My only hope for my 1985 Jeep J10 is “Leno’s Law,” Senate Bill 712. The state of California requires me to get my beloved old truck to pass emissions, which would involve me trying to find unobtainium parts, and then tuning my truck to run like garbage. Either those, or I’d have to go through the considerable trouble of trying to do an engine-swap. These are’t going to happen, meaning Leno’s Law — which seeks to extend California’s emissions relief from “all cars before 1976” to “all cars 35 years old and older” — is my only hope. But I think it’s doubtful that it’s going to pass.
I’ve owned my 1985 Jeep J10 for 10 years now, and I love it. It’s a truck’s truck, with a long bed, a manual transmission, 4×4, a bench seat, a regular cab, manual locking hubs, a gun rack, and a stamped tailgate — what more could anyone want in a pickup?
The problem is that my J10, which was legal to drive in Michigan despite missing emissions control devices (since they’re so failure-prone and hard to replace), is not legal to drive in California, where I now live. For me to get the vehicle back into compliance would cost me far too much money and time. To avoid this, I either have to sell the vehicle, register it elsewhere (California is cracking down on this, I’m told), or work with a California “referee” on an engine swap. And, with a new child in my home, I don’t have time for that.
Leno’s Law would exempt my truck, and any vehicle 35 years old or older.The upsides of the proposal would be preserved car culture, more money to the state in the form of taxes/consumer spending, less of a struggle finding specialized SMOG shops for folks who own older post-1975/pre-2000 cars, and just generally improved joy in this world.
Those who denounce the concept often cite emissions output and its deleterious effect on the climate and on human health. I recently read a story on Capitol Weekly, a news site about California politics, and in that article were a number of scary quotes about vehicle emissions. Like this one:
Will Barrett, national senior director for clean air advocacy at the American Lung Association, called SB 712 “one of the most problematic air quality bills of the year.”
“Older vehicles pollute a lot more than modern vehicles,” he told the Bay Area News Group earlier this month. “It’s that much more important to have them in the program to protect against millions of extra miles of smog emissions that would come as a result.”
Brendan Twohig, who spoke at the April 8 hearing on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [comprised of executive officers from all 35 local air districts] said California Air Resources data that shows that a 1982 passenger car that passes smog check emits approximately 123 times the Nox emissions of a 2025 car.
“So assuming a 1982 car has driven just 3,000 miles in a year, its Nox [nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide] emissions are equivalent of a 2025 car being driven 369,000 miles per year. And then for daily drivers, which would be allowed under this bill, at 11,000 miles a year, that’s the equivalent of 1,353,000 miles,” he said.
Twohig believes that without smog checks, emissions equipment can be tampered with or fail altogether, resulting in air pollution impacts that can be substantially high.
I haven’t confirmed any of these figures, but I buy it. I can totally see an old car like my J10 putting out hundreds of times as much NOx as a modern gas car, and so even if we consider mileage limits, it’s still going to be a significant net negative for pollution over a new car.
Of course, that’s assuming the person is replacing the old car with a new one, which is highly unlikely. These are collector vehicles, most likely with a mileage cap under Leno’s Law, so they’re clearly toys. And let’s be honest: There are lots of toys that aren’t the best for the environment, like, for example, pre 1976 cars! And older boats, and motorycles and, heck, private jets! A small number of people putting limited miles on their 1976-1990 (or whatever year they choose) isn’t really going to be that big of a deal for the environment, though per the quote above, it’s not going to be a positive one, and to some lawmakers, that makes Leno’s Law directionally-incorrect.
Leno’s Law Supporters suggest an emissions abatement fee, which they’d gladly pay.
View this post on Instagram
In my eyes, Leno’s Law is going to be a hard sell. “Let’s make it easier for polluting cars to drive legally” is how some people hear it, and emotional appeals like “let’s preserve car culture” aren’t enough. Economic incentives are there, but how significant are they? How do they compare to the potential increase in pollution? That’s a key question, as this clip from a Senate Appropriations Meeting makes clear.
Here’s what SEMA has to say about Leno’s Law:
The passage of SB 712 is expected to have positive economic and cultural impacts. California’s specialty automotive aftermarket industry supports more than 149,000 jobs and contributes $40.44 billion to the state’s economy.
The bill aims to keep these jobs and businesses thriving by reducing regulatory burdens on classic car owners.
“This bill ensures California remains a welcoming home for car culture—whether you’re restoring a ’76 Trans Am, cruising in a lowrider, or just visiting your local classic car show,” added Grove. “We’re embracing the history, innovation, and pride of these collector cars.”
If the economic benefits can be leveraged into environmental remediation, then maybe Leno’s Law won’t be such an environmental detriment. Otherwise I just don’t see how it’s going to move forward. I also have to wonder if there are other answers to this problem — As an example: Your car is emissions exempt and mileage-capped if and only if you daily-drive an EV and put at least 3x the miles on it.
