No more smog for 1996 and Older cars in CA in 2024+?

[Agent_S13]

Hi All,

Figure this might be better here in the local forum but is there any legislation/documentation regarding CA not going to require smog for cars that are 1996 and older in a few years?

Background - Car passed smog today so I can get my registration. The Smog Tech casually mentioned as he was making small talk and said the following

You should only have to smog 1 more time in a few years - there's legislation that they won't require it for cars 1996 or older.

I attempted to get more info but he didn't elaborate.

I'd be overjoyed that I wouldn't have to smog every other year anymore, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wishful thinking here but if there's any sort of proposed legislation out there, I'd be curious to read up on it. The car sits 98% of the year in my garage and occasionally drive it (every few weeks if I have time/motivation).

This would make it even easier to keep around (forever) if I don't have to worry/stress/work towards getting it ready for smog.

Thanks for any insight.

Aaron
'91 240sx coupe

[Silvia666]

This would be great [emoji1694]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brndck]

:rolleyes: this is me not holding my breath.

[mav1178]

yeah this guy is completely talking out of his ass.

[spooled240]

I heard about this but I highly doubt that it will happen. From a political standpoint it would make legislators look like they don't care about the environment and from a revenue standpoint they would lose out on the whole economy of smog check stations and state-mandated automotive repair for the 20 model years of vehicles that are still on the road.

[PhilthyS13]

Meanwhile they’re also in the process of setting up cameras to automatically cite cars with loud exhaust. No way this will ever pass.

[mav1178]

yeah this guy is completely talking out of his ass.

I should add that a quick search yields no legislation of any kind that has been passed or proposed.

[Thursday7]

I'm not in California but would it really offset much, from a practical/legislation standpoint? I rarely see cars on the road older than 2000 anymore and we don't have the toughest emissions regulations in Pennsylvania.

[brndck]

I'm not in California but would it really offset much, from a practical/legislation standpoint? I rarely see cars on the road older than 2000 anymore and we don't have the toughest emissions regulations in Pennsylvania.

we've been having this discussion for quite a few years. the number of vehicles you see on the road in ca that are mid 90s is like 3 out of every 100. 1990 or older, maybe 1 out of 100 if not less.

70s? 1 out of 500 or less.

Does the emissions program in CA REALLY make that big of a dent? even if it was proven to have no measurable impact, the state would still leave it in play as a cash generating device.

[Agent_S13]

Thanks all -- I did a quick search but couldn't find anything either, hence the thread. Figured those closer to or those in the industry might have some insight.

Then again, if this were true somebody here would have started a thread about it already.

Figure as long as my car continues to pass every other year, I'll keep it.
I've seen enough "Wish I didn't sell" type posts to convince me to keep it running and driving it whenever I get the opportunity.

Aaron
'91 240sx coupe

[PhilthyS13]

we've been having this discussion for quite a few years. the number of vehicles you see on the road in ca that are mid 90s is like 3 out of every 100. 1990 or older, maybe 1 out of 100 if not less.

70s? 1 out of 500 or less.

Does the emissions program in CA REALLY make that big of a dent? even if it was proven to have no measurable impact, the state would still leave it in play as a cash generating device.

My guess is cash for clunkers + regular attrition. For S chassis, the attrition was even higher due to drifting.

[collegekid]

I'm not in California but would it really offset much, from a practical/legislation standpoint? I rarely see cars on the road older than 2000 anymore and we don't have the toughest emissions regulations in Pennsylvania.

What boujie ass neighborhood are you in that you don't see cars older than 2000?

I can open my window and spit on a 1997 tan toyota camry.


I do agree that some things should just phase out with time. If your car is 40 years old and still runs, congrats man. There should be a timeframe of like 20 years where it's strict then it's safety related crap.

[s13 @ fullboost]

This is a complete load of crap, I can assure you no such thing is happening. CARB are people who fart in wine glasses and then swirl it in front of their noses. SMOG exemption is out of the question. It is one of the many ways they are able to rob the citizens of this shitty state & totally goes against the gypsy creed.

[ZenkiKid]

Hi All,

Figure this might be better here in the local forum but is there any legislation/documentation regarding CA not going to require smog for cars that are 1996 and older in a few years?

