Been watching this one.

An analysis done on the 21st stated that an obstacle to the law is the DMV states they need to know if 1976 cars will be exempt or not by July of this year in order to get proper notification out to owners of 1976 cars. However, with the legislative process being what it is, the analyst felt that it couldn't get to Schwarzenegger's desk before September. So, they suggested moving the cutoff to 1977 to solve the timing problem with the DMV.

So far, no word on whether or not this will happen. If so, all 914s would be exempt, and they'd be COMPLETELY exempt, as in they'd be exempt from the regulation, not just the test. If not, there's a chance this may die in the appropriations committee (where it's sitting now) from lack of attention. In any case, there's a decent chance owners of '76s be able to escape this. If it were reintroduced next session, it would have to have a '77 or later cutoff date.

So is it that pre76 (or 77) cars will be totally exempted from the rules??? (ie not only no testing, but legal exemption from engine modifications or swaps, and exemption from all tailpipe emissions limits???)
Please let us know where you found this info, it sounds good for 914's, would make many conversions that have been done illegally now legal.

One fear is the introduction of roadside sniffer tests that may catch "illegal" engine mods on cars that are exempt from the biyearly tests. Would the proposed law allow these modifications and swaps with no requirements for referees or CARB approved parts???

If so, this is good, however it still screws 77 and later cars (off topic here) I am still hoping to get my 80 Triumph exempt from testing five years from now.

Also we should be careful, one year the jack asses (and am am really trieing to be nice here) in the state house will exempt our cars, then they will later change the law and start testing again, once they figure they made a law that was good, they will want to take it back.


keep us updated.

dave

i read the bill twice now, i do not see any provision for total exemption of pre 76 (or 77) cars from smog requirements, only an exemption from the bi yearly test, and test upon sale of car. We'd still need to maintain all smog stuff, as we are now (and I am sure we all are, right class?????). So actually, if this is true, this law is bad, as it only takes away (future 30 year exemptions) and gives nothing back. We still must maintain our smog stuff, even if exempt from testing. It will be interesting if they start roadside monitoring, and start picking on "exempt" cars, which I bet they will do.

I have heard that the CHP can even ask to look under your hood, and write you up for a engine swap if they catch you, pre 75 or not. Then you have to deal with the smog nazi's to get you car re-certified (regardless of year) fortunatly the CHP has more sense to harass citizens, but I think they can if they wanted too. (hence always be very nice to the cop that pulls you over, you do not want to "make his day") I believe this is how the law is now. Most of us with engine mods are not legal, we just aren't required to turn ourselves in every two years. When road side testing starts up, we will see how that works, my guess is they will target all cars then, no exemption, if you fail the tial pipe test on the roadside, they will haul you in, and give your car the once over to make sure nothing is illegally modified, regardless of year model back to the early sixties (when there was no smog requirements on cars) but maybe I am wrong, miracles could happen.

The text of the bill was amended on 24 March, to read:

This bill would instead exempt from the smog check requirements
*, and the smog check compliance requirements,* any motor
vehicle manufactured prior to the 1976 model-year.

The change is between the *'s. The full text of the bill, with amendments, is available on the Assembly website: http://www.assembly.ca.gov. Just type in the bill number.

I read this change to mean that compliance with the emissions laws is waived for all "exempt" cars. Others may have other interpretations. This is admittedly a grey area, but it's a toehold for any legal defense if it came to that.

As far as taking away what they've given, there are substantial limitations to enacting retroactive laws. Once they've moved the date up, moving it back would be much more difficult. Note that there have been several attempts to remove the 30 year exemption before, and all failed until this one, which is the first to not try and set the date back. It just fixes it to the present.

As for the sniffers, from what I've read, your car has to basically be pouring out black smoke for it to be caught by a roadside sniffer. If you keep your car in any reasonable state of tune, you're safe.

