Chris, Is that V8 equipped with all stock hardware or CARB approved? It might not be legal by letter of the law. FYI I noticed that your car is blowing a substaintial amount of smoke out the tail pipes that might attract unfavorable attention. Took a video of your car at the AX this weekend - love the sound of your car. I could post video on Youtube if you want to see it.

Grant, the V8 doesn't have any parts that came stock on anything I know of, thats why this worries me so much. I had originally thought that pre 1976 cars were exempt from smog, not just exempt from the 2 year check.

The smoke is probably valve seals, engine was built by renegade. I'd love to see some videos!

Anyhow, talked to cliff ( I guess he doesn't want to post in this thread ), but the section written up on the ticket is http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm


edit: he got written up for section b:

Just wanted to pop my head in and say hi, nothing really to add to the discussion. He probably pulled me over because of the general noise of the car, and quite possibly smoking. The carburetors are leaking vacuum so it doesn't idle well, and burns lots of fuel in the exhaust.
The entire confrontation went fairly well, officer was polite, as was I, the car is probably quite guilty of being a gross polluter at the moment, something that should be fixed in the next couple weeks with a solution that will still be Illegal! I'm looking for a bone stock 914 engine to swap in to get it to pass.

i think i slipped through the cracks a few years back...

years ago i had a 67 mustang with a 400m swapped in (of all the engines). edlebrook intake, no air pump, open p.c.v. system, holley/no choke, open air cleaner AND those are just what i remember. HERES what you do to get the ref to tag it for smog...

i couldn't make the appt. and my wife had to bring it in. i forgot to tell her the gas gauge read almost empty at all times... she gets it fired up heads to the appt. (she was late... as usual... opps did i say that?) she was nevered anyway to add to it all. shes half there, sees the gauge, trys to put gas in... can't, finally gets to ref. station late and fit to be tied.

long story short the ref was working SO hard in appesing this crazed woman all i had to do was close the p.c.v. system ref's can be humans, at least once in awhile

by the way, and not trying to be johnny downer, but good old ca. is attempting to smog ALL cars AGAIN! i've seen this "no smog then smog" of old cars 2 times since the 80's.

mike

I've got a '75 that's all electric; no engine, no gas tank, no tailpipe. Technically, I'm probably in violation of a crapload of regulations. It's registered and insured, don't ask, don't tell. What's a reasonable expectation if I get pulled over?
-Jim

Jim,
I've been thinking about that through the entire thread. Lord knows on a bad day someone would find something to write you up on but by the wording of the statute above it looks like you would be clear on that one - you haven't modified or ommitted any polution control device.

Of course you won't attract any attention due to noise or smoke And unless you have done an Otmar you probably won't attract any attention for speed!

Could you imagine the public relations fiasco if someone wrote you up for polution violations on an EV!

Might be fun taking it to the referee. He/she would probably have a good chuckle.

This is why I am HAPPY that I don't live in the People's Republic of California. Texas has a 25 year rolling exemption. After 25 years, they don't even look to see if the stuff is there any more. So all 914s are exempt from both visual and emissions test.


Now I have a curiosity question... My 73 914 has a 73 911 engine in it. What emissions standards would I have to meet in California?



I blew through a drive by emissions test on my way home from work one day in my 914/6. Needless to say, I was a full song when I went by. Well, MFI runs a bit rich, so I must have attracted attention from the smog testers inside the van, because about 2 blocks down the road, I got pulled over. The cop proceeded to hassle me about my car "pegging the meter" of the emissions test station. He kept trying to tell me he was going to ticket me for excessive emissions. I reminded him that my car was emissions exempt, and asked him to call a supervisor. When the supervisor showed up, he looked at my car, and told me to leave. I parked the car for a week before driving it to work again.

I just gave that link a good speed read and it appears that pertains to the removal of a device like a cat or an air pump. This is my spin. If the car doesn't have a "pollution control device" to remove, there is no violation. I would call injection a "pollution control device" It's a fuel delivery system.

First the car is exempt for a reason. Most 1971 model cars wouldn't pass the basic standards for emissions set forth for their year of manufacture 37 years after they were made. It's an unreasonable expectation. Obsolecence has taken many of these cars off the road and more are expiring every year. Like all the 70's model daily drivers, more doors, old undesirable work trucks, 70's imports like the Toyota's and honda's with their complicated air delivery emissions with 30 vacum hoses.

