Hello everyone,
I’ve been hearing a rumor going around that this fall the law for smog testing in MA is changing from any vehicle made previous to 1996(?) will not require a smog test on inspection, or something of that nature.
I know the current law is any car older than 1983.
If anyone knows what is happening with this I would greatly appreciate some closure to this rumor. Thanks
If they had any brains, they would abandon emissions testing altogether, nationwide. It accomplishes NOTHING. The failure rate for this “test” is too low to make ANY measurable difference in air quality, the stated purpose for doing the test. Emissions testing is just a revenue cow to be milked. The Mom & Pop gas stations live off this revenue and they will not give it up without a big fight. It’s a welfare program for grease monkeys…But as the oil companies close all their small stations and consolidate gasoline sales at big self-service pumpers, the State may give it up if the Federal EPA will let them…
In AZ the cut-off is 65. I dont see why the older cars are not the ones to be tested,they do have the highest emmissions.It must be that there are so few of these old cars. Now CA. wants to add carbon dioxide (do I have the gas correct?) as a gas to be tested for.This will keep the test stations open.I also believe their time is up.The politics of vehicle emmission testing are in force here.
You’ve got it backwards, Caddyman. The emissions tests act as a deterrent against people letting their cars go to pot or actively disabling emissions equipment. The fact that the vast majority of cars pass means the testing program is working.
I agree with Caddyman. The emissions test, as it’s conducted in most states, is pointless. The test catches a few of the least harmful polluters and lets the gross polluting vehicles go. It’s a money-maker, and does little good.
Older vehicles, which spew the most pollution, are exempt in most states, so what’s the point? We’re harassing the few motorists who ignore their “check engine” light, while the really bad polluters go free; untested, unchallenged, and unrestrained.
The current emissions testing system is, in most states, as sham. Maybe even a scam.
In what way would eliminating emissions testing improve air quality?
Regarding exempting older, more polluting cars from testing, those vehicles are eliminated from the vehicle pool by attrition, so they are less of a factor as time goes on. How many 1980’s or earlier vehicles do you see on the road nowadays?
In the big metropolitan areas that have air quality problems, today, it’s commercial DIESEL powered vehicles that are causing the problems…If they are tested at all, the procedure used to test them is a joke. Modern gasoline powered cars are simply no longer a air quality problem. The carbon monoxide problems of the '70’s are over. Tampering is not an issue. The tests are unneeded.
There’s no need to start a whole debate on whether emissions testing is logical or not. I am just curious because I am hoping I will be able to rip out the pollution control in my '85 camaro this year.
shrugs
What MA is going to is what NH did when they finally instituted emissions testing last year. There is no tailpipe inspection. Instead they just hook up to the OBD-II and read the codes. No codes and it passes inspection.
It’s a money-maker, and does little good.
Money maker for WHO??? Most mechanics in NH had to dish out $3000 for the computer and hookup to do inspections. They are LOOSING money. And because the way the system is set up…ALL READINGS go to the state…very difficult to be swindled by a sleazy mechanic.
I am just curious because I am hoping I will be able to rip out the pollution control in my '85 camaro this year.
MA law may have eliminated emission testing for your car…but it’s against federal law to remove any pollution control devices from your car. Now chances are you probably won’t get caught. But if you do it’s a hefty fine (well over $1000).
Took the words right out of my mouth. Very unsanitary, BTW.
What Mike said.
In truth, the OBD-II download is simply an agreement with the EPA that eliminated tailpipe testing. It doesn’t actually test for emissions, it simply checks to see if the car’s computer has detected any emissions systems faults and stored a code. It only applies to 1996 and after cars because that’s the first model year in which OBD-II systems were required. Personally, I think it’s a farce.
I agree with Caddyman. Current emissions testing via OBD-II downloads does not really check for emissions, and it doesn’t check for the old vehicles, the highest private-vehicle emmiters. It’s a farce.
I also agree with Caddyman that the real problem at the current stage of this clean-air evolution is, by far and away, diesel trucks, which are not required to be tested to meet the requirements of the clean air act. There are manufacturing requirements (minimal) but that’s the end of the control (California excepted). Probably 19 out of 20 of the diesel truck out there are blowing huge clouds of NOx, CO, and HC 16 to 24 hours a day, six days a week continuously, 312 days a year. That’s 5,000 to 7,000 hours per truck per year. As opposed to our fully emission controlled cars putting out miniscule amounts of contaminants in the ppm range for probably 500 to 700 hours per year.
It’s about politics now. It’s no longer about emissions. We need a lobby as powerful as the trucker’s lobby. We don’t have one.
Oh, as to the question, I’m unfamiliar with what Mass is doing. Perhaps it’s the same as what NH did.
Maybe the testing part is a farce…but making cars run cleaner is NOT. I’ve personally seen a MAJOR difference in the air I breath from 30 years ago to present…MAJOR MAJOR difference in the quality of air.
You’ll note that I said “in our current state of clean air evolution”. I agree that 30 years ago (40, actually, when this who thing started) something needed to be done. However at this point in time gains to be made by continuing to tighten restictions on automobiles are negligible. Manufacturing requirements alone will fill the bill.
Additionally, meaningful emissions testing can be done with a sniffer, the way Mass and NH were doing it. I’m not convined that OBD-II downloads are accurate or meaningful emissions tests. They’re only a check of whether the computer has stored any codes. I still think they’re a farce.
However we still nave a very serious pollution issue with diesel trucks. Great gains can be made in clenaing up the environment by focusing on that area. Diesels should not be allowed to pour pollutants unchecked into the environment in huge quantities either…but they are.
Those were my real points, which are somewhat different from a discussion of whether we needed emissions regulations and testing 40 years ago. We clearly did.
I’ll agree 100% with that MB.
However at this point in time gains to be made by continuing to tighten restictions on automobiles are negligible.
That is an entirely different issue from testing, and I fully agree that we have probably reached a point of diminishing returns on this. Taking a few hundred gross polluters off the road (or fixing them) beats thousands of new vehicles with emissions standard below the current ones hands down, both environmentally AND financially.
I’ve also heard the rumor about the MA Emission laws changing. Does anyone know yet if it has been confirmed??
While you may no longer be subject to testing, the state inspection may also include visual checking for modification of emission system. You could still fail for having removed the equipment.
Was there a specific reason you wanted to remove it?
It’s a money-maker, and does little good.
Money maker for WHO??? Most mechanics in NH had to dish out $3000 for the computer and hookup to do inspections. They are LOOSING money. And because the way the system is set up…ALL READINGS go to the state…very difficult to be swindled by a sleazy mechanic.
You’re right, the EMISSIONS test is tough to cheat but in MA, they combine it with a SAFETY inspection. This is where there is a lot of latitude to fleece customers for premature, unnecessary or inflated repairs. If it wasn’t lucrative, they wouldn’t get involved.