Yes. Although I believe that It is because they didn't suckle at the teet of Government, and they don't have Obama as their CEO

 Reply

They had the foresight to get loans start restructuring years ago, rather than wait until they were in dire straits.

 Reply

Hopefully there is a cutoff date for those cars, 25 years is the law in Cali, if my memory is correct.

I can quickly think of a dozen people running around with a CE light and a P0420 for a Cat efficiency code meaning the Cat is no longer doing anything. When you tell them it is $1,000 for a proper replacement they will gladly drive it with the light on. The car runs normal, will for a long time, it's not plugged, just done.

Those people will be paying to replace it.

My area has zero emission testing or safety inspections. If this is a across the board equalizer there will be a lot of cars off the road.

Hell, I had a Chevy Celebrity with the front brake rotors so far worn down the fins where exposed from the center. Can't force them to fix it, or condemn the car, made them tow it out of my lot when they refused to have it fixed.

They figured it just needed pads.....

 Reply

It's a free-for all on pre-75 or diesel titles vehicles before something like '05. Post '05 diesels aren't tested now, but they reserve the right to do so in the future.

No safety inspections (but cops can give you a fixit ticket if they see something).

The thing about CA is that despite the (false) crazy leftist image we have, we love our cars. There's a huge automotive aftermarket here.

Additionally, there's not much public transit, so poor people (who usually vote Dem.) need to be able to afford cheap cars. That argument tends to thwart legislation that affects automotive bottom-feeders.

 Reply

Thanks anyway.

Don't want a 'lightweight' car that increases my chances of getting killed by a collision with a gnat. Don't care if it has a smaller engine or not.

 Reply

Personally, I'd prefer if we as a country checked out of the extra mass and ladder frame arms race mentality.

 Reply

Oh, I guess I was wrong, because there are soo many families out there with their 2.5 kids that want to pack their kids into aveo sized cars, and proceed to go out on the interstate and play bumper cars with 18-wheelers.

RLY.

 Reply

why not the rest of the world is mixing with 18 wheelers in their aveo sized cars and they dont all seem to be instantly dead!

 Reply

Europe's filled with small cars. They've also got quite a few huge trucks. Know why? Because they know that if any car, Fit or Suburban, crosses over the line and nails a semi head-on, they're gonna get seriously screwed over, probably killed.

And hulking ladder-frame vehicles, driven by the typical American (not saying you're in this category, necessarily) simply don't handle well enough to avoid most oncoming danger. Swerve too hard, and you're upside-down in a ditch, and your family's still badly hurt. With a smaller car you can often avoid what you'd otherwise hit.

As long as a vehicle's well-equipped for collisions with something intended for commuting or family-hauling, and it's got plenty of room for parents and children, go for it. An Aveo's a bad example, and it's not too safe anyway, but the above Honda Fit is slightly more practical, and something like an Accord, Malibu, or Fusion even more so. Plenty of room, safe against anything up to and including a one-ton pickup, maneuverable and reasonably efficient.

 Reply

I'LL DRIVE WHAT I WANNA DRIVE YOU COMMIE!!!!! ARGH SO ANGRY!!!!11

 Reply

Would you say that it's ok to drive a vehicle with giant metal spikes on the front, so that if you hit someone, you guarantee a kill?

Maybe a car rigged to explode in the event of an accident?

How about a simpler example: a car with a leaky gas tank and a completely shot brake system?

Essentially, it's not ok for you to drive a vehicle that puts others at undue risk.

It's not far back from there to an argument that maybe driving the biggest thing you can find isn't necessarily what's best for society.

 Reply

"The plan supposedly marries U.S. fuel economy and emissions standards to California polices and be supported by automakers and policymakers."

I can really only hope that this does not mean "the US will adopt California's policies," although pretty much anything but would mean California's policies will be relaxed somewhat. That would suck if no one in the entire country could buy a dark colored car because the extra a/c load uses up too much fuel...

 Reply

Except there's no regulation about that.

Right now, CA already sets the standards for the rest of the country. CA and the states that have adopted its regs represent a significant enough portion of the market that it's easier for most companies to just adopt the standards for everything.

 Reply

Explained another way, installing PCV valves on engines got rid of 50% (just guessing)of an engine's pollution. Installing a catalytic convertor and EGR valve decreased it by 35% (again just guessing) and all the other stuff got us to another 10 or 14% (just guessing again). To get that 1% out will take tremendous resources that will really do nothing for the environment.

The only real way to get that 1% is to get rid of gasoline burning engines, but that my friends is the greenies point.

 Reply

I'm thinking coal into hydrogen. We've got a couple hundred years of coal.

 Reply

Actually, it has made a huge difference. Back in the 80's, air quality here in Los Angeles wasn't significantly better than Mexico City, which is ranked as one of the world's most polluted cities.

20+ years later, it's actually possible to breathe in LA again. Yes, it sucks that it deprived us of a lot of automotive fun, but I'll take breathing any day.

 Reply

It is my understanding that there are two serious issues with Los Angeles. The first is that it is in a basin which during the day concentrates pollution. The other is that there are very high ozone levels in LA of which it has not been established that the cause is from automobiles (It may even be natural). So LA in large part has driven the EPA requirement for California which is not fair to the rest of California. Are you now saying LA should drive requirements for the rest of the nation?

*See
Clearing the Air
By Indur M. Goklany

 Reply

Being a Los Angeles resident, the last time I checked, Los Angeles is physically inseparable from California. Additionally, the votes of Los Angeles alone would not have been sufficient to pass the existing legislation, so I call bullshit on your assertion that California's emission's standards are due solely to LA, and therefore LA is forcing their requirements on the rest of the nation.

Go check the federal legislation that brings the rest of the US up to California standards when it is released, and I bet you that you'll find positive votes from a lot of other states as well, which being that we live in a representative democracy, would go someway to indicating that the populace of other states voted for this as well, completely voluntarily.

Personally, I could give a damn what standards the rest of the US uses. All I know and care about is that the standards that California uses are both necessary and effective at what they were intended to do for the state of California.

 Reply

Which is why I am still trying to build my Army to overtake it all. Bring your swords to a gun fight, bring em!

 Reply

Sneaky Wu-Tang reference.

/They thought Mazda MPV's were "phat".

 Reply

TWIN turbos!

 Reply

And then, after that, you get to pay more for servicing because of all that extra equipment!

HAHAHAHA! Izn't Zhat Funny!

Fuck diesels. I don't care what the benefits of them are. As long as they have the afore-mentioned drawbacks, they sound like a great way to piss your money away.

 Reply