Hi
I'm just passing through and I wanted to say you guys are doing a really good job educating yourselves. I was checking out various car club forums to see if I could get an idea of the general feeling around the e-testing and enforcement for a school assignment I have to do and I totally expected, I'm now embarrased to say, to read a lot of police bashing and simple bitterness over getting tickets for various modifications. But from what I'm reading, I'm really impressed. I'm really glad to see that you guys are not just talking about how to avoid getting caught. My husband works for the MOE and I'm a Environ Sci major so you might understand that my involvement with the issue of vehicle modifications is slightly skewed. Althought, I still can't say I'll ever understand why louder cars are cooler cars. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone could speak for the rest of you and let me know what you think regarding the inclusion of vehicle modifications in the EPA (Reg. 361/98). I mean, do you think that it is important to take measures to reduce vehicle emissions? My own concern arises from changing or removing technology that has been installed to reduce emissions... do you think that as long as it passes e-testing its all good? Some of you were discussing seatbelts vs. harnesses (that are logically safer) but were not factory installed and you guys accepted the fact that law requires you wear the seatbealt with impressive grace despite its anti-logic . Anyways, I've rambled on and if anybody is actually still reading I thank you. :santa:

before I forget, harnesses are a bad idea without a roll cage.


about the e-testing. I think it's a good idea.. what I don't think is a good idea is having 2 etests on my 2001 hyundai so far, and 1 on a 2002 toyota in my family. I believe it's a ridiculous cash grab to have them e-tested. Neither were anywhere near the limits. What's more understandable is having our 96 vw tested, but that also tested no-where near the limits. The drive clean program has alot to improve on.

its all bs emisions devices reduce fuel economy and performance on some vehicles why should i have to suffer .

^^ because emissions are neccessary in the long run. I dont want my grand kids living in a smog infested world. It may not come that quick but its still neccessary. as for the cash grab? i totally agree. The drive clean program is needed but far from perfect. The law seems to be a huge cash grab as of late.

Cash grab for sure.......in reality they should be testing cars based on age and mileage. If your car is 10 years old, it should be tested every 3 years......OR if it has 200,000 km's it should be tested every 3 years. It's rediculous shit testing cars that don't meet either one of those conditions.

.......and they should test transport trucks every year.

personally, i'm kind of on the fence with this matter.

on one hand, i completely agree with them, and there are alot of cars which shouldnt be on the road based on the condition they are in. (for example, the late 80's tercel that almost ran me off the road, a block down the street after getting my e-test 2 years ago.. was spewing so much black smoke, theres no way this guy took care of his car at all.. led alone care about how it scores on an emissions test).. for this reason, i think there shouldnt be conditional passes.

on the other hand, two years ago i went in for my etest, didnt pass, then the guy did some BS "diagnostics" which cost me $150.. then blew smoke through some hoses or something like that.. which he charged me $50 for.. found a small tear in the a hose.. like.. could have been caused by a finger nail.. that size of tear.. charged me $30 to put some glue on that, then an o2 sensor and a retest would have put me over teh $400 limit.. so i got a conditional pass..

so essentially i paid for 2 tests (i got it tested at a second place cause i wasnt sure if i could trust the guy or not) and a retest at $40ish each, on top of the $230 for "repairs".. for a grand total of about $350.. TO PUT GLUE ON A TINY TEAR in a small hose, that for all i know, the guy put the tear there himself...

so do i think its a waste of time and money.. and its just the government doing some fundraising? hell yes! but sadly.. its necessary because some people dont give a shit and drive around in 15-20 year old pollution-mobile's that should have been taken off the road atleast 5 years ago...

</rant>

I really don't agree with the ministry on this one..

Overall its a good program, but for example this year they removed the older than 20 year clause and now these vehicles need testing as well.

There are portions of the province where the population is too small to require testing, but 50km away from there, its neccessary..

inconsistencies such as these lend an incredibility to the whole thing, kind of like the gun registry...

I'll accept the etest program as the government actually caring about the environment when they stop turning a profit from it.. Its just another cash cow to them, and it got approved because it is marginally ok at reducing emissions.

Originally Posted by neonSRT

I'll accept the etest program as the government actually caring about the environment when they stop turning a profit from it.. Its just another cash cow to them, and it got approved because it is marginally ok at reducing emissions.

You'd be amazed at what 1 faulty sensor can do. even in say... a 2001 audi a6. Bellowing out smoke (which he was oblivious to) as he pulled in for an e-test.

his temp sensor was telling the computer it was -48 deg outside so it was flooding the engine with fuel and it burned off on it's way out the exhaust.

plus you should see some of the beaters we take off the road, not only does it take polluters off the road, most of them are unfit for the road as well, which makes the roads that much safer. I'm all for getting those ugly late 80's pontiac 6000's and etc off the road.

man, you need to look at the date of the thread...last post was 2 months ago....thread is about 10 months old...

.... and?