SB100 in CA.

Ibr8k4vetts · #1 (**permalink**) 08-18-2003, 05:37 PM

I have registered my Cobra as a 1965, just received my title and the year has 0000. Is this right? shouldn't be 1965? I called DMV and can't get any help there.

Thanks, Mike

SCOBRAC · #2 (**permalink**) 08-18-2003, 06:44 PM

No.

It was all a terrible lie. They were suppose to register the cars (per the leglislation) as either the year of the chassis or the year of the engine. Hence a 1965 engine will be reg'd as a '65.

In reality what happened was your car went into SPC hell. It isn't a 1965. It isn't even a 2001, 2002, 2003 etc. It is in perpetual California-Cobra hell. SB100 does get you out of biannual smog checks (for now)... It does something else too. Remember that "reference only" smog test you took at the BAR?

That established you as a gross polluter. At least it would if I went and too the test, and it will come back to haunt us I am afraid. Why else would they do it? They created a list much like the list of assault weapons owners they compiled in 2000. A simple easy way of sending you a note from the government telling you to report to the crusher when the time is right (politically).

I suspect it will be right after I get my letter asking me to please bring in my weapons for "inspection". I hope I am wrong.

I own SPC 006. I was at the DMV on Jan. 1 and it took me 3 hours to convince them I knew what they were suppose to do with my registration. I haven't used it and I doubt I will.

My car was registered 15 years ago and has flown under the radar this long. Every couple years it gets tested to a non existant (1966 427) smog specification, I pay my money and they leave me alone.

My advice? participate in our coup... It will last all day on Oct. 7, 2003. Vote yes on question #1 and vote for any of the other people on the ballot with the exception of Cruz " I use the N-WORD but am not a racist" Bustamante. If you need a no nonsense candidate who will have your car tax reduced by lunch time I reccomend Tom McClintock.

Turk · #3 (**permalink**) 08-18-2003, 10:32 PM

SB-100?
What a joke.
Maybe one day I will write a book.

TURK

Tongue Pirate · #4 (**permalink**) 08-19-2003, 07:00 AM

I'm stickin' with my 64' 289 block hoping that I can skip all the beuracracy.

Robert T. Faust · #5 (**permalink**) 08-19-2003, 10:06 AM

If you are able to register your car to the engine year (1965) at build up, what would happen later on if you were to change the engine to a newer one? Would you have to go through the DMV registration all over again?

Ron61 · #6 (**permalink**) 08-19-2003, 10:18 AM

Robert,

Technically to be correct yes, you would be supposed to go to the DMV and tell them I have a newer engine. This is what the people that I know told me when I called and asked them about this after your post. See SCROBACs post above as this stuff is already in the formative stage and is on hold right now until our Emperor finds out if he and his buddies can survive the revolution. That is why most of the people that I know used the body year of the car. That way they can change engines and not have to report it. But if you register by engine year and then go to a newer engine, the way it was explained to me is they can make you meet emission requirements for the newer engine. I DO NOT know that this is a fact so don't take it as so. There are just to dam many variables in this stinking state for anyone to really know what is fact and what is fiction. And the DMV is not a lot of help in 99% of the cases.

Ron

Tongue Pirate · #7 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 07:45 AM

So if a person didn't report that they changed to a newer block would the agency of the secret smog police come & get him?

I can't imagine there being any sort of smog check on a pre smog car?

Ron61 · #8 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 12:02 PM

T.P.

Actually the secret smog police is a myth. They are the people that drive around with small hand detectors to see if your lawn mower, tractor, & etc. meet whatever emission standards they think appropriate for that day. Just hope they have a good day and are in a good mood. I would hate to have my lawn mower confiscated as a gross polluter.

Ron

Tongue Pirate · #9 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 01:22 PM

Exactly the root of my fears! That is why I have a push mower

Ron61 · #10 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 01:47 PM

T. P.

If you don't have a 50 state emissions certified mower then we have to have yours checked. I got my sticker straight from the roving EPA car. Took it off the car while they were snooping around down town. They did draw the line at my attempt to put a stroked 351 on my mower.

Ron

SCOBRAC · #11 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 06:32 PM

You can't register a car as a 60's anything in california enless it has 1960's paper (title). Maurice Johannesen california state senator now director of vetrans affairs crafted a wonderful and needed piece of leglislation in 1998 and hammered his fellow senators until it passed (ok he actually sold out conservatives in 2001 and voted with the dems. to adopt a tax increasing budget for FY 2002)

In either case what what passed (sb100) and what became law are very different.

