No Smog for Pre 1981 Vehicles! (CA)

Discussion in 'General IH Tech' started by Scout-it-out, Mar 16, 2012.

  1. Scout-it-out

    Scout-it-out Farmall Cub

    Doug LaMalfa introduced SB1224 which would exempt pre 1981 vehicles from smog.This is scheduled for hearings on March 27,2012. Write or call your California Assembly or Senate member to support. The legislative counsel’s digest states:

    SB 1224, as introduced, La Malfa. Smog check: biennial inspection:
    Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
    (smog check) program, administered by the Department of Consumer
    Affairs. The smog check program requires inspection of motor vehicles
    upon initial registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon
    transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law
    exempts specified vehicles from being inspected biennially upon renewal
    of registration, including, among others, all motor vehicles manufactured
    prior to the 1976 model-year.
    This bill instead would exempt all motor vehicles prior to the 1981
    model-year from being inspected biennially upon renewal of registration.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
    State-mandated local program: no.

    Here is a response that you can cut and paste and send to your local Senator.

    Your fellow Senator Doug LaMalfa has introduced SB 1224 which would exempt pre 1981 vehicles from biennial smog inspection. I am someone who owns a pre 1981 vehicle that continously passes all smog tests and feel that this bill is a very good idea. Please join your fellow Senator and vote to approve this bill.

    Thank You,

    i'm sorry if this is in the wrong place. i looked but couldn't find a better place. thanks
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  2. 64C1100

    64C1100 Farmall Cub

    My keyboard will be working overtime tonight! Consider it done.

  3. 76 xlc

    76 xlc Banned

    You must be concerned about the rest of your fleet.

    BTW, don't you like the-one-size-fits-all approach to smog testing, and how each of us must pay to prove our lack of guilt in producing excessive emissions?

    No matter if you drive your vehicle 2500 miles per year or 250,000, no matter if in excess of 85% of the entire states fleet passes every year, we all have to pay the piper?

    What's happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?

    When did we authorize Napoleonic Law, where one is presumed guilty, and then must pay, and pray, to prove one's innocence?

    Wasn't it around the time a certain future San Clemente resident visited China?
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012
  4. tahoedonner

    tahoedonner Farmall Cub

    I am all for this. Please all help abolish this bs policy us Californians have to deal with.

    Thanks Scout It Out
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012
  5. TBAKPhi22

    TBAKPhi22 Binder Driver

    I hope this passes... I, (probably so many people) were soooo pissed off when the "rolling 25 year exemption" screeched to a halt. I just always think... How many cars that are 25+ years old are even on the road every day? When I go to where I'm working (usually about 20-30 miles from my house) I might see a car that's older than my truck about once a month.
    To bag on these old cars and trucks is such a waste of time!
  6. Patrick Morris

    Patrick Morris High Wheeler

    Hah! I got the email from SEMA about this a couple of days ago. Couldn't believe my eyes. Hope it goes through. I'll be sending out some emails.
  7. VooDoo

    VooDoo Binder Driver

    I know many people are not auto enthusiast or classic car owners like us (pre-81 cars are classics now), so I can understand uninformed people questioning SB1224. The classic car community was “accepting” of the past California rolling emissions-test exemption. Here’s what I see out there:

    - In 2004, legislation was enacted to repeal California’s rolling emissions-test exemption for vehicles 30 years old and older, and replace it with a law requiring the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles (Is 1976 right?).

    - For years, legislators, regulators and stationary source polluters have felt the heat from failed efforts to meet air quality goals and have looked to older cars as a convenient scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to further their case.

    - S.B. 1224 helps validate the truth. The old car hobby should not continue to carry the burden of past mistakes.

    - S.B. 1224 recognizes the minimal impact of pre-1981 vehicles on emissions and air quality.

    - S.B. 1224 acknowledges that pre-1981 vehicles still constitute a minuscule portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

    - S.B. 1224 endorses the fact that pre-1981 vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new vehicle).

