California AB2683

[Duke W.]

On Monday April 12, AB2683 was approved by The Committee on
Transportation, and the next stop appears to be the full Assembly, but
no date for a vote is set.

AB2683 freezes the 30 year emission test exemption at the current limit
of 1975 and requires all vehicles from 1976 up to be tested in
perpetuity. Even if this does not affect you personally, it eventually
will as further efforts to eliminate emission testing exemptions will be
attempted. This is becoming an annual rite of Spring!

Write your Assembly member and ask them to vote against this bill.
Collector cars see low annual mileage accumulation and do not contribute
a meaningful amount of emissions to the air.

We need every car collector and vintage car enthusiast to make an
individual effort to defeat this legislation now. Please take the time
to contact your Assembly Member.

Contact information for your Assembly Member and details/status of
AB2683 are at:

www.assembly.ca.gov

Duke

[Chuck S.]

Re: California AB2683

Duke, after watching the political polls swing to and fro lately, I have begun suspect that almost half of the people that vote (or answer poll questions) are morons devoid of common sense and the ability to reason, as well as lacking in character, integrity, and the fortitude to make and keep a commitment. Unfortunately for you, Joe and others there, I also suspect that percentage may be much higher than fifty percent in the "Golden State".

The most distressing part is that these morons are electing an increasing number of representatives from among their number. The obvious outcome is that things can only get worse. I am about ready to resign from the electorate and ride this roller coaster into the dark abyss...to watch and see how long it takes these dumba$$es to cry out, "Dear God in Heaven, what have we done?!!!". Unfortunately (maybe fortunately for me), I probably won't be around long enough to see it.

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Duke-----

Actually, I've seen this coming for quite some time. If you recall, when the "old car exemption" was first enacted, it had 2 parts. First, cars of model year 1973 and older were exempted (and, some of these cars were not 30 years old at the time of enactment) and, second, the "30 year exemption" to begin when the 1974 model year cars were 30 years old. When first enacted, I viewed the "30 year-and-older exemption" portion of the bill to be the biggest threat to sustaining the exemption, at all.

My reasoning is this: as the 30 year and older exemption starts to "take effect" it will bring into exemption cars that were originally catalytic converter-equipped. In fact, that will begin to happen later this year. Next, it will bring into exemption cars that are computer controlled. Some day, it will bring into exemption OBD I and OBD II cars. Each of these technologies were "quantum leaps" in emissions performance. The air pollution control "forces" are not likely to want to see these cars fall into exemption. And, I think that's what we're seeing happening right now.

Part of the problem, here, is that so many folks with older cars see the "smog exemption" as a "license" to modify the engines and/or emissions control systems of their cars. Soon, folks will be able to "rip off" the catalytic converters of 1975 models with perceived impunity. Of course, it remains ILLEGAL to remove, tamper, or modify the emissions control systems of ANY car, even those "exempted" under the current law. But, as I've predicted for a long time, if folks become irresponsible about all this and start modifying cars and emissions control systems, the smog checks could be back for all.

I certainly agree that old cars account for a VERY small amount of the air pollution. After all, how many 30+ year old cars do you ever see on the road being driven on a regular basis? However, the air pollution generated by a single older car, on a per-mile basis, is MANY times that of a current-day car. There's just no doubt about that fact. Tampering with emissions control devices and engine system will not only aggrevate that situation, it plays right into the hands of the anti-smog forces and gives them a MAJOR weapon to use against any exemption for older cars.

Of course, notwithstanding my comments, I'm obviously opposed to AB 2683 and I'll contact my state representatives in that regard. As you say, this could be just the "opener" in the process to further weaken the "old car exemption". In other words, the anti-smog forces may have decided on a new strategy----take smaller but MORE "bites of the apple". On the ohter hand, and as I've alluded to above, it may actually FORESTALL further attempts at weakening the "old car exemption" since the exemption would be effectively "capped" by AB 2683 and the "universe" of exempted cars would be a steadily decresing one (as non-classis older cars are scrapped) rather than an EXPANDING one. That situation might appease and forestall future attempts to repeal, in a "wholesale" manner, the "old car exemption".

One other thing and I believe the reason that AB 2683 has come up at this juncture: it's very hard, politically, to "take away" things once granted. So, as cars become exempted, it will be hard to "take away" the exemption. I'm sure that the smog forces are politically astute enough to realize this. I've actually discussed this point with California state legislators and they all agreed (in fact, one actually brought this political reality to my attention). They know that "taking away" things will create huge howls of protest (as they've seen in the past when such attempts have been proffered). However, folks with 1975 and later cars haven't really enjoyed any "exemption" yet. So, it's easier to change the law now before they do. Of course, there will be protests but I'll bet that they're counting on the fact that they're won't be enough protests.

