Sorry for highjacking this thread, but it's one of the few that people are commenting on. I'm picking up my GT AWD today and want find an after market cover for light weather outdoor use. Any suggestions. None of the online stores can accurately tell me the dimensions and the customs are pretty expensive.
Front Passenger Seat Belt Pretensioner
- Thread starter Cis4
- Start date
LMAO
looking at the time of replies etc, seems like a lot are active
likely better to have started own topic imo
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I do believe all new cars sold in the US are CARB compliant now as the differences between CARB and Federal on emission standards are very little. It's not worth it for automakers right now having two different versions of cars for a single US market.
When we ordered our CX-5, there was no other choices but one version on emission standard even if we wanted a CARB compliant CX-5.
Not arguing with you at all, as you may be right, BUT if there were two versions, you would not get a choice. You'd only be offered what is legal in your state.
Not necessarily. CA compliant vehicles are legal in all 50 states so manufacturers could send CA compliant vehicles to states that didn't require CA compliance. They might do this to respond to inventory imbalances. But lets all be glad that all CX-5's are built to the same standard. It certainly simplifies parts ordering and such.
I'm proud of California for leading the nation and manufacturers on the clean, healthy path. I mean it's pretty hard to enjoy life when you are dying of cancer like my mom did a couple of years ago.
What's notable to me is how these regulations have improved not only the air quality in American cities but also the very cars that are subject to the regulations. People used to b**** and moan how emissions equipment ruined otherwise good engines, choked them up and ruined their economy. Now we have cars that are faster, safer and more fun to drive than at any previous point in history. Once manufacturers realized that every manufacturer played by the same rules, competition rewarded the best solutions. Mazda CX-5 is a case in point.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Although it's not for car emission control regulations, but it's related. Government environmental policies and regulations sometime made costly mistakes too. Remember the disaster of reformulated gasoline (RFG) with MTBE? It was mandated by Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) imposed by EPA as an oxygenate for gasoline in 1992. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress finally voted to remove the oxygen content requirement for RFG due to health concerns from MTBE. But MTBE had contaminated groundwater and soil so much which now needs $1~30 billions to clean up!
Wrong. I bought my car in Northern Virginia but the configuration/color I wanted meant that they had to get it from a dealer in nearby southern Maryland. The car is CARB compliant whereas if I had bought one off of my Virginia dealer's lot, it would not have been.
Your story is not accurate.
The EPA has never mandated the use of MTBE, that was a cheap way private industry met clean burning standards. Some refiners met the same standards without using any MTBE.
In fact, many, if not most, states have banned the use of MTBE.
What the Clean Air Act Amendments required was than refiners use some type of oxygenate. It could be alcohol or ETBE which comes without the problems of MTBE but costs more.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Don't be so sure! When you order a new car, it used to have two emission standards you can choose: Federal Tier 2 standards and CARB Phase II LEV standards. You can order a CARB certified cars from any states. You don't need that option anymore as almost every new car sold in the US is CARB certified. Mazda doesn't list its emission certifications in vehicle specs, but Honda does. For example, Honda CR-V lists its CARB emissions rating as ULEV-2 for all 50 states!
From Tailpipe Emissions at greenercars.org, it says:
"In earlier years, greenercars.org identified vehicles that were sold nationwide and met one of the California certifications by placing a star next to their emissions standard listing (e.g., lev*). This proved helpful to consumers who lived outside California but sought out the cleaner, low-emission vehicles. Today, because most vehicles are now being sold carrying both a California and a federal certification, this designation is largely outdated. Consequently, we discontinued this practice beginning with model year 2005 listings."
Well, it is listed on the window sticker that was on the car. I don't remember what exactly it said (window sticker is at home in a file cabinet), but it definitely has something regarding emissions.