    New cars are NOT checked for the first 5 years of ownership. I’m guessing the assumption is that the new smog related parts will not fail within the first 5 years. Newer cars (1 to 5 years) and cars 5 to 30 years old are the vast majority of cars on the road, and clearly driven the vast majority of miles. Cars older than 30 years are generally driven by classic car enthusiast that maintain their cars and don’t drive them as frequently.

    Yes, there are a few clunkers that manage to survive past 30 years and THEN are not maintained after the smog checks are no longer required, but the majority of unmaintained cars older than 30 years do not survive; unless an enthusiast picks it up and restores it.

    Many people feel that we should reduce testing on all cars, because testing results analyses reports that there are very few testing failures for all cars, and since those few which do fail represent such a small percentage of all cars, it indicates that the testing is not necessary at all.

    I’m not sure where I stand on that, because the 0-30 year old cars ARE the cars that are being driven the most miles and obviously constitute the sweet-spot to be appropriately monitored. Plus, testing cars 0-30 years old prevents new car owners from removing their smog equipment the day it is purchased, thus defeating the purpose of adding it to begin with. However, the level of monitoring needed could be argued. Maybe less monitoring or select monitoring could be looked at closely and possibly reduce the ever expanding expensive nonsensical bureaucracy?

    The law should not concentrate on the rare exception (few) 30+ year old unmaintained clunker automobiles, it should concentrate on the bell curve sweet-spot to keep the cars with the most running hours/miles in check AND THE MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE POLLUTERS that seem to continually get a pass for one reason or another.

    You may not agree, but that’s my :twocents: worth and I stick’n with it! :D

    Compromise and comon sense can go a long way in this world. I hope the government begins to realize that sonner rather than later...

    Support SB1224!
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Dreams of Cub Cadets

    ---Don't forget that the sulfur found in leaded fuel was promoting acid rain & driving behind a newer vehicle will choke you due to the sulfur fumes. My view on that is they needed to start moving toward ethenol that they told the farmers wouldn't work, so they* could begin monopolization of alternative fuels, cutting the throats of millions of farmers whose soil was "primed & ready to go when you say yes".

    ---All good stuff VooDoo, but you're forgetting the biggest piece to the puzzle. Old vehicles are a burden on the economy. The old vehicles can drive for hundreds of thousands of miles, some have made it to millions and because of this, the automotive industry suffers. They must* keep those employees working, so they must push the older vehicles off the road & into the shredder. Plain and simple, that's why that great state's recent attempt on infecting the rest of us was shot down. The National Scrappage Bill... shot down by car enthusiasts, collectors & clubs before it even reached congress, and why Obama, without so much as breathing heavy on the bill, passed the Cash for Clunkers. What's worse? Why don't you see all that many good vehicles in the junk yards now? No, it's not because of the great "Scrap Rush", it's because anyone who signed the C4C contract was legally bound to "... destroy any vehicle, from hereon in, which can be found on this list".

    ---Change my friend, IH Brethren & fellow countryman. Change is for the good.

    ---Saying now that pre 1981 vehicles are "obsolete", just makes me think that they have plans to amend the bill, as quickly as Obama can sign his name, and say that all pre-catalytic vehicles (those years [subject to change] named in SB1224), are banned from use on US roadways.
  9. 76 xlc

    76 xlc Banned

    Excellent post, Voodoo! And, Thomas, I salute yours as well, noting your even more of a reality-based cynic than I.

    A couple of points and clarifications:

    Federal EPA regulations mandated that the OEM's warranty their products to their customers, and the public at large, for 100,000 miles. This happened around 20 years ago and was instituted well over a decade ago. Many may recall GM touting the fact that no tune-ups were needed during the first 100K of ownership, as if it was a feature, when in fact it was the marketing of the meeting of a legal requirement to sell vehicles in the U.S.

    One valid argument against testing, but I think the real issue we face is the government standing a couple hundred years of American Jurisprudence on its head by determining all vehicle owners guilty, then forcing us to prove our innocence, and paying to prove that innocence, each and every time it mandates we test our vehicles.

