CHP gives cliff a smog ticket for his teener Options

[Joe Bob]

Unless you can get it dismissed by the guys Supervisor or it's written under the wrong rule, yer basically fucked. While the law is rarely enforced on smog check exempt vehicles...it's still on the books.

Yes, you see 57 Chevies with blowers, dual quads, headers and such....but I'll bet he has a PCV in there some place....

Kind of like the sodomy laws in the Bible Belt....moral of the story, don't pop the hood unless your a stocker or the guy has a warrant.....

I can only guess, the driver failed the cops subjective "attitude test".....I've had that standard used against me...go figure.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

AGAIN, post the reg that the cop wrote him up for.

[Elliot Cannon]

I know someone (a close friend) who has a 1973 914 with a 1989 3.2 six installed. A member of the California Highway Patrol and a member of the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force came to my friends house, looked the car over, "blue tagged" the car, provided paper work for the new engine and not a word about smog.???? Are these laws arbitrarily enforced?

[Cap'n Krusty]

In general, the CHP has nothing to do with smog enforcement, nor the emissions laws themselves. Any time you get a ticket relating to smog equipment, it's usually triggered by excessive smoke, a demonstration of your car's HP, noise, or acceleration/speed attributes, or you pissed the cop off. At that point, you may have aroused an interest in the history of your car, your engine, the condition of your brakes, lights, horn, ride height, tires, or your driving record. This can occasionally rise to gargantuan and truly annoying proportions, involving the BAR, the CHP auto theft division, the DMV, and the EPA people. Might not be in your best interests to display behavior and/or attitude to draw this kind of attention.

Unless, of course, you ride a Harley, where being loud and annoying is 110% (actually, 150%) American, and consequently exempt from the rules.

The Cap'n, trying to have a nice weekend despite the invasion of thousands of Harleys for some kind of obnoxiousfest.

[Wes V]

You can put a '32 Ford engine in your '72 914

I don't agree at all! (I know you are just using that as an example)

In my talks with the State Referee's, they are real clear on this.

Even if you could get the original engines EFI to run the engine, they would simply state that it's not as the manufacturer designed and got through the initial smog certification.

Wes

[sww914]

The ricers have been dealing with this stuff for years. My neighbor had a riced out Honda with big wheels and stickers on it, he got pulled over leaving a car show for DWA- Driving While Asian, they had him pop the hood and wrote him a ticket for a non-CARB approved air filter. The car was stock under the hood except for the air cleaner and of course the coffee can exhaust tip. He said 100 people got pulled over and ticketed for similar offenses trying to leave that rice-fest.
They should be pulling over those loud Harley assholes!
BTW, don't EVER piss off the cop, you'll never win unless you're a lawyer and I'm not. I've found that a pleasant, cooperative attitude and a sense of humor go a million miles farther with a cop than trying to prove that you're right.

[Wes V]

Another thing the cops like ticketing on the Honda guys are aftermarket fuel rails!!

If it doesn't have an EO number (and none of the aftermarket ones do), it's illegal!

We have it good in that we don't get looked at like the Honda guys are.

Wes

[JeffBowlsby]

...and it must pass tailpipe emissions testing as appropriate for the area in which the car is registered.

Huh? The factory emission label above the relay board indicates the emission standards for that particular 914, as it was manufactured, at the time it was manufactured. The labels all indicate either 'EPA' or 'California' compliance or both. Is it true that same 914 today would be required to comply with different or even stricter emissions levels? It seems hard to believe that the same car would be held to a more stringent standard than when it was manufactured. That could lead to 'unlawful seizure of property' with a quick change of the laws.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

[Cap'n Krusty]

You can put a '32 Ford engine in your '72 914

I don't agree at all! (I know you are just using that as an example)

In my talks with the State Referee's, they are real clear on this.

Even if you could get the original engines EFI to run the engine, they would simply state that it's not as the manufacturer designed and got through the initial smog certification.

Wes

As with a lot of police officers, a little less attitude and a lot of "how can you and I make this fly?" works wonders with referrees. BTDT. A good percentage of them are "car guys", and a little "can you work with me on this" can lead to a little interpretation of the rules. Not "breaking" them, but sort of "finding in your favor".

The Cap'n

[SirAndy]

A slight clarification: The smog rule is that the equipment has to be correct and complete for either the engine or the chassis, whichever is newer. You can put a '32 Ford engine in your '72 914, but it has to have functional D-jetronic EFI, evap, vacuum controlled hot air riser, vacuum controlled spark advance and retard, and an oil bath air cleaner, and it must pass tailpipe emissions testing as appropriate for the area in which the car is registered. Conversely, you can put that 1.7L teener motor in the model A, but it has to be equipped as it was when the engine was certified for sale in 1972. As was mentioned earlier, the test exemption is just that: a test exemption. The state may, at it's discretion, compel you to have it inspected for both equipment and for emissions levels.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

a lot of us are gambling that no one will ever peek into the engine bay ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif) Andy

[MartyYeoman]

....It seems hard to believe that the same car would be held to a more stringent standard than when it was manufactured.

