Ca. Smog Law Changes, Another amendment Options

[Allan]

Any politicos here that can interpret this stuff? What happens now that it's been amended or if it dosn't get finalized before the Senate adjourns next month?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquer...arch_type=email

[lapuwali]

Very, very interesting.

My read on this is that they've provided an out clause for "collectors". There's been a section in the CVC on "collector cars" for quite some time that didn't really apply to anything useful (i.e., it cost more, and limited mileage, but conferred no advantages). This out clause allows cars that meet the collector requirements (which need to be looked up) which are also at least 35 years old, are exempted from the visual and functional portions of the test. You still need to be tested, but as long as you pass the tailpipe test and aren't leaking fuel, you pass.

A 35 year rolling backdoor partial exemption.

Personally, I think this is a huge step forward, and someone's been listening. With this amendment, if you fit modern EFI in place of your carbs on your late 70s car, actually cleaning up the tailpipe emissions, you'd still be legal. Under current law, you'd fail the visual.

I have no idea what the actual nuts-and-bolts processes are, but the status says it's moved to a third reading, so I'd guess that it stays on the Senate floor. If the Senate adjourns before this is voted on, I believe it dies and must be brought up again next session, which means more admendments (starting date is too early).

[dmenche914]

WARNING, DANGER!

This Bill is still BULL, the latest admendment kind of gives it a candy coating, by allowing "collector" cars of 35 years or older to be exempt from visual, but still must pass tail pipe.

First off, it the admendment requires collector car insurance, to qualify as a collector car, which means in most case limited milage, car must be garaged, etc....,


The Warning Danger thing is the age of "collector" cars as defined in the Bill, it is 35 years or 1970 cars today.

So if you have a 1970 collector car (but no newer than that) you will only be required to pass tail pipe test. This is the new admendment!

This is worse than the un-admended Bill, which gave total smog test exemption for any car older than 1976 (Verses current law which is a 30 year rolling exemption).


The Admendment for collector cars is completely worthless, as the only cars that it protects are ones that are already exempt by this Bill.

Upon analyzing the possible reasons for such an admendment I conclude the reason is to put something in place for next years bill which would logically kill the smog test exemption for 30 year old plus cars, and instead make ALL cars test for smog (probably exempt pre 1965 cars, as they had no smog requirements).

This new admendment will be the end of the current smog test exemption for older cars unless they are 35 years or older, and registered / insured as collector cars, with all the limitations .

So if this thing goes forward, and the follow on Admendments or Bill get passed in the next year, I suspect soon all 1966 and newer cars will be smog tested again, and the only out will be for collector cars, which must be at least 35 years old, so at first, only the 1970 914 would be exempted,

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 914's will all be required to pass smog again, tail pipe and visual. Many of us will be screwed.

This is what we are now up aginst, this Bill if passed, will be the first of two, the second will make all cars that had smog control (1965 and newer likely) be tested, with a partial exemption for 35 year old collector cars.

Bend Over and Take It, or Stand Up and Contact All the Senators, and the Govenor and Let Them Know How to Vote on This. Have You Friends, Family, Etc do the same, we have got to stop this Bill, it is getting worse and is just the first step to having all our 914's get smogged again.

Please feel free to post this on other car sites, we need to get the word out how bad this Bill has just become.


dave

[MartyYeoman]

Am I wrong or does it say:

Sec 2 Section 44011 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

44011. (a) All motor vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines that are registered within an area designated for program
coverage shall be required biennially to obtain a certificate of
compliance or noncompliance, except for all of the following:

(3) Any motor vehicle manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.

4000.1. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif), ©,
or (d) of this section, or subdivision ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) of Section 43654 of the
Health and Safety Code, the department shall require upon initial
registration, and upon transfer of ownership and registration, of any
motor vehicle subject to Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of
Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, a valid certificate of compliance or a certificate of
noncompliance, as appropriate, issued in accordance with Section
44015 of the Health and Safety Code.

(d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a transfer of ownership and
registration under any of the following circumstances:

(6) Prior to January 1, 2003, the The
motor vehicle was manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.

I may be wrong, but arn't all 914's uneffected except 1976 models?

[Joe Bob]

Has to go thru BOTH houses again....my opinion the amendment will kill it. Even if it oes pass again, Arnold will most likely veto it.

[Allan]

(6) Prior to January 1, 2003, the The
motor vehicle was manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.

Maybe all 914's are exempt. I don't think they ever "Manufactured" one in '76.

