FAILED!!! at the BAR (Califonia Smog test)

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Can you point us to the legal code that covers this?

Not offhand but in my dealing with manufacturers over the years (mostly Ford but also AC) as a dealer I could only get a replacement of the ORIGINAL MSO after submitting a documented reason for replacement. If they reissued MSOs at will you could title a car in two states or worse. In fact I have a situation told to me by a Ford executive about a theft ring that had an insider at a Ford assembly plant who produced duplicate MSOs for new cars that had been stolen from the transport system.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Regarding the weber carb issue, if you could show that at least one GT40 Mk I was registered or was registerable in CA in the day, then a page from the FAV parts book should suffice, eg

View attachment 59801

Was John Timanus's GT MK I registered in Cali? That was a Webered MK I. I am not near my registry, but I am quite sure at least two Webered MK Is were sold via Shelby American into California circa 1966/67.

 

[Howard Jones]

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours on the DMV website and I believe that the orginal MSO should not have said "1966 GT40" but "GT40". Then you would have been asked what model year it was that you were replicating and you would have said 1965. All would have been well.

SPF is at fault here, They should have known this and should correct future MSO's. as for you I would contact the BAR ref again and explain the reason you believe that the car YOU have replicated is a 65 since the KIT can be build to any of the years that the car was orginally made. 63-68.

Maybe a leter from SPF might help here. Also you might mention that other have chosen 1965 fro their GT40's.

The 66 reference on the MSO should be taken in context with the intended variability of the kit it represents.

I still think I would demand a new MSO from SPF with the 1966 deleted and the same vin number along with whatever is necessary from them to convence the Calif BAR. Maybe a statement from SPF that they have corrected an clerical error on the MSO and it should not have stated a model year as it is sold as a kit.

Good luck.

 

[Ron R.]

Howard,

I'll call SPF, but I have my doubts about being able to change it now.

I spoke with John Baltazar a few minutes ago, and explained my point of view. He called his superior, Dan Burnett, and called me back. I was told "you can either smog it as a1966 or a 1969, 1960 is not an option."

While Mr Baltazar was reasonable to talk to, the institutional attitude was typical Kalifornia beurocracy....when I asked exactly what carbs etc I would need...the answer was...it's not our job to tell you what you need". Apparently, they can tell you that it's wrong, but want to keep the target hidden. And just think, they are public servants!!

In the end, he told me that it would probably be cheaper to just buy and install a complete 1965 block with the original intake, heads, carbs, and of course...PCV system.

 

[Ron R.]

So far, the take-home messages are these:

1. Superformance absolutely needs to stop referring to these as "1966", no mention of make, year of manufacture or model would be best. That gives the owner the most leeway. Call them a 1965, if you must, but the owner will then be stuck putting whatever is the correct "Everything Smog" for that year Ford...including carbs (unless they they happen to be using an even earlier engine block...in which case they will have to use all the smog equipment from that year, including carbs and a PCV system).

2. The owner should avoid any reference to what car it might replicate. Either make something up, or say that it is you own interpretation of a Ford model A.

3. Lie about the block...I didn't, but wish I had. Odds are they won't check (really hard to see on a gt), and if they look, plead ignorance . If they buy #2, it shouldn't matter, but you never know.

4. Anyone have a complete 1965 or earlier ford 289 that they can loan or rent?

 

[Robert S.]

May Be Of Interest

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 100, Johannessen. Emission control: specially constructed
vehicles.
Existing law defines a specially constructed vehicle as a vehicle
that is built for private use, not for resale, and is not constructed
by a licensed manufacturer or remanufacturer, and requires all
specially constructed vehicles to be subject to the emission control
system testing and certification requirements established by the
Department of Consumer Affairs.
This bill would require a passenger vehicle or pickup truck that
is a specially constructed vehicle to be inspected by stations
authorized to perform referee functions, as prescribed, and would
require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide an initial
registration to no more than the first 500 vehicles that meet the
specified criteria and are presented to the department each year for
registration. Upon completion of the inspection, the referee would
be required to affix a tamper-resistant label to the vehicle and to
issue a certificate that establishes the engine model-year and
emission control system application.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 44017.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
44017.4. (a) Upon initial 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.
(b) Upon the completion of the inspection, the referee shall affix
a tamper-resistant label to the vehicle and issue a certificate that
establishes the engine model-year or the vehicle model-year, and the
emission control system application.
(c) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall annually provide an
initial registration to no more than the first 500 vehicles that meet
the criteria described in subdivision (a) that are presented to that
department for registration.

