California registration

Well, Hell, I might as well through in my 2 Rials, since I went through SB100 for Cobra and the GT.

Government bureaucracies are generally like a limp penis! The left ball has no idea what the right ball is doing. "Rubbing" the DMV the "wrong" way might just get them to have a massive boner. The result would be you receiving that massive boner, in the most unpleasant location.

My suggestion is to follow what Ian and others are telling you in regards to engine selections and stay away from anything "exotic" (To the Refs I have encountered, even a 305 Chevy is a foreign item!!!). The usual suspects ,289,302,327,350 and the 427/428/429s are all they know.

There are lots of folks on this forum (who will not admit here!) that have contemplated/or tried the out of state registration, Vin Plate "duplication",,,and other stuff!! It is not worth it

If there was ever a time to use the KISS principle,,,,it is in regards to DMV registration in California.

 

[Rick]

One of the California State Government official replies and posts often on this subject on the Club Cobra website. Here is his latest:

CA - SPCN reg update - Club Cobra


BTW: Amen to the Iron Shiek's comments. They have their eyes wide open on the money hunt if you screw up.

 

[Ian K]

Well, Hell, I might as well through in my 2 Rials, since I went through SB100 for Cobra and the GT.

You cheapskate - 2 Rials is worth about 1/5th of a cent !!



Ian

 

[Mike]

So, reading that sites posts, CA DMV are NOT recognizing out of state registrations if it looks anything like anything but a production car according to the title. I must say, CA DMV has got some pretty big nuts. They are essentially saying that no other state can be trusted to register a vehicle. I think it's high time, in general, that the citizens of CA cut off at least one of this state governments out of control nuts!! I mean really, in the big picture, what do 500, or 1000, or even 2000 kit cars contribute each year to emmissions? Virtually ZERO!! Why can't they just say for sb100 SPCN cars, all 500 a year of them, that they have too meet X emissions values? You know something reasonable that requires a closed crankcase, closed fuel system and cats. THAT'S IT!! Or put in a claus that deals with peoples changing lives like they have in general with production cars? I believe it is a three year limit on importation of new cars. No importation for three years from build/first reg date without CA certification. THAT makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is this. I just bought a 2008 LS3, but am probably going to need to buy ANOTHER 1964 SBC so I can go and have the thing certified under 1964 regs. It's not that I want to pollute, or even that I will, (I plan to use the factory cats and have a closed fuel and CC system) but the hoops I am having to jump through, to me, are ridiculous. I would bet that the new setup is FAR LESS polluting than the old 289, but it would require me to do bi yearly inspections and cost me more in registration and insurance costs, so the hassle is probably worth it even though it is going to mean a bunch of extra work and up front expense under current sb100 regs.

Why can't the government, for once, pull it's head out and do something that is simple, logical, and solves the problem?

 

[Somelee]

at the risk of beating a dead horse........I have a car that I'm going to buy. Its already built has a Roush built 427 in it. Its through a dealer so it hasn't been offically titled yet. (out of California). They said they can offer it to me with the MSO and all receipts for parts and work not titled. OR Titled as a 66 in that state. Which one is better for me to do in terms of CA registration?
Sounds like i may be better off not having them title it....true?


getting closer to being an owner and very excited about it!

 

[Ian K]

So, reading that sites posts, CA DMV are NOT recognizing out of state registrations if it looks anything like anything but a production car according to the title. I must say, CA DMV has got some pretty big nuts. They are essentially saying that no other state can be trusted to register a vehicle. I think it's high time, in general, that the citizens of CA cut off at least one of this state governments out of control nuts!! I mean really, in the big picture, what do 500, or 1000, or even 2000 kit cars contribute each year to emmissions? Virtually ZERO!! Why can't they just say for sb100 SPCN cars, all 500 a year of them, that they have too meet X emissions values? You know something reasonable that requires a closed crankcase, closed fuel system and cats. THAT'S IT!! Or put in a claus that deals with peoples changing lives like they have in general with production cars? I believe it is a three year limit on importation of new cars. No importation for three years from build/first reg date without CA certification. THAT makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is this. I just bought a 2008 LS3, but am probably going to need to buy ANOTHER 1964 SBC so I can go and have the thing certified under 1964 regs. It's not that I want to pollute, or even that I will, (I plan to use the factory cats and have a closed fuel and CC system) but the hoops I am having to jump through, to me, are ridiculous. I would bet that the new setup is FAR LESS polluting than the old 289, but it would require me to do bi yearly inspections and cost me more in registration and insurance costs, so the hassle is probably worth it even though it is going to mean a bunch of extra work and up front expense under current sb100 regs.

