BinderPlanet.com

Welcome to BinderPlanet.com the World's Premier IH Website.

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California Bill to Exempt Pre-1983 Vehicles from Emissions Inspections Introduced

Friends of BinderPlanet Facebook Group

Ron A

High Wheeler
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
1,562
Points
113
Location
State of Jefferson
it seems to me that most current owners of 1976-1982 vehicles use their old vehicle(s) for recreation/hobby, and have other (newer) vehicles for daily driving/work. I just don't see scads of those older vehicles being used as daily drivers.

As the years have gone by, it appears like most operational 40-45 year old vehicles are now in the realm of restorers and collectors. Virtually all of the "average" (econobox/sedan style) vehicles of that vintage, seem to have gone to the scrapyards and are not seen on the roads with 10,000-15,000 miles per year of operation.
Exactly. They need to stop treating collector cars like daily drivers. They are a recreation all on their own. Look at all the replacement and restoration parts. Money spent on everything from upholstery to transmissions. Just look at the build pages on Binder Planet. Look at money and jobs the restoration of IH vehicles alone generates. An entire industry is built around old vehicles and we are just a small segment of the overall collector and restoration industry. Even more important, a lot of good times with family and friends has been spent rebuilding old rigs. That is something we need more of, not less of.
 

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
Yeah. 10 years might be on the outside. But many people sell their cars (or TOTAL them!) and get a new one well before the vehicle's life is used up. And I'm thinking, driving say a 45 year old car/truck vs getting a new one every 5-10 years since buying that first vehicle.

And there's also the argument that for those people who drive 60s/70s vehicles, they drive them much less frequently and for fewer miles. <-- of course this argument undermines the above argument a little I'll admit. Driving the old car very few miles most likely means you're owning/driving a newer car most of the time.

Just adding for posterity, here's the law, created in 2004 as it turned out:

SEMA's ball-crushing announcement:

After 5-10 years are we crushing that new car or selling it? :)

Miles driven is a valid point. I need to find those studies again and check that. It's easy to determine that old cars only amount to 2-3% of all vehicles on the road by checking vehicle registration data. But how did they conclude that old cars are responsible for 25% of total vehicle emissions without knowing the amount of miles driven? No database for that.
 

Dana Strong

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,289
Points
113
Location
Sunnyvale, Ca.
Miles driven is a valid point. I need to find those studies again and check that. It's easy to determine that old cars only amount to 2-3% of all vehicles on the road by checking vehicle registration data. But how did they conclude that old cars are responsible for 25% of total vehicle emissions without knowing the amount of miles driven? No database for that.
Many decades ago, (1940's -1960's, I'd say) small farmers, farm hands, teenagers and other similar "poor" people , particularly in places like the central valley, bought older used cars and often ran them "into the ground" without having the time, knowledge, money and/or inclination to do needed maintenance or make proper repairs. IMHO, that practice has largely been long gone, probably starting in the early 1970's with the first gas crisis and soaring gas prices. With recent govt handouts going to them, and the few number of really old (smogcheck-free) cars available, I doubt even illegals are doing it now.
It's widely known that the CARB author of the Particulate study, who claimed a degree from UCD with course work in statistisc, et al, actually bought his "degree" through the mail. I's not his field of interest, but I'd like to see someone like John Lott critique the above study you cited. I trust him to report findings based on valid facts, not opinions, wishful thinking, or selectively chosen data.
 

Patrick Morris

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
6,719
Points
113
Location
San Diego, CA
After 5-10 years are we crushing that new car or selling it?
I think I said selling in an earlier post above. Most likely scenario. Unless of course the vehicle gets pranged and insurance-totaled, in which case it'll either be partially parted out or repaired and re-titled?
 