The one seriously helpful thing is that the primary agent of enforcement here is the DMV, which has proven itself to be a "least effort" organization time and again. This is the same organization that somehow managed to interpret the 30 year rolling exemption as: the current year - 29, which is why 1975 MY cars are exempt this year, rather than in 2005.

i'm guessing that the 29 year time frame comes from the way the automotive model year works. a 1975 car could very well have been built and sold in 1974.

Except the law defines it as the Model Year, and '75 Model Year cars have stickers on them identifying them as '75 Model Year cars, complying with 1975 emissions regulations.

My guess was that the drones at the DMV think the current year is whatever's printed on the plate stickers they're giving out now, which is 2005, so 1975 cars should be exempt now, too, since that's 30 years from "this" year.

Reminds me of the old math joke: 2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2.

Guess we need to find out who made the admendment, to figure the meaning. I read this also, and to me it did not seem to exempt my car from the requirements that i do not modify it, but who knows????

How can one get more info on this stuff????

At anyrate, the wording is unclear, but I suspect we are still forced to not modify our engines (isn't that a federal EPA law anyway?)

I do not trust them creeps in the State House, maybe this wording was placed to confuse, and gain uninformed support of the bill????, yeah thats it, let california say it is ok to mod our engines, so the bill looks good, and gets passed, but opps, federal law says you can't modify ha ha on you stupid citizens?????

Hope this bill dies soon.

At anyrate, the government does go back on its word in laws many times.

remember the assult weapon registration in California many years ago, oh yeah, the state is only registering them, not to worry, we won't take them from you. Then a little latter they sent letters to the registered owners, telling them to turn them in.
Or maybe the temporary income withholding tax, still there last time I checked. Or the goldengate bridge toll will be free once construcion cost are paid off, uhm, let's see It was paid off how many decades ago? oh well.

As far as roadside smog monitoring, the technology is pretty good, and will get better. The sensors can pick up more than black smoking cars, so beware, even a clean burning car could be caught

talk about retroactive, howabout the new (to SF Bay Area) smog tests with the dyno meter (and it eats up most of a $100 bill) There are requirements for NOx that must be met, something that was never required when the car was new. How is that for retroactive?

You can guess i have little trust in government, least still california government. They sank the state into a deep hole, and have done very little to fix it, instead they debate about some ancient oriental method of designing buildings to get the correct "energy flow" or chi, or cha that effects our inner self or some BS like that, and want to take this ancient practice and make it part of the state building code!

bunch of loons they are.

anyway lets keep a eye on this law. remeber this law was sponsered by some wacko that thinks she is a guardian of some special cat (she is one of those that thinks calling herself a pet owner some how violates the rights of her cat) frankly the cat has more brains than her , and most of the other senators, and assembly persons

dave

Well, I suppose I'm just a bit more trusting of government and the law, at least in the long run.

Keeping this on-topic (cars), the NOx requirements existed with the first emissions requirements in CA. However, the available technology didn't allow it to be tested effectively, so it wasn't tested at the smog check. The requirement was still there, however. They refined the tests, and started to measure NOx. Now they've refined the tests furthur and added dyno testing in some areas. Same requirements, different test. It's a slippery concept, I'll admit, but this isn't a case of a retroactive law. To become retroactive, they'd have to change the actual requirements for older model years. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 9), so even if they do manage to get passed, they'd not hold up in court, and I'm sure some car guys with enough money (like Jay Leno) wouldn't have any problem helping someone challenge such a law to get it struck down.

Unless this was changed very recently, btw, the Bay Area is not one of the areas that requires dyno smog testing. At least not all of the Bay Area.

I believe much of the San Fransisco Bay Area was recently added to the enhanced tests, which mean dyno testing, just recently got that notice for my Triumph, and upon calling the authorities, it was confirmed. Some outlaying rural areas are exempt (such as coastal area of San Mateo County) But I live smack in the middle of the SF penninisula, and get the privalage of the dyno test, and stricter requirements.