Here’s more from the bill’s author, Senator Shannon Grove:
“These classic cars aren’t just hobby vehicles—they represent generations of craftsmanship, culture, and community pride,” said Senator Grove. “With this bill, we’re protecting small businesses, empowering car enthusiasts, and preserving a vital piece of California’s heritage.”
Right now, cars before the catalytic converter era are legal to drive in California without any SMOG checks. The idea that California will say “your car actually came with emissions equipment but we no longer care if it works” seems tough to me. But I’m still a proponent of the bill, because I think car culture matters. And also, come on: Who wouldn’t want to see this truck out on the road? Joy, folks — it’s the only emission that matters:
I did recently buy a 1989 Chevy K1500 five-speed extended cab. Maybe it’s time for this to just take the spot of the J10? It doesn’t have a spot of rust and it SMOGs nicely, even though it’s not quite as cool or “pure” as a pickup truck:
If you have some place to store it, put it on non-op registration and wait for Jay to work his magic.
Time to get a vacation place on the Nevada side of Tahoe and relocate the J10.
Hollywood David with his Lake Tahoe vacation house.
Warren Beatty has a home there and he played Dick Tracy in a movie. Good enough for one Tracy, good enough for another. I’m sure those big Autopian bucks can cover it. If not, just start shorting Adrian a few checks here and there; he’ll never notice.
Tell him it has to do with the conversion rate from dollars to ducats or whatever goths are paid in.
Ha, yeah. Heck, with the Orange Revenger’s tariffs and currency exchange rates it might be enough to convince him that he owes David. Plus, he’s a designer, just tell him you paid him at the pub, he won’t remember.
Careful though, parts of Washoe County, NV actually have more strict smog rules than CA do.
Yes. Best to look for gun racks first, then you should be OK.
Does the J10 spark joy? Or does it bring nostalgia? Can you imagine someone else needing it in their life now the way you needed it in your life then?
Emotional support automobile
should’ve kept them Michigan plates LOL
They should just do a rolling 25 or 30 year exemption like everyone else does (though some only go back to 1996 but no rolling exemption)
Of course, you can sell it to someone outside California 😛
California has a rolling 35 year visual check exemption. If your car is newer than 1975, but at least 35 year old, it has to pass the tail pipe smog test, BUT it doesn’t have to pass the visual check. Meaning you do NOT have to be stock. Read this page:
https://www.bar.ca.gov/collector-cars
So do NOT do what some posters tell you to do with a referee’d engine swap. Say you swapped a 2000 engine in there and get referee’d- now the smog referee will certify that your truck needs to meet year 2000 smog regulations. So now you really have to hew to year 2000 equipment in your gas tank and everywhere else. Now you no longer have the benefit of the 35 year exemption. If you want to claim the 35 year exemption- just claim the 35 year exemption. Don’t do the engine change referee thing. That one works at cross purpose to what you are trying to achieve.
I’m an admin in the Californians For Classic Car Smog Exemptions Facebook group which has been one of the biggest proponents of SB712 and is full of people very knowledgable on smog laws. We’ve discussed that 35 year collector car exemption from the visual inspection many times. Literally none of the people in the group are aware of anyone successfully being able to actually do this. At this point it’s basically a myth.
I see. What problems are they encountering? Early on there was the issue of what qualifies as a collector car. Now it seems like that’s been clarified to mean anything over 35 yo with collector car insurance. There was also some insistence that the car has to be kept stock (which defeats the purpose of the visual exemption). It seems to have been clarified to apply only to the ‘special interest vehicles’.
It requires a BAR inspection and apparently nobody has been able to secure an appointment for it.
A Senator in Sacramento said someone had to actually contact them to get an appointment and it took months. Don’t know what happened after that.
Seems like switching to a mega squirt and adding a 3way cat could be able to pass tailpipe testing on just about anything that has reasonable oil control rings.
Neither of those would be legal either. You could probably get away with the Megasquirt but any cat has to be CARB approved.
And stupidly if the vehicle originally did not come with a 3-way cat, you can’t add one even though we all know it’s actually better. My car originally had four cats from the factory – two pre-cats, and two 2-way cats. CA will not allow the combination of the two separate cats into a single 3-way. Dumb.
So are you saying that the car does have to pass visual after all?
Oh sorry, neglected to see that the comment I was responding to was referring to the visual exemption for collector cars. My bad. In that case, the Megasquirt and cat may be okay.
But as I already responded elsewhere here, to do this requires an initial inspection by the BAR. I know of some people who have attempted to do this and have been completely unable to get an appointment with BAR.
I guess I don’t see what the issue is. I did the referee thing. Since my car ran well, it was never an issue complying with the more stringent emissions requirements. Had I sold the car, that referee sticker would have helped resale as well.
I don’t get it either! What’s the point of the visual if it’s not yielding issues at the talipipe?
Because the tailpipe sniffer does not address evaporative emissions from the fuel system (evap) and crankcase (PCV).
I’m against CA requiring a CARB EO # for every aftermarket part, but totally understand the need for a visual inspection to make sure that stock components are present and connected.
