rrobello

I was just sent this in an email, and I know this is not about 05+, or even specifically about Mustangs and only pertains to California but it is very important and seeing as pretty much no one reads the regional section it needs to be gotten out to as many people as possible:

Let's jump on this and kill it quick!

Pass this on to anyone who's interested.

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests
for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older

Here we go again! Legislation (A.B. 616) has been introduced in the California Assembly by Assemblyman Dave Jones to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.

We Urge You to Contact Assemblyman Jones and members of the Assembly Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 616

A.B. 616 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.

A.B. 616 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these vehicles to be scrapped.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.

A.B. 616 would increase costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.

A.B. 616 represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.

Please contact members of the California Assembly Transportation Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 616.

Please e-mail a copy of your letter to stevem@sema.org. Thank you for your assistance.

Assembly Transportation Committee
Pedro Nava, Chair
Telephone: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Email: Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov

Michael D. Duvall, Vice-Chair
Telephone: (916) 319-2072
Fax: (916) 319-2172
Email: Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Wilma Amina Carter
Telephone: (916) 319-2062
Fax: (916) 319-2162
Email: Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov

Mike DeSaulnier
Telephone: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
Email: Assemblymember.DeSaulnier@assembly.ca.gov

Cathleen Galgiani
Tel: (916) 319-2017
Fax: (916) 319-2117
Email: Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov

Martin Garrick
Telephone: (916) 319-2074
Fax: (916) 319-2174
Email: Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov

Shirley Horton
Telephone: (916) 319-2078
Email: Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov

Guy S. Houston
Telephone: (916) 319-2015
Fax: (916) 319-2115
Email: Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov

Bob Huff
Telephone: (916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160
Email: assemblymember.huff@assembly.ca.gov

Betty Karnette
Telephone: (916) 319-2054
Email: Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov

Anthony J. Portantino
Telephone: (916) 319-2044
Fax: (916) 319-2144
Email: assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

Ira Ruskin
Telephone: (916) 319 - 2021
Fax: (916) 319 – 2121
Email: Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio
Telephone: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Nell Soto
Telephone: (916) 319-2061
Fax: (916) 319-2161
Email: Assemblymember.Soto@assembly.ca.gov

Hollywood_North GT

Big freakin' deal. We've had that in British Columbia for many years now. You get used to it.

rrobello

how many people own classics in BC that actually drive them, its a different world out here we have sun 95% of the year and there are plenty of people who like to enjoy their vintage cars, now if this is passed with how strict cali is on smog legality it will eventually make it impossible for any pre76 car to pass smog no matter how well maintained it is or how unmoddified (performance wise) it may be; then what they get crushed or put into a museum never to see a road again??? HECK NO!

I dont think Ill ever get use to not seeing classics on the roads on the weekends

Willie

FYI:
Here in Arizona (Maricopa & Pima counties), all vehicles dated 1967 and newer must pass emissions every year. That's a 40 year old car, mind you, that has to pass with exactly the same emissions standards as five year old cars, for example. So don't feel like you're being singled out. It's ridiculous but it's still the law.

New legislation just passed exempting any vehicle with collector's insurance from a yearly emissions check (about time)!

05GT-O.C.D.

It seems like we're constantly 'getting used to' loosing a lot of privlidges. No thanks. We've got enough laws and a big enough nanny government. What starts in Cali ending up spreading to the rest of the Country... like cancer.

I'm far from any type of emissions expert, but I'm guessing that we could improve gas mileage by relaxing some of the emissions regulations. I wonder how much the gas mileage savings could lead to less consumption of fuels... which could lead to less pollution doing fuel production???

bpmurr

Oh but we must save the world from global warming before it's too late! Seriously though your point makes total sense. This crap they put in the gas to make it burn "cleaner" just uses more gas hence us buying more and probably throwing the same amount of polution in the air. Not to mention the ground water issues caused by the additive. Nothing like BS science to support the Global Warming Religion! We must protect the planet.....

