Emissions equipment on cars

[GTAVCBoy90]

Do any of you live in areas where emissions regulations are still in effect?

When I lived in California, we didn't.
One time I visited a buddy of mine whose mom owned an old '74 Camaro with its emissions equipment removed, and when I asked her about it, she told me it was absolutely mandatory to do so at the time she did it, because it wasn't safe to have it on lot of cars{anybody remember the Ford Pinto?}.

That's why I'm against it.
{who screwed with my poll? I didn't put any 'I don't care' option!}

Even though I know most U.S. states no longer have these laws{except for New York and a couple others}, and that Japan has very strict laws{at least compared to us}, I am very curious about whether other countries may have still have these kinds of laws in effect.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Why do you keep saying Japan has stricter emissions laws than the US? Why do you think so many Japanese domestics aren't available here? And yes, I think emissions laws are a good idea; anyone who thought otherwise should be drawn and quartered. If it were up to me, I'd have everyone driving hybrids at the least.

[GTAVCBoy90]

Because Nissan and Toyota just want to avoid any seemingly unnecessary production costs.
For example, many people in the U.S. prefer left-hand drive, am I right?
And it is true that most people in Japan prefer right-hand drive, right?

Think about how much time it would take to perfect a RHD to LHD conversion on any car.

If either company wanted to sell all their Japanese models here:
Let's say for each different models, conversion engineering costs 20-25 million dollars apiece.
If Toyota had 30 models they wished to sell here, how much do you think it would cost?

And what if it took 3 months per model, at only one model at a time?

You have to look at factors like this.
I doubt any car company in the world would spend 7 1/2 years doing that when they could try and develop new models, unless they didn't care about advancement anymore.

Now, the last time I looked up the Japanese emissions laws was 2-3 years ago.
If something has changed since then, please let me know and I will edit my post.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Cars aren't RHD or LHD because people prefer it that way, that's just how it is. And why would you build a car RHD then convert it LHD? That's just stupid and is certainly not how they make LHD cars in Japan. They build the cars being exported to the Americas LHD to begin with. And I don't think it would be terribly difficult to design a car LHD from RHD.

[GTAVCBoy90]

1. We may think that, but I think they're either too lazy to do so, or it really does take a while to perfect the whole process.

2. They don't make LHD domestics in Japan.
I think just about everyone knows that by now.

3. And, if it is true, that would only be the case for the cars that were designed for N. America.

And one question: Why exactly do you support emission laws on cars?
I think just about everyone knows that rail and air transport will always pollute more in a single day than 500 million automobiles will in 12-18 months.
And let's not forget about all the power plants that still burn gas, oil, and coal.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Of course Japan Makes LHD cars, my dad's Mazda Protoge was built in Japan.

Emissions laws aren't just for cars, dude. It's not like railroads and airlines can just go all willy-nilly and use wood for fuel or something stupid like that. And besides, it may not be perfect, but it's sure as hell better than not doing anything at all.

[Hecubus]

In Ontario, we have to have our cars (provided they were built in '87 or later) tested for emissions every two years. It's not really a big deal. I've taken a couple cars in, and the only time I had a problem was because my car didn't have a catalytic converter (the previous owner had taken it off for some reason).

And, I just don't see what the problem is with emissions regulations. Even if cars aren't the biggest polluters, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to any standard at all.

[bashderq]

Bah, it's too late, we've already screwed up the planet. We're all gonna choke to death on our own fumes

p.s - wth has driving positions gotta do with this topic?

[GTAVCBoy90]

Of course Japan Makes LHD cars, my dad's Mazda Protoge was built in Japan.

Emissions laws aren't just for cars, dude. It's not like railroads and airlines can just go all willy-nilly and use wood for fuel or something stupid like that. And besides, it may not be perfect, but it's sure as hell better than not doing anything at all.

@Hazmat: I didn't say that they were just for cars.

What I'm saying is Japanese domestics are RHD, not necessarily everything built there.

Hecubus: Like I said, all the cars in the world will never make nearly as much pollution in one year as air and rail travel will in one day{Maybe not so much rail as air anymore, but then again, that still makes more pollution}.
So no, they shouldn't be held to any standards except safety.

[Grez~Supra_RZ-S]

Actually, the Japanese cars arent illegal in the US b/c of whether theyre LHD or RHD. If that were the case, the US 240SX would come with the SR20DET, rather than the N/A KA24DE. However, due to strict US emission laws, the SR20 is illegal.

I dont actually care about emissions or not. My car is currently running very rich since I put the new turbo on, b/c my ECU is still sending the same fuel into the cylinder as it was when I was running ~1bar of boost. This means that, currently, my car is producing very high emissions, and would fail an MOT test.

