Perhaps I should narrow the question. Is it true that current law mandates SP100 SPCN vehicles to be exempt from emissions testing for life?

Chuck, sleep in. You deserve it. ;)

Yes, the current law dictates such. But there are forces in Sacramento that would LOVE to monkey around with the current law. That's where this begins to get a bit scary and that is why I'm so p@#$% off because my '1965 Texas title' was converted to SPCN back in early '04 (and not by choice but because I had to in order to comply to the existing 'procedure/law' at that time). And now the former title is considered 'clean' and the much easier path to follow. Damn the politicians...

EDIT: And yes, I paid ALL of the appropriate taxes...nearly $4K worth at the time of initial registration. So I was playing it straight all the way.

As per usual, it's the luck-of-the-draw when dealing with the DMV. Luckily, I fared better this past summer... the '65 Texas title (first owner) on my Cobra was given full faith and credit (per the motor vehicle code) when the second owner brought it into California. As the third owner, I did not encounter any additional problems with registration... that is, other than writing a check for over $3000 for taxes & fees. And YES, the state got every last cent it was "entitled to"... I didn't cheat them out of a single penny... and of course, I get to go on paying higher registration fees every year for my honesty. Lucky me... I guess it's a small price to pay for having a Cobra in my garage. I was pretty surprised to receive my title less than 10 days after doing the paperwork. Same for tag renewal. Go figure...

For me the emission issue is wrought with short sightedness. For legislators, regardless of party or state affiliation, they have no common sense. For them, trading in for a new car every year that is a little less polluting avoids the facts that more pollution from energy usage and processing is done every year making new cars than the little bit that they "save". When I was running for the State Rep a few years ago, in one of the "debates" that was held at the University with a large # of professors present I challenged them. I used a 1976 Caddie Eldorado as the example and challenged them to prove that the Eldo would have polluted more in the intervening years, if maintained, than the amount of pollution generated producing newer cars for the same period. I used specificly a known gas hog and suggested that if the owner of said car had bought a newer, less poluuting vehicle every 2 years that they would have created more pollution generating the replacements and disposing of the older ones than the Caddie would have. Not one person challenged it and 10 years later I have yet to hear any data. But it is not just cars. We produce plastic bottles and then "recycle" them, where at one time we made bottles from glass and sterilized them. Our whole "pollution" mentality is flawed. As we worry about the cost of oil, think about the fact that 30 million barrels of oil a year are used to produce the bottles that designer water is sold in. Think about that the next time some tax employed yo-yo is lecturing on the need for this or that while sipping from their plastic water bottle. So much for environmental concerns. We have scrapped a true recycling industry, glass bottles that were used in virtually every drinking substance from Milk to beer, and now have a total loss system. Until there is a fundamental change in the Philosophy of pollution we will continue to be under the iron fist of legislators and bureacrats.

WDZ, points made. In another life likely would refer to this as similar to the "Law of unintended consequence". My favorite topic today along these lines is E85. Homer Simpson "doh", more corn going to fuel production leads leads to more land being devoted to its production which leads to less land being devoted to food production...yikes, higher food prices (who'd a thunk!). Not even getting into the subject of energy efficiency of E85.

At days end though, petroleum is a limited resource and somehow we need to start addressing this is a big way I suspect.

I am addressing it, I've got TWO big a$$ carbs and burning it as fast as I can. :LOL:

In sympathy with baseball's winter meetings, I propose a trade. Close the out-of-state title loophole and grant another 250-500 SB100 exemptions each year. ;)

It is no a loophole as you so fondly put it. It is a Federal requirement that all states accept other states legitimate contracts. If you wish Ca. to reject a common operating procedure between states, you may as well accept that other states will reject the "loophole" of Ca. titles. The break down of the U.S. has begun. You may want to look at how the Federal govt. handled (very poorly my the way) a group of states that wanted their own....I think it was called the Confederacy.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, should California ever decide to attempt something like this, lawyers and the courts would have a field day me thinks...

Mr Morgester....thank you for the information. This is the information I was looking for in determining whether to bring my car into ca and go the sb100 route or build it in PA and then bring it in. Right now, from your post it looks like it will be easier for me to title my car and register it in PA prior to my return to california.

M-A

Woodz428, Mr. Morgester actually called it a "loophole." I borrowed his terminology and CA plans to close it somehow.

Yes I recall that, I was uncertain whether he was referring to the "exempt" from emmisions, that comes with the one classification or the out of state part.
What I do know is that within the Constitution, Article IV I believe, our founding fathers stated that it WAS to be accepted between states. If Ca. is planning on seceding and setting up their on "kingdom", it is irrelevant. However, I consider that the Constitution is the overriding authority on this topic. I realize that is an unpopular belief, especially in the political/bureaucratic circles.