 

[Ron R.]

Robert,

Thanks for posting. I've read it a number of times over the years. Unfortunately, it is written too vaguely, and is open to interpretation.

For example, define "emissions system."

 

[Ron Earp]

It would not be too difficult to bolt on an air pump, use some tubing and hose, and plumb it to a nipple sticking out of each head. They're not going to check it works or measure anything useful with it, just visually inspect it. Sometimes it is just easier to do something like this to comply than to fight the paperwork nightmare.

Ron

 

[Rich A]

Robert,

Thanks for posting. I've read it a number of times over the years. Unfortunately, it is written too vaguely, and is open to interpretation.

For example, define "emissions system."

Ron R.
You need to purchase or find an "Emission Control System Application" book.
Below are examples.
This will give you an idea of what you need.
All CA smog stations should have one to use as a reference.

HTH

 

[Ron R.]

Rich,

Thanks, I'll look into it.

 

[Ron R.]

Ron,

It's not that easy. In addition to tapping my heads, I'll need an intake, carb, and most importantly, a smog pump. That last one is the killer....that means a new belt system....and no guarantee that it's gonna fit behind the firewall.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

To get right down to the facts, could somebody check the Shelby registry and/or Mr. Spain's book and tell me during what years were original GT40 Mk Is manufactured? I'd look it up myself but all my books are still packed from moving.

Same question for Mk IIs.

My recollection is that all the Mk II's were delivered to Shelby in 1965. Thus (unless the above requested research proves differently) I don't think there is any such thing as a 1966 Mk I or Mk II. And if that's true that's a pretty easy fact to document.

By the way in answer to my own earlier question the governing regulations are here:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk/ch7/ch7_2.htm

Note what it says about SPCNs in the box. You don’t have to have an MSO. The cross-reference is incorrect (there is no 7.190) but go to 7.030:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk/ch7/ch7_7.htm

Note that it says:

• “Bills of Sale, receipts, and invoices for all major component parts (body, frame, transmission, and engine).
  • A Manufacture’s Certificate/Statement of Origin is only acceptable as proof of ownership for the part(s) described.
  • A junk receipt issued by the department may also be submitted for the major component parts.

I'm not sure what is meant by the comment about the MSO, but if it means what I think it means, the BAR people our out of bounds using it to determine anything but proof of ownership. If so, even with the incorrect MSO one could use a two or three-part argument:

1. You (the BAR) are not allowed to use the MSO for determining "year of replicatoin."
2. Even if you were, what is written on my MSO is simply and provably incorrect; my car is a replica of a car that was built only in the years 196x to 196y (see these authoritative books).
3. (If possible) And here is a letter from the President of the manufacturer stating that the information on the MSO is incorrect.

As for the idea that you can't reissue an MSO; I find that assertion silly. Suppose somebody at Ford issued one listing the Mfr as FROD, or one with the wrong serial number or year. Are you telling me they would simply stick the dealer or buyer with the ensuing problem? I don't think so. This situation is no different. The MSO is materially incorrect, and needs to be replaced.

While we're at it, could those of you with access to or records of your SPF Cobra replica's MSO tell us what (if anything) they say about the year of the original?

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

[/LIST]As for the idea that you can't reissue an MSO; I find that assertion silly. Suppose somebody at Ford issued one listing the Mfr as FROD, or one with the wrong serial number or year. Are you telling me they would simply stick the dealer or buyer with the ensuing problem? I don't think so. This situation is no different. The MSO is materially incorrect, and needs to be replaced.

QUOTE]

SPF MK III cars ("427 Cobra") are MSO'd as "1965" models.

And Ford does not make mistakes on the MSOs, they are generated via a program that ties to the VIN as generated at the assembly plant. And a WMI VIN has a check digit in it that helps identify bogus VINS

Understand that an "MSO" (or COO or MCO depending upon what some call it) is the "birth certificate" for the vehicle. You don't want multiple "originals" out there (well, despite what Lonesome Bob says about BO) and to do so is to my understanding a Federal violation.

