|
|
|
No more drive clean!
- Thread starter LePhillou
- Start date
The diesel drive-clean that existed for most of the time was a joke at best. They literally watched it idle and if there was visible smoke for more than one minute out of five you failed. No matter how crappy your diesel was running, it is hard to make it smoke that much at idle.
Apparently they are going to be focusing on heavy-duty vehicle emissions, but I'm not sure they have considered the implications. Sure, you will catch lots of dump trucks, but you will also catch a ton of municipal and school busses which (ultimately) get fixed with funding from taxpayers.
I think elimination of this stupid waste of time and money is a good idea. Hopefully there remains something that police can use to hit the intentional offenders (eg. pickups rolling coal).
Last edited:
Would like to see a thorough analysis to see if the program was doing something or not. Like if you say you're ending the program because most cars passed... do they pass because people don't get non-compliant vehicles tested until they're repaired? What are the most common reasons for failure, and what projected emissions increase/decrease does that represent? If you get rid of the program, will anyone ever replace a catalytic converter again? Could there be unintended consequences of people getting their car into a shop less often, given that we have no inspection requirements other than at time of sale?
Also this is working out for me exactly like Rob Ford cancelling whatever that vehicle licensing tax was - my renewals are in January and my car has the CEL on for EVAP reasons :/
Also this is working out for me exactly like Rob Ford cancelling whatever that vehicle licensing tax was - my renewals are in January and my car has the CEL on for EVAP reasons :/
All valid points. I also expect that many many turbo cars will very shortly have downpipes installed. Big (relatively) hp gains for not much money if you go catless.
I sold my wifes old vehicle with an Evap purge code, but it has valid driveclean until May 2019, no the new owner may not have to deal with it (I had it before my last pass, cleared, drove to reset readiness and passed but no guarantee that works again two years later).
sburns
Well-known member
The program seemed like a joke, and just a tax grab. I have no real analysis other then basic appearance, an news stories. I only had to use it once years ago when I had an older used car. Every car since then was new enough to be excluded from the program. I also had the impression diesel vesicles were not tested, or not tested adequately. So what was the point.
I like what Ford is doing. Go Dougie!
I like what Ford is doing. Go Dougie!
I suppose my experience is slightly different. I have noticed over the years on my commutes along the 401 I don't see as many older beat up type cars spewing noticeable exhausts. As i did before the drive clean program was introduced years ago. Now whether this is attributed to the drive clean or cars being more efficient and environmentally friendly I am not sure. I do believe the drive clean programs throughout North America , Europe etc has forced the manufacturers to produce cleaner running technology. So I do believe there was a benefit to it. Maybe the best compromise would be to test vehicles after 10 years old. I just hope we don't go backwards and start seeing a lot more vehicles without cat converters, in bad condition spewing fumes without any consequences.
Since there is no longer a cost for light duty vehicles anymore. I am not sure what Ford is trying to promote on this issue? What I take away from it is if your car was going to fail drive clean you no longer have to worry about it. Go ahead pollute as you please?
Since there is no longer a cost for light duty vehicles anymore. I am not sure what Ford is trying to promote on this issue? What I take away from it is if your car was going to fail drive clean you no longer have to worry about it. Go ahead pollute as you please?
Last edited:
I thought the cost was buried in your sticker now? Even if we didn't have to pay the $30 up front anymore, there was a cost to the program that taxpayers were ultimately footing the bill for.
JTR
Well-known member
We elected him to get rid of bloat, and it seems to be working. In my limited experience, Drive Clean was failing alot of vehicles unfairly aswell. My truck failed OBD testing for a computer error twice and on the third try they actually put it on the dyno for a smog test and it was actually running very clean and passed. The cost to tax payers and drivers was much more than the $30 testing fee, and tax payers who don't even drive were just starting to eat that too thanks to the liberals. Glad to see it's going to be gone. This is a country larger than America, with a population smaller than California, there's really no need to treat us to Cali SMOG standards.
I'm pretty sure it did steer certain decisions on getting a used car w/ CEL vs new car on lease.
Or decisions on getting CEL fixed asap vs not getting it fixed... a lot of people WILL have pieces of junk falling apart if they're free to do so... that's why i'm wondering if you think it might affect us, in terms of the types of smoking in we might get on our daily commutes....failures on the side of the road (that might cause more traffic) etc etc...
Or decisions on getting CEL fixed asap vs not getting it fixed... a lot of people WILL have pieces of junk falling apart if they're free to do so... that's why i'm wondering if you think it might affect us, in terms of the types of smoking in we might get on our daily commutes....failures on the side of the road (that might cause more traffic) etc etc...
JTR
Well-known member
As far as safety risks of clunkers being on the road, bi-annual drive clean testing did nothing to keep the guy with grinding brakes off the highway anyway. And the smoking I'm concerned with on the road these days isn't coming from the tail-pipe either. Really, do people honestly believe that nobody outside of their car can smell their weed?
As a first cut, any vehicle (car/heavy truck/bike/bus) emitting visible emissions should be pulled over by police and required to report to an inspection station within a reasonable time period. This catches the worst offenders. Even with driveclean, I see a car burning oil or coolant almost weekly (probably passed the test and then have two years of polluting before they think about fixing/replacing).
As I have said before, I am not entirely opposed to a quick vehicle check as part of sticker renewal (like a safety). This allows mechanics to look at the entire car instead of a quick scan that identifies almost no safety related issues. As part of this check, they could inspect for the apparent presence of emission control equipment. Again, this catches the worst offenders where people intentionally remove the equipment and have order of magnitude emission increases.
It is. The garage gets their fee from the gov't.
That's what I thought. More Wynnebag trickery to try to bury the cost of stupidity.
Which makes sense. Bald tires, cut springs, weird smoke, sh1t brakes.... but then that would also prompt some garages so keep you hostage to their testing "you don't pass unless you do this with us"
there's no winning lol
Agree. The same thing already happens with safeties though. This just provides more opportunities to abuse the system.
The simple solution is that no shop could force work. Eg. you take your car to shop A and they tell you that you need brakes and tires. This work cannot be performed by shop A which removes most of the moral hazard. As by definition shop A does not benefit from finding problems, they should provide an impartial inspection. You then go to shop B of your choice to get work completed and they sign off that the work required by shop A has been completed (or alternatively was not required and therefore not done).
Is this sort of the German model, with the PTI?
No idea about Germany. Japan does something similar when a car is seven (? not exactly sure on the age) years old but goes way way too far. The inspection amounts to rebuilding of the car and I have heard of prices of ~$25,000 to complete it. Most cars just get exported at that point as it is not cost effective to keep it on the road in Japan.
And now you just explained why a lot of mint JDM cars get shipped overseas
|
|
|
|
|