Update on CA: SPCN Registration

[CNGreen]

Originally Posted by Morgester

...I also believe that there will be discussions on addressing emissions SPCN vehicles in general.

Mr. Morgester, can you expand on this statement? SB100 vehicles already registered are exempt from emissions testing for life, correct? Are there plans to talk about expanding the # of cars?

[Morgester]

Originally Posted by CNGreen

Mr. Morgester, can you expand on this statement? SB100 vehicles already registered are exempt from emissions testing for life, correct? Are there plans to talk about expanding the # of cars?

The question you ask for calls for me to speculate. I know that the current system is inherently flawed. I know that parties on both sides of the issue would like to see changes made. What the final changes will be is a question for the legislature.

[CNGreen]

Originally Posted by Morgester

The question you ask for calls for me to speculate. I know that the current system is inherently flawed. I know that parties on both sides of the issue would like to see changes made. What the final changes will be is a question for the legislature.

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

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by CNGreen

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

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.

[Slick61]

Originally Posted by RedBarchetta

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...

[Woodz428]

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.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by CNGreen

Mr. Morgester, can you expand on this statement? SB100 vehicles already registered are exempt from emissions testing for life, correct? Are there plans to talk about expanding the # of cars?

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.

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

. Close the out-of-state title loophole )

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.