PDA

View Full Version : Emissions



Patrolman
May 14th, 2008, 02:53 PM
The Governor put in place emissions standards that are more strict than previous tests. I believe this is for any Front Range area that requires an emissions. Basically the limits were cut by about 25% depending on the year of your vehicle. There was no "warning" from the media. The change occured last Monday. My 87 Toyota truck barely passed after a new air filter, oil change, and plugs. Just an FYI to not wait till the last minute as it a vehicle is more likely to fail now.

4Runninfun
May 14th, 2008, 03:57 PM
that is such BS! that really irritates me. I think a car should have to pass the emissions standards it was held to at the date of production. if your truck is an 87 then whatever it was for 87 should be what your truck is held to. that said i'm happy i live in el paso county!

Patrolman
May 14th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Denver has violated air quality standards for the past several years. I think this is a proposal to help with that. They believe that about twice the failures will occur now. Sort of interesting. Those cars don't "disappear" and they can't account for where they end up. Scrap yards, licensed out of the area, etc. Here is an article.
http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=91233
And here is the list of the new standards
http://www.aircarecolorado.com/passenge.htm
Not sure what the factory intended for the specs to be. I guess the only good news is that at 223,000 miles I can still drive my truck. In Japan it would have left the road a LONG time ago!

Pathrat
May 14th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Interesting how quiet this was. Since it is only expected to affect 4% of the population of vehicles, according to the 9news article, should we expect a 4% drop in the cumulative average times/number of days/whatever measurement here that Denver air violates the quality standards? I also imagine that the estimated four percent aren't that strong of a lobby.

Yes, smoke-belchers need to be fixed or grounded or parted, IMO. How does this standard affect those supercool muscle cars built in the 60s when a greenhouse gas was heavy O2 that condensed on the inside of the glass? I had heard rumors of people in California wanting to just flat out remove vehicles from the road that built before a certain year. So far, just a rumor.

My .02

Jamie
May 15th, 2008, 06:40 AM
Follow the $$$ fella's. I new it would not last long.

5280Hawk
May 15th, 2008, 07:21 AM
Ugh,

I've never had my 60 tested, but I was planning on it very soon to get classic plates. it's a 1983, and previously lived in La Plata County, so I have no idea how it will do. The entire emmissions system is intact, but hasn't been touched in 20+ years.

Patrolman
May 15th, 2008, 11:45 AM
I think that it really isn't going to fix much of the problem. People register cars in other counties or other states to avoid fixing the problem. Also, if a car doesn't pass a couple times and a certain amount of $ was spent on fixing it, it can be given a waiver. That doesn't help the problem either. You also see cars that are either passed around on temp tags or simply driven on expired plates since the penalty isn't that big. Again, doesn't fix the overall problem. About a decade ago there was a program where the govt was buying old cars for about $1,000 and crushing them. Lots of people living paycheck to paycheck who couldn't afford to buy a newer car went for this. Took that $1,000 to but a newer car which likely pollutes less. Maybe that is the answer. Who knows....

Chris
May 15th, 2008, 01:22 PM
Being naturally skeptical I wonder how many of the bad tested cars it takes to equal one factory.

Patrolman
May 15th, 2008, 06:21 PM
Yeah, I wasn't going to bring that up... I think that cars account for only about 20% of the emissions output.

Chris
May 15th, 2008, 07:01 PM
It's chat, it's okay to bring it up.

BTW, how much water do the home owners consume? Remember, we'll always ask to conserve our scarce supply. Last I heard was 1/10th of 1%, industry and agriculture use the rest.

Conserve so Denver Water can increase your rates when they come up short due to your efforts. :mad:

Patrolman
May 15th, 2008, 07:08 PM
All I have to say is that I am on Englewood water. Best reason to live here! We have our own reservoir and some really good water rights. I have been here 6 years and moved in the week of the Hayman burn. To my knowledge there has never been water restrictions in Englewood, even during the dry seasons a few years ago. But yes, agriculture consumes more. Evaporation is a huge loss of water too. Amazing what the real source of the problems are in the world, yet the consumer still gets the sharp end of the stick.

Chris
May 15th, 2008, 07:19 PM
I didn't realize that's Englewood but now that a give it a minute's thought realize it is since I know people living east of you in Englewood. :oops:

I lived in Denver when the big push was on to conserve and had the honor of having my rates increase. Now being in Aurora whose at the end of the water rights chain I'll stick with HOA's that have to battle with the water issues. :cool:

Patrolman
May 15th, 2008, 08:15 PM
Yeah, Englewood is very expansive. It roams in and out like most of the cities in the area. Englewood owns the reservoir that is just East of Santa Fe along County Line Road. That is apparently our major water source. Nice to have low rates and no restrictions. Sucks that I have a meter and have to watch my neighbors with no meters water 24/7 and pay a flat rate. Of course there are other downfalls about Englewood, but generally can't complain I guess.

Pathrat
May 15th, 2008, 10:58 PM
Since you all brought up water, this was one issue I thought of when I read that the guy who owns the Gonzo Hotel in Moab was/is (?) spearheading a development project down there which includes some 150 or 300, can't remember which, housing units and a shopette out behind the rocks. He is the one who bought and closed the Lions Back, if my info is right. He wanted the city and county to install the water and sewer system and they have, at last reading, said no. Good. Sure the Colorado River is right there, but the water is spoken for. Look around, that area is a DESERT! That means lack of water! We have become so used to water coming out of the faucet that no one (present company excluded) bothers to think of where it comes from and whether the source is finite given exected usage. Same here during the development boom: more houses, more people, more water. I still have yet to train my lab assistant to turn off the damn water instead of letting it run after he has put a slide through our stain line. :rant:

End of rant.

Patrolman
May 16th, 2008, 10:23 AM
Actually, they say that water will become a war just as fierce as oil. The US has a water debt to Mexico. There is supposed to be a certain amount of water flowing into Mexico from the US rivers each year. I guess by the time the rivers get there they are well depleted of water. I believe that CO still has a water debt to every state that its rivers flow to. Since we are a major watershed for the rest of the Western US as well as Mexico, it certainly puts CO in the spotlight. Many municipalities are beginning to realize this and limit how and where construction takes place.