    Far less of an issue than when analog fuel and ignition systems were common, and add-on smog controls were seen as detrimental to vehicle performance and driveability.

    Why do you give in to government controls that violate your inherent rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution?

    Though many laws are unjust, they remain on the books until challenged in the courts successfully.

    I support the proposed bill, SB1224, but luckily(?) live in an EPA waiver area of another state, and as such, have no legal standing to challenge any of the obviously unconstitutional laws in court.

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts and replies.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  10. scorp1us

    scorp1us High Wheeler

    76 XLC, you seem to be a bit off base. Emissions requirements came about because of the health problems created by smog. In a democracy (or republic, if you wish to split hairs) the people can enact legislation for the benefit of the people, barring that it does not violate your rights. Now you may jump to "but I have the right to own a vehicle and maintain it any way I want", however you in turn would have to accept liability for the medical problems you create, because the people have a bigger right to breathe clean air. It would be impossible to collect from you an amount proportional to the lung damage that you caused by having an unmaintained vehicle so this is that the people came up with.

    In MD, we have an annual emissions inspection. It costs $15 and we need to go to a special inspection station. If we are late, it costs another $15 every month we are late. Now, for any vehicle 1996+, they just plug into the ODB-II port and read codes and values and print pass or fail. I don't know why I can't take it to any ASE certified shop and have them do it for free, or cheaper. It certainly would help 99% of us.

    Meanwhile the cars that pre-1996 but are computer controlled should be the only ones that need to do to the station for the dyno test. vehicles that predate computers should be exempted.

    However you must realize that in 1985, there was a major shift in engineering at the automobile manufactures. Kaizen (Japanese) took off and gave us substantially improved cars & components. Add to that electrically charged primer/paint bonding to the metal and you have a car that won't rust out for a very long time, and the components will last. So expect to see many more 1985+ vehicles on the road. Already here in MD I am noticing a lot more 20 year old cars still being used as daily drivers.
  11. 76 xlc

    76 xlc Banned

    You seem a bit presumptuous, myself, and you know what they say: "Takes one to know one."

    You're not telling me anything, buddy, I was born (during the Korean Conflict) and raised in the Inland Empire, Riverside, CA, to two Kent* chain-smokers. I left there in November, 1967, and it wasn't until over 20+ years later before I could return without experiencing burning eyes, nose, and throat; and constricting airways.

    I disagree vehemently: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ~ Benjamin Franklin

    And have you not been exposed to the democratic "Occupy" movement, shouting "THIS is what democracy looks like!!!"

    Democracy, not unlike communism, has not shown itself to function well or long on this "spinning ball of space debris." (1)

    We live in a constitutional democratic republic, where the minority is protected from many of the abuses, like the "tyranny of the masses." Sometimes. The SCOTUS plays an important role in protecting us from the excesses of the legislative and executive branches of our three-legged stool we call America, but until unjust laws are challenged in court, by those granted legal standing to do so, they remain on the books.

    And each and every citizen has a duty to help secure and maintain those rights protected by the USC.

    Though you stray close to committing the logical fallacy known as the straw man ( here, I do concur with the rest of your sentence as to your assessment of the responsibilities and rights of all citizens in a free state.

    [QUOTE however you in turn would have to accept liability for the medical problems you create, because the people have a bigger right to breathe clean air.

    It would be impossible to collect from you an amount proportional to the lung damage that you caused by having an unmaintained vehicle so this is that the people came up with.[/QUOTE]

    Your thought process seems to drift from the USA's ideals here, and seems Napoleonic in concept, like Mexico's legal system, and I once again take umbrage at your presumptuousness.

    What gives you the right to deem me guilty of not maintaining my internal combustion engines, if I so may inquire?

    I appreciate the 1964 Clean Air Act, for many reasons, not the least of which is that I would have never been able to drive a fuel-injected, 400+ HP V-8 unlimited off road racer (2) had the OEM's not made such systems commonplace, and therefore relatively inexpensive, in order to comply with CAA and EPA requirements. Generally lower emissions means lower fuel consumption, and higher power output as well as improved driveability (Bill USN-1 is chuckling somewhere, reading this, yet another affirmation of his position).

