Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Walt Boeninger (email redacted)

It's still in committee, that's why there is no bill number yet,
it hasn't made it that far. SB42 was the number of the bill
several years ago, they reuse the bill numbers...but we *all*
know what SB42 *was*....

Walt
==============================


[from mmmeat]
>Chuck wrote:
>>I have just received more information on this from Jim Thomas of
>>the National Motorists Association, and it is no hoax!
>>The CA Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (IMRC)
>>has proposed and passed their draft recommendations to
>>"include the 1966-1973 vehicles in the Smog Check program with
>>an exemption for classic cars and restrict the test to actual
>>emissions. Alternatively, eliminate the rolling exemption". AND
>>"to make all 1966-1973 vehicles eligible for the Vehicle Retirement
>>Program".
>>Remember, as California goes, so goes the nation (at least as far
>>as smog check is concerned).
>>Please notify any interested parties of this and if you can make the
>>Jan 18th meeting in Sacremento at the Dept of Consumer Affairs
>>Conference Room 400 R st, Ground floor, 10am - 4pm
>
>
>Meat responds:
>SB42 has already taken effect as of January 1, 2001...it's a child restraint
>law - 6 years or 60 lbs before kids can legally net be in a child safety
>seat.
>
>Here's the link:
>
>leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_42_bill_20001205_intr
>oduced.html
>
>So, if it's not a hoax, we're going to need a bill number. I'm not sure why
>they're meeting at the Department of Consumer Affairs, when this is supposed
>to be a senate or assembly bill.
>
>Your pal,
>Meat.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classic-mustangs mailing list
>(email redacted)
>mix.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo/classic-mustangs

-------
Regards

Walt Boeninger - Nor Cal SAAC 67 GT500 | 67 Shelby T-A #31
norcal-saac.org 71 Boss 351 | 97 5.0 Explorer
mailtoemail redacted) 99 C5 Hdtp | 86 Mustang GT

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mmme

Walt wrote:
>It's still in committee, that's why there is no bill number yet,
>it hasn't made it that far. SB42 was the number of the bill
>several years ago, they reuse the bill numbers...but we *all*
>know what SB42 *was*....


Meat responds:
Well, I don't *know* what SB42 was. I looked it up, and it was about child
restraints. If this is about the pre-74 cars not being smogged or the
rolling exemption that begins in 2003, please let me know.

If it hasn't been introduced to either the Senate or the Assembly, then it's
nothing yet...just talk. There was a bill introduced last year that had to
do with SPCN (special construction; like a Cobra for instance) cars. The
reason that bill (SB 1811) failed was because the ARB wanted to add verbage
that would stop the rolling exemption from happening...when Johannessen and
Karnette wouldn't add it, it was vetoed by Governor Davis (although it
passed unanimously in both houses on every single vote).

Being in committee - from my understanding and watching of the various
bills - usually happens after it's introduced for the first time by the
appropriate senator. Right now, I can't imagine there are too many Senators
out there who would introduce this bill (last year there were a total of 10
Bills introduced in the two houses that had anything to do with smog -
futher analysis indicates that of those, only three were about smog-related
issues (all died after introduction), the rest were about repayment of the
smog impact fee paid by people bringing cars in from out of state).

The best bets, to my knowledge, of officials that would MAYBE back this bill
are Senator Mountjoy or Assembly Members Oller or Frusetta.

The good thing is that we have Senators Johannessen, Karnette and people
like Dennis Lord up there who appear to LIKE cars (Johannessen owns a 427
Cobra replica). Also, there is a strong backing of pro-car bills by SEMA,
NHRA, and others - bills like the one that it sounds like this one is don't
generally pass...Hot rodders don't like them.

And all of the cars are grandfathered in; they can't be un-grandfathered.
And if they stop the rolling exemption, who cares? The only car that was
even remotely cool that would get caught would be the 1974 'cuda. All of
the 74 & newer cars have smog equipment. They should maintain it in good
order...If I sound like someone who's been caught in Santa Ana behind a 1975
Nova that was aspew with fluids and laying down a cloud of brackish blue
smoke that filled the entire street so that you couldn't even SEE for 20
minutes in traffic ... well, guess where I just was?

Stupid Nova.

If you can help me - or the others who don't know what SB42 is (or was) -
out, please feel free.

Until then, I'm thinking 'hoax,' or (as Shakespeare would have put it) 'much
ado about nothing.'

Your pal,
Meat.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Pete Boggini (email redacted)

>Meat responds:
>Well, I don't *know* what SB42 was. I looked it up, and it was about child
>restraints. If this is about the pre-74 cars not being smogged or the
>rolling exemption that begins in 2003, please let me know.

Wasn't that the whole Smog Check II garbage?