Just so you know, in order to put my opinions expressed in the first few paragraphs of this response into "action, my "ZL-1" is going to have a full emissions control system, including AIR. I even plan to have it emissions-checked VOLUNTARILY and, if it's out-of-spec FOR THE 1969 standards, I'll make whatever adjustments are necessary to get it into spec, even though I don't have to.

[Doug Flaten]

Re: California AB2683

I wonder what the parts availability / prices are going to be like when the computer PCM controlled cars get up there in age? Will you be able to find an OBD I PCM in 10, 20 or 30 years? Will there be any software or hardware supporting those systems.

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Doug------

I've predicted for years that this is going to become a MAJOR problem in the years to come. C4 and later Corvettes are going to be a REAL BIG problem for this. The "longevity" of SERVICE PARTS is going to be a LOT less than even C1-C3 Corvette owners experienced. Most of the critical parts for ealy C4s are already discontinued from GM and NO ONE makes replacements for them. A good friend of mine in the Corvette business calls C4 and later Corvettes "throw away" cars. He may be right.

[Duke W.]

Re: California AB2683

One of the myths promulagated by the liberal "do-gooders" is that older cars pollute more. This may be true of pre-emission control cars, but emission controlled cars, particularly those from 1975-on when catalytic converters came into general used are fairly clean. The following data is from the BAR web site and is the average emission measurements from early ASM testing. I have only listed the data for the ASM 5015 test as this typically yields higher emissions than the ASM2525 test. The data I have is from 1999-2000 and I don't know if it has been updated.

Emissions are listed HC(PPM)/CO(%)/NOx(PPM)

1966-67 year group 116/1.39/814
1975-80 year group 57/0.25/787
1993+ year group.. 12/.05/74

My last ASM 5015 test for my '76 Cosworth Vega yielded 22/0.01/605, and this was AFTER I reindexed the cams to take out most of the overlap and tuned the fuel curve by ear and smell. Though NOx emissions doubled, I believe they are within the allowable limit for a current model cars and still only half the 75-80 year group limit.

Lack of emission testing may motivate some to modify their emission systems, but given the amount of mileage cars older than 30 years old accumulate, it will have no measureable impact on air quality. Requiring passenger vehicles masquerading as trucks to meet passenger car emission standards would have a much more positive impact on reducing automotive emissions. In fact, given the high state of current emission control technology, there is no reason why light trucks should have looser standards than passenger cars.

Beyond this there are uncontrolled emissions sources such as commercial and general aviation aircraft, watercraft, industrial and farm equipment, and lawn and garden equipment. Some of these sources such as manufactured watercraft and lawn and garden equipment have just begun to be covered by standards when new, but will not require field testing.

The "test old cars" mentality is just a way for the liberals to beat up on a minority group that they think will take it lying down and nobody cares. It's time to send a message that this is not the case.

We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore. Ask Joe Davis about this.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Duke-----

I totally agree that old cars, in terms of total mass of emissions, have VERY little air quality effects. As you (and I) have both stated, the number of miles driven is very small and VERY FEW are used by anyone for daily transportation.

The emissions performance specs that you quoted are just about what I would expect and completely supports what I mentioned in my previous response. It shows that dramatic reductions were made at the time of catalytic converter introduction and at the time that computer controlled powertrains "got serious".

The emissions performance of your CV is laudable, but I don't know if it would be typical. Your understanding an application of knowledge to your car is likely in the "way below 1%" range as far as the general population is concerned.

I also TOTALLY, 100%, and IRREVOCABLY agree with your assessment of trucks masquerading as cars. That was a major loophole in the CAFE regulations that was adopted with good intent but has become a "loophole" that the carmakers and car buyers have driven right through (pun intended). Not only could emissions, in total, be reduced by a uniform standard for all PASSENGER VEHICLES, but fuel economy could be vastly improved and overall fuel consumption reduced. Have you checked the price of gasoline lately? Fuel hungry trucks masquerading as cars and used for general transportation needs (which usage was absolutely NOT the intention of the lower CAFE standards for trucks when it was established) are one of the primary factors that's keeping demand up and prices high.

Notwithstanding all of this, I am troubled with the notion that so many folks have that the "old car exemption" is a license to modify cars and emissions systems that are illegal under the law regardless of the TESTING exemption. I see it all the time, implied or stated, on the NCRS and other discussion boards. As I say, to modify cars in illegal ways is "breaking faith" with those who take the law seriously and those who appreciate the exemption and want to do their part to SEE THAT IT STAYS THE LAW rather than give the air quality forces MAJOR AMMUNITION in their fight to repeal the exemption. As I stated, I am ALL FOR keeping the exemption just as it now stands, including the 30 year "rolling" portion of it.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, NO ONE has ever accused me of being "of a liberal persuasion". Quite the contrary. I am generally regarded as a "quintessential conservative".