Why can't the government, for once, pull it's head out and do something that is simple, logical, and solves the problem?

I find that SB100 works very well. You can probably put in the brand new LS3 and
ask to be reg'd based upon body. IIRC, you are going for an SL-C. That would mean
that the body style will not resemble anything, and you will get an SPCN as a 1960.
Of course, if you talk to someone at the DMV that understands SB100, or even a smog
referee, you can find out if that will work. I totally understand why the CA DMV is not
outright trusting other states' reg process, that is how Titles Unlimited capitalized on
Alabama. Everything was done by mail, the Alabama DMV never even saw the car, they just
collected fees. Why should CA allow that? Or any other state for that matter.

Do I believe that the SB100 limit be increased, sure. But how far before it becomes an
issue? And, whatever cut off is decided, someone else will complain because they will
be newlimit + 1. And then there's the Amnesty Bill for cars that were registered under
dubious circumstances (like Titles Unlimited or as 1965 vehicles prior to SB100) which
is still being tossed about (there was a one year SB100 like extension for another 500
vehicles that were previously registered to get re-reg'd under SB100). And the "Green
Rod" program that may increase the number of SPCNs by creating a more realistic
smog limit for non-production vehicles. Which sits well with me since I believe in the
pipe test more than the visual "do you have all this crap that may or may not work"
test.

SB100 works well, and the only real gripe people have is the limited number allowed per
year. I have not heard of any complaints.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

at the risk of beating a dead horse........I have a car that I'm going to buy. Its already built has a Roush built 427 in it. Its through a dealer so it hasn't been offically titled yet. (out of California). They said they can offer it to me with the MSO and all receipts for parts and work not titled. OR Titled as a 66 in that state. Which one is better for me to do in terms of CA registration?
Sounds like i may be better off not having them title it....true?


getting closer to being an owner and very excited about it!

I would say you could go either way. Untitled or titled as a '66 in the state it is coming from.
You will still need to go through the SB100 process if you want to do it right. So, whether
you title it the first time in CA under SB1900, or retitle it in CA under SB100, I don't think
there will be much difference. I would ask for the MSO and all receipts regardless. You might
need it anyway.

Ian

 

[Mike]

Ian, you have been very helpful, but I must disagree with you as to my reading of the sb100 rules. The way I read it, it is up to the person asking for registration to say whether he/she wants to be looked at based on body style year or engine build year. If the body style is not determinable even if you ask for registration based on body, then, as I read it, the ref will default to the engine build year for the smog requirements. If the engine is undeterminable or pre 1965, then basically, no requirements are needed. What I understand and appears to be different from your interpretation is that if one declares body year and it is undeterminable, they will not just automatically say "OK we can't determine the body year so it is 1960". They will say, under my reading of it, "OK the body style year is undeterminable. Let's see if I can determine what year the engine was manufactured." Then you/I will be stuck with that engine years requirements. Including bi-annual inspections and all the various solenoids and such to maximize lowering emissions that come on a 2008 LS3.

Please correct me, anyone, if you have actual experience that this is not the case. It will be a great relief to me.

BTW- After looking around and talking to Fran a little, I believe I will be doing a GTM. More my style and after more than 200 kits already out there, the little details have been sorted.

 

[Mike]

Ian, what you bring up about Titles Unlimited is outright fraud. It is illegal to begin with. What I am talking about is, how people are treated that built a car, lived in Iowa for 5 years then get a new job in CA and all of a sudden they have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops and possibly have to change their vehicle. There has to be some sort of common sense accomodation for these people. There is under regular vehicle import rules. Why not under sb100?

 

[Ian K]

Ian, what you bring up about Titles Unlimited is outright fraud. It is illegal to begin with. What I am talking about is, how people are treated that built a car, lived in Iowa for 5 years then get a new job in CA and all of a sudden they have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops and possibly have to change their vehicle. There has to be some sort of common sense accomodation for these people. There is under regular vehicle import rules. Why not under sb100?

I agree that what TU was doing was fraud, but they (and a handful of other companies like
them) processed a large percentage of registrations vs. the number of road legal kits/replicas.
Add to that the number of people of fraudulently registered their vehicles as 1965 Cobras,
1965 Ford GTs, 1957 Porsche Speedster, etc. by omitting on the paperwork that those
vehicles were kits/replicas manufactured well after the listed date. So, the DMVs in a number
of states now check these kinds of registrations a little more closely - CA is not the only
one that most likely will not accept it outright.

