California: Is your kit car registered as a 1960 vintage vehicle?

[pgermond]

If it has been legitimately titled in another state and you have the title in hand, you have nothing to worry about. I personally know two individuals who recently purchased out-of-state Cobras (WA and AL) and had no trouble at all...... they just had to pay the tax. Go talk to DMV in person rather than taking the forum "experts" word as gospel.

[Jamo]

Robert, a passing reference in one of your above posts concerns me...the "push back" you're getting from environmentalists (as expected).

If a move is made to provide folks who seek to correct their registration with additional SB100 numbers (over and above the 500 allocated each year), is there a chance we may awaken them to the idea of doing away with SB100?

I say this as an owner of a 1976 Bronco who waited 10 years to do a ground up rebuild, only to have the "person" from LA push a bill through (and signed) stopping the 30 year rule at 1975. Who would've ever thought that would get changed?

I'm hopeful that folks who seek to correct their bad registrations think before they stand in line in January. Many have Mustang II running gear, complete with computer hardware, who may have little problem with meeting the smog standards for the year of their engine. Others are using older blocks who might also have little to really fear from the smog standards set for their engines. And, as has been discussed previously, some smog refs might very well continue to give a pass of sorts to motors which "appear" to be based upon older blocks despite being new "replacement" blocks.

I just hope folks look before they leap and take SB100 spots they don't need...both folks correcting bad registrations and folks with new builds. Many folks simply don't realize that SB100 is not a registration provision, but merely an exemption for smog requirements when there is no way to comply.

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by Jamo

If a move is made to provide folks who seek to correct their registration with additional SB100 numbers (over and above the 500 allocated each year), is there a chance we may awaken them to the idea of doing away with SB100?
.

I have purposefully approached this bill to be neutral on emissions. The goal is to bring everyone back into compliance with existing law. Any attempt to change emission standards is a non-starter.

Existing law allows SPCN to pass an emission test or to have a SB100 exemption.

Existing law places with BAR the authority on how to do emission testing on SPCN. Via an administrative regulation that was promulgated over 20 years ago, BAR test SPCN based upon the engine, not the model year. As with all administrative rules, it is subject to challenge or change.

SB100 exemptions were legislatively mandated. To increase or decrease the 500 number would require an act of the legislature.

If current rules hold, I do not see any legislative action being offered to increase or decrease SB100 numbers, nor do I see any ever being approved. If BAR rules change to test SPCN based upon model year I would anticipate some sort of legislation being offered by interested parties on both sides. I have no idea what the outcome of that endeavor would be.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Morgester

I have purposefully approached this bill to be neutral on emissions. The goal is to bring everyone back into compliance with existing law. Any attempt to change emission standards is a non-starter.

Existing law allows SPCN to pass an emission test or to have a SB100 exemption.

Existing law places with BAR the authority on how to do emission testing on SPCN. Via an administrative regulation that was promulgated over 20 years ago, BAR test SPCN based upon the engine, not the model year. As with all administrative rules, it is subject to challenge or change.

SB100 exemptions were legislatively mandated. To increase or decrease the 500 number would require an act of the legislature.

If current rules hold, I do not see any legislative action being offered to increase or decrease SB100 numbers, nor do I see any ever being approved. If BAR rules change to test SPCN based upon model year I would anticipate some sort of legislation being offered by interested parties on both sides. I have no idea what the outcome of that endeavor would be.

Excellent.

[Rwillia4]

Registration sucks!

[ksmiff]

I was in the DMV about 3 weeks ago, to show them my proof of insurance for my car which I was lucky enough to title with an SB100 in January. While the clerk was doing her damnedest to find some reason to fowl me up again, she stated that my smog was good til 2010. I would need to start getting it smogged every two years then. Being startled by this I didn't wait for the hair on the back of my neck to go down before speaking. I blurted out "it's an SB100 title, it is smog exempt." She said "not according to the computer, it says your next smog is due in 2010." with her ha ha we're the DMV and we are sticking it to you, attitude. I then calmed down and realized from my old Used car dealer days, that she was just another uninformed DMV clerk trying her best to piss me off. I let it go and left. It does make me want to pose the question though; Have we all been fooled by DMV again, and have a surprize coming in 2010. Please let me know your thoughts.

Kirt

[Ibr8k4vetts]

Sorry to change the the subject...But how the he!! dose the DMV get away with charging for "planned nonoperation" I thought it was sad when they charged $5.00 for this But now they charge real money for this AND it's every year! To park your personal car on your own property

[Rich A]

California only cares about the money!!

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Rich A

California only cares about the money!!

