Kalifornia pre-smog guys...please explain this?!?

[legion]

Wow. Someone needs to challenge this in court.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I know I've posted this before, but pre-'76 vehicles are once again in the cross-hairs. I'm very happy my Targa is smog exempt (just so I don't have to go through the bull***** every year and pay the state their shakedown money for my <1,000-mile-a-year hobby), but once again, "follow the money". The geniuses in Sacramento are figuring out that there's some untapped revenue streams from the pockets of the citizenry that they haven't yet laid claim to:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/31/ca-looking-to-remove-smog-exemption-from-pre-1976-cars/

[the]

Originally Posted by dd74

'74 and earlier 911s (and I assume 914s) have no smog equipment, so that defeats the Weber argument right off the bat. If there's no baseline from which to measure how polluting a '74 or earlier car should be, then there's no reason an owner can't have up to a jet engine in his car.

All 914s have *some* smog equipment. And I'm pretty sure all '70s 911s do, too.

[Hugh R]

Smog laws in Cali go back to the mid-60s IIRC, and the gubmit is right, you may be exempt, but you still aren't supposed to eff with the pollution control regardless whether you need a smog test or not. On one level, I'm against this, but on another, I used to work for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the regional air pollution agency in southern California. Air pollution is WAY better here now than it was in the 60's and 70's, even the 80's. And population has gone up! My Bachelor's is in Environmental Engineering, and I believe you don't have a right to drive an absolutely emissions filthy vehicle and pollute the air that I breath. I mean this in the collective sense, as in millions of people. I occasionally used to drive an old British sports car that polluted a lot, relative to a new vehicle, but for its age, it had very clean emissions, it also had absolutely no emissions controls, but I drove it about 500 miles per year at the most.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Precisely why the emissions exemption makes sense for older vehicles. Frankly the rolling 30-year exemption made perfect sense to me (after 30 years, very few vehicles are on the roads and the ones that are tend to be in the hands of collectors who use them sparingly). The freeze at pre-1976 was a political grandstanding maneuver by the Governator, intended to help portray him as pro-environment (while he drives around in a Hummer of course). Utter B.S. Typical.

Anyway, everyone wants clean air. Got no problem with that. I agree that Southern CA is much better today than it was years ago (and the numbers support that claim, even with greatly increased populations today). So there's something to be said about environmental laws. Fine enough. However a balance is needed between "greater good" environmental policy and individual liberties. It's a trade-off. However the laws as written (and interpreted by an increasingly draconian and heavy-handed law enforcement community) tend to overstep that line.

I really feel that the powers-that-be in this state want nothing more than to crush individual freedoms completely and implement a completely socialist/communist system. It's certainly trending that way with alarming pace.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

The US 68 911 has specific smog equipment to include a seperate air pump. Any valves/hoses/fuel equipment used for recirculating unburned fuel/emissions whether specifically labelled as "smog" or not are considered smog equipment as they comprise the system as a whole and are needed to pass the smog levels designated for that car for that year..

I'm not sure about that. No air pump was taken off my engine when I ditched my old 2.7. The only hoses, valves, fuel equipment was CIS or oil related. My car was a fully stock CA car.

[Jim Sims]

"I'm not sure about that. No air pump was taken off my engine when I ditched my old 2.7. The only hoses, valves, fuel equipment was CIS or oil related. My car was a fully stock CA car."

The air pump came and went and returned and went again - it all depends on the year. It was not installed on the 1974 911; what the US '74 911 (including California delivered units) did have was the fuel system vapor handling system for the front gas tank. This system consisted of a couple of vapor expansion tanks, a activated charcoal cannister and numerous clear plastic hoses up front with two larger lines (hoses at both ends) that ran through the tunnel between the engine and the front system. One hose provided pressurized air (generated by the engine cooling fan) from a nipple on the engine shroud to the charcoal cannister and the other returned fuel vapors from the front charcoal cannister to the CIS air box for burning in the engine. All this must be in place and functioning for the car to pass a visual inspection.

Also, there were and remain emissions standards for 1974 cars. If it is decided you have to get fixed and tested because you were "sniffed out" the car will have to pass those standards in addition to the visual inspection. If enforcement is vigorous, a lot of pre-76 911 engine conversions are likely to be "history" in California.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

True on the '74 charcoal cannister thing - mounted on the passenger side of the engine compartment. And it actually makes sense. It does not affect performance in the slightest (well, maybe the 5 pounds worth of weight if you're counting).

Anyone know how exactly the roadside sniffer things work? Since the threshold "pass" level for every year/make/model of car is different, how does the thing know? Or does it just look for extremely high emissions that would fail for any year/make/model combination such as in the case of a clunker that's falling apart with bad rings, a rusted-off exhaust, etc.?