The Politburo here in the Peoples Republic of Maryland is looking to adopt Cali standards this coming legislative year. I can't wait.

rrobello

here in cali we have a law saying all cars 76 and newer have to be smogged this is saying that all cars 76 and EALIER will have to be smogged, and to expect a 1930s hotrod or a 57 Bel Air or 67 Fastback to be able to pass by todays CALIFORNIA standard is ridiculous


the exact reason gas keeps going up (especially in Cali) is because enviromentalist are constantly changing emission laws, which to meet this gas is needing to be refined more and more which costs more and more, which is fine if you care more about the enviroment then your pocket book, whats annoying is those same people that biatch about the emissions are also the ones crying the most about gas prices going up, they also dont want to drill for more oil off our coast or in Alaska where there are a lot of untapped resources because it might result in a 1 in a million spill that will kill some fish so lets buy it from foreign countries, but still cry about the prices, while complaining about a war over oil, none of it makes sense, people need to decide whats most important to them and go with that. All of that is kind of off the topic, so back on track this is lame, there arent enough of these old cars to be a big enough of an impact positive or negative, the ones on the road arent gross polluters. This is just another way for the beaurocrats and politicians to falsely create an appearance of solving the problem to make the general population (which on the most part are uneducated baffoons) happy while ignoring the true gross poluters and violators of laws so as to continue to line their pockets and still get elected because the stupid hippies are too blind and ignorant to really see how the real world works.

rrobello

not to mention that electric and hybrid cars are really "ventriliquist" poluters, no one seems to think about the fact that most electricity is made in a plant where theres a great proportionate amount more of polution be pumped into the air than if you add up all of the emissions coming from every single tailpipe on the streets.

Save the planet....drive a big block!!

Hollywood_North GT

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe that global warming ISN'T taking place (a hoax)...or you have a problem with the "green industry" that has sprung up around it (hybrid cars, etc.)?

If it's the former, I couldn't disagree more strongly. If it's the latter, I would agree that things like hybrid cars do little to reduce aggregate greenhouse emissions.

But I think it's a mistake to dismiss the message even though some of the messengers may be hypocrites.

classj

Here in NJ, anything newer than 1976, with the exception of some newer stuff, we go once every 2 years for testing.

I do not see how it matters. As long as they are not going anywhere near my 60's-70's smog producing, global warming, 8-10 mpg iron, I am happy.

Not that it matters, they only get driven 1000 miles a year or so anyway.

I guess it only really matters to those ripping the cats off their new cars.

Hollywood_North GT

I agree that the average "Joe on the road" isn't the only polluter here, and that big government is going after the little guy to keep up the appearance of actually doing something, while allowing the gross polluters (big industry) off mostly scott-free. And why? Because the gross polluters are some of the biggest lobbiests on K street, and no Congress have the stones to go after them. It's total bullsh!t, most obviously typified by this whole buying and selling of green credits nonsense.

But here's two things that aren't total BS >>

- Global warming is real; it is happening; and it is going to profoundly alter our planet (i.e. melting arctic ice destroying the polar bear habitat, etc.). How much of it is planetary cycle and how much of it is human cause, is still open to debate in some quarters, but here's the thing: even if there's only a 50/50 chance that we are making it worse, don't we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to do something about it?

- That said, all these measures so far are a band-aid approach. What we really need is to stop burning fossil fuels ACROSS THE BOARD, en masse, and find a new solution (which would have the side benefit of getting us out of the Middle East once and for all) for powering industry and transportation. The solutions are actually out there now, but there is little movement (thanks to the oil lobby) to adopt it across the board.

And those are the facts.

drakino

Gasoline engines are only about 20% efficient in the conversion of the potential energy in the gas to actual power output to move the car. Where as a gas or coal power plant is around 40% efficiency. For a total electric car, the energy efficiency to get that power to the car including the AC to DC conversion and battery storage will knock it down to around 26%. So even though there may be a coal power plant also spewing pollution to power the electric cars, it has less of an impact on the environment, as more of the energy in the fossil fuel is used to move cars.

Power electric cars off a nuclear, wind, solar, or hydroelectric plant and the impact is far less. The big advantage of electric cars is that the pollution can be centralized and addressed easier.