Yeah I figured it had to do with certain things not being picked up by the sniffer. Alas. The EVAP thing is actually pressure tested though right?
Yeah, it’s called the low pressure fuel evap test and it’s only for 95 and older. 96 and newer don’t, just the gas cap test, even though early OBD2 EVAP wasn’t great at leak checks until 1998. EVAP emissions account for something like 20 percent of total vehicle emissions, PCV the other 20 and tailpipe is the rest.
Actually the smog check includes pressurization of the gas tank and leak check for the gas cap, so the evap system is tested.
Right, but all the pressurization does is detect leaks in the actual evap system, not the controls for the system. It doesn’t verify that electrical connectors or vacuum lines to the solenoids are connected so the system actually functions correctly.
Good stuff.
It’s always fascinated me that California doesn’t have the most strict emissions laws for older cars. Folks in lots of states need to smog a daily driver back to 1968. I believe Colorado has NO exemptions. I think you need to smog any daily driver, even if it’s a 1919 Hupmobile.
Having moved from the Bay Area of California to Colorado, I quickly learned that Colorado has far more serious (local) pollution issues than California. This is because of the inversion layers that form in Denver and Colorado Springs. When I lived there, I had to call a number to see if I could burn wood in my fireplace. I also had to opacity test my diesel, which was not required in California. Particulates and NOx were particularly serious issues in Colorado.
SoCal also also has no-burn days also during the winter when using wood fireplaces is banned because of the inversion layers that form in the Inland Empire East of LA and OC. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/six-of-the-ten-u-s-cities-with-the-worst-air-pollution-are-in-southern-california-report-says/
Yeah, Vegas and Reno require smog checks back to 1968, but they also make it much easier to get a classic car exemption.
In an interesting twist Vegas (and by extension Nevada) have a similar equivalent to Leno’s law. A rolling 20 year exemption as a classic rod.
And the ever popular “Rollin on temp tags 4 years expired”
I remember reading an article a while ago that the classic car exemption was being abused in NV and they were tightening the mileage requirements because of it.
Yes depending on the category there is a limit, the newest models 20-25 years have a 5000mi/yr limit.
I’m totally okay with that.
Colorado is definitely strange with emissions. The dealers association negotiated a 7 year exemption for new cars bought in Colorado. Its not the whole state just certain more populated areas not even at county level except for Denver and Broomfield as they are populated. Parts of the springs didn’t even need it up until maybe a decade ago.
I imagine one argument for Leno’s Law would be that people who really want to keep their old cars but can’t get them to meet original emissions targets will find an alternate way to “pass” – as in finding a shop that’s willing to certify the car for an additional charge. I know that behavior risks whatever testing certifications those shops have if it’s discovered, which could be catastrophic for a business that’s invested in testing equipment to attract customers, but how effectively do state requirements prevent that kind of corruption?
Up to a few years ago, everybody had a “friend” that knew a place like that. Now it is much more difficult. Not only that, most Smog places do not want to keep and maintain the dynos for these dwindling number of “old” cars. So it has become much more complicated to smog these cars. But you are correct, people are finding ways to get around this. You would imagine that the politicians would figure out that by now.
Getting a 1980s car with a manual transmission smogged in New York was really difficult because the technician has to be able drive stick. I had a Volvo turbo wagon with a manual transmission and the shift point was right at the speed that you were supposed to be cruising at and it literally took an Argentine race car driver to get it to pass.
Maybe look for somebody in another state with a ’75 that would like to trade for an ’85
Or I just buy a shell with a title and spend a weekend swapping parts!
This week on Tracy’s Garage… 🙂
Parts or plates? ????
So I’m curious about California’s compliance testing. Are they opening the hood to make sure the air pump is there, underneath to see if the catalytic converter is intact? Or are they just putting a probe in the tailpipe and getting an emissions reading? Because those are two different nuts to crack.
In Illinois, it was determined years ago that the time and effort it took to run the IM240 test on all the pre-OBDII cars wasn’t worth the slight reduction in emissions it might curtail. In the areas that do test, if they can’t plug it in, they don’t bother. With all the cars in California, I’m wondering how they administer all these tests on all the cars back to 1976 (!) that exist out there. You all must have ridiculous emissions test queues.
Anyway back to my first two questions: How hard would it really be to source an air pump and a converter for this thing? Isn’t it basically a Grand Wagoneer without a glassed-in bed? Surely there’s enough interchangeability to get close, or at least pass a visual inspection. In a way there’s a certain satisfaction from owning a classic that also still runs and performs the way it was designed to.
Otherwise, if all they’re doing is testing out the tailpipe, I’ve *heard* that if you stop by your local dirt track and get a couple gallons of methanol, you can blend that in your tank and make it run lean enough for a short time to maybe get it past the sniffer. We *might* have tried that with our track car before we waivered it. It didn’t work, but I think that’s because of all the overlap we had. You might have better success with a stock J10, just sayin’…
Yes, it’s tailpipe sniffer, pressure test on the EVAP system, and a visual inspection to confirm all components are in place.