However, I do agree with the current speculations. Cars producing higher emissions should have limited mileage. I think this rule should be enforced though, not ignored like it is in the US.

[GTAVCBoy90]

Not in most states.
I will admit, some states such as NY haven't repealed their emissions laws yet, but most have{and CA has illegalized emissions equipment}.

And here's a bonus true story:
My mom was once pulled over for speeding.
The cop who pulled her over asked her if she had emissions equipment, and she said 'Yeah, why?'
The cop then told her that it was illegal, and she would have to get it removed or risk paying a $250-500 fine.
She eventually did, but she wasn't too happy about having to drive to the auto shop the next day because she was sick with a sinus infection at the time.

I think the main reason why the SR20DET was never sold in the U.S. is because {and it came out in '88, I think. You know, I think most Americans wouldn't have cared for a turbo 4-cyl. back then}I doubt it would have found much favor in a country where the favored engine layout was still the V-8.

They do listen to trends, after all.

[boganbusman]

You are an utter clown.


Emissions-controlling equipment will improve fuel economy and (obviously) be better for the environment. So I voted YES, and anyone who voted NO is just an ignorant moron, with no respect for the world they live in or the other people who occupy it.

[steelsnake00]

1. We may think that, but I think they're either too lazy to do so, or it really does take a while to perfect the whole process.

2. They don't make LHD domestics in Japan.
I think just about everyone knows that by now.

3. And, if it is true, that would only be the case for the cars that were designed for N. America.

And one question: Why exactly do you support emission laws on cars?
I think just about everyone knows that rail and air transport will always pollute more in a single day than 500 million automobiles will in 12-18 months.
And let's not forget about all the power plants that still burn gas, oil, and coal.

Please, just give up and leave. You've repeatedly been misinformed and refuse to accept you're wrong, someone so stubborn yet stupid should not be allowed in the presence of some of the members here, particularly the likes of Cro, who seems to have others make up his mind for him.

[Kid Cro]

Ok, I don't have anything with this so miss me this time steelsnake00! Tnx!

[GTAVCBoy90]

@boganbusman: But the thing is, cars don't nearly pollute as much as aircraft do.
And it doesn't always help fuel economy, and it can cause engine problems, and occasionally, there will be a problem so bad, there may be anything from engine failure to fires.

I understand you have respect the environment, and I do, too.
It's just that I think we need to realize that automobiles are not the main source of pollution{probably less than 10%, at least in most countries}.

@steelsnake: May I ask exactly how I have been wrong?

[xHaZxMaTx]

all the cars in the world will never make nearly as much pollution in one year as air and rail travel will in one day

If you honestly think that then you are possibly the most retarded person I have ever met.

[GTAVCBoy90]

Dude, have you seriously thought about this?

Let's say that a jumbo jet burns 200,000 gallons of gas while traveling from New York to L.A.

That's a lotta fuel, don'tcha think?

That would take like, over 10,000 cars to burn that much{assuming the average automobile carries 18 gallons of gas}.

And there are a lot of jets{like 50,000 of them} taking a lot of people to a lot of different places.

Maybe if we started to cut back on jet travel, maybe pollution would go down.

Oh, and my cousin suggested to me that we should also start using hydrogen or other types of power to light up our cities instead of fossil fuels.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Wow, just wow... Fuel consumption and poluttion are two totally different things. If you had a car that burned 100% of it's fuel, but had terrible fuel economy, there would still be 0 pollution. Also, how many cars do you think there are in the world? I would say hundreds of millions. That's like 10,000 times the amount of jets you said there were.

About the hydrogen thing: Hydrogen is a bugger to get. It takes a lot of energy to extract it from water using electrolysis, and where do you think that fuel comes from? It comes from fossil fuels, so that's totally defeating the purpose. As of now, I think our best bet is wind and solar energy, but even that isn't nearly enough energy to power the entire planet. Do some research before you post.

[TheStig]

@GTA,

Mate, How old are you? 6?

Cause my 7 YO sister got a better view at the world then you do!

If it is true what you say, that most US states "forbid" emmision regulations. then they out of their friggin mind! really!.
But then I don't believe 1 word of it!
Why would they do that? every other country is making strickter regulations on cars and any other transport.
For instance in most european countries a special filter for diesel engines in cars and trucks has to be in new models so they produce less hazerdoes exhaust fumes.
All cars after a certain age must have a Catalic Converter if not you can get a ticket. not that they will check you for it? but why would you remove it in a normal car? for the 5 bhp extra power in your 100bhp car? right. get a higher octane fuel if you want a few extra hp.

