The Senate Transportation Committee approved AB 2683 (Lieber), which
eliminates the 30 year rolling emission test exemption by a vote of
8-2. The "no" votes were Senators McClintock and Brulte.

This is almost unbelievable when you look at the emission reductions as
a fraction of other sources, but this is the same legislature that spent
the windfall capital gains tax revenues on new programs that require
annual funding and in the next few years after the stock market bubble
burst nearly drove the state to bankruptcy and ran up $35 BILLION in
debt - about $1000 for every resident of California.

Last year we fired the governor for his lack of leadership in keeping
the legislature under control. You'd think that all the legislators
would have gotten the message, but most of them apparently have not.

THEY ARE STILL OUT OF CONTROL!!!

If they pass a budget bill before the end of July, they will have a
summer recess and reconvene on August 2 with this biennial legislative
session ending at the end of August. AB 2683 will likely come to a vote
in the full Senate before the end of August, so now is the time to
contact YOUR state senator.

Ask them what the claimed 6.0 tons per day savings in "ozone precursor"
emissions quoted in the latest legislative analysis (June 25) is as a
fraction or percentage of "ozone precursor" emissions from ALL sources.
They probably won't know, so ask them to request the data on totals from
the Air Resources Board (ARB) so the number can be computed. (Hint: It
is a very small fraction of one percent.), and then ask how this bill
can be justified under California Vehicle Code Section 5050:

"The Legislature finds and declares that constructive leisure pursuits
by California citizens is most important. This article is intended to
encourage responsible participation in the hobby of collecting,
preserving, restoring, and maintaining motor vehicles of historic and
special interest, which hobby contributes to the enjoyment of the
citizen and the preservation of California's automotive memorabilia."

You can read about this legislation at www.senate.ca.gov or www.assembly.ca.gov Click on legislation then type 2683 into the bill box and read all about it.

Also, I have a single page Word document battle plan. E-mail me at dukewilliams at netzero dot net if you want a copy. It has hot links to all the relevent web sites and I want to distribute it as widely as possible


We need to flood every senators office with inquires about this bill.

Duke

As I've said before, passing this bill will single handidly destroy one of the few thriving industries remaining in CA. This is an absolute joke and to think these idiots don't realize the implications this bill will have.

The sad part is that a bunch of other states will probably follow suit in the next 5 years. Although I doubt any other state has the extensive car culture and aftermarket that you find in CA, they won't be affected as strongly.

__________________
Afshin

Current:
02 C32 AMG

Previous:
92 500E
84 190E 2.3 5 Spd

I hope that none of my fine California friends hate me for saying what I'm about to say.

I know lots of GREAT folks in Cal. I've spent lots and lots of time in California on business and pleasure over the years. I love visiting Cal. and lots of the fine folks there.

That said, I see California as a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. This kind of thing is a great example why.

I love all my great friends in California. I offer all of you the very best of luck.

Have a great day,

Larry,

Thanks, we're going to need it; and not just because of this latest example of micromanagement
of citizens' lives by our "enlightened" state legislature.

Bruce

__________________
The Golden Rule

1984 300SD (bought new, sold it in 1988, bought it back 13 yrs. later)

Duke -

Out of curiosity. Are the emissiors requirements for the older cars what were in effect the year the car was made, or are they applying a stricter standard?

__________________
Chuck Taylor
Falls Church VA
'66 200, '66 230SL, '96 SL500. Sold: '81 380SL, '86 300E, '72 250C, '95 C220, 3 '84 280SL's '90 420SEL, '72 280SE, '73 280C, '78 280SE, '70 280SL, '77 450SL, '85 380SL, '87 560SL, '85 380SL, '72 350SL, '96 S500 Coupe

It is disappointing, however, the problem I have is not specifically the elimination of the 30 year rolling exemption. I think owners of older cars should be mandated to keep them in proper running condition, meaning compliance with the smog regulations at time of manufacture, indefinitely. To me, the problem is that we are not allowed to modify our cars to improve emission controls!

In my mind, once a car is out of mandated emission warranty, we should be allowed to update fuel injection, exhaust, ignition, etc...AS LONG AS specific emission requirements are met. Older cars should be tested bi-annually if not annually to ensure compliance.

New technology allows us to update an older car with modern controls that would produce far less pollutants then the original systems...but we can't take advantage of this.

This would encourage a strong aftermarket industry and keep emissions in check. Win-Win situation.

__________________
Glen Tokuhara
Beauty & the Beast and the wagon that could!

This is a very interesting question and one that is significant to many older Mercs since many models have been tagged as "high emitter profile" by the CA Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), the state agency that oversees emission testing.

Since 1973 new cars have been certified to what are known as "absolute standards". The certification test lasts about 45 minutes, including an engine off hot soak, and the entire exhaust from the full test is collected in a big plastic bag. The collected exhaust gas is then sampled for proportional emissions and combined with the total volume to arrive at an "absolute" grams per mile value for HC, CO, and NOx.

The way this works is that a light car can be relatively "dirtier" than a heavy car, since the lighter car produces less total exhaust gas volume during the test because less fuel is required to drive the entire test cycle.

The CA Acceleration Mode Simulation (ASM) loaded dynomometer test measures proportional emissions in PPM or percent, and the "cutpoints" calculation includes the vehicle weight, so heavier vehicles have slightly lower cutpoints than ligher vehicles.

Nevertheless, it is arguable that a car above the cutpoints, especially if it only marginally fails, would not necessarily fail the full certification test. The cutpoints are arrived at via statistical analysis, but are not perfectly correlatable to the absolute certification limits.

"Conditioning" is also an issue. In the case of many KE equipped engines, converter temperature is an issue. If they are shut down or idled too long before the test is run they can fail because the converter cools off.

This is the kind of thread where anyone can vent their frustation, and that is a good thing to do, but the important point is that every CA resident should contact their state senator and ask the question I posed at the top of the thread and keep after them until you get an answer.

Unfortunately, car guys are all too willing to say F-it and walk away. If more would take active part in the political process this kind of ridiculous legislation would be less common.

I have a three page MS Word document - "The war Plan" - that I will e-mail to anyone who wants to help, but I don't think I've heard from anyone on this board.

dukewilliams at netzero dot net