This past weekend, I had to register my wife's 2000 Ford Windstar with the State of Ohio.

In Ohio, you need to renew vehicle registration every year. Every other year, you need to have the emissions checked, but only in certain counties (generally, the larger cities such as Cleveland, Akron, etc.). Curiously, the county that the capital is in is exempt from emissions testing, even though it has Ohio's largest city in it (Columbus). The fee for vehicle registration is around $55. The fee for emissions testing is around $20.

So, I take my wife's van in there and after waiting patiently in line ( ). I get up to the front and the attendant informs me that I cannot get an emission test: the vehicle's check engine light is on.

I explain to him WHY the light is on. I explain that I am sure the emissions are ok. (A vacuum hose had been knocked off the van's exhaust manifold, causing the check engine light to go on).

He says I am free to tell him to test the vehicle, but it will fail regardless of the actual emissions of the vehicle. It seems that a new rule went into effect that prohibits a car from passing, regardless of what the actual vehicle emissions are, if the check engine light is on.

The attendant was nice enough to inform me that if I took the test and failed (as he assured me I would), I would then need a certified technician to verify that my car complied. He said it runs in the neighborhood of $200 for a mechanic to do this.

If I left then, I could get the vehicle "fixed" (i.e. the engine light turned off and the computer reset) for much less. The fee is much lower (free at Autozone, actually, but my wife paid a mechanic a $69 "diagnostic fee" to have it turned off).

I took the vehicle back (after doing no actual service to it) and it passed.

Needless to say, I have a few issues with the implementation of Ohio's vehicle emissions program...

1. The test, in some instances, does not depend upon actual vehicle emissions, and relies upon the accuracy of the computer to diagnose the probable vehicle emission (the check engine light).
2. The test inherently creates a need to patronize a specific professional (the certified mechanic) again, regardless of the actual performance of the vehicle.

Question for debate: does environmental testing such as the one I described best serve the interest of the public? How could this system be changed so that actual emissions become the focal point?

It's definitely a ploy to gain money. The "Check Engine" light is quite possibly the most useless light on the entire dashboard. In my car (which never passed inspection because of it), the check engine light was on because it never went off. They didn't actually check the emissions from the car itself--they just checked to see if the light was on. I found this frustrating, to say the least.

When the attendant told me it would not pass because the Check Engine light was on, I told him, "Okay, well check the engine then." He didn't find it very funny. I'm pretty sure the computer flicks that light on at random times just to tick us off. You could buy a new car, drive it off the lot, and that light would come on. I'm exaggerating of course, but that's sort of what happens.

Seriously, what does Check Engine mean anyway?? Utah has the same laws as Ohio, apparently.

You have hit on my hobby (cars, modified cars to be precise) and one of my great pet peeves.

yes, emissions testing is a money grab- and a revenue creater in many ways- first off, it keeps a large amount of licensed mechanics in town- nice revenue creator for the municipality you live it- then there is the ticket itself, your local university probably has the classes for mechanics etc etc.

The real rip off is the underhood inspection. I think that sniffing the tailpipe is fine, but the underhood inspection is really horrible. This totally snuffs inovation and good car maintenence. A bad smog pump will really make your car run badly, but without it, you can't pass.

To test all these emission standards for ourselves one day, I took my 1967 pre-emissions vehicle to the sniffer. It has a carberated 500 ci stroked Big block in it, with a wicked cam profile, high compression, the whole nine yards, and has no emissions except for the common sense ones, an evap can and a PCV (positive crankcase ventilator- which increases horspower)- headers, open exhaust, not even mufflers!

I just tuned it- and guess what- IT MET 2002 NEW CAR CALIFORNIA STANDARDS IN EVERY CATEGORY!!!

I wish they would just let motor heads write the legislation LOL

This is a sore spot in my book. I have two vehicles, a 2001 sports car and a 1985 pick up truck. When I moved to Maryland last summer from NJ, I had to go through the whole registration and titling and tags and inspection and emissions for both vehicles ($900 and 8 trips to the DMV later, I was homicidal with rage) That count doesn't include the 2 times I had to go to get a new drivers license.

I was able to get an 4-month extension on my emissions inspection for the truck, which usually never passes emissions anymore. They gave me an extension because while I do have a tailpipe, it ends right about at the rear axle instead of coming all the way out to the back. They couldn't get the sensor on it there. So whatever, I did the exhaust work myself and I'm taking it back tonight. I have to get a new gas cap because the gas cap that is on there has failed emissions in the past. I'm so sick of this whole process, I'm really starting to consider taking the bus. The cost of driving these days is just crazy (I suppose I'm still jaded from the move - the out of pocket expense up front to get all those things done simultaneously after a move is just outrageous)

Emissions testing is necessary, it needs to be done. But they really oughta get the information out to people so they don't waste up to an hour and a half waiting in line at emissions just to find out that they'll have to come back later and wait in line AGAIN. A pamphlet explaining WHAT exactly is checked and what symptoms are immediate disqualifiers. (Like a check engine light or a too-short tailpipe)

I’ve got mixed feelings as well on this subject. While I think it’s a good idea, the shortcomings are where most good ideas fail: implementation and execution. Fortunately I don’t have horror stories like some of you.