I’ve never waited more than 20 minutes for a smog test, even on my 1985 Ford which has to go on the dyno.
I guess my question then is, what is it that David’s truck is missing? Surely among the Autopian world there’s a guy with the air pump he needs. I haven’t checked yet but I gotta figure EGR’s and cats are still out there for these things. Especially since as I mentioned it basically a pickup version of a Grand Wagoneer.
*shrug*
Like 10 years ago a friend of mine had trouble smogging his late ’80s Toyota 4Runner turbo because the air intake hose had a hole and it was completely obsolete. I don’t doubt David’s claim that parts for an orphan brand (AMC) are obsolete.
In my state, they do look under the car to check and see if a catalytic converter is present, and we generally follow California standards (except actually stricter, because we require everything back to 1968 to at least pass a curb idle test, 1975 and newer has that, plus a visual check for an intact cat, and it has to be verifiable as a factory install, you can’t bring in a car from a foreign country that didn’t have a catalyst from the factory and retrofit one).
Okay so that’s my question then, why not just put the stuff on it that it needs and be done with it? I’ve already found a CARB-compliant converter and EGR valve for the thing. The air pump might be more difficult but I have to think there’s one out there somewhere, especially given CA’s rules.
I mean, I wouldn’t have taken all that stuff off anyway, but that’s me. The only 20th century car I own that’s new enough to require emissions testing is an ’85 and its bone stock.
DMV employee also told me he was surprised by how clean it was on the emissions test for the age, but I figure that’s the low mileage helping on that, equipment hasn’t worn out
Honestly if the engine is in a good state of tune, as long as the emissions equipment sort of functions there’s no reason it shouldn’t pass. This is providing the engine isn’t suffering from blowby or the carburetor has been monkeyed with or a big cam has been put in it. How stringent were the test levels 40 years ago?
All I know is the hydrocarbon limit is 220ppm and 1.2% carbon monoxide, and I was apparently way under that to the point that the guy commented on it, the only thing they print out is a pass/fail form, the rest of it is just on the technician’s screen
That doesn’t make a good article headline.
It seems David has already purchased the replacement truck but an opportunity for a story should not be passed up.
I like the Autopian but it seems like some of the articles are manufacturer for drama. “I could so something the simple way, but I’m going to do the hardest way possible instead, please read….”
That’s simply not true. I’m literally just telling you what’s going on in my car-life like I’ve been doing since 2015.
Most if not all states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest that follow CA laws don’t emissions-test anything pre OBDII. Part of that is due to the fact it wasn’t until the late ’90s that other states were allowed to piggyback on the California regs so they never had the investment in roller-and-sniffer equipment, part of it is the road salt that means almost nothing pre OBDII still has daily-driver status in this part of the country.
Yeah in Illinois we lost the rollers about 20 years ago I think. I used to do the testing for our fleet and it was a huge pain in the ass, the lines would take 20 minutes or more. The were even idle testing to 1968, which was hilarious, the last time I did it for Dad’s boattail Riviera all they did was set some type of sensor on the hood, it was a huge waste of time.
I’d see medium duty village trucks, cop cars and RVs in line too. I don’t know if they test MD or RVs still since I only have to go every two years, and when I do it’s plug-and-play and I leave.
In Vermont they never did idle testing even. OBDII-only from the start.
We had the rollers in MA for a while. There were a lot of stories of old ladies’ cars blowing up on the dyno, since the cars had never really been subjected to hard acceleration until it had to be done for the test.
They got rid of the dynos some time around 2008 I think (I know I was dealing with them with my SR-swapped S13 and I sold that in 2007). Anything pre-OBDII isn’t tested now, just needs to not be smoking out of the exhaust. I also think anything ~15 years or older doesn’t need testing. I know my 01 Miata hasn’t been tested in years.
Of course, the road salt automatically limits the lifespan of cars around here. If someone has a car older than 15 years old here, it’s either about to drive its last mile or has been excellently maintained and is likely to have its systems functional.
If they’re accelerating hard on a smog dyno they are doing it wrong. Smog dyno only cares about maintaining 15 and 25 MPH, not how fast you got there. It’s not like a dyno for horsepower.
The one in MA did simulated driving conditions with varying road speed. The operator would have to operate the throttle to simulate acceleration from one speed to another, cruising at different speeds, etc.
There was a low line and a high line that would scroll across a screen and the operator would have to keep the vehicle speed between those limits.
I never conducted one of the tests, but I was in the bay when they tested one of my cars.
My assumption was that MA had the same rules as CA since they share standards.
It’s MA. We use whatever test is being sold by a state senator’s nephew.
I know cars sold here have CA emissions installed, but we don’t have anything like the CA inspections. There really is no underhood visual inspection, probably because we have no CARB to certify aftermarket parts.
The visual check is just a ‘looks right’ in my experience, but the oldest I’ve smogged is 28 yo car (1996 in 2024).