Second, parts to run the FI are starting to become NLA and wear is causing these controls to fall out of spec. It would be reasonable to change the fuel delivery system to one that will still allow the use of the vehicle.

Third, all cars fall out of tune from time to time. Tune the car up and bring the part slips to court. Show a good faith effort to correct the problem the officer noticed and remind the judge that the car is "pre-emissions equipted" The ticket that was issued doesn't apply, and based on the year is exempt from smog.

Beatable! CHP was messin with ya.

Grant, lets see that video!

the state doesn't care if the stuff is NLA or not. If it was an FI car at birth, then it is till supposed to be an FI car. and in CA the early cars did have stuff that was considered smog related. various parts of the FI on type IVs were there for smog.
blow by recirculation, cold start valves, hot start valves all had something to do with not only driveability but also emissions.
Even my stock motored 1967 Bug had a smog device or two, and when we still had to have it smogged, those pieces had to be there.
Remember California was requiring smog equipment on cars before the rest of the nation was, back in '66 and '67.

I believe that for truely NLA items, if the owner took reasonable and prudent steps to ensure the emissions were minimized, you would have a good opportunity to get state certification with non-original SMOG hardware. It might not pass on the initial inspection, but at the appeal level the intent of the law would certainly be in play. The key to this is that the owner has taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance iwth emission standards, and that the car when tested was not in gross non-compliance.

My $.02.

I think this string got way off topic (but covered some usefull information).

Judging by the violation that Cliff was written up for, it sounds like the officer feels he changed the engine configuration in some manner.

Is it a stock, but tired engine?

Is it a big bore? Has the cam been changed?

You 914 guys have no idea what kind of shit Honda owners have been put through by the police. (using an aftermarket fuel rail on a Honda is a common bust due to the fact that none of them have EO numbers)

Wes

what has or hasn't been changed on his car is probably irrelevant to this discussion. He was pulled over because of several things but the most prominent was the smoke from the tail pipe.
the car also has a HUGE whale tale on it, lots of primer and the rear fenders have been crudely cut out to accept larger wheels and tires that stick out beyond the current fender contours.

He is also very young, and I have seen first hand when officers pull over young ones just to see what they are doing.

My wife and I were following my son and youngest daughter one Friday early afternoon.
He and my daughter were in his GTI and we were following in ours.
A SJPD comes up from behind and gets along side my son. Closely checks the back and front of his car. (looking for tags and to see if he had a front license plate on). Finally after about a 1/2 of a mile he pulls him over. So I pull in behind the cop.
He goes up and asked what my son and daughter are doing....my son tells him and then the cop asks why they aren't in school....well is was a teacher in service day, and they didn't have school. so since he wasn't getting any satisfaction with them, he comes back and starts on me. Asks what I am doing, so I ask him what he is doing pulling over my son and daughter for no reason....
Now he gets real quiet and mumbles something about truancy, I said maybe the PD should alert the officers when the kids are legally out of school...etc.
He didn't like this very much, but there was nothing he could do about it....we went on our way.
the moral of the story is, if you are a kid driving a car, the cops are just looking for something to pull you over for. And once they get you there, they are really going to look hard for something to write you up for....especially if your car has an issue.

An electric car when re-registered after conversion will have that fact stamped on the Pink Slip and the registration. Zero Emissions cars have there own string of rules in the CVC. INCLUDING smog check exemption even if they are newer vehicles...

Back on topic....WHAT reg was the guy written up under? Can you scan the the ticket....blank out your personal stuff...

The ticket says he was written up under VC 27156, section b. I don't have a scan of the ticket, maybe cliff can post that.

Dan, I totally agree that the car was asking for trouble, but my v8 wasn't any more subtle, it's just a really nice looking and sounding car so I think it doesn't attract as much attention ( assuming you never step on the gas, ever ).

exactly Chris....

27156. (a) No person shall operate or leave standing upon ( )1 a highway ( )2 a motor vehicle that is a gross polluter, as defined in Section 39032.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

{B} No person shall operate or leave standing upon ( )1 a highway ( )2 a motor vehicle that is required to be equipped with a motor vehicle pollution control device under Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code or any other certified motor vehicle pollution control device required by any other state law or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to that law, or required to be equipped with a motor vehicle pollution control device pursuant to the National Emission Standards Act (42 U.S.C. ( )3 7521 to 7550, inclusive) and the standards and regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act, unless the motor vehicle is equipped with the required motor vehicle pollution control device ( )4 that is correctly installed and in operating condition. No person shall disconnect, modify, or alter any such required device.