    Just because I drive a Scout with an engine introduced in 1959 (IIRC), doesn't mean I still live in the 60's, though I have been enjoying "Mad Men" with my wife recently, come to think of it.

    Your last sentence above reveals your dependency (and therefore, servitude to) on the desire to escape personal responsibility and depend on the state rather than your own, I'm afraid. Troubling to this observer, to say the least.

    States vary in their approaches to complying, or apply for waivers, with EPA regulations. In CA, for example, "smog" stations are all privately owned and operated under license from the California Air Resources Board, CARB, the DMV, and etc. Prices vary and some emission testing facilities are "test-only" concerns, where no automotive repairs may be performed, per the Consumer Repair Bureau, CRB, and the South Coast Air Quality management District, SCAQD, among others, again, IIRC.

    I think you are taking Thomas to task here, not me, as I never stated differently, and in fact, my newest car is a 1992 Buick Roadmaster Limited, with over 215K on the clock, Cheby TBI 5.7, and still returns mileage of 21.5 MPG @ 80 MPH, carrying me and mine in a comfortable cruise and climate controlled cocoon of luxurious burgundy leather, all on the same set of spark plugs that were in it when I purchased it from the PO nearly a decade ago.

    Nice chatting with you, carry on.

    * with the Micronite filter!

    (1) copyright Charles Rodney Williams, 1996, IIRC.
    (2) Team Coyote Racing considers specific power outputs proprietary info, and does not divulge them.
  12. Chris Leggett

    Chris Leggett Binder Driver

    Come up to Hesperia. You can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting an older car.
  13. scorp1us

    scorp1us High Wheeler

    I do not see how anyone could, even if they wanted to, assess the cumulative damages of their vehicle usage. So instead we approach it from the back side - emissions compliance and accept the societal burden of the status quo of emissions standards.

    Well those engines, even when "in compliance" would need to be updated today's standards. Upgrade to the best emissions equipment for the engine - 1980's emissions at the least, but this could alternatively mean TBI injection as an alternate minimum, SMPFI at a maximum. Running charcoal canisters, EGR (linear at best)

    I'm not really seeing an alternative. Or how you came to that conclusion.
  14. Mark Pietz

    Mark Pietz High Wheeler

    I'm a small government guy (although I work for the gummit), and also originally from SoCal, and lived for a time in the Inland Empire. California needed the smog laws, period. To state otherwise is to speak from ignorance. Pictures from the '40s show LA to be in a choking soup of fumes, thanks to the prevelence of the road draft tube. In fact, when they mandated that all cars have or be retrofitted with PCV valves in '70, IIRC (I crudely plumbed one into my '57 Olds), that single device wiped out 25% of the smog overnight. I still recall in '73 smog so bad in Pomona that you couldn't see Mt. Baldy to the north at all, though it was a mere 10 miles away, if that. In fact, people would move into the valley and it could be months before they even knew there were mountains nearby. No joke.

    Then the Inland Empire. The Kaiser steel mills in Fontana belched out sulfur 24/7 until they closed them in the '80s, I think it was (had moved to Arizona by then). Children living in those environs were documented as having the early signs of emphysema by age 10. The San Gabriel, Pomona, and San Bernardino Valleys were geographic bowls which contained the toxins and the summer inversions clamped a lid on it all. I don't miss the days of burning eyes and shortness of breath. If you haven't lived it, don't b*tch. So yes, there was a justifiable need for controls. Just not controls without common sense.

    And I didn't even broach the topic of the small backyard incinerators known as the "smokey joe". Anyone here recall those little cement-slabbed stacks where you'd burn your trash? Fortunately outlawed in the '60s.

    I hope this bill passes.

