How have courts interpreted the phrase "excessive or unusual noise" in the context of mufflers?

Moreover, the constitutional validity of Vehicle Code, section 27153 has been upheld against the claim of constitutional infirmity which defendant urges here. (People v. Madearos (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 642, 41 Cal.Rptr. 269.) Quoting from a Texas case with approval, the court stated: "Every motor vehicle when in normal operation necessarily makes some noise, emits some smoke, and permits gas or steam to escape to some extent. They are in constant operation on our streets and highways and even in the sparsely settled areas of our State they are operated daily within the hearing and view of the citizens. We think any ordinary and interested person would have no difficulty in determining whether or not an excessive and unusual noise or offensive or excessive exhaust fumes accompanied the operation of a motor vehicle." (230 Cal.App.2d 644--645, 41 Cal.Rptr. 271.) We agree. (See also Smith v. Peterson (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 241, 280 P.2d 522, cited in Madearos, holding that the phrase 'excessive or unusual noise' in connection with mufflers was not vague and indefinite, and cases cited therein.) ⁴