Hybrids, well not many can be plugged in, so the advantage there is simply higher MPG numbers. Though, real world MPG results on these cars, along with the total energy footprint of the battery production, and european diesel cars end up being better.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Mustang quite a bit, but I'm all for the car companies being pushed towards better technologies for future vehicles to be cleaner and more energy efficient. The industry has stayed still for far too long now. And there will be benefits for those of us who like to go fast in newer cars. Seen the torque ratings on some of those electric motors? They put gas powered cars to shame. 0-60 in 4 seconds in a hybrid sports car.


As far as the base topic at hand, I do think the legislation in Cali should be aimed more at the car manufacturers to improve the newer cars, compared to aiming at the vintage collectors out there. Though if this gets some of the ancient beater cars that are dragging their muffler down the highway and about to rust apart, at least some good will come from it

rrobello

I guess no one actually reads anything anymore, this isnt about new cars, California is already very tough on new cars, this is about cars that are 15YRS OLD AND OLDER.

whats sad is not only are they hypocrites about it, but they seem to make it a political agenda as well, as if one party is more responsible than another or that one is the solution while the other is not, thats what ticks me off the most when I hear people like Al Gore and his hollywood celeb followers start blabbing.

I couldnt agree with you more, this is why I think it is even more important to stop this bill from being passed into law. Its not only not going to do any good, but its going to be nothing more than a nuisance to those who own and/or appreciate classic/vintage cars. People need to wake up and become aware of the real problems if they trully want to make a difference, until then stop taking away my liberties to enjoy the simpler things in life.


Again I agree, the true solution is being ignored; and sadly because those in charge of making these decisions only trully care about being re-elected (no matter what political party), and even worse is that those of the public that "care" are actually too ignorant of the real facts. I personally think that (and this based on actual research and studying I have done on the subject) that the changes we are experiencing have not only been going on for a long time now but are more to do with natural earth changes than it does with humanity messing up this planet. Now we might be adding to it, we may not I dont know, but the fact is that NO ONE really knows; its all still theories at this point. But similar drastic changes have occured before on this planet and will do so again. It happens. And if nature decides that its humanity's time to leave this planet then there is nothing we can really do to stop that; life will go on with or without us. All that said, sure why not try to help out where we can? But lets not kid ourselves, if we are going to help then lets do it right. Hybrids and Electric cars are a joke. They are not going to solve the problem at all and IMO arent nearly as fun to drive as the muscle and sports cars I love. Not to mention more expensive, and dangerous upon impact as well as now to blind pedestrians..lol.

Now something like Hydrogen powered cars are a pretty good start to the solution (which I had time to check out and learn a lot about at the LA Auto Show and they are very cool, sound and drive just like any normal car and Ford, Mercedes, and BMW have some cool stuff coming out for some high performing vehicles; Ford already sells a Hyrdogen powered vehicle). Or they can just make cars more efficient. VW has created a really cool induction package for a version of their European Golf, the GT, where they combine a Supercharger and a turbo. The Supercharger "supplements power until 2400 rpms, when the turbocharger begins to complement the system. When 3500 rpms are achieved, the turbocharger assumes full functionality and the supercharger is electronically disengaged. Consequently, fuel economy is bumped 20% while increasing engine power by 15%." Also Valeo is developing a revolutionary new standard is valve technology. The company’s Smart Valve Actuation (SVA) is to be used in lieu of the conventional mechanically operated cylinder-head design. Rather than employing the cam belt and camshaft to perform the duties of injection control, this new camless engine system is operated by an electronic actuator positioned above the valve mounts. This unit enables optimal valve positioning, can control residual gases, minimizes pumping losses, and deactivates unnecessary cylinders to reduce consumption and emissions by 20%. Additionally, performance is enhanced with low-end torque increases. Or do something like BMW is doing which is to "tap into the heat released when petroleum is burned from the primary internal combustion engine (ICE). The Turbosteamer project is founded on principles first developed with steam engines in the early part of the century, but adopts current technology to reuse 80% of the heat normally dissipated into the exhaust. The steam engine is a secondary and supportive system that supplements power to the ICE, reducing consumption by 15% and increasing output by 10 kilowatts power and 20 Nm of torque." Heck even UPS has a leg up on the law makers, they have "entered a venture with Eaton and the EPA to develop a pair of delivery trucks capable of “green� goals. Each truck features a hydraulic hybrid drivetrain purported to reduce fuel consumption in heavy duty vehicles by nearly 70%." Or how about tires? Nanotechnology is enabling scientists to work on a range of lighter, cheaper and cooler-running automotive tires that also could contribute to reduced fuel consumption and lighter vehicle frames.

