The California House and Senate have passed Bill AB2683, which would remove the smog check exemption for many classic vehicles. Currently, any car over 30 years old is exempt. The new regulations would require any car built after 1975 to be smog checked, REGARDLESS OF AGE. In other words, you'll be taking your 1976 or later car in FOREVER.

I hate smog checks, because I have had cars damaged during the check, including a burned clutch, bumper damage, scratches to my hood when equipment slid across it, and scratches to my fenders when cables were dragged across them. Do you want your restored car that you may have spent thousands of hours, and/or tens of thousands of dollars restoring, subject to this kind of treatment?

Let's face it. Many smog check people don't seem to care about your car, because they know you are forced by the government to bring your car in.

This bill, AB2683, is on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk for signing. WE MUST ACT NOW TO STOP THIS BILL.

CALL, WRITE, FAX, and EMAIL. Writing and faxing has the most impact. If you write or fax, use your own handwriting, not a computer or typewriter - it has much more impact. Be sure to include your home address in the letter, fax or email. Calling is next most effective, and last is emailing. Something is better than nothing, so PLEASE do whatever you can do.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
Email: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/

Some points to make:

(1) You have put too much work into perfectly restoring a car to turn it over to a smog check, where your hard work could easily be damaged.

(2) The number of cars that old is miniscule.

(3) Cars that old can't possibly be driven many miles. They would already be worn out.

(4) We need to protect California automotive history.

PLEASE CALL OR WRITE TODAY!!! SAVE OUR CARS.

And please post similar messages on other automotive forums so others know about this bill.

Michael

 

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=906036

 

If there's anything worth duping, it's this. I am fairly sure it has our attention though!

 

I'm sorry if the thread is duped, but I don't see it. Your link references the thread we are looking at.

Anyway, please do act on this before it is too late.

Michael

 

I think Cali ment to post this:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=898915

 

The Governator has my email!

 

Bawawawa!!!!! It's a joke that takes you back to your original post!

 

Obviously, the data used to support this bill was bogus. The Los Angeles Times reports officials saying that by 2010 vehicles 30 years and older will constitute 2.6% of the vehicles on the road. This number sounded very high, so I went and took a 2000 car sample for an hour at the 101 Freeway here near Los Angeles. By the data provided in the LA Times, I should have seen 52 cars older than 30 years old. I saw only 3, a Ford Bronco, a Lincold Continental, and Chevrolet El Camino. My figure would put this number at 0.15%.

This is more evidence that this bill is not needed. Please call or write Gov. Schwartzenegger today.

Michael

 

COMMANDO HAS MY EMAIL ALSO.
FIRST THIS, NEXT NO MOD,NO SPORTS CARS,
AND I KNOW HE HAS A COUPLE OF HIS OWN. CAN'T HE FIND SOMETHING ELSE BETTER TO DO?

 

We have something similar here in Maryland called VEIP. And while I loath the state charging me another yearly fee *cough*tax*cough*, it protects the environment. I would think Joe citizen would be worried about the air he breaths. Or is there not enough smog in LA for you?

Pollutants/Emmisions from older vehicles are in older vehicles are on an order of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of times higher. (*Quite literally*) So even a small percentage of road vehicles can make a big difference.

I have yet to see any real problems with emmision testing these vehicles as you described above. Can you point to a single instance of it happening?

There are waivers in many states that allow you to register your vehicle as historic. Your total mileage per year would be limited. But if you have a truely historic, restored collectors piece, I doubt that you would be driving it that much anyways.

There are other benefits to having your car inspected. For example, a failed inspection report could lead to a diagnosis of bad timing. This leads to ping and/or premature engine wear.

Or are you more worried about them spotting the catalytic converter you ripped off to give you more HP? *joking*

The major components of vehicle smoke all have significant health impacts:

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) - These contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, or smog. Breathing smog can decrease lung function, inflame lung tissue, and, with chronic exposure, lead to permanent lung damage.
Hydrocarbons (HC) - These toxic chemicals are produced at a much higher level in poorly maintained vehicles. Breathing hydrocarbons can have many health effects, ranging from respiratory damage to damage to the immune system and increased risk of certain cancers.
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) - Also produced at higher levels by smoking vehicles, these particulates can lodge deep in the lungs and cause serious respiratory disorders.

 

It must be that time of year again. Every year they try to knock out the rolling exemption. The funny thing is every time I see a gross polluter it's some beat up mid to late eighties car. They should worry about the emissions of 2% of California's cars when they can properly regulate the other 98%.

 

Hey DigitalGriffin:

What are you driving? Nothing in your profile says you have a 'vette.
Just wondering.

 

The following is my post from the C1/C2 board in a thread that was started due to the recent publicity on AB 2683:

"An average 1976 car emits 155 times the hydrocarbons of a 2004 car, according to the California Air Resources Board. In fact, there are only about 50,000 of the 1976 models left on California's roads, but they spew out more smog than all 1.4 million 2004 models combined."

The above rationalization, quoted from the San Jose Mercury from Louie's link, was used in the legislative analyses to ramrod AB 2683 through the legislature, and it is a BOLDFACE LIE!!!

Beginning in 1975 new car emissions were on the order of one-tenth of non-emission controlled cars, and new cars are on the order of one one-hundreth. New cars are asymptotically approaching zero emissions!

Okay, so based on the above data one would expect a 1976 model to be ten times dirtier than a 2004, and this is the case. For example, average passing HC emissions for the 1975-1980 year group are 47 ppm versus 4 ppm for a '04 model, but the 1975 year group is still one tenth the emitter of a non-emission controlled car, which measure 400-500 ppm, WHEN THEY ARE IN PERFECT TUNE!!!

This is why AB 2683 must be defeated. If it passes the next target is the emission controlled cars that are currently exempt (1966 to 1975)and once they get them they will go after cars that were built before there were any tail pipe standardsc (pre'66 for CA models and pre-'68 for all states).

If you have not already contacted the governor, please do so at

www.govmail.ca.gov

Add comments using the data I have provided above, and pass the word as widely as you can.

Duke

 

Well, let me enlighten you. First in California we have no historic or collector category that allows for a certain number of miles in exchange for an exemption so that argument is moot. Second, it is not the tailpipe test that many of us have a problem with or I don't - it is the visual inspection. So for instance, I could get a modern GM block, modern heads, a new (modern) carb, modern headers with provisions for breathers to be installed, dual exhausts with cats and a run of the mill air cleaner and guess what? I fail the visual inspection because I "modified" the exhaust and took the snorkel off the air cleaner NO MATTER HOW CLEAN THE TAILPIPE TEST IS. I would fail even though the motor runs cleaner than new. Is this logical? No, because the INTENT of the law in the words of the author of the bill, is to REMOVE older cars from the road- NOT make them cleaner. End of argument -you loose. (Wow- I feel better now!)

 

Plus his argument is more full of holes than my catalytic convertor.