A few years ago a local station did a story on the man who owns the testing facilities and he has several homes, the smallest of which would make a nice resort. My first gripe with our system is why privatization? Why not let the county run this and the profits could be used elsewhere (like expanding park services, bike/running trails).

The past three years I’ve simply drove up, popped the hood and off I went. Several years ago they changed the ‘rules’ around later models of SUV’s, no longer do they actually test emissions from the tailpipe (ooooo-k). Puzzling, frustrating and it never fails, I’ll pull away from the testing facility and almost invariably end up behind a bus that’s spewing out enough fumes to bring tears to your eyes.

My first suggestion for improvement would be to go after what I can see as the major contributors: busses and semi’s.

Prior to the program, our city was identified as “high risk” not necessarily because of the amount of pollutants generated locally, but because of our geographical location (the Ohio Valley) in the summer months our air tends to be stagnant and just hangs around.

I think the benefits are easily identified, cleaner air, and in an area with high allergens it certainly helps to reduce doctor visits. There’s current discussion about putting an end to the testing but we would lose valuable Federal money for road improvements.

The whole point of emissions testing is to reduce pollution, yes? How many cars do you suppose it takes to equal the pollution of one bus?

Do you see where I'm going here... they may produce more pollution by volume, but not on a per passenger basis. People need to get around.

That being said, privatization is a tricky issue. There is a difference between profitting and profiteering. If someone has several homes then they have done very well for themselves. What could be more American than that?

Because a bus carries more people than a car it should be excluded from emissions testing?

Here 60 citizens are keeping their cars up to standards only to be negated by a single bus (for figuring sake say 60 people per bus). Do the math, I’m just saying we should be going after what appears to be the heaviest polluters. 60 busses are easier to control and monitor than 3600 cars.



I have no problem with some one “making it”.

However, not at the expense of a federally mandated program. First, I have to get this done or else I’m breaking the law, second, I have no other option than to pull into this guys operation for 3 minutes of ‘analysis’.

some states have, and some are considering, a rule that cars over 25 years old do not have to be tested. the premise is that most of them are driven much less than average, are hobby cars, etc, and thus do not contribute much to pollution. If all states passed that law, you can bet that old cars would go up in value immediately. Most of the tests are done for good reason and can even warn you of possible problems that if not corrected may cost you a bunch of money.
The check engine light can mean something, or nothing, or be on as a result of a temporary malfunction somewhere, even something as simple as installing a new battery can turn it on. Read the owners manual to see how many start cycles are needed to allow it to reset itself, then wait it out.

Emission testing of vehicles is generally required is areas that don't meet the federal standard for carbon monoxide (CO) or very close to exceeding the standard. These areas exceeding the standard are call non-attainment areas. The testing is used to identify vehicles that are running inefficiently. There are a few researchers who are developing technology so that all vehicles in a non-attainment don't have to do the tailpipe testing. Some of the technology uses a laser that is aimed across a roadway that will register the emissions of a given vehicle. The plan is to require only the vehicles that exceed the emission standard to do the tailpipe testing. If I remember correctly, less than 15% of the vehicles create 85% of emissions (or something similar).{Its been a few years since I heard the percentages and it applied to Colorado's CO non-attainment areas.} The goal of the testing is either to get the cars tuned up or totally off the roads.

Generally older cars have a different emission standard than new cars. For example, in Colorado, cars built before 1986 have a different standard than cars built since 1986. Each state can have different emission standards, but California has the strictest standards.

On the repair costs, many states have a maximum amount you should have to pay to repair the car to meet emission standards.

On the issue of privatization, many states have privatized the testing (sometimes required by the state legislature to limit the size of government) but the private companies must bid and are contracted by the state to do the testing. They cannot charge more than what is in the contract.

On the issue of smoke from buses and semis, the smoke is generally from particulate matter (PM and PM10) and sulfur oxides (SOx) emitted from combustion of diesel fuel. The PM/PM10 and SOx are being control by federal standards on the composition of on-road diesel fuel. Also, the buses in many communties are starting to used diesel fuel blended with soybean oil or ethanol, natural gas, propane and other alternative fuels that will reduce air emissions. (Many of these alternative fuels are still in the trial stage.)

Non-attainment areas generally are cause by a variety of factors, including size of the community, geography, industry in the community, and weather patterns. Basicly, if enough of the pollutant occurs in a given area and it is held there by the geography and weather (inversions), then a violation will occur. The pollutant can also be transported into an area due to the wind (regional transport), which can cause a violation in another community or state. There have been small communities (several thousand people) that have been non-attainment due to terrain (i.e. in mountains), and a few metropolitan areas have been in attainment. Most of the non-attainment area are east of the Mississippi River or in California. Areas east of Mississippi River tend to have larger and older industries and power plants, more metropolitan areas that are in close proximity to each other, and are in or near the Applachian Mountain Range. If any area has been classified as non-attainment, it (state/regional/local government) will be working on reducing emissions from all possible sources (industry, mobile, and individual residences) and addressing any regional transport issues.