I'm not a constitional expert, though I did watch Nicholas Cage in the movie National Treasure steal the Declaration of Independence, but I believe somehow CA will find a way to put these out-of-state SPCNS cars through the SB100 process. Otherwise, CA will have a plethora of untested (emissions) SPCNS cars coming into the state. I just bought my Cobra from the manufacturer, but I'm thinking it may have been smarter to have purchased a Cobra titled in another state.

or one that already has an SB100 #. ;)

I am now thinking of giving my brand new cobra to my sister in Texas. She can registar it then give it back to me.:LOL:

Yeah, that Constitution is a b!tch isn't it! :)

Why not? Here's what I wrote in another thread on this very same topic:

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/show...644#post793644

There is a growing list of Replica Friendly states with Replica Friendly legislation and processes/procedures. All of these were modeled and lobbied by SEMA - check them out: http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=61687

- Pro-Hobbyist Street Rod and Custom Vehicle Bill Introduced in Michigan; Committee Hearing Scheduled for Dec. 4
- Florida Governor Signs SEMA Street-Rod/Custom Vehicle Bill Into Law - July 2007
- Pro-Hobbyist Street Rod and Custom Vehicle Bill Introduced in New York - March 2007
- Pro-Hobbyist Street Rod and Custom Vehicle Bill Approved by Arkansas Legislature; Moves to Governor for Signature - March 2007
- Virginia Pro-Hobbyist Replica Bills Pass Legislature; Moves to Governor for Signature - February 2007
- Colorado Pro-Hobbyist Kit Car Bill Signed into Law - June 2006
- Montana Pro-Hobbyist Street Rod and Custom Vehicle Bill Signed Into Law - April 2005
- Arizona Emissions Test Exemption for Collectible Vehicles Signed Into Law by Governor - April 2005
- Rhode Island, Missouri Become Second and Third States to Enact SEMA Street Rod/Custom Vehicle Registration Bill - August 2004
- Hawaii Street Rod/Replica Bill Signed Into Law - June 2004
- Missouri Enacts SEMA Street Rod/Custom Vehicle Bill - July 2004
- Illinois Enacts SEMA Street Rod/Custom Vehicle Registration Bill - 2002

Actually, there is considerable difference, as I understand it, between a legitimate titling process and one done in an effort to avoid claiming the actual $$ value of a vehicle. I will avoid comment on the taxing of vehicles, however the process I mentioned is a legal State operation and statute that requires presenting receipts for the components and labor for which you are taxed. The TU issue as I recall were vehicles being registered as a 1965 Ford, using a vin from a '65 Ford, to avoid declaring the "market" value. Just that process probably violates Federal law. I say this as someone that used TU 30 years ago when they supplied titles for vehicles that really existed but that titles had been lost, at the time there were few options. When they began the other procedures, I have no idea. But they were typically supplying titles, as a private enterprise, to persons out of state. This is a completely different process than going to you state DMV and filing all the paper work and paying the taxes as they are. There is now focus on the emmissions testing aspect. That , I don't believe was the initial trigger, it was the loss of precious $$ the state felt like they were entitled to. Gee, I love that word "entitled"

Woodz, I used TU in order to get a 1965 title for SPF, since my 460 is not smog compliant for year of block. If I had a relative/friend in a Replica Friendly state, then I could have sold him my SPF, had him title it, and then sell it back to me, and I take the out-of-state title and my check book to the CA DMV to get the title transfered into my name, while paying the taxes (let's not confuse the tax issue with the smog issue...ok). In a nutshell, that is exactly what TU did - no change in VIN, no 1965 VIN. When I sold my SPF to TU, I listed it as a 1965 Ford. What I received was a Bill of Sale (selling to me a 1965 Ford from TU) and a Registration from Alabama for a 1965 Ford - CA recognized these two documents as title from Alabama, so with these two documents I applied for a CA title (and I paid taxes on the dollar amount listed in the Bill of Sale). I'm suggesting that this process is no different than selling a vehicle to an out-of-state contact, retitling it out-of-state, and selling it back to the CA resident for CA titling.

Looks like TU may have changed their name to Broadway Title (at least the process and web pages look the same), but I could be wrong...

Here's how the process works: http://www.broadwaytitle.com/how.htm
And here's how you fill in the paperwork to make it happen: http://www.broadwaytitle.com/form.htm

They obviously state that they do not do kit cars and that the individual is responsible for all taxes, inspections, etc... but the process is same.