I have personallly filled out MSOs, when Autokraft/AC first started to import fully certified AC MK IVs Brian Angliss was unfamiliar with the US MSO system, in the UK they issue a "Certificate of Newness" so Ford supplied some blank engraved forms from the US Banknote Company to Autokraft. Brian promptly sent them to me and said "Fill 'em out". So all of the early cars had MSOs that had the information hand typed by myself. Once he got going I showed him what needed to go on these and Paula at the factory took over the duty. I still have blank Autokraft MSOs and could therorectically issue a new MSO for a 25 year old car....but it wouldn't be legal.

Just as a duplicate title is subordinate to the original, a replacement MSO is subordinate to the original. Say I turned the MSO for GTXXXX into New York State for title, with a duplicate I could also turn it in to Ohio and perhaps gain another title. What if I sell you the car with the New York title and then claim continued ownership with the Ohio title as proof? Would this be a can of worms? When an original MSO is "damaged" it is to be returned to the issuer for replacement, how would you do that if you had given the "1966" model year MSO to the state for registration?

I understand that it sounds like simple typing excersise to change it but there is more to it.

And suggesting one "lie" about a component on the car to gain registration is dangerous and to my thoughts, foolhardy. And posting it here is even more questionable. Are you aware that Mr. Morgester, of the Cali Atty. Generals office is a posting member on Club Cobra? And I would venture to say he has perused this site.

Even though I am guilty of "rapid posting" I suggest we all think it through before committing our words to the net forever...................

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Rick --

Sorry, I think I got us off on a side-track. And I certainly never intended to suggest that anyone lie about anything. And I agree that any shady plans would best be kept private.

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron,

It's not that easy. In addition to tapping my heads, I'll need an intake, carb, and most importantly, a smog pump. That last one is the killer....that means a new belt system....and no guarantee that it's gonna fit behind the firewall.

I didn't say it'd be easy, I just said it could be done and not put into the "Too hard" bucket.

BTW, I wouldn't tap the heads for a real smog port. I'd use on of the mounting holes/lifting hole on the back of the head and put a nipple on it. The smog guy isn't going to know the difference.

New intake, are they disallowing the eight barrel setup and requiring a 4bbl? Not the end of the world but requires some work.

The smog pump might be the easiest actually. Get a double vee crank pulley and run it independently off the second pulley. Mount the pump down at the level of the oil pan if you must.

 

[Pat]

I must admit I know a lot more about motorcycles than cars but some vehicles have the Pulse Air System which is much simpler and only relies on the vacuum created in the exhaust stream as it travels down the exhaust manifold and passages. As the engine cycles, this vacuum draws fresh oxygen into the Air Injection lines. The air is then used to prolong thorough exhaust burning. This system normally has a metal duct or hose approximately 1" in diameter around the air cleaner leading to a metal air check valve, and then the exhaust manifold. A lot of Yamaha owners have pulled Yamaha AIS (Air Injection System) from their bikes and you may be able to go to a shop and pick up one for next to nothing. I even think Chrysler used something like this in the '70s.
So you get a couple of header tubes fabricated with a bung for a check valve and plumb it to your air cleaner or one of your stacks and this avoids the whole pump thing.
Just a thought that may be worth a look.

 

[Ron Earp]

I
So you get a couple of headers fabricated with a bung for a check valve and plumb it to your air cleaner or one of your stacks and this avoids the whole pump thing.
Just a thought that may be worth a look.

The idea is a good one, but I think he's being forced into a pump because "The Smog Book Says So!". That is, a smog pump is required on 1966 motors in CA and he's gotta have it.

 

[Pat]

Well that sucks or blows or neither
Then maybe plan B: 2000 Cobra R Mustang electric air pump plumbed to aforementioned header tubes. Ford Part Number F6ZZ-9A486-DA or Motorcraft equivalent Part Number CX1567.They seem to be small enough to put lots of places and for $81 is may be worth a go.
Again, this is so far out of my knowledge base but the idea that somebody gets this far in a build to hit a wall with the bureaucracy has to be maddening.

 

[Rod]

FWIW This was all before the law exempting all 1975 and older cars from CA smog controls, but I owned a 1966 Corvette with a 427/425 HP engine, which were exempt in CA from Air Injection. If I had owned a 1966 Corvette with the 427/390 HP engine, then CA would have required Air Injection. So 1966 was the 1st year for the Air Injection requirement in CA.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

...during what years were original GT40 Mk Is manufactured? ...Same question for Mk IIs.

The Racing Icons site lists Mk. II P1031 as being flown to Shelby in Nov. 1965.