At 12:54 PM 3/31/97 PST, you wrote:
>Bill,
>Thank you for you in depth explanation of the NJ emissions
>law I previously questioned. The piece in the TRF flyer was
>similar to a piece I had read before on the same subject.
>In reading the piece I got the distinct impression that
>something was not right, it made it sound as if NJ had been
>transported to Albania. I am very surprised that the WSJ
>got it so wrong. It makes them sound as if they are signing
>up to the "Hard Copy" school of journalism. Much of the
>same doom and gloom misinformation has been spread here in
>Ca. about the Smog Check II program,
Snip....
I have just come from my local Smog Check station. The same station that
has been issuing bits of buracratic paper to my cars for several years.
This is the first check on the Triumph, the first check under Smog II.
Well... They produced a book published by the State of California that
lumps all Triumphs 1.3L & 2.5L (except Stag) into one bunch for the years of
71 and '72. This catagory specificaly states that all of these cars have
a dual diaphram distributer setup. (This is of course bunk.) Of all the
Spits, GT6, TR's, and such there may be a few with the advance/retard
distributer. Certainly not all. None the less. "Sorry, your car has
been 'modified', and as such will not pass visual inspection."
This is a clear error, oversite, omission, in the State's referance book.
My car was originally sold in California in 1972 and has been passing smog
checks ever since smog check have existed. Now, in l997, the 1997 Smog
Regulation volume has listed equipment that the car has never had, BUT is
required to have.
Welcome to legislated obsolesence.
Now all I have to do is find a smog check station that thinks that they know
what they are doing and does not "look up" the required equipment. (the
equipment that the car never had)
|