In case you don't know the US is the biggest poluter of the whole world, the percentage of energie and fuel they consume is far bigger then percentage of people that live in the US, compared to the rest of the world.
Ooh and I also don't believe that trains are producing more then cars.
In almost all of europe 95% of the trains are Electric powered trains so they don't have any exhaust. they only thing is the powerplant that makes they power. In the Netherlands where I live alot of the power these days comes from windmills and we only have a few fosil fuel powerplants left and 1 nuclear reactor wich does not polute the sky (ok it leaves some other nasty stuff. but that's a other story)
And guess what? Windmills don't pol;ute!

But then Back to the US.
They still run Trains on Diesel power. and some big engines. and 1 train can have several engines. wich combined can exhaust alot of stuff. But if you see how extremely LONG these things are and how much cargo they carry. and how many truck you need to get that stuff moving on the road??? ALOT!

Same goes for ships, 1 Global container ship does use alot of Fuel and a nasty fuel even, it a more tarmac then diesel, those ships are fueled with the residu of the Oil industry.
And they use Tons of it a day. But if you count how many containers they carry.
A current Ocean going Container Carrier can carry upto 10.000 20ft Containers and bigger ones (upto 15.000) are being build.
That is 5.000 trucks (2x20ft containers on 1 truck) just take a guess how much those CARS are poluting!!

You have to take things into the right perspective!

[GTAVCBoy90]

17.

Anyway, what I said, is most states have repealed emissions laws for cars, but only CA went that far to do so.
That never applied to anything else, just automobiles.

It is true, but only because we have a lot of air travel inside the country and most of our power still comes from fossil fuels.

Now, I think if we could lessen air travel within our country, we could definitely cut back on the pollution quite a bit.
And, if we make heavy industry a lot cleaner and if we use nuclear or maybe even hydrogen power to power our cities, then we will have definitely have made major progress.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Look, I already told you why hydrogen isn't going to work. As for the planes and trains polluting more than automobiles, Stig brings up a good point. How many trucks do you think it would take to transfer 150 53' trailers? Well, 150, obviously, and that's a lot of trucks.

Planes use an effing lot of fuel, but they're relatively non-polluting. If you took all the people that travel by plane per day, and put the in a car to wherever it is they're going, it's going to create a lot more pollution.

And what's all this about certain states not have emissions laws? That's bull-crap, and simply put, ignorant. Why would states repeal laws that make cars less polluting?

Granted, the way the country is currently run isn't great. We could learn a lot from European countries about public and electric transportation, rather than everyone having their own gas gusling 4X4.

[GTAVCBoy90]

Well, it wouldn't help too much....................

Besides they only produce maybe 10% of the world's pollution.
It's really supposed to be a last-resort thing.........

[Hecubus]

I think the main reason why the SR20DET was never sold in the U.S. is because {and it came out in '88, I think. You know, I think most Americans wouldn't have cared for a turbo 4-cyl. back then}I doubt it would have found much favor in a country where the favored engine layout was still the V-8.

They do listen to trends, after all.

Mr. GTAVCBoy90, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

If you're going to keep putting forth nonsense, do us all a favour and just keep using the Chewbacca defense to prove yourself.

I can't speak with any certainty on what emissions laws the US really has (although I'm fairly sure that if anything, California has some of the strictest emissions laws in the country). However, why the hell would Nissan give the US a naturally aspirated I4 instead of a turboed I4, because Americans prefer V8s? Seriously, my brain is about to explode, because you've created a black hole of logic.

[Bojan]

There is no such thing as hydrogen power. If you think fusion - research in that area has only just begun (the ITER project). Yes, you can burn hydrogen in automobiles, the same as alcohol or gasoline. But you have to produce hydrogen, which is not really cheap energy wise.

USA is one of the few countries on this world that haven't accepted the Kyoto protocol - about reducing CO2 emmissions and other greenhouse gases. USA also takes up 25% of world's energy by having only 5% of the world's population. While the world's co2 emmissions are in decline, the USA's is still rising...

Also reducing air travel will accomplish nothing, since all those people would still travel from one point to another using energy less efficient cars. And there's also the problem of smog in big cities on which the cars have a huge impact.

Untill the nation's philosophy is to create V8 4L cars with zero emmission control and to support profits and industrial growth at all costs, you'll be in the state you are now. The only problem is that the USA's emmissions distribute equally throughout the atmosphere making impact on the rest of the world.

[GTAVCBoy90]

Yes, it's true, automobiles release a little bit of CO2 emissions, but then again, not nearly as much as aircraft do.

No such thing, huh?
Guess we'll have to use nuclear power.