Right Column
What the SNAPSHOT Numbers Tell Us
Using the numbers BAR publishes in the SNAPSHOTtable (example: in the April-July, 1999 table), here is what we can learn about the performance of Smog Check stations and technicians. You can use the information to track your progress. As part of the Enhanced Smog Check Program analysis, current station and technician performance is compared to data collected from a variety of sources:
- 1994 Pilot Program - a joint BAR/ARB loaded-mode vehicle emissions repair study that collected and analyzed data on the types of repairs that would be necessary in an Enhanced Smog Check Program.
- 1996 Prototype Enhanced Program - a group of 11 Sacramento-based auto repair shops that pioneered the use of loaded-mode testing, diagnostic procedures and equipment, and provided detailed repair data and analysis.
- Repair Assistance Program (RAP) - BAR's Repair Assistance Program that pays for emissions-related repairs when vehicles fail a biennial Smog Check, after an initial co-payment by consumers of $75. Detailed repair data and analysis are required before payment to the participating Smog Check stations is made.
Average Repair Costs
Look at the SNAPSHOT column in the April-July, 1999 table and the average repair cost numbers reported in July by station type. They show that the average statewide repair cost is $114. Test and Repair stations have the lowest reported repair cost at $95, while GPC stations have the highest at $178. The column also shows that average repair costs in the Enhanced Areas of the state are $116, and the average in Non-Enhanced Areas is $111.
Analysis
Compare the July numbers with the repair costs for:
- 1994 Pilot Program ( $302.49)
- 1996 Prototype Program ( $377.13)
- BAR's current Repair Assistance Program ($419.18.)
Interpretation
Stations are expected to meet nearly the same performance as the Pilot, Prototype, and RAP programs. The significant difference in average repair costs at Smog Check stations indicates that thorough and complete repairs required by the Enhanced Smog Check Program are not being made (see "Fix-to-Pass" story on page 3). Complete repairs were made in both the Pilot and Prototype programs and are currently being made more consistently at the state's RAP stations, also shown in the accompanying graph.
While repair costs are not the only indicator of complete repairs, the nature and type of repairs that were made during the Pilot and Prototype programs, and those being made at RAP stations, suggest that the average costs for complete repairs are significantly higher than those currently being reported by Smog Check stations.
Failure Rates by Station Type
Look at the August 1999 SNAPSHOT column in the April-July, 1999 table and the vehicle failure rates reported by station type. It shows that failure rates at Test & Repair stations in Enhanced Areas, where smog is a major problem, are lower than at all other station types. Specifically, Test & Repair stations in Enhanced Areas failed 9.0 percent of the vehicles tested at their stations, compared to a 10.2 percent failure rate at the GSGR stations and a 12.9 percent failure rate at GPC stations.
In addition, each of these Test & Repair station variations has a smaller failure rate than Test-Only stations, even when High Emitter Profile (HEP) vehicles directed by the state are excluded. For example, August data indicate that vehicles randomly selected (2%) by the state to be inspected at Test-Only stations failed 22.6 percent of the time, and vehicles belonging to other customers who voluntarily went to Test-Only stations (i.e., "Walk-Ins") failed 15.5 percent of the time.
Some station owners argue that Test-Only stations have higher numbers because the state directs HEP vehicles that are expected to fail their Smog Check inspection to these stations. To test that argument, BAR decided to see what would happen to the failure rates if all the HEP vehicles going to Test-Only stations were sent to all other stations instead. If all other stations failed the HEP vehicles at the same rate as Test-Only stations, the overall failure rates by station types would appear as follows:
- Test & Repair 11.65 %
- GSGR 12.96 %
- GPC 15.19 %
Failure Rates by Inspection Phase
The percentage and types of failures that are found among the vehicles tested during BAR's annual random roadside surveys are a key to analyzing the current failure rate data. In the April-July, 1999 table Roadside surveys tell BAR what percentage of vehicles should be failing in Smog Check stations, as well as why those vehicles are failing. For instance, according to the above graph, roadside data show that 16.5 percent of vehicles fail the "visual" inspection of emission control systems. But an average of all stations, including Test-Only, reported only 2.3 percent of the vehicles fail their visual inspection (see SNAPSHOT August column under Type of Failure).
Likewise, roadside data show that 16.5 percent of vehicles fail the "functional" tests. But an average of all stations reported only 5.2 percent of vehicles failed functional tests, using the August SNAPSHOT data. Functional failures most often overlooked are fuel caps, ignition timing, and malfunction indicator lights.
Tailpipe failure rates tell a similar story. Roadside data show that vehicles fail the tailpipe portion of the test an average of 21.5 percent of the time; whereas, all station types report only a 7.6 percent tailpipe failure.
These discrepancies suggest that Smog Check stations are not failing vehicles that have been tampered with, those with nonfunctional emission control systems, or even those with tailpipe failures.
Conclusion
These numbers exemplify the underreporting of failures among all stations, including Test-Only. They also show a lower failure rate for the entire Test & Repair network when compared to Test-Only stations. The BAR hopes these numbers will be an incentive for all stations to perform complete and accurate inspections, consistent with California laws and regulations and as outlined in the Smog Check Inspection Manual.