    //stepping down off soap box//

    p.s. hey Chris, we lived in Hesperia off Cedar from '90 to '92. Loved the area, hated the continual winds. Great off roading, too!
  15. 76 xlc

    76 xlc Banned

    You missed my point. I disagree with your conclusion, and generally support the EPA's stricter imposition of compliance on the OEM's, rather than the individual, where the one-size-fits-all fails to achieve justice under the law, IMHO.

    Again, I'm afraid you missed my point.

    I also fail, once again, to see your right to tell me what to do. You do have a right to petition government in an attempt to drive legislation you might deem beneficial to your interests, but I see no rights for you to address your personal fears by attempting to tell me what to do.

    Should I have the same right, for instance, to tell you how/when where to produce more humans?

    Just FYI, I put a total of less than 9K per annum on all my vehicles, primarily the newest one with TBI, and primarily in areas deemed in compliance with current EPA standards (probably because there are few humans in these parts).

    Obviously. Please reread my post, first attempting to think "outside the box," and leaving your apparent preconceived notions and bias (which we all have, admittedly), approaching my words with an open mind.

    Please address further discussion on those particular issues to me via PM.

    Thanks for your interest, and lively discussion.

    SUPPORT SB 1224! Perhaps we non-Californians might want to support its sponsor?
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  16. 76 xlc

    76 xlc Banned

    I concur, if you were preaching to me, you were preaching to the choir. I have no issue with, nor have I ever tried to circumvent, the emission standards.

    My issue is with the constitutional issues involved with the form of mandatory compliance enforcement against each and every motorist, which, as I said a few posts back, the question of non-compliance by individuals is less of a concern than it was a quarter century ago, when many attempted to disable early analog emissions systems. Today's digitally controlled fuel and ignition systems work effectively, and offer benefits beyond lowered emissions. And OEM's are held to a higher standard of manufacture by the EPA, as I illustrated earlier.

    CHP/CARB/SCAQD have made examples of those caught severely altering those systems, crushing those vehicles in a very public display, after due process of law, applied constitutionally.

    I think you've gone a bit off the point here, bringing all the stationary pollution sources* into this discussion, but I concur with your assessment thereof, and your qualifying conclusion, having, like you, lived it.

    But I must point out: correlation does not equal nor imply causation, in and of itself. Correlation is but one piece of evidence.

    Again, OT, but unfortunately, I do as well. My family never had one, but our next door neighbors did and I'll bet the Riverside Avenue garbageman wished we did, when my dad's toy fox terrier killed a skunk while Dad was out of town, and we put it in what Dad called the "GI"can. ;)

    I, too, hope this bill passes. It's a step in the right direction.

    SUPPORT SB 1224!

    * As did an earlier poster in this thread, to offer his observation and illustrate another point, one that I am not attempting to address here.
  17. tdc

    tdc High Wheeler

    Letter sent to committee in support of SB 1224 3.19.12.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  18. Tim Potter

    Tim Potter High Wheeler

    We have a house in Apple Valley, the wind is so strong out there all the dead cats get blown out to Johnson Valley. They probably do smack into a lot of old cars along the way though.

    There sure is a lot of talk about whether California ever needed air quality laws or whether the State should even have the power to enact such laws. Since I was born here, lived here all my life in the LA basin, I guess I can have an opinion about it too. Yes, there was a time I couldn't see the Santa Monica mountains. There were many days when we had "smog alerts" and people, especially kids, weren't supposed to go outside. The air quality here was horrible.

    Whether California's air pollution problem was caused more by cars or stationary sources, is to me, a red herring, all pollution sources were culpable. Since the enactment of the various emissions requirements placed on the auto manufacturers over the years for cars sold here in California, and the smog testing programs that have been in place for all sources, the air quality has improved dramatically. We still do have a few bad days here and there but, overall, the air quality here is certainly much better than it was back in the 60's and 70's.

    I'm the last guy to defend the govt. I think they always got something up their sleeve. :hammer: Oddly enough, I agree with Thomas on this one. I'm betting there's another shoe out there just waiting for the right moment to drop. People should realize that this legislation doesn't give them the right to change or modify their present emissions equipment.