SB100 is a nice compromise and a solid first effort. Yes, there are attempts under way to
better define things, as well as other attempts to make transfers of previously registered
vehicles easier and legal (the CA Amnesty Bill that is still getting work done on it). And,
IMHO, SB100 is all about common sense. It addresses the concerns of getting a vehicle
registered correctly, and acknowledges that the smog impact is minimal. It does not turn
a blind eye to every person who walks in, presents a title issued from any state, and
rubber stamps the OK. It scrutinizes things to make sure it is legit, and not a fraudulent
title (or a stolen vehicle that someone is trying to register). So, yes, does that family
in Iowa suffer, sure. But, it is an inconvenience and not an insurmountable obstacle.

Yes, it isn't perfect. Very few things in life are.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

Ian, you have been very helpful, but I must disagree with you as to my reading of the sb100 rules. The way I read it, it is up to the person asking for registration to say whether he/she wants to be looked at based on body style year or engine build year. If the body style is not determinable even if you ask for registration based on body, then, as I read it, the ref will default to the engine build year for the smog requirements. If the engine is undeterminable or pre 1965, then basically, no requirements are needed. What I understand and appears to be different from your interpretation is that if one declares body year and it is undeterminable, they will not just automatically say "OK we can't determine the body year so it is 1960". They will say, under my reading of it, "OK the body style year is undeterminable. Let's see if I can determine what year the engine was manufactured." Then you/I will be stuck with that engine years requirements. Including bi-annual inspections and all the various solenoids and such to maximize lowering emissions that come on a 2008 LS3.

Please correct me, anyone, if you have actual experience that this is not the case. It will be a great relief to me.

BTW- After looking around and talking to Fran a little, I believe I will be doing a GTM. More my style and after more than 200 kits already out there, the little details have been sorted.

All of the SPCN documentation I have read say the owner determines whether to reg
based upon body year or engine year. I have not seen anything that states any kind
of failover if appropriate body year cannot be determined.

Here is the relevant quote from the official DMV website:

Per California Vehicle Code §4750.1, the first 500 program applicants in each calendar year may choose whether the inspection is based on the model-year of the engine used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year. If the engine or the vehicle does not sufficiently resemble one previously manufactured, the referee will assign 1960 as the model-year.

The applicant chooses, the either/or is based upon that choice.

And, here is the relevant section of CVC §44017.4:

44017.4. (a) Upon registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles, a passenger vehicle or pickup truck that is a specially constructed vehicle, as defined in Section 580 of the Vehicle Code, shall be inspected by stations authorized to perform referee functions. This inspection shall be for the purposes of determining the engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year, and the emission control system application. The owner shall have the option to choose whether the inspection is based on the engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year.

(1) In determining the engine model-year, the referee shall compare the engine to engines of the era that the engine most closely resembles. The referee shall assign the 1960 model-year to the engine in any specially constructed vehicle that does not sufficiently resemble a previously manufactured engine. The referee shall require only those emission control systems that are applicable to the established engine model-year and that the engine reasonably accommodates in its present form.

(2) In determining the vehicle model-year, the referee shall compare the vehicle to vehicles of the era that the vehicle most closely resembles. The referee shall assign the 1960 model-year to any specially constructed vehicle that does not sufficiently resemble a previously manufactured vehicle. The referee shall require only those emission control systems that are applicable to the established model-year and that the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present form.

Again, the choice is up to the applicants, there is no failover. That is if you go the SB100
route. If you do not use SB100, but try to register the vehicle solely using the SPCN tag,
then the engine year becomes an issue.

Ian

 

[Mike]

Thanks again for the leg work on this subject. The terminalogy on the first section, 4750 is ambiguous and what I was referring to. The terminalogy on the second section, 44017 is much better. After reading that, I am now leaning more your way.

Does anybody have any experience with actually going into a CA DMV/referree and declaring a body designation and having it licensed as 1960 with a newer LS type powerplant with a GTM/SLC or that type body?

 

[Ian K]

Thanks again for the leg work on this subject. The terminalogy on the first section, 4750 is ambiguous and what I was referring to. The terminalogy on the second section, 44017 is much better. After reading that, I am now leaning more your way.

Does anybody have any experience with actually going into a CA DMV/referree and declaring a body designation and having it licensed as 1960 with a newer LS type powerplant with a GTM/SLC or that type body?

I would recommend contacting the FFR guys. Surely someone in CA has registered a GTM.
They can point you in the right direction. Failing that, or on top of that, I would contact
the local smog referee to get his/her viewpoint. "Hypothetically" of course.

BTW, you also might want to find out from some San Diego locals here which DMV office
is more in tune with SB100.

Ian