|
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
tomcolahan wrote: this is like the public good / free rider problem you learn about in first year economics, just because you gutting your cat wont increase toxic emmisions greatly, if everyone did it certianley would. everybody here (including your families) wants the benefits of cleaner air, but to achieve it you also have to make the sacrifice of running a cat...
Hahaha, brilliant. Academics should use that as an example of externalities....
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| madmax |
|
|||
|
tomcolahan wrote: but it worries me that the law would not distinguish between the two, if the test could not make the distinction.
I believe the sniff cameras are a preliminary test, afterwards you have to have your car retested at a EPA test centre. If it fails that test they would investigate. If the cat was found to be tampered with then you would be fined. I think you would find that the $10,000 fine is for knowingly removing or tampering with it.
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tomcolahan |
|
|||
|
but would it be possible to distinguish between a stuffed cat and a gutted cat without taking it apart??
_________________ We'll keep our cow s**t in the country, you keep your bull s**t in the city. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tomcolahan |
|
|||
|
4.9 EF Futura wrote: Hahaha, brilliant. Academics should use that as an example of externalities....
externalities, thats the word i was looking for, havent done any of this for a while now...
_________________ We'll keep our cow s**t in the country, you keep your bull s**t in the city. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
tomcolahan wrote: but would it be possible to distinguish between a stuffed cat and a gutted cat without taking it apart??
I'm sure the EPA wouldnt mind dismantling the exhaust... at the owner's expense.
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| kermey |
|
|||
|
is there much of a difference in a stock cat from a EA and a high flow??
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MO |
|
||
|
yes - stock is crap, especially if it is old. It is not the best dollar per kw improvement but is a good upgrade if you are changing the whole system. If the rest of the exhaust is standard then i would not bother.
|
||
| Top | |
||
| kermey |
|
|||
|
iam gettin a whole new system aswell as extractor's!! but cant really afford the cat atm!!! oh 1 more question what's every1s opinion on wildcat/genie extractors?
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
tomcolahan wrote: wouldnt this sensor they use return the same result if the cat was stuffed?? which im sure there is plenty of people with stuffed cats that dont realise and probably wouldnt be real impressed with a $10k fine...
it's actualy illegal to drive a car with an unoperating cat. the $10 000 fine come from purposly making your cat unoperational. the same gose for tampering with any pollution gear fitted to the car. things like EGR and air injection systems fitted to early unleaded cars that only use a 2-way cat. |
||
| Top | |
||
| tomcolahan |
|
|||
|
thats exactly what im trying to get at. if the fine for an unoperational cat was introduced to target people trying to get around the EPA laws by gutting their cats etc, and was in the vicinty of $10,000 there would be somewhat of an outcry when someone who unknowingly has a dead cat is slapped with a 10k fine.
theres a big difference between someone who rips the guts out of their cat to try and gain performance and someone who has no idea what a cat is, let alone that they have a life expectancy. a test of the exhaust emmissions, would show up the same result whether or not the cat was dead or gutted, correct?? therefore the only way to tell the difference would be to dismantle the exhaust and open it, which isnt exactly feasible.
_________________ We'll keep our cow s**t in the country, you keep your bull s**t in the city. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
tomcolahan wrote: thats exactly what im trying to get at. if the fine for an unoperational cat was introduced to target people trying to get around the EPA laws by gutting their cats etc, and was in the vicinty of $10,000 there would be somewhat of an outcry when someone who unknowingly has a dead cat is slapped with a 10k fine.
theres a big difference between someone who rips the guts out of their cat to try and gain performance and someone who has no idea what a cat is, let alone that they have a life expectancy. a test of the exhaust emmissions, would show up the same result whether or not the cat was dead or gutted, correct?? therefore the only way to tell the difference would be to dismantle the exhaust and open it, which isnt exactly feasible. it's feasible when there is a $9700 difference in the fine personly i think the sniffer test is great as it finaly brings every car under the conditions not just loud cars being picked on |
||
| Top | |
||
| tomcolahan |
|
|||
|
as long as its the authority that pays to have the exhaust dismantled and cat checked.
people would be pretty p****d if they had to fork out the money to prove they were only ignorant and had a dead cat rather than trying to cheat the system. but yes agreed it is good to see cars other than those belonging to enthusiasts picked on, as often the enthusiast is the one who makes sure his car is up to scratch, but is picked on for it being different.
_________________ We'll keep our cow s**t in the country, you keep your bull s**t in the city. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| blackjack_original |
|
||
Posts: 3516 Joined: 8th Nov 2004 |
[self-deleted]
Last edited by blackjack_original on Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total. |
||
| Top | |
||
| MO |
|
||
|
Th 'tap test' - s**t it takes more than this before they can hand over a $10k fine.
What happens if you bought the car and it was this way. When was the last time that you checked the contents of the cat when buying a car. |
||
| Top | |
||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
tomcolahan wrote: as long as its the authority that pays to have the exhaust dismantled and cat checked.
people would be pretty p****d if they had to fork out the money to prove they were only ignorant and had a dead cat rather than trying to cheat the system. Unfortunately this is the way of the world and appears to be the price we pay for the luxury of owning a car... For example, a cop accuses you of having unroadworthy modifications. Its not his job to prove this is true, it is your job to prove the car is roadworthy, and this must be proved at your expense (i.e. engineer, roadworthy cert etc.). Same with "oh, it was like that when i bought it".... the repsonsibility for ensuring a car is roadworthy falls SQUARELY on he who shall be driving it. In the rare instance that the authority did pay for the inspections.... you can guarantee this would be passed on... rego, tolls, tax.... somehow.
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 46 guests |