Want my advice? take your car to Texas or another logical, right minded state. Register it as a special construction 196x and bring it to calif. Or simply do not register it here at all. F'em... You can get your car reg'd in Nevada and you are more likely to get the personal plate you want.

Above all participate in our little coup. Let the anointed know you are really pissed.

SCOBRAC · #12 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 06:53 PM

Tongue,

Every car built after 1968 gets a smog check every two years (this was suppose to be a 25 year sliding scale) ie. today (2003) it was suppose to be cars after 1973. I may be wrong but I believe they frooze it at '68. The exception is the special construction vehicles we drive. If you register your car for the first time today you are required to take a smog test regardless of the type and level of smog equipment.

What possible reason could there be for this aside from putting you on a list of potential gross polluters? My car was reg'd in 1988. It had a 1966 428 (no smog) It now has a 1966 427. (no smog). if I re register it under sb100 I get another one time "reference only" test and a special place on a most wanted cars list. As it stands all I have is a 1988 car that meets all the requirements (every 2 years) of a minimum 1966 standard.

Do you not see where this is going? Search DOT in the fourm annd see what pops up. It may not happen today but there are people who want all internal combustion engines banned. Call me paranoid but I have seen registration turn into confiscation under the present Davis/Bustamante/Lockyear regime.

I have letters from AG Lockyear to honest hard working firearms owners asking them to turn in their lawfully purchased guns or face confiscation and inprisionment. I will send them to you if you like.

As for the smog police. Joke all you want. The Cal-EPA regularly set up shop in and around Sacramento at off ramps and on ramps with air monitoring devices looking for gross polluters. 1984 is here gentleman and the sooner you see it the better off you will be to deal with it.

SCOBRAC · #13 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 06:56 PM

http://www.airquality.org/cleanairpl...0113cmts.shtml

SCOBRAC · #14 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 06:57 PM

Read this...

http://www.esp-global.com/esp/dip/20/

Turk · #15 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 07:09 PM

Mike,
We just had to spend $48,000 on a dyno so we can use it to test emissions on cars. Where our business is located just got promoted to ENHANCED Area.
We are so fortunate. Aren't we?

I beliove we can only charge $50.00 or so for an emission test.
My math is not very good, but somehow I have this feeling we will never get our money's worth unless I start giving Dyno rides to Cobras on the weekends.
$150.00 for three pulls.
Free if you let me drive it.

TURK

weekendwarrior · #16 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 09:16 PM

Michael,

This is a good site.
http://www.geocities.com/smogrfg/

Ibr8k4vetts · #17 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 09:31 PM

SCOBRAC

Quote:

My advice? participate in our coup... It will last all day on Oct. 7, 2003. Vote yes on question #1 and vote for any of the other people on the ballot with the exception of Cruz " I use the N-WORD but am not a racist" Bustamante. If you need a no nonsense candidate who will have your car tax reduced by lunch time I reccomend Tom McClintock.

I'm with you!!!! Mike

Turk · #18 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 10:45 PM

This will be an test for the integrity of the Black voters in this state.
As we all know most Blacks do vote Democrat. It is a fact.
Republicans have done a lot of dumb things to see to it that Black and most minotities vote Democrat overwhelmingly.

Now that we have a candidate who used the "N" word, but didn't mean it, let's see if they are as hard on him as they were on detective Furman, and Senator Trent Lott and others.

TURK

trctrdrvr · #19 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 11:05 PM

Turk
There is no way we can win, hell only 1 in 4 CA work the rest live off the system, or should I say our backs.
The only hope we have is if the ba****ds can't get out of bed to vote.

Turk · #20 (**permalink**) 08-20-2003, 11:27 PM

At least they are being honest before the election this time.
Bustamante thinks the problem with California is the fact that we don't pay enough taxes.
If we just paid a Little more, enough to make up the 38 billion deficit all will be OK again.

These guys got their heads stuck so far up their butts, they can't see that Gray Davis is gong bye bye and they want to run on the same platform, TAX & SPEND.
SPEND & TAX must the new version of that failed economic experiment.

If this keeps up, many who are hit the hardest will pack up and go somewhere else, so there will be less of those kind to tax, and they will have to tax those who stayed behind harder yet.

The fact is any company that can leave the state have done so.

Companies, even the ones who want to do business in the state , are looking to relocate because they can't get people to work who can afford to buy a home or gas or electricity.

I am no economist, but the solution seems to be more jobs, more business, not less.