Heck if we were to impliment even a small handfull of these ideas we'd be 100 times beyond what they are going to achieve by keeping a small handful of vintage cars off the road. But NOOOOOOO lawmakers have to take the short, easy route to pleasing the masses, because lets face it; its much easier to please and shut up a bunch of morons then it is to do something like, I dunno give tax breaks to these multi billion dollar companies, who have brilliant geniuses behind them, as an incentive to them while enabling them to impliment these technologies, and we ALL win. The lawmakers will please the masses and get re-elected, we will SAVE the planet, and these businesses will make more money which btw is good for the economy.

BACK ON TOPIC: ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! THIS LAW IS COMPLETELY MORONIC, WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING AND BE THE START OF MANY LAWS OF ITS KIND THAT WILL NEVER HAVE THE END RESULT THEY ARE INTENDED TO HAVE, ULTIMATELY LEADING DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE OF ELIMINATING MANY OF YOUR LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS, AS WELL AS THE REDUCTION IN THE PRESERVATION AND MERE EXISTANCE OF OLDER CARS, THE MONEY FROM INSPECTION FEES AND FINES WILL GO TO AIDING IN SCRAPPING THESE OLDER VEHICLES!!!!

rrobello

I agree with you about the efficiency of cars, see my last post, but you are missing a lot of the picture. It isnt just about efficiency when it comes to power plants. Fact is power plants pollute on a much larger scale than cars ever will. Power plants today are severely lacking adequate pollution controls and in doing so, spew 15 million tons of pollution a year into the air. Our government has no problem letting the big offenders off the hook, and the application of pollution controls is not a top priority. That, and the bigwigs in not having to convert or adapt, made them and their shareholders richer. Emissions from cars represent less than 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, where do you think the other 80% is mostly coming from? If all cars were to be converted to electrical power than the amount of electricity these plants will need to produce will increase and thus the polution they create will too increase exponentially. In the most recent of law suits that keep going back and forth between California and the Auto Industry (unfortunately the source, Yahoo News, is no longer available online), Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, "noted that California accounts for roughly 2 percent of the world's global warming emissions. If, as California contends, the automakers are responsible for 30 percent of California's emissions, that would still represent less than 1 percent of global emissions. 'That's definitely going to be a big hurdle [for CA in the lawsuit],' she said."

Other drawbacks to meeting the new regulations California is trying to impliment by forcing automakers to create hybrid and electric powered cars:

"Democratic Congressman John Dingell says the American auto industry, which is centered in his state of Michigan, would suffer under the $3,000 extra per car Detroit claims California's rules will cost."

"REP. JOHN DINGELL: The automobile industry estimates that it will close about eight plants, which assemble automobiles, four transmission plants and four engine plants, resulting in the loss of thousands of American jobs." The few methods I briefly touched on would actually increase the number of jobs available and make the industry money, overall benefitting the economy while reducing emmisions.

and lets not forget that if cars do get better fuel economy people will tend to drive more, ultimately negating everything anyone has worked to prevent. My boss for example while owning just his BMW would stay in the LA area and mainly work at just their restaurant there (he come down like 1 maybe 2 days a week), but then he went and bought a Prius as his DD and is now down here almost every day of the week. Bottom line people are more likely to commute when they think they are saving money, even if its only in the short term of things (people like to live in the NOW and dont seem to notice or care if ultimately they are spending more in the long run), thus creating the same if not more emmissions.

IWantMyNewGT

I also read recently that some hybrid car batteries are made with materials strip-mined in Guatemala and are damaging environmentally fragile areas of the world in the process.