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
I think I said selling in an earlier post above. Most likely scenario. Unless of course the vehicle gets pranged and insurance-totaled, in which case it'll either be partially parted out or repaired and re-titled?
If selling then lifetime miles, 200-300k, for the vehicle not 1st owner should be factored in not just the 5-6 years since the mfg pollution is already spent.
It's widely known that the CARB author of the Particulate study, who claimed a degree from UCD with course work in statistisc, et al, actually bought his "degree" through the mail. I's not his field of interest, but I'd like to see someone like John Lott critique the above study you cited. I trust him to report findings based on valid facts, not opinions, wishful thinking, or selectively chosen data.

I hadn't heard about that particulate study which isn't the study I was referring to.
 

Patrick Morris

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
6,719
Points
113
Location
San Diego, CA
If selling then lifetime miles, 200-300k, for the vehicle not 1st owner should be factored in not just the 5-6 years since the mfg pollution is already spent.
Let's not get all bogged down in logic. Let's just focus on me trying to have my Scout exempt from smog inspections. :clown:
 
Last edited:

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
Let's not get all bogged down in logic. Let's just focus on me trying to have my Scout exempt from smog inspections. :clown:

HAHA I get the sentiment. Only real argument I can come up with is that when the bill was passed back in the early 2000s there were probably 5 or 10x more pre OBDI/II vehicles on the road. There has to be a break over point where there are so few of these vehicles on the road that the pollution created is insignificant.
 

Patrick Morris

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
6,719
Points
113
Location
San Diego, CA
^^^ Yep. That and the fact that at one time we had a perfectly reasonable rolling 30-year exemption on smog checks for gas powered cars and trucks, a policy very similar to many other states. So, 15 years after the 'freeze' we have to wonder why 1975 MY was chosen as the permanent cut-off point. Seems pretty arbitrary now, looking back. Time to move it up, IMO.
 

steve bridge

Binder Driver
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
608
Points
28
Location
rapid city
Google search: 29 million registered cars in CA, and they produce 29 million tons of pollution (metric) annually. So a 1976 Scout driving 10,000 miles per year (daily driver) burns 850 gallons per year. (12 mpg) That's 6,800 pounds of fuel, so where is the extra 3,200 pounds of pollution coming from?

3% of the 29 million cars is 870,000. 25% or 29 million tons of pollution is 7,500,000 tons. Someone better at math will correct me, but that is 8 tons of pollution from less than 2 tons of fuel.

Where did my logic or math fail me?
 

Dana Strong

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,289
Points
113
Location
Sunnyvale, Ca.
29 million registered cars in CA, and they produce 29 million tons of pollution (metric) annually.
Which is saying each car produces a ton of "pollution", meaning primarily CO2, something which reasonable people dispute. No way possible does that "ton of pollution" include such significant amounts of nitrous oxides, unburned hydrocarbons or even CO.

I would also suspect that in most California areas, few of the remaining 1970 era cars still are driven 10,000 miles a year.
 

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
Which is saying each car produces a ton of "pollution", meaning primarily CO2, something which reasonable people dispute.

Agreed. It's actually a lot more. lol. Gasoline is 80-90% carbon. Turn that into carbon dioxide and you know happens to the weight. For those that don't follow the period table is your friend.
 

Ron A

High Wheeler
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
1,562
Points
113
Location
State of Jefferson
How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)
A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!​

Data Sources
 

Dana Strong

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,289
Points
113
Location
Sunnyvale, Ca.
How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).​
CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)

A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!​


Data Sources
My contention is that reasonable people don't consider the CO2 to be pollution, not about how much CO2 is produced.
 

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
My contention is that reasonable people don't consider the CO2 to be pollution, not about how much CO2 is produced.

Yeah we noticed that you put pollution in parenthesis. Misnomers aside it still comes down to whether one believes Arrhenius and company. Not going down that rabbit hole.
 

Jeff Jamison

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
8,143
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa Pa
Iys funny that here in Pa they did the same thing,my 75 travelall needs tested every year,my 74 scout doesnt.
 