No, if that were true they would not limit the number of SB100 registrations per year and they would charge people $2,500 per just for the privilege. Oops! I just gave the State an idea!

[Slick61]

Originally Posted by RedBarchetta

No, if that were true they would not limit the number of SB100 registrations per year and they would charge people $2,500 per just for the privilege. Oops! I just gave the State an idea!

Reading through the text of AB 619, it appears that it IS about the money...

"It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting a
vehicle registration amnesty program to improve compliance with state
vehicle registration laws and accelerate and increase collections of
certain owed state fees and taxes."

I seriously doubt they care about compliance... more likely they're seeing the dollar signs.

yes, I'm distrustful of politicians...

[Excaliber]

Jdog, why didn't you simply go with 'year of block' and do the smog thing? I understand it's easier and simpler to have the SB100, but it's likely your car would have passed emmission testing anyway. Anyone with an ACCURATLY built to 1965 Cobra specs should not have a problem with Calif registration.

Got an SPF or a BDR or many of the FFR's, etc, etc, well, you likely got a problem!

If you running a late model EFI computer controlled small block or modern big block (with 427 emblems on the fenders), I just don't feel your pain. If you want a modern spec "Cobra" then put the smog pump and catalytic converters on it if you want to drive it legally in Calif. You either have a replica of a 1965 Cobra, or you don't, simple as that.

[jdog]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Jdog, why didn't you simply go with 'year of block' and do the smog thing? I understand it's easier and simpler to have the SB100, but it's likely your car would have passed emmission testing anyway. Anyone with an ACCURATLY built to 1965 Cobra specs should not have a problem with Calif registration.

Ernie, It's not quite that simple, this is California afterall. The entire engine must be year of block compliant. Carb, cam, ect..

BAR did a sniff test anyway just to have something in their computer, I failed misserably!


jdog
P.S. Calif Fish & Game does reserve one or more of those high demand tags each year for 'auction to the highest bidder'. Some $10.00 sheep & elk tags have gone for $25,000!

[Bill D]

I built a FFR Cobra in 2003 and registered it under SB100. I had no problems with the CHP, BAR or DMV. The BAR put a smog exempt sticker on my car.

I am now building a GT40. In January, I got my SB100 number and soon will be visiting the same CHP office, smog station, and DMV office. I don't foresee any problems. Maybe it's the DMV office (Thousand Oaks). Each January, they herd all us SB100 hopefuls together and bring us in before the DMV opens up. They process our paperwork as a group, call Sac for the numbers, then call us up when they get them.

[rdorman]

The land of 'fruits and nuts'. To bad, such a beautiful state.

[JTD]

Makes a person wonder how long this commonly used phrase will remain true:

"Registered under the coveted "SB-100" (California Senate Bill 100)—that means no smog certification, no registration hassles for the life of the car!"

[Rich A]

No, if that were true they would not limit the number of SB100 registrations per year and they would charge people $2,500 per just for the privilege. Oops! I just gave the State an idea!

RedB
How much did you pay in taxes to register your car?
I KNOW I payed WAY less!!!!!!!!!!!

[xlr8or]

Originally Posted by Rich A

RedB
How much did you pay in taxes to register your car?
I KNOW I payed WAY less!!!!!!!!!!!

When doing the initial registration in CA you have to a Use Tax (sales tax) on the car. You provide reciepts for what it cost you to build/buy it and pay that as part of the initial registration. Current sales tax in CA is around 7.5 percent depending on where you are. That's $1500 per 20k of value plus the other reg fees of a couple hundred bucks.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Rich A

RedB
How much did you pay in taxes to register your car?
I KNOW I payed WAY less!!!!!!!!!!!

I was an honest Joe and told them what I paid for the car. I did not want ANY hassles with this vehicle, so I paid the man and moved on. In fact I ended up paying my taxes at the AAA office "in advance" before I went to the DMV and got my SB100 sequence number.

-Dean

[Excaliber]

Mr. Morgester has all ready stated, in a previous thread, there is a LOT of money at stake. I believe the estimate approached a million dollars or more. OK, so it's about 'the money', what else is new?

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Mr. Morgester has all ready stated, in a previous thread, there is a LOT of money at stake. I believe the estimate approached a million dollars or more. OK, so it's about 'the money', what else is new?

With kit cars and hot rods lost tax revenues are estimated at over 200 million dollars. This legislation will also bring in California RV owners back into the fold that are using out-of-state LLC to avoid taxes. Loss is around $20,000 per RV and we are looking at between 1,000 to 3,000 RVs.

There is also the savings of not having to investigate or prosescute these folks. I am all for being put out of a job.