http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/06/oregon-introduces-bill-to-ban-aftermarket-car-parts/ Hope this doesn't catch on elsewhere...
seems like if that did catch on in other states, it would just reduce more jobs. nice try, but i dont think this will happen
won't catch.. Its like that actual law in Minnesota how you can't drive a red car down _______ street. Its just plain stupid. We will try to leave politics out of this too because autoblog didn't haha
without emissions testing etc like California they will find it hard to enforce.. seeing as they got rid of it in MN due to costs...
It is also most likely unconsitutional (violates interstate commerce clause) (CA only gets its own emissions rules because they are basically required by the courts nad have an exemption)
yeha but when will being unconstitutional stop the current radical left pushing anything through... look at the damn pigfarm bill they are trying to push through.. and the other side is as bad.. they all suck.. NANNY STATES... Government just needs to get their F'ing greasy mitts off my money, and do what they are put in power to do... PROTECT its people..and they arent doing their jobs... if Obama says CEO's should have a pay cut, then I demand 99% of the congress etc have a pay cut and get paid for how effective they are... being a politician is a PUBLIC service not a career.... they dont do their job serving the PEOPLE then get them the hell out of there... damn government
CA isn't the only "Green State." There are 11 other states that have adopted California's tough emissions standards: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Five states that have said they plan to jump on board are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Utah.
And Minnesota, to some extent. All new cars sold in MN are required to have CA emissions now. Every Lexus off the factory line has CA emissions; its not even an option anymore.
That's because if they ship to the US, they have to meet California Emissions standards or they can't sell in California. So they meet the standards. It doesn't matter if MN adopted California's standards, no auto maker would make a "CA emissions" car AND then turn around and make a "Black Soot Spewing Emissions" version or whatever for the states without emissions. If you have already tooled the assembly line for this stuff, then it would cost you MORE MONEY to make a car that doesn't meet emissions standards.
Generally speaking, yes. For some silly reason, subaru decided to put a different gas tank in the FWD models. Apparently, the few parts saved was reason enough to piss me off royally...
It makes sense to put a larger gas tank into the FWD imprezas. They took a car, dropped a couple hundred pounds of weight from it in the form of drivetrain parts, put in a gas sipping 1.8L N/A motor and took away the power sapping all wheel drive. Take all that and add a couple extra gallons of gas, and you have a very convenient commuter car that doesn't need to be filled as often.
Either way, I really did not enjoy removing the gas tank from my 16 y/old minnesota car last night. Subaru can kiss my ass.
Actually there are a number of companies that do that. Putting on a slightly cheaper cat saves them $20. Normally higher volume cars. This is sometimes listed on the window sticker as CA emissions or NE emissions. GM does it pretty commonly.
Wait a second... last year when the new Accords were released with their "spectacular gas mileage" (or was it 2007?) there was a big deal in the papers about how CA emission vehicles are only available in the states that have adopted the CA emission standards. It worked out to a savings of roughly $400 per vehicle for the automaker to sell a non-CA emission vehicle. But the reason these vehicles could only be sold in those states was due to some particular language in the Federal Clean Air Act making it federally illegal to sell CA emissions vehicles in a state that did not have CA emission standards. I wish I had more specific details to throw out and the links to the different articles, but it is late and I am lazy. However, it comes to mind that Subaru Drive magazine had a thing on it about that same time, too. Maybe tomorrow I will look for some of the articles as it really was quite a$$-backwards (and being an issue of government, therefore completely plausible).
Um... I drive a red car and actually do go to Minnesota on occasion. :eek4: Which street am I supposed to avoid, 'cause I don't want to get a tint ticket on top of a "Red Car on ___ Street" tow and impound.:laugh:
You can sell a CARB vehicle anywhere. Every 2005 (and up I'd assume) Legacy GT is a CARB legal vehicle, for example (actually I'd imagine pretty much every subaru is -- only large volume vehicle realize the savings of developing two different models)
