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 A rolling 30 year exemption, which was repealed in 2004 for 1976 and up cars, all cars back to 1966, and on and on, up to the new dyno testing.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.