Plenty of exemptions to that standard.....I have a 2006 that's totally exempt. Runs a Type I VW motor, turbo and aftermarket FI.....I don't know or care what it blows out the tail pipe....

WOW! Why not just print "COP BAIT" on the sides???

Or "free donuts".....

Now why would the cop think the engine may be modified?

Wes

Can anyone tell me what "polution control device" is on a 1971 California 914? Or what "pollution control device is connected to the stock FI? (the fuel delivery device) What exactly is the part the cop feels he removed? Needing to give the car a tune up or lean out the carbs to clear up the smoke is do-able. But I think if you pick apart the intent of the section cited you may be able to beat that one.

All 914s at least had the charcoal filter and piping. The PCV valve and decel valves began on 1972 and later cars as far as I can tell. Anyone know anything different?

his car certainly didn't come stock with dual carbs, regardless of year, in California.

Okay, here's an update for everyone, I've got an appointment with a referee to go fail at 2:10 pm. Interestingly enough, their locations and phone number has got to be a matter of national security or something because they WILL NOT give you the address or phone without making an appointment (in your name, etc etc).
I'm going to go there, talk with the guy about it. There is an exemption to the every two year smogs for something not being available. I phoned the four BAR recommended parts places and got three responses. "What? they had EFI in 1971?" "I've done it before, it costs more than the car is worth, fuck off, I have people who are going to spend money," and "we can probably find you most of the parts, but not all of them."
I then phoned someone in the porsche business who said it's impossible to get the manifold pressure sensor and ECU anymore. I am going to see if the referee will buy that argument and re-certify it.
I've been considering converting the vehicle to run on methanol. One would think that C.A.R.B would be supportive of this, but it is illegal (unless you're a company and have lots of money) to do such a thing. I've been on the phone with CARB about this but the lady who deals with modifications is out until tomorrow. I'm going to play up the alternative fuel angle as I'm a student and can probably get some sort of credit for converting it. I will also talk to her about what to do in the situation of most of us, where the EFI sucks so much that we replaced it with a system that has the potential to be just as, or even cleaner. This is especially worrying for older vehicles as no manufacturer has the incentive to spend $100k on getting their product approved.
So I've contacted BAR, CARB, and the referee scheduling people. I'll be finding a solution, I just hope I don't run out of minutes first.

a used 1.7L with all injection parts can be had for $500 or less.

or call EASY in emeryville for prices for FI parts, they'll have everything you need ...

or borrow a running 1.7L motor from a friend ...

Andy

Blah.

Went to the referee station, sans car, to speak with the guy. I had to make an appointment (which I cancelled shortly afterwords) to be given the address of the place. I had a conversation with the guy, he ended up getting kinda interested in the problem but his advice was to either find the equipment to put on or just pay the ticket.

The second one doesn't really work because I'd never be able to register the vehicle in CA again and driving it would be quite risky. I found several other options in the form of trying to get an exemption 'cause the EFI isn't available, as none of the BAR sources for parts had it, I'm probably going to be turned down on this, but it'll be nice to have a definitive answer.

Markb got in touch with me through my corresponding WTB/R posting in the classified forums and it looks as though we will be swapping his old 1.7 EFI engine into my vehicle in order to bring it into compliance. I have been planning to rebuild my current engine and paint my car all along so the problem shouldn't happen again.

It certainly could happen to anyone who ends up with an overzealous CHP officer, kinda weird to be in a state of perpetual illegality. Not that this car isn't more of a target than most, I'm just surprised he missed the rest of the illegal things on the car!

Sorry its not the best quality but there are still a few good sounds. I would love a car like yours one day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Xy_gw3Fvw

Wow, you really see the acceleration in the video, don't feel it too well in the drivers seat. Thanks for taking the clip!