Believe it, Jeff.
In our county, They've tightened way up on the NOX requirements.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

[Joe Bob]

....It seems hard to believe that the same car would be held to a more stringent standard than when it was manufactured.

Believe it, Jeff.
In our county, They've tightened way up on the NOX requirements.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

Hmmm, I doubt that. The CO and NoX are the same as they were when the car was manufactured. it's just that they look for the emissions at different rpms and do it under load.

As to the equipment....well there I DO have an issue. A lot of the 70s add on stuff were one off designs and no longer available. New cars since 1990 have 100K warranties on smog equipment and the manufacturers are required to keep parts for 20 years....

[Brando]

Reading through most of the situation here, this is why my 2056 upgrade engine will be disguised under stock injection. To any inspector of the state it will appear as a stock 1974 (1974 model year car, 1975 ship/license date) to have the OEM equipment and emissions control. Sans the catalytic converter, but I can slap one in place if need-be.

I believe the letter of the law states that even though a car may be exempt from annual or bi-annual inspections and testing, it must maintain the original equipment, or if replaced with a later model engine or different engine, maintain the OEM emissions control equipment from that year/make/model for that engine.

[DanT]

OK, so the answer to the question is this.
I was parked behind this car at the GGR AX today and it blows a huge cloud of smoke at start up and does a pretty good James Bond impression during decel.
The officer had all the probable cause he needed to pull him over and write him a ticket.
Had nothing to do with primer, wings, carbs or anything else.

the car is belching lots of oil smoke and deserved to be tagged....

it wasn't the cop being a butthead or anything else ,and again it has nothing to do with "smog testing"

It has to do with visible POLLUTION (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[brer]

should have said it was a diesel.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Chris Hamilton]

OK, so the answer to the question is this.
I was parked behind this car at the GGR AX today and it blows a huge cloud of smoke at start up and does a pretty good James Bond impression during decel.
The officer had all the probable cause he needed to pull him over and write him a ticket.
Had nothing to do with primer, wings, carbs or anything else.

the car is belching lots of oil smoke and deserved to be tagged....

it wasn't the cop being a butthead or anything else ,and again it has nothing to do with "smog testing"

It has to do with visible POLLUTION (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

I totally understand how they can complain about it, I'm just trying to figure out how the law with regards to old cars works.

His car isn't running great right now, but when it does run well we'd like to avoid future problems.

The car is currently in an unfinished state, but it has a lot of money in it already, and we'd hate to have something like this screw up the plan.

[DanT]

like stated above.
just because it doesn't have to be smogged every 2 years anymore does not mean the correct anti pollution devices and correct engine pieces can be moved or changed.
if you upgrade to a newer motor, it is supposed to have all the pollution devices that were part of that newer motor's package.
So yes, there are a lot of older teeners in California that are illegal by the letter of the law.
If his car was running clean, he wouldn't have gotten pulled over for the smoking, and he wouldn't be looking at a big mess. Depending on what the ticket states, he may have to have the car looked at at a "Referee" station and they will be looking for all the proper intake and smog related stuff from 197X for his year. Yes there was smog equipment even on a 1970.

[ConeDodger]

I would bet the next step in the process for this car would be to find a stock motor and install it for the fix-it ticket. Otherwise, you're probably screwed. I don't see a referee being ok with some upgraded project engine. They are looking to give exemption to older cars that have their stock motors in place and can't pass.

I am shocked that the CHP officer went that far. Must have pissed him off somehow.

I am not sure the "consent search" argument holds water. I see the CHP inspecting engine compartments all the time. I have a Fri.- Sat. Rice hangout a half-block away. Occasionally some ass-hat starts drifting in the parking lot and CHP will swoop in and clear the lot and BBQ the ass-hat... They have even used a helicopter! If these ricers didn't have to open their hoods, I doubt they would. I'm no lawyer but these guys get themselves hassled all the time as a result of their own behaviour. You would think they would know enough to say no when the officer says "can you open your hood for me?"

[Joe Bob]

A smoke ticket is NOT a reasonable cause for a smog ticket.

[JeffBowlsby]

...a stock 1974 (1974 model year car, 1975 ship/license date) to have the OEM equipment and emissions control. Sans the catalytic converter, but I can slap one in place if need-be.

No 1974 model year car should have a stock cat and so it should not be required equipment for that car ever.

I knew a 914 owner years ago (remember Miles Julihn?) who had a 49-state 1975 2.0L that did not have a stock cat, but he ended up installing one to pass emissions testing that were required back then.

[brer]

this is what you say.


I'm sorry officer but I do not consent to any searches.



Any search he does after that is then done without your consent.
If he still orders you to open the hood you repeat the same phrase.

keep repeating until he asks you to step out of the car.
If you have balls you will lock your door on exiting.

sound like fun?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)