Herr Governator signs A.B. 2683, Smog Law not Veto'd / bad for car buffs Options

[horizontally-opposed]

I'm saying make the standards pretty relaxed -- just enough to certify whether a car is a true gross polluter or not.

If it is, we get a chance to tune or fix it and test again. If we can't make it reasonably clean (which there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to -- even with carbs), it's off the road until we can.

I'm not sure it's our "right" to drive any car on public roads, but especially one that REALLY messes up the air for our children.

I know this may get me flamed, but it's just my own OPINION...

pete

[ArtechnikA]

So you're saying that my 1973 2.2 four banger with Webers will have to pass a tailpipe test? If so how strict will the tailpipe test be?

it should meet the standards in place for model-year 1973 cars.

don't forget - all these "exempt" cars *aren't* exempt from meeting the standards - only pre-'55 cars have NO standards. they've just been exempt from the *inspections* designed to ENFORCE the standards. technically, you still have to sontinue to meet the emissions standards in effect when the car was manufactured. that may or may not be a state law, but it is a Federal law ...

[tbil]

Don't see this as a bad thing for 95% of us here in CA. But for the 5% with 76's, I'd probably be looking to swap for an older car and may want to sell the 76 out of state to get top dollar.

We really do have an air quality problem in this state - many days are down right unhealthy. That's not the future I want for me, my kids and future generations. Guess, I support this law but do understand that our 914's arn't the real problem. Small engines, few of them and not driven too often.

You should see some of the tail pipes coming accross the border!

[anthony]

believe it will probably require special insurance, with mileage limits. The intent is this is supposed to be a shine-and-show car, not a daily driver.

This seems reasonable.

I have mixed feelings about this. Of course I'd like all my cars to be exempt and to be able to do whatever I want with them. It would be nice to have the option of putting a big stinky carburated six in my '81 SC some day.

On the other hand, the SC has a decent FI system, a cat, and an O2 sensor. It runs very clean. The part of me that likes clean air doesn't want people back dating newer cars with good FI systems, removing cats and O2 sensors, and turning them into polluters.

A rolling exemption of the visual inspection would be a great idea - put whatever clean engine you want in there and you're good to go as long as it passes smog.

[lapuwali]

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm hoping that yet another revision to this law can be pushed through simply deleting the "collector" provision, but keeping the no visual part. I'd agree with either a 35-year rolling change (full to tailpipe only), or a fixed range ('75 to '85 is what I'd suggest as the most workable). I'd also support a blanket change so all cars are tailpipe only, with no age range at all.

I've always found the visual component of the test to be odious.

Perhaps for the next term, we should all start a letter-writing campaign and see if we can at least get the collector bit removed.

[Steve]

If your car is 75 or older registered in CA. you should no longer need a smog certificate.
Which means if you modify your car nobody is going to check it.

If you need to get your car registered you won't need a smog certificate but they might do an inspection.

When I registered a 73 four years ago they only checked the VIN numbers they did not look at anything else and they did not need a smog certificate.
At the time this car had a 2.7 six with webers and headers and no smog stuff.

[ArtechnikA]

also in the news today:

" LOS ANGELES - California air regulators Friday unanimously approved the world's most stringent rules to reduce auto emissions that contribute to global warming — a move that could affect car and truck buyers from coast to coast. "

i don't think this stuff is going to get better before it gets worse ...

[lapuwali]

Yes, I was just about to post on this subject. CARB issued new regulations requiring cuts in auto emissions by 25% by 2016 [on all new cars], and the press is insisting this will affect all cars in the nation, since the nation follows CARB's lead (historically).

However, while CARB had some victories in the past, their most recent attempts at forcing technology have been abysmal failures. They "required" in the early 90s that 10% of cars SOLD in CA by 1999 would be zero-emissions vehicles. Then they moved the year up to 2003 and dropped the percentage to 5%, then they dropped the requirement altogether. There are a fraction more ZEVs on the road now then there were in the mid-90s. They presumed that they could repeat their efforts of the 70s to force changes on the automakers, and ran headlong into geniunely insurmountable technical hurdles.

25% is a huge cut from already very low levels (current auto emissions are hard to even measure on the smog check equipment used in most stations today), and I think we're already well past the point of dimishing returns here. The automakers have (of course) vowed to fight this in the courts, and Ahnold has vowed to support CARB. So, it should come as no surprise he signed AB2683.

[Elliot_Cannon]

OK, I'm a little confused now. Maybe I should try to download a copy of this new law. Does it say that 1975 and older cars are totally exempt from a smog check or are they required to have a tailpipe check?
Elliot

[phantom914]

OK, I'm a little confused now.  Maybe I should try to download a copy of this new law.  Does it say that 1975 and older cars are totally exempt from a smog check or are they required to have a tailpipe check?
          Elliot

You don't have to worry about a tailpipe check. I'm not yet sure about being fully exempt from modifications (but how would they know if you modidfied it if there is no check). The 35 year rolling thing won't mean anything until 2010 (2011?) anyway because '75 and before are still exempt from testing as they already were.



