Filed under: Etc., Government/Legal, Green
Cali may cancel smog exemption from pre-1976 cars
In California, home of the strictest car emissions regulations in the U.S., cars produced before 1976 do not need to undergo smog testing. California State Senator Dean Florez has proposed legislation that would remove that exemption for cars registered in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.What would that mean if it were passed into law? It would mean that as of January 1, 2009, any car registered in a rather large swathe of central California -- from the 1974 Maverick to the 1929 Model A -- would need to pass every current and future smog test. If it didn't, it couldn't be driven.
It is theorized that the move comes because state authorities have missed their air quality goals and are now looking at targeting a tiny fraction of cars. Living in LA, we can't speak for Central California, but most of the pre-1976 vehicles we see here sound and run better than the glut of 80's Toyotas puttering down the streets. What vintage car owners fear is that if the legislation becomes law in the San Joaquin Valley, then it's only a matter of time before it gets adopted everywhere. Thanks for the tip, Kevin!
[Source: SEMA Action Network]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
dejal 10:08AM (3/31/2008)
I'm not for CA. I always thought that at worst you have to pass the limits that were in effect for the year of the car.
What level would a 29 Model A have to meet?
Didn't PCVs come into use in CA in '66? I would think pre 66 would be home free. As far as cars that came with emission controls. Tough.
Reply
Mallory 11:01AM (3/31/2008)
Yes, pre-1976 cars would have to pass an emissions test and meet the emissions standards for its year of manufacture. No, they don't have to meet emissions of current cars. If your pre-1976 car is well maintained and you haven't screwed with the pollution controls you have nothing to fear.
While these gross polluters represent only 10% of the cars on the road, they emit ~50% of the CO2 emissions. Once you cut out the FUD and look at the facts this new law makes perfect sense.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:22AM (3/31/2008)
You mean over 50% of the trace emissions, not CO2 emissions. Trace emissions are things like NOx, particulates, and unburned hybrocarbons. It's these things that make our air visibly dirty, and the valleys and onshore winds of California make them a serious problem here.
Testing these vehicles against some loose standards would be a start. Honestly, they should probably require a cheap retrofit to make a real difference. The first stage retrofit would be to require the cars to be modifed to not vent the gas tank or crankcase to the atmosphere. This would make a huge difference in haze-forming unburned hydrocarbons.
lad 11:49AM (3/31/2008)
Don't agree: there are a lot of these cars where the smog devices and engine parts are no longer available so you are attacking all the car guys. This is a red herring to take the pressure off the automakers and to blame these cars for the problem when the basic problem is the process of burning chemicals in the atmosphere in ICEs and then using expensive devices and police action to cure the problem as an after thought. The introduction of electric drive automobiles would cure this problem in but a few years so why does the auto industry continue to delay introducing them? IMHO, Florez is California's flunky for the auto industry!
why not the LS2LS7? 8:04PM (3/31/2008)
lad. These old vehicles make up over 50% of the trace emissions from cars in California. You can stop selling gas cars today and sell only electrics and you can only half solve the problem.
If you want to solve the whole problem it may require some small effort from these old car owners.
DMC-12 10:10AM (3/31/2008)
I live in California, and I drive a 1970 Dodge Dart to school everyday. If this law is passed, I may not be able to drive my car anymore, forcing me to buy a new one (even though it runs very well). Here's to hoping they don't pass this law, and that if they do, my car passes.
Reply
Guenther 10:14AM (3/31/2008)
Not to be an A$$, but that would make for motivated sellers of some prime vintage steel. Then again, the short sighted ninnies in the California Legislatoin would first have to come up with a set of values to achieve. Will they need evaporative controls too? This is complicated stuff.
Reply
Avinash machado 10:14AM (3/31/2008)
Instead of smog testing cars they should should test the brains of California politicians.
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 6:18PM (3/31/2008)
It's those damned hippies from Berkley and Northern California. Not saying that all Northern Californians are, my uncle lives in Stockton, but I just can't stand how people so far removed from the southern half of the state can have so much power over us.
henrykrinkle 10:17AM (3/31/2008)
It's the wine:
http://www.winedine.co.uk/page.php?cid=939
Reply
Rick C. 10:18AM (3/31/2008)
This is PROPOSED legislation from ONE state senator, whom has been labeled a kook by other politicians. No worries, this proposal is not going anywhere.
Reply
The Other Bob 10:44AM (3/31/2008)
I agree. When the media discusses proposed legislation its always as if it is about to become a reality. The vast majority of bills never see the light of day. Hopefully this is one of them.
MJK 10:20AM (3/31/2008)
I think this is in the vein of the penny wise and dollar foolish mentality.
Reply
Rene Curry 10:25AM (3/31/2008)
What they should consider is that everyday more & more of the older cars will be off the road without any legislation. They will wear out, get damaged, or spend more time being garage queens as time progresses.
Wait until they figure out that their endless increase in property taxes is coming to a halt. Then instead of the idea of fixing any pollution issues, they will allow you to drive an older car by adding a "pollution tax". Yeah you heard it here first on AutoBlog!
Reply
cowboy bob 2:01PM (3/31/2008)
I had not thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. This is perhaps exactly what they want. "MO-Money". Who can they carve a piece out of next?
psarhjinian 10:27AM (3/31/2008)
It's a valid point. A car from the early 1970s can emit more noxious fumes while turned off than a modern SULEV would emit at wide-open throttle.
I do wonder, though, what the percentages are. Would doing this really attack air-quality, or would heavy trucks and/or industry be a better target?
Or, heck, building a decent transit system.
Reply
Mez Jr 10:44AM (3/31/2008)
I read a figure somewhere that 15% of US CO2 emissions were caused by it's automotive fleet. So, yeah attacking other forms of pollution would effect a larger increase in air quality, but that would mean going after big companies instead of individuals.
Derek 12:13PM (3/31/2008)
Only the very early 70's. Sealed crankcases (PCV system) had already been implemented by the 70's and the vapor cannister (sealed gas tank) came in very early in the 70's. After that, the emissions from a non running car fell to practically zero.
K 10:45AM (3/31/2008)
Anyone who's lived in central California for any period of time knows how bad the air there really is. The geography is much more of a culprit than anything else, but the emissions from the pre-'76 vehicles don't help.
If such a law were to be passed, it should be enforced in costal counties as well. A lot of the crud in the air in the Central Valley just blows in from the bay area and has nowhere to go.
Reply
LOs 10:50AM (3/31/2008)
I live in Southern California and have driven through San Joaquin on several occasions.
If you want to reduce emissions maybe you should add to the beef supply instead and send some more of the millions of cows roaming around those parts to slaughter.