I'm all for clean air, but this kind of stuff is sounding more and more "guilty until proven innocent" to me - which actually doesn't surprise me at all from CA.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

The air pump came and went and returned and went again - it all depends on the year. It was not installed on the 1974 911; what the US '74 911 (including California delivered units) did have was the fuel system vapor handling system for the front gas tank. This system consisted of a couple of vapor expansion tanks, a activated charcoal cannister and numerous clear plastic hoses up front with two larger lines (hoses at both ends) that ran through the tunnel between the engine and the front system. One hose provided pressurized air (generated by the engine cooling fan) from a nipple on the engine shroud to the charcoal cannister and the other returned fuel vapors from the front charcoal cannister to the CIS air box for burning in the engine. All this must be in place and functioning for the car to pass a visual inspection.

Also, there were and remain emissions standards for 1974 cars. If it is decided you have to get fixed and tested because you were "sniffed out" the car will have to pass those standards in addition to the visual inspection. If enforcement is vigorous, a lot of pre-76 911 engine conversions are likely to be "history" in California.

Yes, I thought very hard back to when the old 2.7 was taken out and just as you mentioned, I vaguely remember something about a charcoal unit, etc.

The question I have is, as far as visual inspection, who remembers visually back to 34 years ago how these engines are supposed to look? Unless an inspector gets a slew of stock 911s, and thoroughly realizes the visual difference between a 2.4 all the way to a 3.6, I can't see how they'd know what engine goes in what car. For example, there's very little difference between a CIS 2.7 and a 3.0. Plus, each progressive engine, (3.0, 3.2, 3.6) should run cleaner than the last. However, if any of those engines are heavily modified, I would think all bets are off.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by dd74

'74 and earlier 911s (and I assume 914s) have no smog equipment, so that defeats the Weber argument right off the bat. If there's no baseline from which to measure how polluting a '74 or earlier car should be, then there's no reason an owner can't have up to a jet engine in his car.

Originally Posted by the

All 914s have *some* smog equipment. And I'm pretty sure all '70s 911s do, too.

This is correct. Even a hose from the oil tank to the crank case and air box is an attempt at emissions control. A '74 w/o CIS (US delivery) is not going to pass visual should the case arise.

[Jim Sims]

"who remembers visually back to 34 years ago how these engines are supposed to look?"

I seem to recall there is an enforcement photographic or line drawing database showing the engine and exhaust systems by model and year (checked via the VIN).
Who knows if it is correct!

[911pcars]

Not sure my experience bears any resemblance to existing conditions.

I got my '69 911 back on the road in '98 after years on jack stands. 1998 happened to be the year smog exemptions began in CA. Went to the local PD for a vehicle inspection - check. Then off to a local DMV office to re-register my car. I was told I needed a smog test. I pointed out my car was exempt. However, they didn't agree despite my pleading to the mgr. (bureaucrats ), so I dutifully went to a smog station to confirm the requirement. They said they couldn't test it because the vehicle and vehicle specs were no longer in the database because ....... THE CAR WAS EXEMPT.

I bypassed the local DMV and sent my papers directly to the state office. All is well... so far.

The next version of vehicle emissions compliance, OBD III, has one scenario of road-side sniffers randomly located like traffic photo enforcers. You can project it from there.

some b.g. info:
http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/may/obd_iii_new.cfm

Sherwood

[Tobra]

I am relatively certain they had requirements for equipment, air pumps, catalytic converter, EGR, whatever back pretty far, but don't think they had a standard for emmissions until later in the 1970's, which they applied retroactively.

They want to crush all old cars, along with personal freedoms in California

[the]

Originally Posted by dd74

The question I have is, as far as visual inspection, who remembers visually back to 34 years ago how these engines are supposed to look? Unless an inspector gets a slew of stock 911s, and thoroughly realizes the visual difference between a 2.4 all the way to a 3.6, I can't see how they'd know what engine goes in what car. For example, there's very little difference between a CIS 2.7 and a 3.0.

They don't have to have any memory at all.

A California BAR inspector would just plug the engine serial number into the computer and it will come back with a list of all the smog stuff that needs to be on it. PVC, EGR, Cat, O2 sensor, etc. etc. etc. They don't need to know what the engine looks like, they will just go down the checklist and not check it off until they can locate the part.

Every engine, going way back to the 60s, is going to have some kind of PVC system. Venting the crankcase to the atmosphere ended 50+ years ago.

[Normy]

In FLORIDA, we don't have any sort of inspection.

Yes, that's right: NO form of inspection. I used to own a 1966 Ford F100, the famous "Happy Truck" that was detailed in Flying magazine when they did an article about "airport cars".


Because the government of Florida is fairly conservative [something I approve of~], and the land that is the Florida peninsula is very flat...there is no smog here and the government sees no reason to spend billions of dollars to set up some sort of smog inspection system.

Considering how corrupt the Florida government is...I have to say that I'm amazed!

Anyway...my point in all this is that you should either 1. reconcile with your local government, and make your car meet inspection requirements... or 2. Do like me and move to Florida. My 928 was sold in Vienna, Austria in 1985 and it arrived in the port of Miami on June 12, 1985. The sticker is on the door. It was "federalized", and then the eventual owner, a jewler in Ocala, Florida....committed suicide in the car.

[forked tail swings back and forth....]

A death in the car? It just attracted me...despite the fact that I should have

**RUN**

From this pile of *****! Good lord, that car wasn't the one to own.

Oh well, now it is a nice car. $10,000 worth of work later~

N