20-Year Import Rule Set For The Chop

[Olaf 3235]

45 minutes ago, coop said:

What’s the obsession for emissions testing at WOF? 

A system already too by the book and over regulated. (Maybe I’ve been spoilt after living in WA for the last 8 years where there is no WOF type system, even for heavy vehicles. It seems to work pretty bloody well.)
 

Is this so faux environmentalists can pat each other on the back in their circle jerk while thinking they’re saving the planet? 
 

 The result will be more regulation and cost. Cost for those who can afford it the least. Or aren’t able to afford it at all. 
 

Indeed, why should number-8 wire New Zealand join the First World by enforcing emissions standards, rather than just accepting that 5 extra horsepower by removing a CAT is okay, along with poisoning your wife/neighbour/cat/stranger down the street as a result of these mods.  It's bloody unreasonable, and we should be left to do whatever we like!  Especially those who can't afford to safely operate a car on our roads, they should be given a get out of jail free card, exemption from WoFs or any form of safety test because owning a car is expensive enough without compulsory insurance or emissions testing, even though there's just one WoF test per year instead of two (as long as the car's less the eighteen years old now)... 

I've been advocating emissions testing for years, I don't vote Green, and would prefer to ensure testing is implemented as most lack enough common sense to ensure their vehicles are well-serviced and not polluting.  EDIT:  I've also lived in two first-world countries where emissions testing is compulsory, and had no issue with being a responsible citizen operating a vehicle within the law.  

For more than thirty years we've made a national sport out of importing worn-out cast-offs from Japan that have finished their useful design lives (I drive two of them), and these days we continue to import used Trucks and Busses from Europe (notably UK) that no longer meet their emissions standards, but appear to be good enough for us.  

As for Environmentalists, I'm not a fan; they're more likely to recommend a battery-powered vehicle that could have questionanle ethics around the production of it's power cells, or adds stress to our national grid. 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Olaf
first world citizen

[Olaf 3235]

2 hours ago, E30 325i Rag-Top said:

Even down to chip and tune companies - there is a reason that you can get more power than factory... Never get an answer when you as what the emissions levels are with the new tune.

Mind you, my E30 is probably not the cleanest car on the road, but I do make sure it’s working as it should. Not smoking, etc.

not to mention durability/negative impact on longevity.

Yes, I'm the kind of sad git likely to add a cat to my e30 as part of the M42 conversion!  The e36 had it, engine management expects it, so why not?  It'll give me some peace of mind.

 

[KwS 2372]

11 hours ago, Gaz said:

Its already a WOF fail if you remove any emissions stuff (cat and DPF) but doesn't appear to be enforced or policed with the amount of companies advertising 'deletes' 

Only under certain conditions/ages ranges, which only really covers pretty modern stuff. All the old stuff with cats that have been cut out are fine by the VIRM.

I've seen cars failed at workshops i've been involved with for excessive smoking, only for them to suddenly have a new WOF a few days later, presumably by taking it somewhere else that didnt care as much. Its too subjective and based on the inspector at the time. At least with emission testing its a hard and fast number. Meet it or fail.

Of course there are ways to "trick" emissions testing or clean the emission up temporarily, there are whole industries overseas for additives and tricks to help get through MOT and the likes. Nothing is perfect.

Still, at the end of the day, even emission testing wont help. The people that have the dirtiest running cars are likely the ones that cant afford to fix it if the WOF fails (or dont care enough to get a WOF), so will just drive sans WOF. A couple of fines are probably cheaper than a new cat or an engine rebuild to clean it up. Its the "Kiwi" way, bodge it along until you can bodge no more, and then dump it in a paddock and replace it with an equally dirty running shitheap. Rinse and repeat.

Dont get me started on dealers selling imports with snow tires ?

[Michael. 2312]

On 11/14/2020 at 8:37 AM, Olaf said:

more f**king nanny state bullshit.  if they were really serious about cleaning up the vehicle fleet, they would:

1. introduce vehicle emissions testing at WoF time
2. introduce emissions laws - no tampering with emissions systems for road-legal vehicles
3. introduce stiff penalties for non-compliance.
4. introduce carless days under certain conditions (eg high polution readings).  It's as simple as based on the last character of your number plate.

 

All of what you just listed is more f**king nanny state bullshit. 

Sounds like you'd be quite happy for the Govt to tell you you can't drive your 545i or E30 on certain days restricting your freedom? 

Id be interested to what you would say to lower socio-economic families that can't afford fancy new cars with modern emission systems, should they get fined for just trying to get to work that could be months of wages? How do they get to work on car less days? 

Making life easier for everyone should be the goal, not going backwards with regulation. 

 

[Olaf 3235]

I have lived in a city so badly polluted they go to TWO carless days when polution levels pass the threshold.  At this level everyone's personal health and safety is far more important than the individual liberty to drive one's car - whether it's meeting emissions regulations or not.

I can take the bus.  It's not a big deal.  I will allow your right to *breathe*, to trump my desire to drive my 30 year old 4 cyl factory non-cat e30, or my 16 year old emissions-compliant V8.  I hope you'd afford me the same courtesy.  

If there was good reason for it - eg our current pollution levels were measured daily and data published, I would get by.  

I think you've made too great a leap - from a vehicle that fails emissions to a fancy new one.  Is there no middle ground?  Perhaps a car someone can afford, a few years newer - or even older - that meets emissions levels?  

What would I say from my middle-class palace?  I'd say "you do what you have to do".  When I was a nipper, my dad commute about 80 mins (bus/train/bus) to his job.  Coming home he'd do the reverse, only adding a couple of extra bus rides and more time travelling on night-school nights - studying to get ahead.  A wife and four children, one income, rent, no money for the luxury of a car, just putting food on the table and saving a dollar here and a dollar there for a house deposit.  In those years I think if he heard your argument through a time warp, he'd have a quiet laugh - "having to have a car?".