Throw in an air pump and a mess of hoses and it would likely pass the visual check. Functional or not.
let me tell you how to get around that. register the car in another state that does not require smog tests. it’s not that difficult to do, and there are a variety of places that can help.
“And let’s be honest: There are lots of toys that aren’t the best for the environment”
This. Auto racing comes to mind with the added impact of being very localized emissions, increased tire particulates, noise pollution and generally causing all that without actually going anywhere.
Yeah the NHRA races in California a few times a year, don’t let the opponents of this bill see the raw nitro on fire shooting up into the night sky.
Well racetracks are closing all around the state so that’s not a great argument either.
“Older vehicles pollute a lot more than modern vehicles,” he told the Bay Area News Group earlier this month. “It’s that much more important to have them in the program to protect against millions of extra miles of smog emissions that would come as a result.”
Okay, and how about personal jets and pleasure yachts? Oh, that’s right, those are utilized by the wealthy politicians who hypocritically drive hybrids, EVs, and BEVs while simultaneously, reductively taxing the poor through legislation. Where’s the regulation on that? How about working harder to improve emissions on cargo ships and passenger jets? Oh, right, lobbyists. It’s all posturing and hypocrisy, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Jets and yachts both have CARB regulations. Long ago California took steps to reduce cargo ship pollution*. Years ago the US banned high sulfur fuel in US territorial waters. A few years ago it was banned internationally.
*The shipyard across from work was recently working on some barges with some odd equipment on them. I quick google of the company shows that they are external emission systems for cargo ships to use when they are anchored waiting to unload.
Careful, you don’t want to throw a bunch of facts on their whataboutism.
I’m sure you enjoy your cruiser boat and personal aircraft very much. That’s the only reason you’d waste your time writing such an unnecessary response, and mine, with reading it.
Maybe a bit of a gray area but there are some rural areas where smog checks are only required when buying or selling the vehicle rather than ever year or every other year. So if you could pass once you’de be all good.
But I agree with others saying to turn this into content, do a swap and get certified by the state ref or do the hard work of getting it to pass.
As someone who has done a CA legal engine swap I feel this title is a bit click-baity. Yes, it’s not easy and it’s not something most people would undertake to keep their old car on the road, but saying CA is forcing you to sell your truck is misleading.
Also as someone who is an admin in the Californians for Classic Car Smog Exemptions Facebook group and has been closely following and supporting SB712, I am also unfortunately doubtful it will pass, even though this is the best chance we’ve had at moving the smogcheck goalposts in a long time. The naysayers have scary sounding points.
As someone who has gone to great lengths to play by the rules (my 347-stroker powered 1985 Ford legitimately passes smog every time) I am frustrated that one of the big points of this bill that is getting ignored by the naysayers is that it’s getting increasingly more difficult to find smog check stations which can or are willing to smog pre OBD-II cars, and the smog equipment frequently breaks down. I’m willing to jump through the hoops as long as it’s a fair game.
Another thing not mentioned here is that up until 2004, CA had a rolling 30 year exemption that got axed by Arnold (just in case anyone thinks this is just a Democrat thing). This proposal would essentially bring it back, but change it to 35 years, so this idea has a lot of precedent that I think many people are not aware of.
While I always appreciate feedback on headlines, I really don’t love the term “clickbait.” Everyone throws that around, and it implies that I’m being deceptive, which is never the case.
Yes, California isn’t literally saying “David, sell this or else!” But their rules are indeed forcing me to make that decision.
But I get it. Maybe it’s a bit overdramatic; I mean, I COULD keep the truck if I put in the time/effort.
Fair enough, but I stand by my statement that it’s still misleading and is leaning into the narrative that iT iS iMpOsSiBlE tO bE a GeARhEaD iN cA!111.
There ARE other options, and perhaps I’m a little salty because I have personally pursued one of those other options successfully. Though I’ll be the first to admit it’s not easy.
I can see how you’d be bothered given all the “it’s hard to be a gearhead in Cali” stuff. I, for the most part, think it’s a great place to be a gearhead, even if I do have to part ways with my J10.
Being overdramatic is the basic definition of Clickbait.
California is not making you sell your truck. You are chose not to make the effort to make it pass emission testing. You could, but you have other priorities, so you are going to sell it. Which makes complete sense.
“Clickbait” implies trickery, and not just someone telling you honestly that California’s emissions rules are forcing their hand to sell a car.
But again, we’re always listening for feedback, and we appreciate you reading.
Sorry David but I think you’re in the wrong here – the CA smog rules are making it difficult to avoid selling your J10, but they are not forcing you to anything.
You have several options: keep it (unregistered), register it in another state (e.g. by moving there), sell it, do an engine swap, heck even do an EV swap (I would actually love to read an article on why more folks don’t EV swap trucks – especially old ones that would otherwise fail smog).
You are choosing the option that makes most sense to you in the circumstances you are in, and that is totally reasonable.
