IH PARTS AMERICA
Click Here!

Go Back   IH PARTS AMERICA > Sewing Circle > Trails, Public Land and Legislation
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Photo Gallery IH Store Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2009, 09:20 AM   #1
Patrick Morris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member Number: 148
Posts: 152
Default Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Hi folks. Just an fyi alert for californians owning post-1976 ihs... And any other vehicles built between 1976 and CA. 1995. This think keeps coming back again and again, and if we don't say anything, the idiots will eventually win.

sema san - sema action network
Patrick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2009, 07:53 AM   #2
Robert Kenney
IHPA Tech Moderator
 
Robert Kenney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Member Number: 543
Location: So Cal
Age: 49
Posts: 3,294
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Yea here we go again. The law change will have much resistance and cost the guy driving a 76 and older car a lot of money. They dgas about the hobbyist's like us who have money to blow on these old hunks of iron but the people that use these cars as their dd can't afford a new car unless it is given to them.

I have quite a few friends deep in the sema organization and they seem to think it will fall again.

Still need to help it fall though.

But wtf it's California the land of the liberal, love it or leave it!
__________________
Robert Kenney

People preach " Don't over think life, just go where it takes you". But I can't help but think of the Wise Ancient Mariner who looks toward the horizon for any sign of storm clouds.
Robert Kenney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 07:01 AM   #3
Patrick Morris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member Number: 148
Posts: 152
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Thanks for the input Robert. That's a little reassuring. I sent an email, as mass mailing, to the assembly members listed---for what good it will do. It generated several auto-relies basically saying "thank you. I receive too many emails to read them all... Blah blah blah... If you don't live in my district, sod off...."

but I titled the message "please vote no on ab 859" so at least they May acknowledge that critical piece of my message.

My letter:

dear assembly member,

please do not put this law through. I think we all know it will do nothing for air quality; it will serve only to put millions of our dollars in the pockets of inspection-station owners. I own an older vehicle that is well maintained. It passes its inspection well under all limits every two years, and it would certainly pass it every single year. I'm sure this is the case with virtually all other such vehicles. So why put us through the extra expense and hardship?

Regarding my particular situation, I not terribly trusting of the auto repair industry in general and therefore happen to be very particular about who works on my truck. This is certainly the case when the biannual inspection comes around. Both my mechanic and my smog-inspection station of choice happen to be over 20 miles from where I live and work. So every two years I am forced to miss a half day's work in the heat of the summer while the inspection process is done. (I'm forced usually to linger in the area for hours; therefore, no work for me that day.)

I am sure there are many other people in similar situations. Please don't do this to us.

Regards,
patrick morris
san diego, CA

Last edited by Patrick Morris; 03-21-2009 at 01:47 PM..
Patrick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 10:28 AM   #4
BigTallKen
Member
 
BigTallKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Member Number: 856
Posts: 57
Thumbs up Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

My letter went as such:

ladies and gentlemen of the assembly,

as a nearly lifetime citizen of California I have always been curious as to why California's "forward focus" on clean air takes such a backward approach to the matter.

My first car in 1988 was a 1966 chevrolet el camino. This car was complete right down to the owner's manuals and option order sheets. I gave all my hard earned savings, $3200.00 worth for this fantastic vehicle. Being an original California car it was required to have an a.I.r system, the first year of such a technology. The pump on my car was broken, with a seized bearing. It cost me nearly $250.00 for this part. Almost 1/10th the cost of the car itself.

Why is this relevant you ask? I'll tell you why. This vehicle passed the emissions test with flying colors through the tailpipe test without the pump operational. However it failed the smog test due to a missing / non-operational part. It actually tested worse once the a.I.r. Pump was operational. I have seen carburated large displacement motors without catalytic converters smog cleaner through the tailpipe test than a much newer, fuel injected motors with catalytic converters behind them.

Over the years there has been many different legislations in regards to the emissions testing. A rolling 30 year exemption, which was repealed in 2004 for 1976 and up cars, all cars back to 1966, and on and on, up to the new dyno testing.

To taxpayers like myself, annual testing of older vehicles (15+ years as a.b. 859 reads) seems to be a simple cash grab by the state which would do little to actually help clean our air.

Technology has changed dramatically since most of these vehicles came off the assembly line. Fuel injection made our cars not only more efficient, but also lowered emissions. If the state was really interested in clean air, then it would look at eliminating the burdensome referee system, and any visual under hood inspection during a smog check. If your vehicle passes the tailpipe test, regardless of what the vehicles was equipped with, then you have met the goals of the reduced emissions legislation, and pass the check.

The carb referee system is costly, burdensome and often gives little help or information other than what was supposed to be on the vehicle at time of production. Not to mention that you have to discern if your vehicle was a 49 state vehicle, or a California vehicle the parts list can be dramatically different. Most of these parts needed to satisfy the referee are near unobtainable in working order, especally with the advent of the vehicle scrapping programs in existence. Our supply of good used parts is dwindling rapidly.

I would be curious to see exactly what the ratio is by model year of cars registered in the state of California. I bet that you would find the majority of these vehicles 25+ years old are remarkably maintained, and the percentage of these vehicles used as daily drivers would be low to none.

Be proactive about the smog laws in regards to older vehicles. Allow us as hobbists to modify our vehicles for performance, relability, safety and economy without the scrutiny of a cumbersome and outdated referee system.

