First of all, I'd like to preface this by saying that I believe in emissions control, ensuring proper vehicle operation and safety, and regular inspections.  The goals of these programs should be to reduce emissions in our cities, and enhance safety on our roads.  Generating income and restricting car enthusiasts are not reasonable goals for these programs.  Unfortunately it seems clear that AirCare is definitely at least partly about collecting additional revenue -- why else would the cost of taking the normal bi-annual test be double what it used to cost for an annual test, or the current cost of a re-test? And why are safety inspections not part of vehicle testing? I see unsafe vehicles on the road all the time, often being driven aggressively and dangerously. And if reducing overall emissions is the goal, then shouldn't vehicles with larger engines be subject to some form of penalty? Instead all emission testing is done as a percentage of the emitted gas, rather than based on the absolute amount of pollution emitted. Large displacement engines flow far more air, and thus far more pollution -- and when used in massive SUVs and trucks they are used under greater loads than the engines of small, lightweight passenger cars. And for anyone who has ever experienced rush hour traffic, you'll note that the majority of all vehicles (regardless of size or seating capacity) carry only one person.

Two months ago I resolved a problem with my car's ignition system (for those not reading the rest of my website, it is a 1993 Ford Probe GT, and the ignitor module failure is a very common failure mode which ought to be subject to a recall and gratis replacement by Ford -- but that's another story).  In the process I completely replaced the spark plug wires, spark plugs, ignitor module, cam sensors, (and while I was at it) the O2 sensors, airflow sensor (which was faulty), and catalytic converter.  The faulty airflow sensor had been the reason my car failed to pass AirCare in 2000 -- I had taken the test twice, with a visit to a certified AirCare mechanic between the tests.  The mechanic determined the airflow sensor was faulty, but the cost of a replacement part from Ford (> Can$1000) was well in excess of the repair cost limit specified by AirCare so I was granted a conditional pass and didn't have to worry about it for another year.  This year I bought a used airflow sensor (from an ex-Probe owner who wrote his car off) for a whopping Can$75.  This sensor solved the problem that was causing the car to idle very rich, and thus it made sense to replace the O2 sensors and catalytic converter at the same time as running rich for almost 2 years had damaged them.  As a result my car's emissions equipment was in perfect working order for this year's test (I had to re-test this year since I had failed the previous year).

In mid-July I took my car to the emissions testing center and, after sitting in line for 20 minutes, it failed the test.  The summary results are below.  Needless to say I was out Can$48 and very disappointed.  I thought the turbo's turbine might be absorbing too much heat and causing the catalyst to not work properly, especially considering the lengthy wait before the test.  In an attempt to address the heat problem I installed header wrap on the exhaust pipe from the turbine to the catalytic converter (which is already ceramic coated to keep the heat in).  I also filled up with Mohawk 94 octane gas, which is a ethanol blend.  And just for good measure I went for an hour drive on the freeway before going to the testing center.  This time I got lucky and had less than a 5 minute wait before the test.  When they actually ran the test, the operator missed a shift and had to redo the first part of the test.  After all that, the results were considerably different than the previous session -- to say the least!  Here is the summary of the results:

As you can see, the difference between the two tests is extreme -- far out of proportion with what was done to the car.  To me this points to some serious issues with the testing procedure.  Was the temperature of the car's catalyst to blame?  If so, do all cars suffer the same issue and should something be done to fairly deal with waiting times?  Should an immediate (and free) re-test be done to verify the results?  Was the different gas the solution?  If so, shouldn't all gas be ethanol blended to reduce emissions from all gas powered vehicles?  Was the problem in the calibration or operation of the emission testing sensors?

I don't have to take my car through the test again for another two years.  When I do, I'm now confident I can make it pass with flying colours.