Background - Car passed smog today so I can get my registration. The Smog Tech casually mentioned as he was making small talk and said the following

You should only have to smog 1 more time in a few years - there's legislation that they won't require it for cars 1996 or older.

I attempted to get more info but he didn't elaborate.

I'd be overjoyed that I wouldn't have to smog every other year anymore, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wishful thinking here but if there's any sort of proposed legislation out there, I'd be curious to read up on it. The car sits 98% of the year in my garage and occasionally drive it (every few weeks if I have time/motivation).

This would make it even easier to keep around (forever) if I don't have to worry/stress/work towards getting it ready for smog.

Thanks for any insight.

Aaron
'91 240sx coupe

Am family friends with a smog tech.

This has been a long standing rumor for quite sometime. But until theres actual things in writing i wont hold my breath.

Bar 97 was "supposed" to be discontinued a little less than 10 years ago and well...its still here. There was even a zilvia thread talking about it.

Personally tho i dont see why California wont just allow us enthusiasts to pay an additional fee to avoid the test. Kinda like how alot of people pay for a "funny" test but instead we pay that to the state in an increased fee. I figure this would be a no brainer option since Cali government likes taxing its citizens up the ass as it is.


Side note: Im jealous of states with lesser smog standards because they tend to have way more older vehicles on the road.


Edit: Found said zilvia thread:
https://zilvia.net/f/showthread.php?t=608824

[EDacIouSX]

Am family friends with a smog tech.

This has been a long standing rumor for quite sometime. But until theres actual things in writing i wont hold my breath.

Bar 97 was "supposed" to be discontinued a little less than 10 years ago and well...its still here. There was even a zilvia thread talking about it.

Personally tho i dont see why California wont just allow us enthusiasts to pay an additional fee to avoid the test. Kinda like how alot of people pay for a "funny" test but instead we pay that to the state in an increased fee. I figure this would be a no brainer option since Cali government likes taxing its citizens up the ass as it is.


Side note: Im jealous of states with lesser smog standards because they tend to have way more older vehicles on the road.


Edit: Found said zilvia thread:
https://zilvia.net/f/showthread.php?t=608824

optics, democrats want to save the world by reducing smog emissions to 0, that and growing tofu

[ZenkiKid]

I still think that CA should offer a 3rd option for car reg.

Bypass testing but pay a higher fee.

[StorminMatt]

I have to agree with others that I have heard NOTHING in terms of proposed or pending legislation that would make pre-OBDII vehicles smog exempt. What I HAVE heard is that, at some point, California may have little choice. The issue here is being able to do the actual tests. As it stands, vehicles that are of the model year 2000 and newer take a computer test only. But 1999 and older still goes on the dyno rollers. However, the dyno is expensive to purchase and maintain. Because of this, smog shops are naturally becoming more and more reluctant to keep this equipment available and operational just to test the occasional oddball older vehicle that comes their way. Let’s face it. Pre-1996 vehicles are a fairly endangered species these days. And they’re only going to become less common. I suspect that, in the coming years, fewer shops will want to keep equipment to test older vehicles. And for those shops that DO continue to test older vehicles, there is also the possibility that, as actual dyno roller tests become less common, this equipment may become unavailable should it need to be replaced.

Now California could step in and say that smog shops MUST be able to dyno test older vehicles. But doing so could threaten the entire smog check program should this sort of action trigger too many shops to throw in the towel altogether. There’s also the issue of potential future availability of the equipment required to do these tests. This could be a problem if, say, the state itself decides to run test centers for these vehicles (which would also be a hard sell politically due to cost vs benefits). For all these reasons, making pre-1996 vehicles (and possibly pre-2000 vehicles, should a computer only test not be doable) smog exempt may be a reality that California might have to face. Of course, if or when this may occur is anybody’s guess. But at the very least, it’s probably not happening in the next few years.

[brndck]

I have to agree with others that I have heard NOTHING in terms of proposed or pending legislation that would make pre-OBDII vehicles smog exempt. What I HAVE heard is that, at some point, California may have little choice. The issue here is being able to do the actual tests. As it stands, vehicles that are of the model year 2000 and newer take a computer test only. But 1999 and older still goes on the dyno rollers. However, the dyno is expensive to purchase and maintain. Because of this, smog shops are naturally becoming more and more reluctant to keep this equipment available and operational just to test the occasional oddball older vehicle that comes their way. Let?s face it. Pre-1996 vehicles are a fairly endangered species these days. And they?re only going to become less common. I suspect that, in the coming years, fewer shops will want to keep equipment to test older vehicles. And for those shops that DO continue to test older vehicles, there is also the possibility that, as actual dyno roller tests become less common, this equipment may become unavailable should it need to be replaced.

