 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Porsche / Porsche Cars / February 2006CA Smog - Out-of-State 911 SC
Any "excitement" ahead for me when trying to get a smog certificate in California on an otherwise good-condition, low-mileage, 100% stock 1982 911 SC coming from Florida. The car has spent it's entire previous existence in Florida and has no prior problems with passing smog tests there. Thanks for any help. > Any "excitement" ahead for me when trying to get a smog certificate in > California on an otherwise good-condition, low-mileage, 100% stock 1982 > 911 SC coming from Florida. The car has spent it's entire previous > existence in Florida and has no prior problems with passing smog tests > there. Thanks for any help. That is because we have no smog checks in Florida. :>) The Nazis in the People's Republik of Kalifornia Air Resources Board are trying to get all of the "old cars" off the road. They really make it difficult for owners of exotic cars. I escaped from the PRK to FL 7 years ago and haven't been back. >>Any "excitement" ahead for me when trying to get a smog certificate in >>California on an otherwise good-condition, low-mileage, 100% stock 1982 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I escaped from the PRK to FL 7 years ago and haven't been back. They're just trying to keep the air that drifts ~your way~ a little cleaner, is all. You should thank them. While their policies and laws may irritate some and baffle others (I am no exception), I have generally found Kalifornia to be more progressive and aggressive in adopting regulations for social-economic issues, like cleaning up the environment, which they've certainly 'soiled' just like the rest of us. Unfortunately, this may mean getting cars that pollute more off the road. Not knowing the law, I would venture that the intent would be to remove old fog-belching Mavericks, Delta 88s, or Pintos, but collateral damage being what is is, Porsches, Ferraris and Mercedes' have a tougher time, too. C'est la vie. Someone there hopefully has more accurate information on this issue. I is my opinion that they need this progressive and aggressive stance to keep up with all the progressively aggressive people there. I'm poking a bit, but that state is very fast by its nature. Things tend to move quickly, especially traffic. I am a fast(er) driver, but whenever I drive there, I seem 10mph slower. Washington drivers merge early, drive slow in the fast lane, and can't drive in the nearly constant rain. The Golden State drivers would eat them alive. There should be a competition... Didn't take long to invoke Godwin on this, did it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law DS 95 993 Coupe Former Californian here... Your 911 will have to be complete and definitely up to snuff. If there is one thing missing/bypassed/broken on the emissions system, you will fail. Make sure you are tuned up and running clean because the Smog II test is much stiffer than the old Smog I. You may also not be allowed (and probably won't in the future) to take the test at a regular station...they will send you to a test only station which costs triple (ask me how I know, bringing in a car from out of state) Just make sure the 911 is up to standards and you should be fine. 911S's from the mid 70's have the most trouble passing. >>>Any "excitement" ahead for me when trying to get a smog certificate in >>>California on an otherwise good-condition, low-mileage, 100% stock 1982 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > DS > 95 993 Coupe > >>Any "excitement" ahead for me when trying to get a smog certificate in > >>California on an otherwise good-condition, low-mileage, 100% stock 1982 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > DS > 95 993 Coupe What does "progressively aggressive" mean? In my book, it means "oppressive" and that common sense should be thrown out in favor of bureaucratic solutions. Remember, environmentalism was the first refuge sought by the old Leftists when Communism imploded. > What does "progressively aggressive" mean? > > In my book, it means "oppressive" and that common sense should be thrown > out in favor of bureaucratic solutions. Remember, environmentalism was > the first refuge sought by the old Leftists when Communism imploded. I can understand your perspective with regards to bureaucracies, and can even empathize with the OP about the tough smog rules, but I don't really share the rest of that perspective too awfully much. As it is, I don't think we do enough to take care of what we have around us. It means being smart about our choices. Efficiently conserving our supply. Blindly using everything around us seems unfair to us, our descendants, and the very things that we use. We're disrespecting and cheating ourselves as a species. Think of it as if we only had one tank of gas to make it across the desert. We'd likely use that gas pretty frugally to get as far as possible, no? It is not a limitless supply and we don't particularly want to be stranded in the desert. It's hot. We'd cook. A corollary could be drawn about the world around you as it is not without its varying limits. You and I both see the evidence around us of those limits. Whether it manifests itself as less fish in the lake/stream/ocean where you used to fish, less living space in your neck of the woods, more laws made, higher taxes, less oil reserves, or even smog tests to keep our atmosphere cleaner they are all representative components of the finite nature of things. Are we all hoping that we'll all get transported to a new planet anytime soon? It will not happen in our lifetimes. Are scientists going to suddenly solve the puzzle of creating energy from nothing? This puzzle ~is~ a tough one and will likely go unsolved. This blue marble is all we have, with a little help from the Sun. As much as I await the terraforming of Mars or the Moon, we've simply got to make our tank last as long as possible. Past our lifetimes. We all take part in the use of energy and the soiling of the Earth in differing degrees, but if more of us start to think about what we are doing, instead of blindly and numbly marching forth, that's a positive start. That's what I see California doing. Waking people up. There will come a day when this planet will be tapped out. It might be one hundred years or one thousand. Do not cast this away simply because it will not occur in your lifetime. We are all responsible. However far it may be off, we have to make it across the desert to the next station. That's all. But while we all wait for the end of the planet, we can have fun and enjoy our Porsches, too. There are no rules against that, yet. Unless, of course, you move to California. ;~P DS 95 993 Coupe 74 914 > > What does "progressively aggressive" mean? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to us, our descendants, and the very things that we use. We're > disrespecting and cheating ourselves as a species. (some sentiments cut) > We all take part in the use of energy and the soiling of the Earth in > differing degrees, but if more of us start to think about what we are > doing, instead of blindly and numbly marching forth, that's a positive > start. That's what I see California doing. Waking people up. I see a bunch of petty dictators attempting to control people's lives. > There will come a day when this planet will be tapped out. It might be > one hundred years or one thousand. Do not cast this away simply because > it will not occur in your lifetime. We are all responsible. However > far it may be off, we have to make it across the desert to the next > station. That's all. For instance, let's get shale oil and coal synfuels on line. > But while we all wait for the end of the planet, we can have fun and > enjoy our Porsches, too. There are no rules against that, yet. Unless, > of course, you move to California. ;~P I have to agree with the sentiments; however: What I have seen is blind stupidity. For example: the requirement for oxygenates in the fuel: Oxygenates lower your fuel efficiency and cost extra energy in their manufacture. Getting rid of lead was a good thing -- lead has to have scavengers (which are corrosive) and is toxic. I have also learned not to trust anything coming out of the environmental movement without careful examination. As I posted earlier, environmentalism is the refuge of the old Leftists, whose goal was (still is) destruction of freedom and social (economic) mobility. Their desire is pure control -- everybody else be damned. >> We all take part in the use of energy and the soiling of the Earth in >>differing degrees, but if more of us start to think about what we are >>doing, instead of blindly and numbly marching forth, that's a positive >>start. That's what I see California doing. Waking people up. > > I see a bunch of petty dictators attempting to control people's lives. That sounds exactly like the Bush administration...! ;~P California leads other states with these types of things. The rest of the Union ends up adopting many CA (and NY) laws. Mostly because they make sense, I would think, but that can be up to your own interpretation. >> There will come a day when this planet will be tapped out. It might be >>one hundred years or one thousand. Do not cast this away simply because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > For instance, let's get shale oil and coal synfuels on line. Rest assured, we will. We will use as much as we are able, but have you heard of Peak Oil? >> But while we all wait for the end of the planet, we can have fun and >>enjoy our Porsches, too. There are no rules against that, yet. Unless, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > oxygenates in the fuel: Oxygenates lower your fuel efficiency and cost > extra energy in their manufacture. It is my understanding that adding oxygenates (RFG) promotes the burning of fuel and actually increases its efficiency. The fuel is also chemically leaner, which further enhances combustion and reduces emmissions. Perhaps it does cost more to produce, but changing those pesky carbon monoxide atoms to carbon dioxide atoms is a pretty useful effect, too. > Getting rid of lead was a good thing -- lead has to have scavengers > (which are corrosive) and is toxic. But lead can block x-ray vision! How cool is that?!? > I have also learned not to trust anything coming out of the > environmental movement without careful examination. That's okay! Everything that doesn't fit your point of view _should_ be examined carefully. Your exercising your critical thinking bone. Gotta respect a bloke for that. > As I posted earlier, > environmentalism is the refuge of the old Leftists, whose goal was > (still is) destruction of freedom and social (economic) mobility. Their > desire is pure control -- everybody else be damned. Here's a place where we would seem to disagree. As I read it, this statement smacks of the extreme Right while perfectly describing the Right (sans caring about the environment) as it is perceived by nearly everybody else. Isn't that odd? Isn't it funny how both extremes can be perceived alike? Perhaps we should all meet in the middle. Everyone up the middle (and there are a _lot_ of them) believe there should be a balance in forging forward in our world, but as soon as environment (as well as several other hot-button topics) is mentioned, the Right label whoever is talking with a Lefty or Liberal brand and shout them down. That is Fox News. Reality should not be like that. Reasonable discussion among reasonable people seems oddly easy enough to do. There are going to be more restrictions imposed upon us each and every day. They are obviously not all forced by the Left. Some are from the Right and some are just plain things we need from the middle. Each and every one should be critically questioned to see if it makes sense. As you and I know, not all get the closest scrutiny. Hey, who's got the time? There are more and more of us and the space we are in and the supplies we have are shrinking. This is just one more thing we'll have to deal with. Tomorrow there will be another. Write your favorite government representative and then go for a drive. You'll feel better. I know I do. DS 95 993 Coupe 74 914 : Perhaps we should all meet in the middle. Everyone : up the middle (and there are a _lot_ of them) believe there should be a : balance in forging forward in our world, yep. however point 1. Here in Germany, the leadership of The Greens really *is* made up of former radicals and they really are control freaks. Trittin, the former minister of the environment seriously suggested limiting the general public to one overseas vacation every four years so as to cut back on air travel emissions. Of course government ministers would have been exempt from this proposal. point 2. (really a question) why do attendees insist on having conferences on global warming in exotic locations and not somewhere closer to home, like Toledo, Ohio, (or Bakersfield, California) for example? I quite agree there's much to be done on conserving our resources, and most people are by nature centrists. We do what we can, and are lucky enough to be within walking distance of most of what we need on a day to day basis. Our 996 is a garage queen, the '89 Cherokee is long in the tooth and will be replaced with a 1.6 liter common rail diesel. There are diesels in the 1 liter class that get up to 70 mpg!!! Thanks for all the input. FWIW, the vehicle was last tested (and passed) in 2000, so I assume FLA stopped testing sometime thereafter. The vehicle is unmodified, and I take that to include any emissions equipments as well. Well, we will see how it goes... > Thanks for all the input. FWIW, the vehicle was last tested (and > passed) in 2000, so I assume FLA stopped testing sometime thereafter. > The vehicle is unmodified, and I take that to include any emissions > equipments as well. Well, we will see how it goes... I did not have to have any of my cars checked (Daytona Beach) when I moved her from PRK in 1999. Perhaps, some counties in FL require smog checks. Beware: the Eco-Nazis! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.