Also when smog II came along, i recall the talk was the state had decreased the levels of smog allowed to pass, and that was one of the points of the law that was resisted so much, that the new law imposed limits that the cars where never designed to meet. I'll need to confirm this, but this is what I recall was taking place)

At anyrate, when the Triumph was new in 1980, there was no requirement for a dyno test or NOx. We can blame it on technology improvements or what ever, but the fact is when the car was built, no such tests were required, and now they are, compliments of an all knowing, all powerful state government, that can't seem to do anything but screw up.

I do not think retroactive law would apply anyway, this isn't a case of retro active or not. To be retro active, would mean the law would get me for past errors in my ways, say they have old smog data from a test ten years ago on a car, that under law ten years ago that car passed. Then say they look up that old data, and say, hey you dumb citizen, we have changed the requirements today, and found by looking back at old records that you failed ten years ago based on the new levels, therefore we will fine you or confiscate your property. That would be retoactive, and possibly illegal by the Constitution or Bill of Rights (not that that means much to many politicians these days, it is a living document, and can change with the wind)
To make new requirments today, to be used on future tests is not retroactive (this will be the view of the politicians, not mine)

Kind of like a tax increase, yeah they can raise them every year if they want, but the new rate does not apply to your income ten years ago, only to current income, so this is not a case of retroactive, it would be if they raised taxes, and then gave you a new higher bill for the last ten years of earnings, that would be retroactive.


at anyrate, the smog laws are a mess, and very illogical, the worst part is the equipment inspection, which will fail a car even if it is pumping out clean rose smelling oxygen all day long, it will still fail for the wrong widget installed or what ever. Even a missing check engine light will fail a car, yeah, a fucking light on your dash (or lack there of) will fail your car in California.

Or how about the the requirement of no modifications, even if that modificaton results in less tail pipe emissions, yes that is right, in California, if I tried to put a powerful, fuel injected engine in my Triumph, even if it burns 50 times cleaner than the current engine, it would be illegal, unless the modifications are from a carefully selected (and very limited) list of approved modifications, which leaves little if any room for creativity on the part of hobbiests, most of whom being gear heads, engineers, mechanics, or other skilled persons have more common sense in one finger that the entire loony state assembly.

i know of someone who put a V12 Jag motor in the front of a corvair (yeah, thats right, in the front) very talented person no doubt, very clean install, he did'nt use the Jags carbs, no, he modified two each Buick V6 FI systems (one for each side) to get the fuel to his engine. With this modern system on his car, he no doubt burned cleaner than that old carbed Corvair ever did. It was an amazing job, showed off his extreme talent at engineering. Good thing the choose a 1960's car to modify, as they are (for now) not required to be tested (but technically are still illegal to modify, just not tested) If he had choosen a newer model car to create his own engine in, he'd have been screwed.
(and he is still at risk, if the state ever decides to go back and start testing older cars again, and that has happened in the past, read on)

i knew someone that had a Sunbeam in college days, had a supped up modified engine, there was no test requirement back then, then one year the State decided to start testing cars for the first time. the State didn't start the testing with the current year, no the state went back many years for the test requirement (I believe it was back to 1966) this guy had to get rid of the car, as it would have cost to much to make the car back to original, and besides, even if he could afford it, he had no more interest in the car after all that crap, he sold it for a big loss. So how is that for retroactive? The state never even tried to smog it, didn't care if it burned clean or not, it failed for equipment modifications, modifications that were made prior to the smog test law.

Anyone that upgrades their 914 could run in to the same thing if the state decided to go back and test cars that are currently exepmt from testing. The state has done it in the past, and might do it again

So watch out, this is the biggest threat to the enjoyment of our cars.

dave

Yep. I just got my daily driver smogged a couple weeks ago. They did the dyno test. Cost is up too - it was like $70.

I just barely passed too (by like 1%)! I probably need a new cat before the next test.

Demick

Still watching this. It was amended again on the 20th of May, extending the effective date to 1 April 2005 to give the DMV enough time to notify owners of '76 and later cars. It has now survived multiple votes in the Transportation Committee and a vote in the Appropriations Committee, so I'd say the likelyhood of passing when it reaches the Assembly floor to be good. No idea what the Governator thinks of the bill, so no telling if he'll sign it or not.

