Remove Pre-filter or not.

Not to get into any arguments here...my point is that CA has the exact same smog requirements for new vehicles as at least a dozen other States. It just isn't sitting out there by itself with it's own separate requirements anymore. And it never has been totally alone even though everyone likes to think that. What gets more attention here in CA is not extra equipment, but rather the testing we have to go through every 2 years. I can't find the map that the news was posting a couple of years ago, but it showed all the States that had the exact same "equipment" requirements as CA. Shoot, it's not even the same in every county here in CA! Less populated counties (or even areas of the counties) don't require smog checks at all.

While I may have come across as supporting all the smog equipment, here's some insight as to what I really think about it:
The kicker with CA is that they have an Air Resources Board that regulates this stuff. They put restrictions people living in Sacramento in that they can't burn a fire in their fireplaces on certain days in the winter (basically when it's cold outside). They require smog checks on vehicles (even where I live in the mountains). Yet you drive up here and are frequently driving through clouds of smoke because we have everyone burning yard waste outside in piles when they have FREE yard waste pickup. Or the forest service is burning slash piles because it's cheaper than shredding it. The Lake Tahoe basin is always smokey now because the forest service is always burning if it's a clear day. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this picture? I pay money for a smog check every 2 years for my mostly clean burning vehicle and yet we go ahead and burn everything outside whenever we want when there are tons of alternatives. Personally, I think the whole Air Resources Board is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Okay, rant over with. I'm just trying to clear the air. It may seem that I'm against removing the equipment or like the equipment. I have nothing against the equipment itself. It's the fact that we pay for the equipment, we pay for them to check it, and then they go and allow everyone else here to pollute more than our vehicles ever could! That's where I'm frustrated. But that's dumb government for you.

 

Grrr.
Oaky time for me to correct you a bit.
Forest fires have been happening long before humans have been around.
Wood smoke DOES NOT produce pollution. The smoke is actually quite clean even easy to breath. There is nothing hazardous in wood smoke. Perscribed burns are not done because they are a cheap way to get rid of waste. They are done to kill off certain specices or number of tree's/plants. Precribed burns are REQUIRED for a healthy forest. They also have the benefit of protecting your ass from a wild fire. I'm not a fan of slash and burn I rather just burn it, but it it necessary if an area is too over grown and next to people.
Oh and believe it or not the forest service and other organizations have to get permission form carb to burn. I don't work for the Forest service but carb shuts our burns down all the time. Which is a waste of tax dollars. Nothing like 80 federally funded fire fighters sitting around because carb decided it was a bad day to burn.

I'm all for burning yard waste too. It's way more environmentally friendly to burn it and have the nutrients go back into the soil, then to have a truck pick it up and take it to a land fill.


If you can't take the smoke get the fuck out the forest. Should be a rap song.

 

Okay, I'll let it go. But I agree there are times when burning is necessary. They do have to go through and burn the low stuff (just like a forest fire would). And having stuff fall and decompose naturally also adds those nutrients back to the ground (that is important too). And the same things were said about diesel exhaust not being harmful to the air (along with ethanol). Diesels never had to have smog checks before. Guess what? Diesel exhaust has been proven to be harmful to the air...as has ethanol. I don't know how burning a slash pile is not harmful to the air, but burning the wood in a woodstove or fireplace is harmful? Then why do they limit burning on bad air days?

And you obviously don't have a relative with asthma. We have to live up here because of the allergens at lower elevations. But then the burning causes my wife to have to use an at-home nebulizer to breath. That's where a lot of my frustration with burning comes from! There is nowhere with clean air anymore. And yes, we consider moving out of CA all the time, but it's not going to happen in this economy.

Okay, you can now correct me or pick on me all you want, but I'll keep my mouth shut (as I hear all the cheers going up on TW).

 

You just have it backwards is all.

The bad air is caused by human activities(cars factories, power plants, trains buses ect ect) and you are complaining about a natural process. Most forest in the us need fire.(With the exception of the temperate rain forests of the pacific north west.) It is an important part of the ecosystem. Certain tree's seeds only root after a fire. Others can't compete with heavy ground cover. Healthy forest clean more air, and fire is required for ca forest to be healthy.

Things don't rot very fast in ca it's too dry, they burn. One way or another it's gonna burn. If we start it it won't burn down your home.

Smokey the bear was wrong, dead wrong. The reason for all the recent large fires in is because we put out every fire we could. That caused a hundred years or more of fuel to pile up.

I just find it irritating when people claim about a natural process hurts the environment.

 

you will regret removing it when you hit some water, When I installed my cai I took a look at my pre filter and it had water splashes all over it as if it had been soaked. Its just one more thing stopping that moisture from making it into your engine.

 

I don't really think so in this case, this filter falls under some newer CA green house gas emissions standards that the California Air Resources Board came up with, but didn't have the authority to regulate, and aren't being followed by the hand full of other states that picked up California's emission standards, because of lawsuits that have been tied up in courts for years and California being the only state giving the finger to the EPA in the meantime, and apparently even in CA it's hit or miss if laws pertaining to this are actually enforced.

You couldn't argue if you wanted to if I had phrased it 'if it weren't for california the filter wouldn't be there'.

BS, first off the stock air intake is a sealed system with a shielded snorkel and a sunken bypass with a drain to remove any water far before it gets anywhere near the filter, a CAI is an open element with no protection, if you were getting water marks on the stock system you've probably sucked in a river with a CAI.

I'm not sure you're looking at the right filter either, it isn't a prefilter, it is located after the main air filter, right ontop of the engine, to get 'water spots' on it (which sounds ridiculous, how do you see a water spot on a filter made of white+translucent plastic thread and coal, and how does water get through the main filter under a huge amount of force and make a spot, that then sits there and dries long enough to leave a deposit? It'd be vaporized going through the main filter) you would have had to sucked water through the main air filter all the way into the system, and the thing is made of woven coal and plastic and would not absorb or stop anything but CO2 anyway.