>If it hasn't been introduced to either the Senate or the Assembly, then it's
>nothing yet...just talk. There was a bill introduced last year that had to
>do with SPCN (special construction; like a Cobra for instance) cars. The
>reason that bill (SB 1811) failed was because the ARB wanted to add verbage
>that would stop the rolling exemption from happening...when Johannessen and
>Karnette wouldn't add it, it was vetoed by Governor Davis (although it
>passed unanimously in both houses on every single vote).

So, Davis is in favor of getting rid of rolling exemptions? Figures.

>The best bets, to my knowledge, of officials that would MAYBE back this bill
>are Senator Mountjoy or Assembly Members Oller or Frusetta.

Meat, are you saing Mountjoy would be in favor of removing rolling
exemptions? I doubt it. He was one of the major opponents of Smog Check
II and MTBE. He is a friend to car owners.

>The good thing is that we have Senators Johannessen, Karnette and people
>like Dennis Lord up there who appear to LIKE cars (Johannessen owns a 427
>Cobra replica). Also, there is a strong backing of pro-car bills by SEMA,
>NHRA, and others - bills like the one that it sounds like this one is don't
>generally pass...Hot rodders don't like them.

Well, the original Smog II crap was just crap. And MTBE was added even
though opponents showed that in New Jersey it ended up in drinking water
back in '86. Also, Smog II type programs have failed to give the results
CA wants in Colorado, but that didn't stop them from passing it.

>And all of the cars are grandfathered in; they can't be un-grandfathered.
>And if they stop the rolling exemption, who cares? The only car that was
>even remotely cool that would get caught would be the 1974 'cuda. All of
>the 74 & newer cars have smog equipment. They should maintain it in good
>order...If I sound like someone who's been caught in Santa Ana behind a 1975
>Nova that was aspew with fluids and laying down a cloud of brackish blue
>smoke that filled the entire street so that you couldn't even SEE for 20
>minutes in traffic ... well, guess where I just was?
>
>Stupid Nova.

And, it would probably pass. Many cars belching smoke pass while
some that don't appear to be smoking do pass. I was under the impression
that burning oil didn't upset the smog checkers that much.

And, as a ex-Democrat (similar to an ex-smoker in my vigilance), I
tend to remember the "good old days" when the Democrats actually did
care about the little guy. Today, they are just as bought by industry
as the Republicans. Oh yea, from memory, all of the opponets of MTBE
and Smog II were Republicans. They were complaining about the water
contamination and that the poor would have trouble paying the high prices
of Smog II. Also, they didn't think it was fair for the industries to be
able to buy polution credits while us little guys had to buy new cars.
So, the events that the Democrats who run CA and that traitor Pete Wilson
refused to veto turned me around. Don't worry, if the Republicans were
to ever get a majority, they would probably be pulling the stunts. The
point is, the minority party tends to have to appeal to the people while
the majority tends to pay off the people who really elected them, the
lobbiests. It sure would be nice of one of the parties really tried
to do what was best based on facts and science, but apparently that's
asking too much.

My cousin got a note in the mail that he could trade his '70 Cuda
in for $500.00 but it had to be 1) running and 2) currently registered.
Bastards, you can tell they don't give two sh*t's [tm] about cleaning
up the air, just want to grease some palms.

Anyway, to end my longwinded opinionated response, I would be in
favor of testing all cars if there were reasonable standards, and
if they didn't have things like gross poluters where you could end up
with a car that was unregisterable. And, how about trying to use
positive reenforcement like maybe a tax credit for a really clean running
vehicle rather than just threatening all the time. I mean, I spent a
lot of money putting an '87 SEFI setup in my '65 from a 5.0 HO. You'd
think they'd be thankfull as hell that I did that. Nope, they'd just
reward me by telling me that I should have also added cat's.

peterb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Boggini
Systems Administrator/Corporate Operations
E-mail: (email redacted)
Phone: (650)933-6858
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Pasch (email redacted)

Pete and others,

On a similar subject: Is it true in CA that you can't (according to CAR install
a true dual exhaust system (with dual cats) on a modern vehicle if it didn't come
from the factory that way? Isn't the whole point of the state and federal
pollution laws to ensure that every vehicle is at least as clean as it came new
from the factory. Putting dual exhaust (H-pipe, intermediate pipes with dual
cats, and dual mufflers/resonators and tailpipes) on my '95 Ford F150 would seem
to accomplish that (and increase mileage and HP to boot).

Actually, this is a theoretical question for me since I live in Arizona--but I
wanted to find out from any true (read: overregulated) Calfornians what the scoop
is on this one. Incidentally, the possibility of a rollback to pull in
previously untested vehicles in CA seems ludicrous.

