>Nolan Penney wrote:
> Well DUHH!!! Your car is an 80, that's six years after 74 standards.
> Cripes, by that logic I shouldn't have to have headlights on the TF since
> they weren't required back in the 20's.
>
> Come on, crying because you can't pass visual for some other era car is a
> seriously childish ploy. One the inspectors really aren't going to have
> any sympathy for. Nor would most other people for that matter.
>
> >And if you think that's bad. What do you think is going to happen when
> >my newly acquired Factory Clone of a MGB-GT V8 crosses the state line?
>
> Since you seem to be the type that likes to beat your head against walls,
> you'll have a hell of a time and never get the car on the road. I, on
> the other hand, would drop the stock four in their, let it pass, and then
> swap it back.
I just have to respond to this one!!He is saying it won't pass VISUALLY
not that it wouldn't pass at all!!This is what we are griping about it
doesn't matter WHAT comes out the pipe.So you would go to all the
trouble to swap engines ,take a day off work ,jump through hoops ,pay
out money and time THEN swap the engine back thus breaking the law that
you seem to agree is OK.What a hypocrite,if the smog laws are OK and we
are just a bunch of cry babies then you should obey the letter of the
law and if your car can't be made to pass you should send it to the
crusher.If on the other hand you think these laws are draconian in
nature and we should be pissed at having to play these games then you
should join the fight and not put us down for being intelligent enough
to see through these regulations.As for comparing headlights to the smog
equiptment COME ON one is for safety!We crybabies will continue to
complain through the proper channels and hopefully we will win and guess
what? YOU will benifit from this as well although I don't think you will
deserve it.
|