Agreed. Recently I had to get my ’92 Miata smog checked. I called around and at least 4 smog places around my house said that their rollers were broken. Another place has working rollers, but the tech said he couldn’t drive a stick shift(!!!!!). So it was a chore just to find somebody to smog check the car. And it was $90. So they are not making it easy for old car owners at all.
I’m super thankful I have a go-to smog place that I’ve been using for well over 20 years. There’s no funny business but the owner knows me and the car very well, and last time I spoke with him I was very grateful to hear he had just invested in some new equipment to smog older cars.
In MA, they can’t drive manuals, either, but they let me do it, which I am glad to do as too many people say they can drive a manual, but only in the broadest sense, like in a major emergency they could get from one place to another as long as the clutch started out with plenty of life in it.
You are correct that this is maybe the best chance it has, but it’s only slightly less than a snowball’s chance in Barstow. The author is a Republican, assembly principal co-author (usually a sign of a strong bill) is also a R, and all but one of the senate co-authors are R (the one D is Cortese from San Jose). It’s smooth sailing through committee right now, but that just means it’s functionally sound as law. The reality of the situation right now is that with 10/40 total senate seats and 19/80 assembly seats being R… if an R wants a bill to pass they need substantially more D support in co-authorship.
Not to mention I’ve heard sentiment from particularly left leaning friends that they’re encouraging Democrats in the state government to wholesale oppose damn near anything that Republicans offer up because so much of it lately is disingenuous cruel anti-democracy bullshit. I think that’s short sighted but do understand the sentiment.
Yeah, honestly I kind of hate it. It doesn’t feel like good governance. But at the same time the volume of really, really poor bills R’s are putting forth just to score points at home makes it easy to justify party games… stuff sucks all over.
Oh and I have driven through snow in Barstow before, so you’re saying there’s a chance 😉
Yup. That is the big problem here. I am surprised SEMA and Jay Leno didn’t realize this problem. SEMA in particular has been pushing this rock up the hill for a while now. They need more D’s to sign on for it to get anywhere.
Obviously you know about this more than I do. When I lived in WA, which follows CA, my car would pass with flying colors, even the dyno test. However, here is CA, it is right at the limit, but usually fails. Since, I have gone the MT route.
My question is, has CA changed the testing rules and limits since my car was built in 1985? if so, how do they expect older cars to pass.
I can’t speak to any differences between CA and WA. The only way to determine that would be to compare smog check printouts to see if the limits are the same.
I have CA smog check printouts for my car dating back to 2005 and the limits have not changed since. I can’t speak to before that year, but a friend of mine strongly believes the limits did change sometime in the 1990s. Even so, I’d say no changes in 20 years is reasonable.
The millions of lawn mowers and leaf blowers pollute way more than a few classic cars driven once a month.
CA is stopping sale of gas powered lawn equipment too, so that argument doesn’t really fly.
Along with the fact that even the current gas powered ones have catalytic converters and tightening emission regulations. (Ending with the ban of small ICE engines)
Based on all the gas powered lawn equipment I still hear, the ban isn’t going real well.
I didn’t even realize the ban went into effect.
Apparently it started for yard equipment in 2024, but I haven’t been shopping for any of that recently to confirm if it’s true.
I haven’t paid attention in the stores either since all my lawn stuff is battery or corded.
I did make sure to buy a gas generator while I still can. That ban is coming later IIRC.
I don’t think it’s a ban so much as you can’t sell gas powered equipment new. But I suspect it’s pretty easy to get around too, since mowers and blowers, etc. aren’t registered and could easily be brought in from out of state. I’m thinking more about the lawn care businesses more than the average person. If my old push mower would just fucking die I’d replace it with electric, which is what I’m seeing happen around here.
I did specifically state *sale* of gas powered equipment, but I appreciate you making the distinction.
On a similar note lots of crayon eaters think CA is trying to ban all gas cars by 2035. Not, just sales of NEW cars. Big difference.
… and even for new cars sales allows for the sale of PHEVs.
They’re also pretty easy to rebuild, so I imagine business in that will pick up for commercial equipment. For home use, though, I’m a big fan of electric—so much quieter, no fumes, and no annual annoyance to get them back into service after the winter.
It also only applies small engines used in things like blowers, line trimmers and walk behind mowers that are easier to electrify. Engines for the zero turns used by most of the commercial guys are still OK.
That said, the commercial crew that cut the grass at my employer in Oregon has been using an electric riding zero turn for about 2 years now and we have a lot of grass to cut. It is much quieter.
Electric lawnmowers are better, anyway.
If it hadn’t been as useful as it was for the move you probably should’ve sold the J20 before leaving Michigan.
You’re the part owner of the Internet’s most informative automotive blog.
Pay a shop to swap the engine from a 1996 XJ into the J10 and get some of those precious blogs out of the experience.
This is a great idea!
Get the 4.0 in it. it will double the HP, pass smog, bolt right up, and be very maintainable.