Regards,

Mark
'66 Mustang coupe in Tucson

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Walt Boeninger (email redacted)

Yea, I spoke too quickly. You're right, it's not in a
Senate or Assembly committee yet. It's in some outside
committee: The CA Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (IMRC)

And yes, for those in California, SB42 was the well known
25 year rolling exepmtion starting with 73(?) and older
at the time. All the clubs fought long and hard for that one.

Walt
=======
[from mmmeat]
>Walt wrote:
>>It's still in committee, that's why there is no bill number yet,
>>it hasn't made it that far. SB42 was the number of the bill
>>several years ago, they reuse the bill numbers...but we *all*
>>know what SB42 *was*....
>
>
>Meat responds:
>Well, I don't *know* what SB42 was. I looked it up, and it was about child
>restraints. If this is about the pre-74 cars not being smogged or the
>rolling exemption that begins in 2003, please let me know.
>
>If it hasn't been introduced to either the Senate or the Assembly, then it's
>nothing yet...just talk. There was a bill introduced last year that had to
>do with SPCN (special construction; like a Cobra for instance) cars. The
>reason that bill (SB 1811) failed was because the ARB wanted to add verbage
>that would stop the rolling exemption from happening...when Johannessen and
>Karnette wouldn't add it, it was vetoed by Governor Davis (although it
>passed unanimously in both houses on every single vote).
>
>Being in committee - from my understanding and watching of the various
>bills - usually happens after it's introduced for the first time by the
>appropriate senator. Right now, I can't imagine there are too many Senators
>out there who would introduce this bill (last year there were a total of 10
>Bills introduced in the two houses that had anything to do with smog -
>futher analysis indicates that of those, only three were about smog-related
>issues (all died after introduction), the rest were about repayment of the
>smog impact fee paid by people bringing cars in from out of state).
>
>The best bets, to my knowledge, of officials that would MAYBE back this bill
>are Senator Mountjoy or Assembly Members Oller or Frusetta.
>
>The good thing is that we have Senators Johannessen, Karnette and people
>like Dennis Lord up there who appear to LIKE cars (Johannessen owns a 427
>Cobra replica). Also, there is a strong backing of pro-car bills by SEMA,
>NHRA, and others - bills like the one that it sounds like this one is don't
>generally pass...Hot rodders don't like them.
>
>And all of the cars are grandfathered in; they can't be un-grandfathered.
>And if they stop the rolling exemption, who cares? The only car that was
>even remotely cool that would get caught would be the 1974 'cuda. All of
>the 74 & newer cars have smog equipment. They should maintain it in good
>order...If I sound like someone who's been caught in Santa Ana behind a 1975
>Nova that was aspew with fluids and laying down a cloud of brackish blue
>smoke that filled the entire street so that you couldn't even SEE for 20
>minutes in traffic ... well, guess where I just was?
>
>Stupid Nova.
>
>If you can help me - or the others who don't know what SB42 is (or was) -
>out, please feel free.
>
>Until then, I'm thinking 'hoax,' or (as Shakespeare would have put it) 'much
>ado about nothing.'
>
>Your pal,
>Meat.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classic-mustangs mailing list
>(email redacted)
>mix.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo/classic-mustangs

-------
Regards

Walt Boeninger - Nor Cal SAAC 67 GT500 | 67 Shelby T-A #31
norcal-saac.org 71 Boss 351 | 97 5.0 Explorer
mailtoemail redacted) 99 C5 Hdtp | 86 Mustang GT

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Jeff Speegle (email redacted)


Mark Pasch wrote:

> Pete and others,
>
> On a similar subject: Is it true in CA that you can't (according to CAR install
> a true dual exhaust system (with dual cats) on a modern vehicle if it didn't come
> from the factory that way? Isn't the whole point of the state and federal
> pollution laws to ensure that every vehicle is at least as clean as it came new
> from the factory. Putting dual exhaust (H-pipe, intermediate pipes with dual
> cats, and dual mufflers/resonators and tailpipes) on my '95 Ford F150 would seem
> to accomplish that (and increase mileage and HP to boot).

Sorry the idea of the test and the law is not to reduce emissions for a particular
car but to assure that the amount from a particular type and style of car does not
increase or beyond limits set. There is no bonus or thank you for reducing them
further.

It has been shown from the first introduction in 66 that a well tuned and maintained
car can be cleaner than a regular one with all the emission equipment. But the
government realizes that most are not so the visual inspection is still a required
part of all tests

Jeff Speegle
MCA ANHJ

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chuck Sanborn (email redacted)

>The best bets, to my knowledge, of officials that would MAYBE back this bill
>are Senator Mountjoy

Well, Mountjoy was our friend but if I am not mistaken, he is no longer in the
California senate.
Chuck