So running dino fuel that comes from a desert may be the better for the planet after all!

rrobello

Im just gonna laugh my **** off when Im old and dying and I read that the latest hippies are trying to outlaw electric cars because the increased amount of electricity needing to be produced to opporate said vehicles is throwing off the earths magnetic field or something stupid like that, it just seems like there is no winning, some people just like to complain and thats it. I say live life for what it is and enjoy it for crying outloud.

Hollywood_North GT

Here's where I have to depart with you. Over 90% of the world's peer reviewed scientists are in agreement that human beings are having a measurable impact on global warming. There are differences of opinion as to precisely how much, but they all agree it is significant. Now, the important distinction here is peer reviewed, which means a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others in the scientific community who are experts in the field, to ensure that no single work is "bought and paid for" by special interests.

Remember, too, it's not only the burning of fossil fuels, it's the clear cutting of regions like the Amazon rain-forest, which most scientists consider the Earth's "lungs." The point being that our collective actions as human beings (because we are over-populating the planet) are combining to wreak havoc. A good microcosmic example of this in nature would be to observe how fast millions of tiny pine beetles can decimate entire forests. Humans are to the Earth as the pine beetles are to the forest.

As I said before, even if we are only contributing 50% to the problem of global warming, that number will amount to a goliath change in the climate of our planet within a single century. And if that staggering figure isn't enough to get us to reverse our proclivities, how 'bout the pollution factor (breathed the air in L.A. recently?) or the fact that we are beholden to countries like Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from) for so much of our oil.

If all of that is not enough, I don't know what is.

rrobello

heres the problem with Science and scientists as a whole (and I am a huge science buff, majored in BioEngineering and worked at TSRI in the molecular bio lab), most things in science are simply theories, no matter how sound they might be, for instance approx. 90% of scientists (probably more) believe in the theory of evolution and that the creation of this planet and life has some kind of rational explanation not due to a greater being, however almost that same percentage of this worlds population believe the opposite and believe in some form of creationism. There was a point where the worlds scientists believed that the world was flat, and before that that the world was the center of the universe. There are so many MAJOR things that science has been wrong about, not to say they are wrong here, but it still is all conjecture as a possible explanation of the changes we are seeing in the worlds climate; there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF. What about when the earth went from the ice age, to a time where the world was a barren desert, to a gassious swamp, to rich and full forests; all relatively over night? Humans werent there to cause those huge, drastic changes, yet they happened. This planet has been progressively been getting hotter for as far back as it has been recorded, which isnt too long in the grand scheme of things, since the early 1900s or so, but long before we started gross poluting this planet. In the 80s they had everyone scared that the world wouldnt make it too far into the new millenium if we didnt change things, and here we are almost 20 years later, millions more people, and more and more pollution being dumped into the air, less and less trees in our forests and yet nothing has changed anywhere near as much as predicted.

I am NOT saying that we arent contributing or that global warming is a hoax, because I dont know for sure one way or the other; what I am saying is that it is not certain that we are having as great of an effect on this planet as people are being scared into thinking. Earth will continue to be here long after we are gone and life and nature will continue. Humans may not have a place in that world but it would be up to nature to decide. Just like the beetles in your example, we are a very small piece of this grand puzzle; the beetles while making noticeable changes to the forests, didnt wipe them off the face of the planet and mean the end of things for forests and we ultimately wont lead to the distruction of the planet. I do however think (and am fully on board for) that yes it would be nice to preserve our wild life and natural lands so we can enjoy them for as long as possible, that dirtying our oceans, lakes and rivers is a travesty, that constantly leveling natural resources to build more and more concrete slabs of civilization is very sad, and that we should let this planets animals that inhabit it with us to live their lives as they normally would without us encroaching on their territory. Those are the things we should be striving for, so that we may enjoy the wonders life has given us.

rrobello

But again it seems that we are slightly off topic here, the point I think we seem to all be in agreement on, is that this bill will not solve anything and suck for classic car owners.

Mustangfreak

I'm glad I don't live in California.