The car has really been a thrill to drive, I wish it were mine. It however belongs to one of our racing buddies Larry, who couldn't make it because of an injury. He plans to time trial the car, and asked me to take it to a few autocross events to see what it will probably need. My dad ( Lee ) also repaired a bunch of the suspension points under the front of the car, so we're taking it out and shaking it down to make sure they're solid before painting over them.

technically, i am in the crack of the smog law. I have a 73 914 1.7, with the stock fuel injection system. But, it is a 49 state car, so technically is still isnt smog legal lol

(my parents would detune the car for every smog test since it was in cali in '76 to pass hehe)

even the california cars had to be tweeked to pass the tailpipe test, then retweeked after testing so they would run

The ONLY smog equipment on your '67 bug was the closed crankcase system, which consisted of a rubber boot at the bottom of the road draft tube. This started for ALL cars in 1965 or '66. The Cap'n

The statement about the exemption is only partially true. It's a ONE TIME exemption, and it's granted mostly for hardship cases. As for NLA equipment, they give you a number to call, and you better believe those guys can find almost any smog part you'd ever need. If they can supply it, cost is out of the equation. The Cap'n

It wasn't until 1975 that there was a difference in CA and 49 state emissions equipment for 914s. Cali is a city in Colombia. The Cap'n

California***

good point about the equipment, the difference was the tuning of the motor, not the actual system. though, it still shows that the car wouldnt pass the smog law for this state without having to be retuned again.

so even is still correct stuff, is it still legal? Doesnt really matter though, i highly doubt i will ever need to deal with that issue.

There was a lot of discussion earler regarding the Officer's right to look under the hood.

To those who would refuse to consent to an inspection under the hood or demand a search warrant, I'm sorry to say you are probably going to be inspected anyway... and failure to submit to the inspection could result in an arrest or citation.

VC§ 2806. Vehicle and Equipment Inspection
Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.
(Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 292, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2004.)

VC§ 2800. Obedience to Traffic Officers
(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

Although these items bring up questions regarding unreasonable search and seizure, unless you're willing to take it to the Supreme Court, you're proabably going to lose. In the mean time, you car would probably be impounded (at your expense) awaiting the search warrant. Then a thorough search would probably involve dismantling the car for inspection.

My experience is that you're not going to win a pissing match with a cop.

Illegal search and seizure as it regards a motor vehicle applies to the passenger compartment and storage areas. The engine as demonstrated above by the code is fair game. The engine is regulated. How do they enforce laws like engine modification if they cannot inspect?
Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to tell the officer to get a warrant if he wanted to look under my hood but it isn't going to do you any good. In extreme cases it could end in your arrest for obstructing an officer.

When he asks to see the engine, you pop the front hood.

"Oh crap... uh..."

Then the rear hood.

"Uh oh... Do i even have one?"

VC§ 2806 says that the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect the engine is modified, or in the instance that the vehicle is a danger to others to search into the car. If you objected to his search and he found nothing, this would constitute an unreasonable search, yadda yadda.

VC§ 2800 says you have to comply with lawful inspections. If you do not comply because it is unlawful (unlawful search and siezure of things on your person, etc).

I'm guessing this brings to light whether or not you believe the search to be lawful. If you contest it and don't oblige the officer's request, it will more than likely become a pissing match in court where its your lawyer vs. the officer's intended enforcement, what he was looking for, questioning his "probable cause" etc.

How much time and money you wanna spend to set precedence?

it is pretty amazing though that the officer knew that 914's didnt come with carbs in usa though. If anything, it was just bad luck. But i guess that is the risk you take if you remove the fi unit.

I think it's worth the risk to get a reliable, good running car though. My 914 is going to get good EFI eventually, but nothing even resembling the stock unit.

yea, reliability is key.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

No longer is "Probable Cause" a requirement. It has been supplanted by "Reasonable Cause"

In over simplified terms, probable cause exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).

The requirements to support "Reasonable Cause" are very easy to justify by law enforcement.

Yep. Look at that whale tail. Reasonable cause. Listen to that engine. Reasonable cause. In the case of my engine, you can see the carbs easily through the engine grill. An officer who knew 914's would have me without opening the engine lid. I have no rain tray.

We have a couple CHP officers in SVR... They both would have known where the engine is located and that it didn't come with carbs.

HA! No rain tray!!! You lawless SOB!!!

A drive by emissions test? Pardon my ignorance, but do these really exist?
And if so, how accurate are they?

They exist, and they work well enough to catch cars with semi-serious emissions issues. The Cap'n

those tests usually wont test the 914 unless you are blowing visible smoke. I passed one, officer asked my year (73) and said, ok, have a good day.

but they are out there