Now California could step in and say that smog shops MUST be able to dyno test older vehicles. But doing so could threaten the entire smog check program should this sort of action trigger too many shops to throw in the towel altogether. There?s also the issue of potential future availability of the equipment required to do these tests. This could be a problem if, say, the state itself decides to run test centers for these vehicles (which would also be a hard sell politically due to cost vs benefits). For all these reasons, making pre-1996 vehicles (and possibly pre-2000 vehicles, should a computer only test not be doable) smog exempt may be a reality that California might have to face. Of course, if or when this may occur is anybody?s guess. But at the very least, it?s probably not happening in the next few years.

my next door neighbor is a auto repair shop. Super trust worthy, small shop tho. He used to do smogs, and had his own roller smog dyno, but has since stopped, since the amount of headache just isnt worth it for him, compared to what the price is. He makes way better money just doing regular repair work, and less headache/inspection from the state, less paperwork, etc.

[mav1178]

Personally tho i dont see why California wont just allow us enthusiasts to pay an additional fee to avoid the test. Kinda like how alot of people pay for a "funny" test but instead we pay that to the state in an increased fee. I figure this would be a no brainer option since Cali government likes taxing its citizens up the ass as it is.


optics, democrats want to save the world by reducing smog emissions to 0, that and growing tofu

Bypass testing but pay a higher fee.

There's actually an existing smog-exempt program in place already.

a lot of rural California only needs smog when changing ownership.

https://www.bar.ca.gov/services/programarea/smogcheckprogramarealookup

for example, if you want to move up to Mammoth Lakes you never have to do a smog check as long as you don't change vehicle ownership.

this is the primary reason why the existing rules won't change, because there is simply too much urban development to improve air quality as-is, so there will be zero chance of existing rules being relaxed or exempt.

I would say, if upcoming changes to banning of sales of new ICE vehicles start to contribute to an improvement in overall air quality YoY, then the chances of a classic car exemption might become reality.

[StorminMatt]

this is the primary reason why the existing rules won't change, because there is simply too much urban development to improve air quality as-is, so there will be zero chance of existing rules being relaxed or exempt.

This is assuming that smog checks, especially those with strict visual rules, actually help improve air quality. When it comes to 1995 and older vehicles, this is doubtful due to their very low numbers.

[mav1178]

This is assuming that smog checks, especially those with strict visual rules, actually help improve air quality. When it comes to 1995 and older vehicles, this is doubtful due to their very low numbers.

so until data is presented that proves otherwise, the existing rules will stay in place...

[KA24DESOneThree]

so until data is presented that proves otherwise, the existing rules will stay in place...

I disagree that California would change its mind based on data. It has one of the biggest datasets at its fingertips already and hasn't made any positive decisions for classic and vintage car owners and, if anything, has made it harder to directly import a car since 2017.

Certain aspects of the law are in the best interest of air quality. Other aspects don't make sense- why should direct import cars 1968 through 1975 adhere to CA standards of the time when there's no testing done on those cars if purchased from within the States? It's such a small part of the market, why beat it up?

[mav1178]

I disagree that California would change its mind based on data. It has one of the biggest datasets at its fingertips already and hasn't made any positive decisions for classic and vintage car owners and, if anything, has made it harder to directly import a car since 2017.

Certain aspects of the law are in the best interest of air quality. Other aspects don't make sense- why should direct import cars 1968 through 1975 adhere to CA standards of the time when there's no testing done on those cars if purchased from within the States? It's such a small part of the market, why beat it up?

that's why I said "data is presented"

there's no lack of data. there is a lack of presenting this in a convincing manner to CARB for them to change their mind or provide exemptions moving forward.

us complaining about this just does the same thing from 20 years ago; getting nowhere. and the more people try to circumvent the existing smog system the worse it gets, as the data (to CARB) will show that plenty of people want to break the law.