Make it one test. A tailpipe pass or fail.

Sincerely yours,

kenneth vieths
stanislaus county resident

I got four auto replies to submit to other email addresses, but I did get one actual response from assemblyman kevin jefferies down in the san diego area (I think) who agrees that it is unnecessary.

If you read these forums, please don't ignore your chance at being heard about these types of legislation.
__________________
1974 Scout II
304 4 spd Dana44/Dana44
Scout n00b
BigTallKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 01:51 PM   #5
Patrick Morris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member Number: 148
Posts: 152
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Thanks ken. Nice letter. Thanks more so since I see you own a '74.
Patrick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 03:25 PM   #6
orng blsm spcl
Senior Member
 
orng blsm spcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Member Number: 703
Location: castrovalley ca
Age: 27
Posts: 413
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Yeah I agree with you cause when I took my Scout in the voltage reg that take it from 12 to 6 volts for the coil went out and it wouldnt stacy running but it passed the smog test and failed the evap test. I limped home and spent 90 dallers to replace a completly fried ignition system and a few hoses. I then took it back for the free retest and failed the evap again.

The dam thing passed smog in flying colors but kept failing the test when they pressurised the tank with a pound of air an it leacked out.

I had to replace all my hoses any way but still thats besides the point it passed smog at the tail pipe
orng blsm spcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 06:22 PM   #7
Patrick Morris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member Number: 148
Posts: 152
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Quote:
Originally Posted by orng blsm spcl View Post
The dam thing passed smog in flying colors but kept failing the test when they pressurised the tank with a pound of air an it leacked out.

I had to replace all my hoses any way but still thats besides the point it passed smog at the tail pipe
All your hoses? You mean all the hoses coming off the top of the tank? I bet that wasn't too fun, having to drop the tank down just for that. I guess though that evaporation itself might actually be some tiny form of pollution. Mine's failed due to a 'bad' fuel filler cap, but I've never had the tank fail a pressure test.

But if you'd fixed that and your engine passed even though, say, you'd swapped over to a fuel injection system and it actually burned cleaner that way, then the current law would be exposed as extremely stupid.

As a complete aside, I've heard horror stories from a few people saying "I had to put a cat-con on my datsun to get it to pass!" however, I have yet to see any actual first hand evidence of people having to put on newer equipment to get their older vehicle to pass. Come to think of it though, putting on such a newer-type exhaust system should be no more legitimate than putting on a new-type fuel/intake system. I mean, such a thing was certainly not part of the original emissions system. Though it will never happen, if I ever hear that the state will require or even sanction newer type exhaust systems (I.e catalytic converters) in order to burn cleaner, I'm going to say, "f*** you!, then we can update the other end of the system as well."
Patrick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 07:18 PM   #8
orng blsm spcl
Senior Member
 
orng blsm spcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Member Number: 703
Location: castrovalley ca
Age: 27
Posts: 413
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Well a niple on my canister was brocken off,the hoses rotted off it as well,and the filler hose had a hole in it. I also had to replace the hoses and clean the canister up front. I just had to replace all the smog hoses. It took some work and a few tries but I pacced the test...
orng blsm spcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 08:00 PM   #9
BigTallKen
Member
 
BigTallKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Member Number: 856
Posts: 57
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick morris View Post
Though it will never happen, if I ever hear that the state will require or even sanction newer type exhaust systems (I.e catalytic converters) in order to burn cleaner, I'm going to say, "f*** you!, then we can update the other end of the system as well."
Yes, it it retarded that we can upgrade the exhaust side of the equation, including the installation of multiple catalytic converters, but we can't mess with the improvement of any other part of the system, even if it improves emmissions if it's not carb exempted.

Bureaucratic bs if you ask me
__________________
1974 Scout II
304 4 spd Dana44/Dana44
Scout n00b
BigTallKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 06:04 PM   #10
Patrick Morris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member Number: 148
Posts: 152
Default A hearing has been scheduled for 4/13.

Just got this recently. Should have posted it sooner. Anyone have time to make a phone call or two?

hearing scheduled for April 13
Patrick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2009, 06:27 AM   #11
BigTallKen
Member
 
BigTallKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Member Number: 856
Posts: 57
Default Re: Californians threatened again with annual SMOG CHECKS

Update on ab 859

I recently received this email from assemblyman jeffries. Just wanted to share that occasionally our voices do get heard!

Fellow automobile enthusiasts,

you had contacted me earlier this year regarding your opposition to ab 859, which would have increased the smog check requirements for cars more than 15 years old, adding new costs to collectors, while accomplishing very little in improving our state’s air quality.

I am pleased to inform you yesterday this bill was held on the “suspense file” in the assembly appropriations committee, and is essentially dead for this year. This is truly a victory—but like a bad penny, bad ideas also return over and over again in sacramento , so we must all continue to be vigilant in protecting our hobby.

In the meantime, I will continue to look out for the interests of automobile enthusiasts as vice-chair of the assembly transportation committee, and I encourage you to contact me with issues of concern as they come up in sacramento, and I am always open to suggestions on how the state’s laws May be improved to make things easier for automobile collectors, customizers, and racers in California.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office,

kevin jeffries
assemblyman, 66th district
__________________
1974 Scout II
304 4 spd Dana44/Dana44
Scout n00b
BigTallKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.