[Duke W.]

Re: California AB2683

I subscribe to the Larry Elder school of "conservatarianism". That's a blend of conservative and liberatarian!

Believe me, Joe, I know you are NOT a member of the dreaded L-word cabal.

Even if some take advantage of emission test exemptions to disable or remove emission control devices, in the overall scheme of things, it's pure noise - on a par with building a fence on your property or some other minor modification without getting a permit.

The number of federal, state, and local laws or so voluminous and many are so archane that even people who thing of themselves as "law abiding citizens" break laws everyday. If you've ever been moving with the flow of traffic at 70-75 MPH on a California freeway posted at 65 MPH you are one of them.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Duke-----

It's not so much the breaking of the law that's the problem for me. It's more the fact that such things "play right into the hands" of the folks that want to do away with the exemption. By "exposing such goings on" these folks can then point to the fact that old car buffs can't be trusted to comply with the law in the absence of inspections. The modification or removal of emissions control systems can be touted a "flagrant" violation and evidence as to the bad faith of the perpetrators. Such a strategy would "play well" politically and these folks will figure it out, if they haven't already.

One other point that's often missed: in California, if a vehicle is identified as a "gross polluter" by a roadside automated emissions check device, then that vehicle is directed to a test-only station REGARDLESS of whether or not it is exempt from bi-annual inspections. Also, if a vehicle is identified by a CHP officer, BAR, or DMV personnel as having a likely tampered emissions control system, that vehicle is directed to a test only inspection station. As I have been told, the standards for 66+ vehicles remain in effect and, when directed to a test-only station, the vehicle will have to meet the appropriate standards AS WELL AS the visual inspection for tampering. If tampering is identified, the test is over and the vehicle fails.

[Kevin M.]

Re: California AB2683

OK then where do I buy, find, my 67 A.I.R. mixture valve so I can remain compliant? If I get pulled in with 30 year old smog parts that haven't been made for 25 years where do you go? By the way do you think Arnolds tank or car collection would be included in this law, I think not.

Kevin

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Kevin-----

One thing that you might try is to check out the BAR's web-site. They used to have a "smog parts finder" service which put you in touch with folks that sell emissions control parts for old cars. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of this service is to find folks FUNCTIONAL parts and NOT NECESSARILY "correct" parts. While perhaps incorrect, it would allow the car to be "legal". Plus, I believe that it would also comply with the requirements of performance verification if I understand the rules. For PV all of the car's components have to be functional, but I don't think that they necessarily have to be absolutely correct. So you lose a few points for an "incorrect" valve. At least the rest of the system could be in place and functional, so you'd get a lot more points than you would if it wasn't. And, it should get you through the PV, too.

[Duke W.]

Re: California AB2683

Here's a great idea. Add a tailpipe emission test to the PV for '66-'67 CA models and all '68-up models. After all, they were certified to meet the applicable standards at the time they were built, and "as it left the plant" is the judging standard.

Duke

[Dick W.]

Re: California AB2683

And remember, the majority of Federal emission rules and regulations begin in California (Granola Land. What ain't fruit and nuts are flakes)

Support SEMA. This is a unified voice on the automotive enthusiast. They keep abreast of what is going on in all 50 states and lobby government accordingly.

[Kevin M.]

Re: California AB2683

Joe,

That's a great idea I'll try and give them a call. Also I need the carbon gasket that goes inside the pump, any chance there's a replacement part for that? I know you can buy rebuild pumps from supply houses so I hope the internal parts are still available.

Kevin

[Joe L.]

Re: California AB2683

Kevin-----

No internal parts for the AIR pumps are available from GM or, as far as I know, Delco. Once-upon-a-time a few parts were so-available, but they've been gone for years. I've never seen aftermarket parts or kits for AIR pumps, either.

Rebuilders obviously are able to get the parts, so they're out there. It's just that the folks that manufacture them do not distribute them in "retail quantities", like so many other rebuilder parts. Unless some retailer/distributor is willing to purchase in the their minimum unit quantity and repackage in consumer quantity, they're unavailable. I doubt that they'd be enough of a market for such parts for any distributor to do that; it would take them years (or, maybe, eons) to "unload" the amount they had to purchase.

There is one possible option, though: Salgado Automotive. They are a commercial parts rebuilder in Los Angeles that's a VERY unusual sort of commercial rebuilder. Besides rebuilding automotive parts on-site, they also have a retail operation on-site (VERY, VERY rare for a commercial rebuilder). Primarily, they sell the rebuilt parts (but, their major business is wholesale to auto parts stores). They will (or, at least, used to) sell rebuilding parts. I purchased water pump rebuilding parts there years ago after going to just about every other major commercial rebuilder in LA (and, there are or used to be MANY down there) and getting turned away, often curtly.

If you go there or contact them, let me know what you find.