This language was also added as part of the amendment:

"SECTION 1. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature, in
enacting the act adding this section, to ensure that vehicles, of the
1975 model-year and older are permanently exempted from the biennial
compliance requirement of the motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (smog check) program."

This still doesn't make the issue of "is this just an exemption from the test, or the regulations" any clearer, although it does tend to make me lean more in the direction of the test only. One can only speculate on how any judge would interpret this in the future.

I would probably put money on this bill passing. Any owner of a '76 914 should stock up on hard-to-get smog bits now.

That is incorrect. You can legally put a newer fuel injected engine in your older car as long it passes all the smog requirements for the newer engine. For example it would be legal to a 3.2L carrera engine in a 914 as long as you keep the original fuel injection, the O2 sensor and the cat.

Personally, I think the 30 year rolling exemption should go away. I would be glad if 914s are exempt because they came with very little smog equipment but I don't want people driving around in cars from the 80s with removed smog equipment. I want to see cars from the 80s taken off the road because they haven't been maintained and can no longer pass smog.

I've heard the same attitude expressed about 70s cars, or even 60s cars. The entire rationale behind the 30 year exemption is that if it's made it that long and it's still running, the odds are very good that it's owned by someone who loves it and is maintaining it. Sure, there are a number of 80s "smokers" out there, but there were the same number of 70s "smokers" 10 years ago. Most of those have finally expired and were junked (or they're sitting in someone's driveway or sideyard unused). The statistics show the environmentalists themselves use show that 30 year old cars make up less than 3% of the cars on the road. Ten years from now, I still expect 30 year old cars to make up less 3% of the cars on the road, no matter what laws pass between now and then. I've talked to people who tell me they see "several" 70s cars belching out black smoke on the freeway to work every day, saying "they all oughta be outlawed". They fail to remember that: a) there are actually laws about producing visible amounts of smoke, that single car is surrounded by thousands of other cars that producing 0.01% of the emissions it does, so that one car affects air quality about as much as one smoker in a crowded football stadium, c) that 70s smoker won't likely be on the road next year, probably not even next month. Cars can't do that for long before they die.

I'm all for clean air. I just don't think the current test regimen is the way to get it. I'd be quite happy to submit to a regular test for ALL of my cars, regardless of year, so long as I didn't need to meet the visual test requirements. While I can, as you state, upgrade my car to a newer engine complete with all of the smog gear and pass, I cannot replace a carburator with modern EFI and pass, even if the emissions numbers are substantially better with the EFI setup. I cannot remove an air pump even if it contributes NOTHING to emissions reductions (and it doesn't, unless the mixture is wildly rich, which is why you don't see them anymore). If my air pump doesn't work and I can't find a replacement (a common situation), I cannot pass, even if I pass the sniff test with excellent numbers.

The system, as it's set up now, is designed to stop the tiny fraction of people who would try to circumvent the system by altering their cars in a way that would pass the sniff test, but somehow produce more emissions. Most people just aren't that smart, and even fewer are really interested in doing something so silly. California is the ONLY state I know of with a visual aspect to the test. All of the other states assume if you pass the tailpipe test, you're meeting the requirements. Get rid of the visual and I'd agree that not only should the 30 year exemption be removed, but ALL exemptions should be removed (back to 1965, anyway). California is also alone (so far as I know) in only requiring testing every OTHER year. Most states that test require testing every year. A great many states also require testing of much more dangerous items, like brake hoses and steering. Air quality is one thing, but bad brakes are a much more immediate danger to the public. So, since California's testing is so bad, I'm all in favor of exempting as many cars from it as possible, esp. those cars that are very likely to be owned by people who will maintain the car. A 30 year old requirement seems a sensible way to achieve that. Let the morons with their 10 year old smoking Corollas with about to fail wheel bearings and cracked brake hoses fail smog just to get them off the road.