You've probably had to take our vehicle in for an emissions test at some point. The drill is simple: Take half the day off to stand in line at an "officially authorized" testing facility, then allow a stranger to mess with your car or truck -- after which you hand over $20.
In theory, all this hassle is justified because testing identifies vehicles that are polluting the air and forces their owners to have them fixed before they may legally be operated on public roads.
In fact, emissions testing is just another clever ploy to separate you from your money.
Here's why.
Since at least the mid-1980s, new cars and trucks have been equipped with an impressive array of computer-controlled anti-pollution hardware that is largely self-policing. That is, when a fault develops that might affect emissions output, a dashboard light ("service engine soon") illuminates to inform the driver of the need to have the car looked at.
Current model year cars and trucks are equipped with incredibly sophisticated On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) systems that surpass the computing power of the Lunar Module.
Why subject these cars to annual tests when they "test" themselves every time the ignition key is turned?
"Tampering" is the usual reply. Some people, the argument runs, attempt to defeat the factory-installed pollution-control equipment and testing catches these nogoodniks.
But this argument is seriously out-of-date. It's true the first primitive emissions control pieces added to engines in the late 1960s and early 1970s detracted from both performance and driveability, so removing them did make the cars run better. But that was only true because those engines were never designed with emissions controls in mind (having been first designed, for the most part, in the 1950s).
In contrast, late model cars and trucks (those built since the mid-1980s) were all designed from the get-go with emissions equipment as an integral part of their drivetrains. Removal/tampering of any of these integrated systems negatively affects driveability -- so no one does it anymore (at least, no one who isn't a complete idiot).
Yet even brand-new cars are required in most jurisdictions to run the through the emissions test gauntlet. If anyone can explain why this is justified -- beyond fleecing the public of large sums of money -- please raise your hand.
OK. So how about the old cars you know, the Detroit dreadnoughts of the Bad Old Days, with their primitive or non-existent emissions equipment. Shouldn't they, at least, be tested?
Let's see. You'd have to go back to the 1980 model year -- the last year before computers were installed on cars to monitor engine performance. That's 19 years ago. How many 19-year-old (and older) cars do you see on the roads?
You don't need an engineering degree to understand that few vehicles are operable -- let alone reliable -- after two decades. Those that are have been exceptionally well-maintained, or rebuilt by their owners. In any case, they're no threat to the global environment.
At less than 5 percent of currently registered vehicles, cars older than model year 1980 are so few and far between that even if they did pollute, their total contribution is infinitesimal. You want to make a point by harassing their owners? Fine. But don't try and peddle the lie it's necessary to do so for "air quality reasons."
I'll wrap up by giving you a personal example of how absurd these emissions tests are.
I own an old Pontiac Trans-Am equipped with a gigantic, 7.4 liter (455 CID) V-8 engine that's been heavily modified for improved performance. It has no emissions equipment at all -- though it looks like it does since I've dummied up a pair of fake catalytic converters, a plugged EGR valve and other such equipment in order to make the engine appear stock.
The Virginia standard for Hydrocarbon (HC) emissions for 1976 model year cars is 400 parts per million; for Carbon Monoxide (CO), the standard is 4.00 ppm., Even without catalytic converters -- and with a high performance camshaft and other engine modifications -- I scored a planet-friendly 149 ppm/HC reading at idle and 38 ppm at 2,500 rpm. For CO, my score was 0.19 at idle; 0.14 at 2,500 rpm.
But even though my old muscle car runs as cleanly as much newer cars -- and even though it sees less than 2,000 miles of use each year (like most cars its age), I still had to waste a few hours in line -- and hand over $20 to the government.
Boondoggle is not a town in West Virginia. It's the state of affairs we all are forced to live with -- and pay for -- thanks to the corrupt and stupid bureaucracy that rules us.
Corrupt because the bureaucrats know perfectly well these emissions tests are a waste of time. And stupid because there are much cheaper, far less intrusive and infinitely less expensive means of identifying the handful of problem cars.
Remote Sensing technology has been around for years. If adopted, the few cars that are polluting could be quickly and easily identified -- without forcing the entire population to fork over $20 and spend half a day in line.
But if the object of the exercise is money, not clean air, then everything is working as intended.
Eric Peters is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.
Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.