The other two options are a Howell EFI or sell it to me 😀
If I recall from when I looked at doing this on a 83 SJ Cherokee the one other thing that will need to be changed is swapping the brakes to Hydroboost; the 4.0 manifold won’t clear the SJ’s brake booster. This was 20 years ago so there may be one that fits that someone has discovered since.
I’m not sure on the FSJ. I don’t think it should be a problem.
My CJ-5 has an aftermarket mid-70s GM booster that fits tightly, but does fit.
That is a CJ though, I could see the FSJ having different pedal spacing because… AMC.
Yeah its specific to how/where they did the pedal spacing. An XJ has less room in the engine bay and there’s no clearance issue, but the SJ just doesn’t quite fit the same manifold next to its booster.
Even new boat emissions are a joke in comparison to cars—Coast Guard won’t allow cats and so many of these pleasure craft use more fuel per mile than cars. We’ve also got private jets, parasite billionaires and their useless little rockets that pollute as much as millions of cars annual emissions, but this is their focus. That said, you already have a truck that does truck stuff, so I say sell it out of state while it still has some market value as I doubt it’s going to be going up much, if at all.
Everything that has an engine has CARB emission regulations that are getting stricter over time. Cars, airplanes, line trimmers, motorcycles, locomotives, and yes outboard motors.
Yes, but those standards are all far behind that of passenger automobiles, even many of these old ones they don’t want to exempt, while also burning more fuel per unit time of operation in most cases so that those relative emissions are even higher. They only finally banned gas yard equipment recently when they’ve been far more polluting than automobiles for decades in spite of their tiny engine sizes. Unfortunately, a lot of people use that stuff to make a living and I would think electric substitutes aren’t quite ready to replace commercial equipment in commercial use and it’s certainly at higher cost. Nobody needs private jets, yachts, or rockets, but there’s minimal to no restrictions on emissions with any of that. I wonder what the difference is.
I wouldn’t say far behind. Marine diesel started requiring DEF in 2016 when the Tier 3 standard kicked in. That is only 6 years later than on-highway diesels. Tier 3 was an 80% reduction in NOx from Tier 1.
Recreational standards are hard to compare as boats are regulated to so many grams per hp per hour while highway vehicles are regulated in g/mile or g/km.
Moving to Commiefornia was a choice – and choices often have consequences.
get the F outta here with your maga bullshit politics.
I get the conflicting issues here. When I lived in LA in the early 80’s, 3rd stage smog alerts were routine summer occurrences, and believe me, you did not want to go outside on those days. These are rare-to-nonexistent now, and that’s largely because of vehicle smog regulations. They’re a great example of environmental regs that are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do and doing it pretty well.It really does make a difference when the vast majority of cars on the road don’t emit a lot of pollutants. There are fewer asthmatic kids and people will live longer because of them. To me, that’s worth the cost. But I also have a hard time believing that letting vehicles over 35 years of age slide on the smog regs is going to have any significant effect on air quality. As you mention, David, the vast majority of these cars won’t be driven daily. I hope the law passes and you get to keep your J10 out on the road.
I grew up in SoCal in the early 80’s as well, and remember the brown skies and getting chest pains after running on the playground when the smog was bad. Returning to a rolling exemption for 35 year old vehicles is a good compromise.
Counter point; Sell everything old now before buyers dry up and blow away.
“The fact this saw its value on the open market dive 75 percent in just three years shows how bad things have become. At this rate, we just might be able to one day afford a dream car after all.
See this Superbird’s lot listing for yourself here.”
^ This is a reality.
The 60s and 70s market is dropping with the less popular cars (Buick Skylarks, Olds Cutlass, in-line 6 anything) . You can see it happening to a greater extent with the 50s cars. There are too many and not enough interest.
Eventually, the Chevelles, Camaros, and GTOs will meet the same fate.
I see it as a correction of a market bubble. Seemed to have peaked 3 or so years ago, but definitely a shift in market demographics, that a good portion of collectors are aging out and estates are unloading.
Even on newer vehicles, such as my 1987 Vanagon, the market is fairly toxic if you want to sell in California. Since California is such a large market, it definitely hurts the value.
I have personally engine-swapped a car when I lived in California and had it refereed. It was a completely seamless process. I refuse to perform a Subaru swap on the Vanagon at this point (I hate Subarus), but I understand why people do it. Even though I don’t live in a state that cares in slightest about environmental regulations, when I do engine-swap the Vanagon, it will be emissions compliant.
I 100% support California’s prerogative to control air pollution the way they deem best. We can what-about it all day long (lawnmowers, your neighbor smoking pot in his backyard, regular cars with check-engine lights illuminated), but I personally trust the science/data based engineers who find the major polluters and go after that issue first. Yahoo lawmakers from Wyoming should not be involved in this process.
This is a repeated process in the collector car market. There is basically a price wave that peaks when the people who had that car’s poster on their wall as a kid or lusted after it when they started driving have the disposable income to finally live out that fantasy.
But then those folks get too old or die, and the next generation is driving demand for their dream cars.