Andrew

[lapuwali]

For 1975 or older cars, they're exempt from any kind of check, now and forever. The 35 year old thing obviously won't have any effect until 2011 (or 2010, given how the DMV does math).

As for the earlier question on engine v. chassis years and engine swaps, if the chassis is pre-smog (that is, '75 or older), then you're off the hook as far as the DMV is concerned, and they're the only ones really enforcing anything.

Prior to the 30 year rolling exemption, the "newer of the two" rule meant that after an newer engine swap, you actually went to a BAR referee station for your first smog check, and they looked the car over very carefully, and issued you what amounted to a new title stating the year of the car was now the year of the engine. From that point on, the DMV assumed the car was the new year, and you passed the smog test based on that year. If you did the swap and went to your "normal" smog check and were caught, you'd be forced to go through this whole process and get the car "re-year'd".

This was true unless the chassis was a '65 or older, and you didn't do your civic duty and inform the state that the engine in there was much newer. Since the DMV still assumed it was a '65, they'd never issue a smog notice, and no one but you would know that there was a much newer engine in the car. Now, the same is true if it's a '75 or older chassis, rather than '65 or older.

[anthony]

For 1975 or older cars, they're exempt from any kind of check, now and forever

Untill they change the law again!

[Allan]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) You wait and see. It will come up again in the next few years and each time it will get stricter and stricter until the only older cars will be either on the track or in a museum.

[ppickerell]

There will remain a certain segment who can afford to convert back to smog once every two years, pass the test and strip all that sh@t off for another 2 years.

[lapuwali]

Untill they change the law again!

Probably not. There's a general legal principle that makes it very difficult to pass a law that affects things retroactively. These laws, if passed, generate no end of lawsuits and end up getting overturned in the courts.

This is one reason this bill passed and the two previous attempts (which tried to either kill the exemption outright or even rewind it prior to '65) failed. AB2683 allowed cars that were smog exempt at the time the bill was passed to remain that way, and only affected cars that hadn't yet been exempted. The lord giveth, but it's bloody hard for the lord to taketh away in the US legal system.

Of course, the door is still open for them to institute new testing schemes not covered under existing law. The Smog Check II program is a perfect example of this. The law didn't really define the test, only that testing had to take place. And the law also states that you are only exempt from the biannual test, not constant roadside tests. It also doesn't exempt you from having to retain the equipment, so if a roadside test nabs you, I can see being required to take a special test, which will check for all of the equipment you should still have on the car.

btw, the 25% reduction in emissions for 2016 cars mentioned above turns out to be a 25% reduction in CO2, which marks the first time CO2 limits are tested for. This is an interesting change, as CO2 emissions are, for gasoline and diesel fuelled cars, largely influenced by fuel economy. This means substantial reductions in fuel used will be required to meet these new limits, which is going to mean smaller engines in most cases. I note that the required reduction for trucks is only 18%, so SUVs get off more lightly. It's interesting this comes up now, as there was a bill passed 2-3 years ago giving CARB the right to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions by 2009, which raised a few hackles, but was largely ignored.

Hydrogen fuelled IC engines have virtually no CO2 emissions (no carbon involved, other than the trace amounts in the air), so perhaps we'll see more of those. However, I believe the 25% reduction is PER CAR, not for the fleet, so having a mix of hydrogen-powered cars in the model lineup won't solve the problem.

None of this really has anything to do with 914s, of course, so I'll drop the subject now...

Anyone out there know what the relative CO2 emissions are for alcohol fuels (relative to gasoline, that is)?

[Maltese Falcon]

another bad clause in the new A.B.2683 is that the initial "Starting year" for this program can be rolled back to let's say 1967. Hopefully they don't go there. Can you imagine all of those '67 - '73 911 guys with MFI getting thru the tests ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[lapuwali]

Where does it say that? Please point me to the specific clause. I just read through it again and didn't find any language to that effect anywhere in it.

[Elliot_Cannon]

Where can we download a copy of this new law?
Cheers, Elliot

[lapuwali]

A copy of this law, as well as every other bill in consideration before the Assembly, can be viewed at www.assembly.ca.gov. Senate bills (SBXXX instead of ABXXX) can be viewed at www.senate.ca.gov. There's a search function for the bill number, the bill author, and keywords in the text of the bills themselves. You'll also find status and all amendements to all bills as they pass through the legislative process. One of the more illuminating things is a roster of how various Assemblypeople/Senators voted on each stage of each bill (in committee and on the floor), so you can see exactly how your Congressperson is voting.

The two other things to look through are the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the Health & Safety statutes (H&S), which cover existing law in the area of cars and smog regulations.

Note that reading this stuff will make your eyes cross, but after you do it for awhile, you get a hang for the language used.

[davidcalvin]

So.. I have a 76. It passes smog. Is there a chance that the tests will become more stringent and my car will suddenly quit passing?