Dana Strong

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,289
Points
113
Location
Sunnyvale, Ca.
Yeah we noticed that you put pollution in parenthesis. Misnomers aside it still comes down to whether one believes Arrhenius and company. Not going down that rabbit hole.
From the CARB testing aspect, that question is irrelevant. Due to that and considering the purpose of this thread, I won't get into that discussion either. I still believe that CARB-mandated changes to the fuel, particularly the inclusion of MTBE, the resulting auto fires due to it, and ground and water pollution it caused, was far worse than the test-measured pollutants caused by the remaining 1970's - 1990's era cars still in use.
 

odSteve

Farmall Cub
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
10
Points
3
Friend at work just two weeks ago bought a brand new Honda. So far, the dealership has not been able to get it to pass smog. I don't know yet what is going to happen. She's now trying to get the dealership to exchange the car for another one as she now considers this car a lemon.
I bought a '69 IH truck at action couple years ago. The Calif DMV will not allow me to put it in my name and/or put the vehicle on non-op. They want it smog tested, registered and weighed first. I can't get it registered until it passes smog and it can't pass smog until I get it running. And I can't put it in my name until it passes smog. And I can't put it on non-op until it's in my name and registered. So it sits in my backyard with no legal owner until I finish its restoration. Then hope I don't get hit with ten years of back registration fees.
Couple years ago my '96 Honda needed a new catalytic converter to pass smog. It had to be certified new - a junk yard or new add-on cat was not permitted. And that year Honda has the catalytic converter inside the exhaust manifold. Very, very expensive to buy new at a dealership.
Just thought I'd share a couple of my experiences with the Calif DMV's smog program.
But these problems are nothing compared to the registration horror stories I can tell you. Perhaps I'll start another topic post just for registration nightmares.
 

Ron A

High Wheeler
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
1,562
Points
113
Location
State of Jefferson
My contention is that reasonable people don't consider the CO2 to be pollution, not about how much CO2 is produced.
I would agree. Just showing how the number is calculated. Not producing C02, and releasing it into the atmosphere is a difficult hurdle. Only way I can see to accomplish it would be to stop breathing and get buried deep, or leave the planet.
 

Ron A

High Wheeler
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
1,562
Points
113
Location
State of Jefferson
Friend at work just two weeks ago bought a brand new Honda. So far, the dealership has not been able to get it to pass smog. I don't know yet what is going to happen. She's now trying to get the dealership to exchange the car for another one as she now considers this car a lemon.
I bought a '69 IH truck at action couple years ago. The Calif DMV will not allow me to put it in my name and/or put the vehicle on non-op. They want it smog tested, registered and weighed first. I can't get it registered until it passes smog and it can't pass smog until I get it running. And I can't put it in my name until it passes smog. And I can't put it on non-op until it's in my name and registered. So it sits in my backyard with no legal owner until I finish its restoration. Then hope I don't get hit with ten years of back registration fees.
Couple years ago my '96 Honda needed a new catalytic converter to pass smog. It had to be certified new - a junk yard or new add-on cat was not permitted. And that year Honda has the catalytic converter inside the exhaust manifold. Very, very expensive to buy new at a dealership.
Just thought I'd share a couple of my experiences with the Calif DMV's smog program.
But these problems are nothing compared to the registration horror stories I can tell you. Perhaps I'll start another topic post just for registration nightmares.
1969? I would think you would be in the clear. I would try another office.
 

Darrel

Lives in an IH Dealership
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
5,228
Points
113
Location
Colorado
From the CARB testing aspect, that question is irrelevant. Due to that and considering the purpose of this thread, I won't get into that discussion either. I still believe that CARB-mandated changes to the fuel, particularly the inclusion of MTBE, the resulting auto fires due to it, and ground and water pollution it caused, was far worse than the test-measured pollutants caused by the remaining 1970's - 1990's era cars still in use.

Yet CARB does test CO2.
 
Top