[dmenche914]

Right now, current law is 30 year rolling exemption, 1975 is considered 30 years old by the DMV, so 1975 is now exempt, next year 1976 will be exempt, and so on.

Proposed law before the recent admendment was to make the cut off for smog test fixed at 1975, all newer cars would require tests forever.

Admendment would also add that any car 35 years and older if registered as a classic would only require tail pipe test, no visual test. (35 years plus require NO test under current law!)

Problem is that now, all 35 year old cars are completely exempt, (actually 30 year old cars are exempt too), thus this admendment sets in motion to smog cars at least 35 years old, more likely all cars back to maybe 1965.

At any rate, that would effect almost all 914's if this bill continues to change in the direction I think it might. At anyrate, it is a bad bill and must be stopped. even without the Admendment, 1976 914's would be screwed.

914's were sold 1970 thru 1976 year models. 75 and 76 models had the big rubber bumpers, earlier models did not

[lapuwali]

I have to disagree that the admendment is worthless, but not because of 914s (this really has little to do with 914s). The point that it doesn't change things for cars already exempt is also irrelevant. The bill, btw, still sets the total exemption at 1976, it doesn't move it back to 1966, nor does it set it to 35 years old from 1 April 2005 (when the bill would be in force, if passed). It says, 1976 OR 35 years old (so the 35 year rolling exemption wouldn't start until 2010 the way the DMV does this), with the additional restriction for 1976 and newer cars from 2010 forward that they must be "collector" cars, as defined outside this statute. What it does is open a previously firmly closed door.

The way I see it, even if this bill dies (which now seems likely), the tree-hugger crowd will continue to try and kill the 30-year rolling exemption somehow. They'll not give up, and will continue to refine their approach until a bill DOES pass. What I want to see is a replacement I can live with.

This amendment opens the door for providing a replacement for the 30 year exemption I'd agree with: remove the visual component of the smog test for all cars. If you pass the tailpipe test, and meet some minimum "visual" standards (the amendment specifically mentions a fuel cap test and requires you aren't "leaking liquid fuel"), you pass the smog test. I'd support such a bill, even if it pushed the date back to 1966, since it would now be possible for owners to update their cars to keep them clean, and not have to continue to use OEM emissions parts that are increasingly unavailable or very expensive, and which didn't work very well in the first place. The aftermarket would be able to provide generic emissions parts for a wide® range of cars w/o having to run the odious and expensive CARB testing regime, so they'd benefit. The owners could continue to legally tinker with and drive their cars at a reasonable cost, so they'd benefit. The air would be cleaner, so we'd all benefit. The only losers would be people who insist on using concours correct cars on the road, which is a small fraction of the number of car owners, even owners of "classics".

The way this bill has been amended shows me that it's very unlikely that what's happened so far (moving the exemption year from 1965 to 1975) will be undone. This doesn't appear to be politically viable, even to the people who support the idea of removing the exemption. The early amendments only strengthened the position that this exemption would stand, and this latest amendment doesn't change that. I think the position of all but 1976 914s is secure (and if this bill dies, it's likely 1976 would be the new cutoff for any more attempts, so ALL 914s would be exempt).

btw, another bill to pay attention to is AB1615, which is referenced in this amendment. The bills reference each other, each saying they won't take effect if the other passes. I haven't read it in detail, but it appears to be a measure intended to close a loophole involving out-of-state registration.

[dmenche914]

then again, if my car was 35 plus years old, and registered as a classic (which I couldn't do, as I already have two cars insured as classics, and all the classic car insurance companies I checked with requires all classic cars be garaged, so I would fail to be able to obtain classic car insurance for a third car, my 914, and with no classic insurance, no classic registration, and hence no smog exemption. (So what the #@*! should my insurance status (or size of my garage) have to do with if my car is exempt or not????)

At anyrate, suppose I could get away with only a tail pipe test, no equipment inspection, Guess I could put a non smog big fat V8 in my car, with non-smog carb, and cam, all I would need to do to be "legal" is once each two years put a fat catalytic converter on the tail pipes, and drive to the smog station and pass. it is my understanding that even a poorly tuned, or otherwise non-smogable car can usually pass with a new converter (just is the converter will not live long)

Uhm, the possibilities, but hell, I still think they ought to leave the law alone, 30 year rolling exemption, that makes sense, how many 30 year old cars drive alot? how about 35 year, 40 year, 45 year? The miles drive fall drastically after a certain age, that is why a rolling exemption makes sense.