The window sticker emissions certification of a car from Maryland cannot speak to what the window sticker emissions certification would have been, had you purchased the car in Virginia. So I don't see your point.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Mtbe
It's true that the original EPA imposed CAA in 1990 (started using 10% MTBE RFG in 1992) required refiners to use some type of oxygenate. But at time MTBE is the oxygenate. Comparing to the other less popular oxygenate which is ethanol, MTBE is cheaper and easier to meet the emission standards. It has better blending characteristics and lower volatility. And it can be shipped through existing pipelines. In my mind, although CAA didn't force to use MTBE, but it didn't forbid it either. It was the best oxygenate at time, so most refiners were using it. EPA should be responsible for many years of using MTBE which now cost billions of dollars to clean up! There is a radio car talk show host in Dallas who is anti-MTBE advocate even presented the evident showing EPA knew MTBE is possibly carcinogenic, easy to pollute groundwater as early as in '80s based on some studies done by EPA!
Not until 2005 the Congress voted out the oxygen content requirement for RFG, the refiners were gradually switched from MTBE to ethanol for state laws banning MTBE use, concerns over possible legal liability, and government tax subsidies for using ethanol.
Ethanol has caused many issues on gasoline engines especially the corrosion in fuel system. Ethanol is much less efficient, and sometimes even generating more emissions! It was called "Gasohol" when we're living in Iowa. Although it was cheaper due to government subsidization but everybody knew we should stay away from it! Not to mention using heavy government subsidized, corn produced ethanol in the US caused food and feed prices went way up. Growing corn also requires much water. Unless using sugar cane produced ethanol such as in Brazil which has much higher energy content, our model just doesn't make sense under current energy policy!
I saw you've edited your reply which are now more in line with what I've said as your original reply would cause people's misunderstanding on the use of MTBE with timelines. And I should have known you'd mention this when I typed as I know you're very environment cautious and very knowledgeable.
It's true that the original EPA imposed CAA in 1990 (started using 10% MTBE RFG in 1992) required refiners to use some type of oxygenate. But at time MTBE is the oxygenate. Comparing to the other less popular oxygenate which is ethanol, MTBE is cheaper and easier to meet the emission standards. It has better blending characteristics and lower volatility. And it can be shipped through existing pipelines. In my mind, although CAA didn't force to use MTBE, but it didn't forbid it either. It was the best oxygenate at time, so most refiners were using it. EPA should be responsible for many years of using MTBE which now cost billions of dollars to clean up! There is a radio car talk show host in Dallas who is anti-MTBE advocate even presented the evident showing EPA knew MTBE is possibly carcinogenic, easy to pollute groundwater as early as in '80s based on some studies done by EPA!
Not until 2005 the Congress voted out the oxygen content requirement for RFG, the refiners were gradually switched from MTBE to ethanol for state laws banning MTBE use, concerns over possible legal liability, and government tax subsidies for using ethanol.
Ethanol has caused many issues on gasoline engines especially the corrosion in fuel system. Ethanol is much less efficient, and sometimes even generating more emissions! It was called "Gasohol" when we're living in Iowa. Although it was cheaper due to government subsidization but everybody knew we should stay away from it! Not to mention using heavy government subsidized, corn produced ethanol in the US caused food and feed prices went way up. Growing corn also requires much water. Unless using sugar cane produced ethanol such as in Brazil which has much higher energy content, our model just doesn't make sense under current energy policy!
Noticed the same issue regarding the OP's description of the passenger seat belt. My wife noticed it and asked me to brake aggressively. She darn near hit the windshield.
Definitely different than any other vehicle we have owned. If it is supposed to get you near the airbag, I suppose it will (after you hit it and then it explosively blows you rearward, hopefully not breaking your neck).
Definitely different than any other vehicle we have owned. If it is supposed to get you near the airbag, I suppose it will (after you hit it and then it explosively blows you rearward, hopefully not breaking your neck).
So do you have technical expertise in the field of automotive safety/crash testing? Because it doesn't appear that you do.
The CX-5 would not have performed in such an exemplary manner if the seatbelt tensioning system was faulty or poorly designed.
But Mazda takes occupant safety very seriously so I'm sure they would be all ears if you cared to share your special expertise with them.
No, I never claimed to have crash testing expertise, I do not know why you would assume such.
I noted that during hard braking, the passenger made contact with the dash before the seatbelt stopped forward movement. The neck-breaking reference was tongue-n-cheek.