    (C) All motor vehicles excepted by this paragraph shall be
    subject to testing and to certification requirements as determined
    by the department, if any of the following apply:
    (i) The department determines through remote sensing activities
    or other means that there is a substantial probability that the vehicle
    has a tampered emission control system or would fail for other
    a smog check test as specified in Section 44012.

    Since I have a 1980 Scout that although, it meets the smog numbers without a problem, it's the "other cause" that worries me. I got quite a few "other causes" that a careful eye might see. I cannot safely remove any part of my present emissions system. I can't even install a bigger cam because, my present cam is as big as it can be and still pass smog. The red flag for me here is as Thomas said, the govt has been doing everything possible to legislate older vehicles off the roads. I worry about what will happen to all those guys who have 75 and earlier Scouts and have removed all the emissions systems, installed a 392 where a 304 used to be, and a whole list of other changes from factory original because they never had to worry about passing smog.

    It seems to me this legislation opens up a whole new can of worms and, more importantly, takes the control back to itself and away from the private sector. Who knows what the govt will do with a vehicle found to have been modified and non compliant. I don't imagine this State would have any compunction about crushing Scouts and, Light line trucks. In this case, the devil I know is a lot better than the devil I don't know.

    All that being said, and in deference to those who have a different opinion, I did receive an action alert from Cal 4 Wheel on this subject requesting that California residents, who wish to do so, send a letter to their State Senator in support of this legislation. Here's the link.....remember, it only counts if you are a California resident:
  19. Mark Pietz

    Mark Pietz High Wheeler

    Actually, I'm not picking on anyone in particular. Threads and comments over emissions generate strong opinions, with valid points made on both sides. I'm just throwing out my 0.02 like anyone else. And as was pointed out, I've lived a good deal of it. And as was pointed out, I'm also a small gummit guy. Vehemently so. But as a corollary to having an open mind, I also don't want it to fall out in the process or go out with the bath water (to mix metaphors here).

    My point was that emissions laws came about because they needed to come about. But those do-gooders and fascists who like power for the sake of power and grabbing it when and where they can have made a hash of responsibly and reasonably administering this aspect of protecting the environment, as we well know (you know the crowd - mankind should be stricken from the planet because they are the ultimate evil).

    But I also rankle at the knee-jerk "any gummit control is overstepping, etc." Not addressing anyone, perhaps more making the pre-emptive strike. So the Kaiser steel mills and smokey joes are well within that realm.

    The point about people removing stuff and becoming gross polluters in the process is on target. Then complain when they get caught. Liberty isn't license. Rights bring responsibilities. Or something like that.

    I do want to edit in one small point. I recently got rid of a Corvair turbo Corsa that was tight, by the numbers (even improved ignition), and in great tune. Just that thing sitting there idling nearby would make my eyes and nose burn. We do forget how stinky (re: polluting) those carbed cars were. This morning I got behind a Land Rover and could tell it had a carb. Ask me how I could tell. It's funny that just a couple of years ago it was noted that in London, where they still must have some level of pollution, that a new car would spit out cleaner air than went into the air cleaner. Think about that for a moment. The problem isn't that we have super clean cars, now. It's just that we have more of them that offset the gains. Then let's not forget stationary sources.....

    //off soap box again//

    Group hug - after we put down the knives. :D
  20. Dana Strong

    Dana Strong High Wheeler

    As I understand the calif. law, if 'anything' about the engine is changed, even if it reduces emissions as for example switching to fuel injection would, it is still out of compliance and thus illegal. It's interesting that that fraud on the Air Resources board who supposedly did the study about how harmful the diesel particulates are but who actually never had a degree from UC Davis in statistics (bought one through the mail! ) never paid for his lies. If I understood the situation correctly, he is the one who was pushing to get all older diesel engines, even on tractors and stationary ag. equipment plus all the standby engines for hospitals and such, banned for use.

    For some information about that and related subjects, here is a fairly good site:

    I too don't trust the state's bureaucrats or most of its legislators.

Share This Page