triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: SB 708

To: "'Kinderlehrer'" <kinderlehrer@mindspring.com>, "Paige, Dean" <DPaige@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us>, "'Scott D Kohl'" <sdkandlsk1@juno.com>, triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: SB 708
From: Mark Hooper <mhooper@pix-cinema.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:46:44 -0500
Wrong, wrong wrong approach! If you can't turn the light bulb, turn the
house. Pay some of those fancy Californian programmers to hack the gov't
site and replace the picture of the car motor and the specifications for
smog with something more suitable as a comparison. Say a V-16 Diesel
locomotive engine for example. Unless your car is actually on fire at the
time of the test you are bound to pass! :^)

Mark Hooper


-----Original Message-----
From: Kinderlehrer [mailto:kinderlehrer@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Paige, Dean; 'Scott D Kohl'; triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: SB 708


Dean,
Please! keep it quiet, we don't want the whole country moving out here,
they'll just clog up those glorious mountain roads and pristine beaches :-)

Seriously though, I think the problem many of us will have should these laws
be applied as is to our ancient chariots is not the emissions, but the
equipment.  The rules require that the car be equipped as built, so for
example, my very clean running, non-poluting, TR3A will fail because I don't
have the original air filters. Any mainfold changes, carb replacements,
exhaust repairs would presumably also be cause for failure. Better wouldn't
matter - if it doesn't look like the picture in the book, it is no go. At
least it seems that that that will be the case.

Bob

///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  or try  http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>