I do have a issue with the visual requirement whether it is federally mandated or state mandated. Drop the visuals and I will vote for it but as long as my car can fail because I have the wrong gas cap on it (that's not made up either it happened) you will have a hard time convincing me.

I work for a SoCal paint manufacturer and we deal with the SCAQMD (Southern Cal Air Quality Management District) on a regular basis. The illogical descisions that are made daily in the name of improving our air quality astound me.

This is just another one.

Miles