smog Ferraris annually if they are more than 15 yrs old?!

Subject: ACCC Legislative Alert - California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Test

Your urgent attention is needed.......or you may have to SMOG your Model A and if it doesn't pass have it scrapped.

Association of Californina Car Clubs Legislative Alert
California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions
Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old Moves to Senate Appropriations Committee

Legislation (A.B. 616) to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older has been approved by the California Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration on August 20th. A.B. 616 would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616.

We Urge You to Contact Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 616

 

This is not good fellow enthusiast not good at all.

 

The last time I checked, Model A's were older than 1976. AB616 only requires annual smog for vehicles older than 15 years, but built after 1975. 1975 and older are still exempt.

-steve

 

Right. So AB 616 would require Ferraris form 1976-1992 to smog annual. That's a 100% increase in frequency which is an irritation. But the real worry is cat replacement costs.

The concern stems from recent experience with a Nissan Pathfinder. It wouldn't pass smog. $150 to diagnose the problem. $300 for installation. $980 for the cat. $1430 out the door replacing one cat. The Pathfinder was manufactured in the hundreds of thousands. One can only imagine what replacement cost will be for cats on Ferraris manufactued in relatively small numbers.

 

Cats aren't that expensive if you stay away from dealers. I paid $300 for a cat for my 308 from Miller Catalyzers in Hayward. Even Hyperflow cats are around $700. These can be found from at least one of the Fchat sponsers.

Miller should be able to get a cat for any Ferrari that originally came with one. Not sure about the grey market imports, like 512BBi's, though. The one I got matched right up without any fiddling, and did the job.

http://www.millercat.com/

Cats have to be replaced whether your car is annually inspected or bi-annually inspected. This would not increase the frequency of cat replacement.

I agree, though. AB 616 would double the hassle factor.

-steve

 

here's the lastest new on this from SEMA
http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=e0d9ff208fe3d721fa9b04cd641d4538&CID=1083338533&ch=7EA9BDE48A22C89ED7240EEB0BB13BF8

 

GOOD news!

 

+1

 

Glad it died. Cars 15 years old and older represent less than 1% of the cars driven in this state at any given time. So if pollution is the concern, it doesn't seem to be that much of a concern if that is the case. The forrest fires each year seem to wipe out the air quality moreso, anybody see the air today in Sac? So that only leaves only one issue... where in the *explanitive* do these politicians get off reaching in our pocketbooks?

 

Gabe, they're always reaching into our pocketbooks because they can't afford it themselves. You don't see a politician driving a lambo, ferrari or an exotic do you? It's always a government car like a town car. Damn ba$tards. LOL

 

Just a few days ago, there was an article in the Mercury News about the head of VTA sometimes staying at a hotel in San Jose - at the taxpayers' expense - rather then drive to his home in San Francisco. The article mentioned his salary (I forget the exact amount, but over $200K/yr) and his $9,000.00 per month car allowance. Obviously intended to cover the cost of a chauffer too, but that seems like a lot to me for transportation expenses for a public official. The real irony is that he's basically the CEO of the Santa Clara County buses!

 

It doesn't explicitly say $9k per month - that could be total for the year. (9000 / 12 = $750) That sounds more reasonable for a car payment allowance. Nonetheless, the story is still pretty outrageous. Thanks for bringing this up - it makes me want to write a letter. To whom, I don't know, but that just doen't seem right!

Here's the original article:

http://origin.siliconvalley.com/traffic/ci_6738260

 

Not to mention Willie Brown driving his TR around town when he was in office.

Steve