I say if you like your car, you'll take steps to make sure its safe and in proper, efficiant running order at all times. A simple moring walk around, a once a week check of the lights and turnsignals and checking the fluids takes no time at all. When you change your oil, crawl around the under body and check the suspension, u joints, exhaust, gas tank, fuel/brake lines, etc. Spend a little "quality time" with your ride!

Oops, yeah. Sorry. Fixed that.
Absolutely right. Guy Kawasaki (number-2 man at Apple Computer for awhile in the '80s and early '90s) put it very well in one of his books:



To make things happen, to make things work and keep working, it's not enough to pick the right thing to do. The right way of doing it also has to be picked. Similarly, doing the wrong thing, even if it's done the wrong way, won't move the ball forward. Many laws and regulations are a case of "right thing, wrong way".
Often that's the case, but just as often it's not. Many regulators are genuinely knowledgeable in the field they regulate, but they're unable to implement thoughtful, common-sense regulations by factors outside their control. Factors like regulatory procedures that specifically exclude common sense, or political pressure having nothing to do with what's being regulated, etc.
Yes, on the face of it, it's ridiculous that they check to make sure your carburetor has the right tag number on it. It shouldn't matter how emissions are controlled, just that they are controlled. And installing a '70 Dart carburetor on your '66, assuming the carburetor's in good shape, will make your '66 run cleaner than if it had a '66 carburetor (but you'll still flunk CA Smog!). So yes, there are definitely aspects of "right thing, wrong way" here. But, this one isn't quite as cut-and-dried as it might seem to be.

Fact is, a vehicle's emissions performance certification is much, much more than any smog check that's ever been done in any state. It's a multiple-day, multiple-thousand-dollar process, and it really takes all that time and money to make sure that the car is clean. State emissions inspections only do a quicky spot check at a few different engine speeds and/or a few different simulated vehicle speeds, and the standards are considerably laxer than the Federal certification test. The only goal of the state tests is to identify the truly gross polluters. As such, the state tests—even the relatively strict ones—are really easy for any car in good condition to pass, and a pass doesn't mean the car is clean, just means it passes the test. A lot of dirty cars pass the test through a combination of lax test standards, shady smog techs and plain old lying/cheating/tampering.

So, there's a balancing act needed here. The "Anything that'll pass the sniffer is legal!" idea, unfortunately, just isn't workable. On the other hand, neither is the "OEM equipment only, no exceptions" policy.
That might be a little overly simplistic and not entirely accurate. Auto exhaust emissions were an enormous mess when regulations first came in. Somebody had to start to clean up the mess somehow, somewhere. It so happened to be the US and Japan (independently of one another) that led the world on that front, and as a result we got to deal with the results of the clumsy early efforts. Yes, the early regulations were a mess. The science was brand new, and the bleeding edge of knowledge was just barely ahead of the regulations. Much easier transition for the Europeans, who made the quick and easy jump from uncontrolled cars that ran well but dirty to fuel injected cars that ran well and clean in the 1980s, or for the Mexicans, who went from leaded-fuel gross polluters to fuel injection and unleaded gasoline in 1991. But, all along, they were making and breathing air that we decided was unacceptably dirty in the late 1960s.


True. And while we old-car drivers benefit increasingly from new techology—why, just 15 years ago, the answer to a question about putting EFI on a slant-6 was a flat "no"—what we have to remember is that in terms of air pollution, the new/clean majority "subsidizes" the old/dirty minority. In other words, it is precisely because the majority of cars on the road have advanced emission controls that the minority without controls is tolerable. Anything that would tend to reduce this "subsidy", such as fitting a new/clean car with an old/dirty engine, would also tend to reduce the degree to which it's tolerable to drive an old car. Lesson: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT JUST GET IT!

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Lemme guess: U-Haul, right?

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Uhhh, no it had the name and phone number of a rental place 100 miles north of here.

Well I work in Transportation(Big Trucks) and finally found a Mechanic that Passed the car and he did it legally. After looking @ the brakes/pinion seal he came to the conclusion that the other mechanic was "hosing" me for it. the brakes have 96% pad left and the pinion seal isnt even leaking its just the oil spray that I got done that had yet to dry.

All in all It's safe and on the road.

_________________
Stock 68 dart 225.

Whenever I bring a car in to be inspected, I pretty much plan on it being rejected. I'm convinced the testers have a problem with old cars. I had a 66 Chrysler 300 a few years ago, and it was due for inspection. I brought it to one guy, who was sitting in a chair shooting the breeze with a couple of people, and he told me he didn't want to deal with it...and it doesn't need to be tested for emissions! Then I brought it to another shop, and it failed because the turn signal lense on the bumper was spider webbing. It was a 35 year old car, what do they want? But the police never really give you any trouble, from my experience, as long there's at least a rejection sticker on it, even if it's months past the 60 day period to fix it.

Just my $.02; having lived in Michigan (MI) & Indiana before moving to Virginia (VA), I'd never before experienced the yearly state inspection. In VA, inspections are done at for-profit shops, not by the state directly.

I quickly found that it took considerable effort just to find out what was covered, but now (thanks to the web) that's much easier. The details fill an entire book.

In practice, much of the inspection in VA is extremely subjective and somewhat capricious. Sometimes the inspectors didn't put things back together carefully or correctly or do damage during the inspection.

It took me nearly 10 years to find a shop that I could trust to be absolutely honest and fairly competent; I asked around quite a bit, and got comments like "they're really honest - for $65 extra you always pass". [I've also been told that tipping the inspector $20 helps, but I feel uncomfortable with that's possibly questionable legality - any advice?]

VA is very good in that antique vehicles can get antique plates and if not used for daily transportation are exempt from inspection.

Both VA and MI require that all vehicles on the road be properly maintained. Perhaps the inspections are a good thing, but when I compare the cars on the road between MI (w/o) and VA (w/ inspections) I see absolutely no difference in the rate of burned out headlights, missing brakelights, etc. Inspections are very profitable for the state, and I've been told that's the main reason they continue here in VA.