For all other cars, regardless of classic registration, or age, make it a tail pipe only test. That would free up even more aftermarket engine mods, as we all know the market is huge for modern cars. Yes, some equipment inspection will still be needed, to check things that a tail pipe test does not indicate, like a hooked up evap system, sealed gas cap, stuff like that, but otherwise, it should be tail pipe test on all years, with a rolling cut off at 30 years, justified by the small number of, and miles driven by 30 plus year old cars.

AT ANYRATE, CALL, EMAIL, WRITE THE SENATORS, AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON THE ENTIRE BILL.

And @#+$% the politicians!

dave

[Brad Roberts]

You'll love this:

BUY BOXSTERS... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


B

[dmenche914]

Geer Ugh, oh well, Had to come to that, but I rather build a 914 boxster with a Subaru turbo six water cooled engine. Boy howdy, should that go well in a light little 914, should blow them big fat boxsters away, but alas, I am too afraid of the smog man to tackle such an undertaking.

Maybe take the engine from a Boxster, stuff it in a 914, and call it a light wieght racing version of the Boxster?????


dave


PS Brad: I saw the work in process in my 914 rust, looking good, hope to have it back soon.

[Cap'n Krusty]

"Maybe all 914's are exempt. I don't think they ever "Manufactured" one in '76." Ummmmm .............................., are you forgetting the MY 1976 cars? The Cap'n

[elwood-914]

In Amador County, we don't have manditory smog checks.!!!!!

[Allan]

Additional action has occurred.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquer...arch_type=email

[dmenche914]

Ok, back to the Assembly, where it already has passed. We Are Fucked! Only Arnold can stop this madness now. Contact Arnold, tell him to veto this thing.

[mikester]

If I'm required to pass the tail pipe test and only the tail pipe test (and those requirements aren't unreasonable - but who defies that?) but I am allowed to make any modifications I need to pass that test without worry then where is the problem?

If you're a true enthusiast and care about the environment then I would think that this is your opportunity to do both responsibly.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong...

[lapuwali]

That's the idea of dropping the visual, which currently forbids you from making any mods that affect emission parts, even if they IMPROVE emissions, or if the mod doesn't actually change the emissions. There are some exceptions to this, allowing you to fit parts that have gone through an approval process (so-called CARB EO# parts), but this process is a sufficiently expensive hoop to jump through that it's only done by companies intending to sell quite a few of the doodads in question (a turbo kits for popular car like a Miata, for example).

The tailpipe numbers are defined by model year, and don't change. The test has changed for certain areas (tests under load rather than just static), which have made some cars do worse on tailpipe tests than they did under the old test, some to the point of failing where they would have passed under the old test. This is a separate issue. For most post-75 cars, the issue is somewhat moot, as nearly all such cars had catalytic convertors (exceptions are rare, like the 911 and the RX-7), and fitting a new catalytic convertor to even a badly tuned car will make it pass even the dyno tests with excellent numbers (unless the car is REALLY badly tuned). As pointed out earlier, this means simply fitting a new cat even two years will get you through the system, but if you're gaming the system that badly, you're likely to be one of those people who buys a "test pipe" to replace the cat and only fits the cat for the biannual test, anyway.

btw, I note that it didn't pass the Senate by a large enough margin to override a veto. Indeed, it passed by a much smaller margin than it did in the Assembly.

[eeyore]

...fitting a new catalytic convertor to even a badly tuned car will make it pass even the dyno tests with excellent numbers....

That's what happened with my '75 -- new cat

There is a glimmer of hope I just remembered. Unlike the President, who can only sign or not sign a bill, the California governor is empowered with a line item veto. I think this means a swipe of the pen can undo some points of the bill, such as adding 66-75 cars back into the smog check loop.

[lapuwali]

The bill DOESN'T add '66 - '75 cars back into the smog test loop. It still explicitly sets the exemption year at 1975, just like the earlier versions of the bill. All this amendment does is ADD a 35-year rolling exemption for collector cars, which won't have any useful effect until 2011, when '76 "collector cars" will be tailpipe test only, not visual test. From 2005 until 2010, all '76 cars would have to pass the full test, just as they do today.

If any line-item needs removing, it's the collector car provision. If ALL cars 35 years or older got the tailpipe only test provision, I'd be more in favor of this bill.

[SirAndy]

BUY BOXSTERS... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

i have a '70 ...

no need to buy one of them fugly box-ass
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Andy