That 57 T-bird will still find a buyer, but the sales price isn’t going to be as high as it once was.
There’s always the option to sell out of state
I assume you’ve found the Novak Adapt page on engine swapping a FSJ: The Novak Guide to Installing Chevrolet & GM Engines into the Full Size Jeeps, Trucks, Wagoneers & Cherokees
Aftermarket TBI fuel injection swap? That can help classic emissions substantially depending on the exact scenario. Do they require every component to be functional, or do they require you to pass the test? Cuz if its every component regardless, this idea is of no help.
That’s only an option if there is an aftermarket EFI setup that is CARB certified for an AMC 304.
Oddly enough, it looks like Howell makes a CARB certified TBI swap for these engines. Zero experience with it, but apparently it’s a thing. If David really wants to keep the truck, maybe that’s a way to do it.
I forgot about the the whole CARB certification thing. Luckily Dr Toboggan had my back and found a CARB option.
It’s a 258, not a 304. (I’m anti AMC-V8).
I hope this is all a car blog schtick because otherwise you need some help to get your priorities on order.
By this are you stating that he should only make automotive decisions that are the absolute most green friendly? Not encourage easier registration of old vehicles?
I daily an i3 and my J10 drives like 300 miles a year. It’s fine!
Oh I’m not a critic of your pollution habits. I 100% support Leno’s Law. That is how its done where I live and I think its great. The percentage of people who put more than a couple hundred miles per year on those vehicles is so low that their net impact means nothing. Its worse, but so is not chasing down that grocery bag that blew away in a bad wind. I think those are about equal on an individual basis. But many more individuals are not chasing that garbage bag than are driving old cars.
I daily drive a variety of the 11 cars in my collections that average 43 years old…
My newest car is 43 years old; the average age for the nine in the fleet is 48.
I mean, dude, politely put we all tried to warn you not to move into that hell hole. It’s so sad and all you’re doing is confirming how hard it is to be a gear head over there.
I’ll fire up my HY35 swapped TDI today here in michigan and idle out some sympathy for you.
Can…can we not do the CALIFORNIA BAD thing every time? Please?
California is great, but the State Gov’t…not so much.
Well, you know, there are many views on what we expect and hope for in our governments. Many would agree with you. Others would note that living alongside other (human, plant, and animal) neighbors is extremely complicated and government can do a lot to try to balance things out, and the California state government is doing an incredible job.
…enjoy the taste of leather?
Like I said, different folks have different expectations and preferences.
No, it’s just that sometimes there’s more than one aspect and multiple thoughts can coexist.
As a gearhead who has lived in CA since 1988 I simultaneously hate that I still have to smog my 1985 Ford and how much of a pain it is, and can also appreciate the positive impact the smog check program has had on the overall air quality. As someone else said in the comments, I remember days in the ’80s when children and the elderly were told to stay indoors due to poor air quality. I can’t remember the last time I’ve heard of that (outside of wildfires).
I’d say on balance the place has been really good to David, just based on the number of people with smiley emojis pasted over their faces he’s posted.
People will cease blasting Commiefornia when it returns to some semblance of sanity.
Here’s a thought: California is kind of like NASCAR.
Back in the day, it was moonshiners duking it out in run-what-you-brung mode, where “anything goes.” Eventually rules had to be made, initially for sake of safety for the fans (as I understand it – somebody correct me if I’m wrong), then safety for the drivers, then for competitive reasons, etc. Today, NASCAR is a huge business, with a very strict “governmental” structure running the show. Drivers bitched about the changes all the way along, but they managed to turn it into a very successful racing series.
In a lot of ways, California is basically the same thing. They used to chop down trees with reckless abandon, dissolve entire mountains with water cannon looking for gold, dump garbage directly into the ocean and eventually polluted the air so bad it wasn’t safe to go outside.
Now they’ve evolved to have a lot of emphasis on citizen safety (clean air and water, control of hazardous chemicals and waste, etc). Given the history, I’m pretty sure a lot of Californians that support all that stuff argue they are the sane ones.
It’s so lazy and trite.
I’m a Michigander, and I have to say:
I love California and hope to live here as long as possible
I spend a reasonable amount of time visiting CA and I agree with you! It is a pretty dang great place.
Dad was originally from the UP, and the minute he mustered out of the Army he collected his girlfriend in Green Bay and headed to LA. He was rather distressed when I married a gal from Milwaukee and talked about moving there.
I’m a diehard gearhead and I fully acknowledge it’s difficult to be one in CA but I would still pick living here over most states any day of the week. My quality of life isn’t wholly defined by my hobbies.
I couldn’t survive in most of southern CA and it has nothing to do with the auto hobby. I’m just not the right type of person for it. Maybe I could do northern CA?
Conversely it’d take a lot to get me to move from Southern California. Granted I don’t have a commute so that helps.
Hahahaha. I have a commute of an hour each way. And my quality of life is so great that that commute feels like no great sacrifice to maintain my lifestyle. Different strokes for different folks as they say.