FAILED!!! at the BAR (Califonia Smog test)
- Thread starter Igofaster
- Start date
Using the build year line if thinking, I'd have to prove that the car is clearly a Mark I, that Mark Is weren't sold in 1966, get SPF to admit that the MSO is in error, and then convince the BAR guy of all of the above.
And then, in spite of any and all proof to the contrary, I can guarantee that he' gonna insist that it be equipped with whatever four barrel carb that Ford put on their passenger cars...I've already tried defending the webers, even using factory diagrams. It doesn't matter what the car came with, it only matters what ford put on ford passenger car motors at the time.
As for the smog pump, I asked, it has to be a year appropriate pump. And I was already warned that my heads couldn't be used, no injection ports.
Finally, having a set of custom headers would be cost prohibitive.
Unless I can find a way to use a different inspector, I think it will be easier to just pull the engine and replace it with something completely original...a lot of work, but old engines can had cheaply. It probably doesn't even have to run.
And then, in spite of any and all proof to the contrary, I can guarantee that he' gonna insist that it be equipped with whatever four barrel carb that Ford put on their passenger cars...I've already tried defending the webers, even using factory diagrams. It doesn't matter what the car came with, it only matters what ford put on ford passenger car motors at the time.
As for the smog pump, I asked, it has to be a year appropriate pump. And I was already warned that my heads couldn't be used, no injection ports.
Finally, having a set of custom headers would be cost prohibitive.
Unless I can find a way to use a different inspector, I think it will be easier to just pull the engine and replace it with something completely original...a lot of work, but old engines can had cheaply. It probably doesn't even have to run.
Howard Jones
Supporter
I think you best chance is to install a 1965 engine and pick engine year. The car does not need to move under it's own power it only needs to run the engine long enough to do one single smog test. In theory you could do this without a transaxle in the car. Anything that runs would work. Fab up some angle iron motor mounts and put some crapped out old 4 banger in it if you have to. This route might be cheaper than screwing with your nice V8.
Did you suggest to the BAR guy that you are picking the model year of the car and in fact these cars were made in 1965 so you are picking 1965? The law does say that "the ower may select" the model year of the car. So you are picking the 1965 version because you replicated that year of manufacture not 66.
Whatever you do, do it legal. Screwing with these people is a nightmare........believe me.
Did you suggest to the BAR guy that you are picking the model year of the car and in fact these cars were made in 1965 so you are picking 1965? The law does say that "the ower may select" the model year of the car. So you are picking the 1965 version because you replicated that year of manufacture not 66.
Whatever you do, do it legal. Screwing with these people is a nightmare........believe me.
Last edited:
Alan,
Re the motor, my thoughts exactly.
I believe that the law allows you to smog the car by either the year of the motor, or the year of the car being replicated... but it doesn't let you just call the the car anything you want...unless it doesn't replicate any particular model. Unfortunately, the MSO says 1966.
Re the motor, my thoughts exactly.
I believe that the law allows you to smog the car by either the year of the motor, or the year of the car being replicated... but it doesn't let you just call the the car anything you want...unless it doesn't replicate any particular model. Unfortunately, the MSO says 1966.
I could have sworn I recalled someone posting a suggestion that a specific year model engine might be available for "rent" for just exactly this purpose.
IMHO, that sounds like a great idea and an excellent business opportunity for some enterprising individual.
I was wandering around the area where I use to work (farming) back in the 1960's and found what I think is a 1965 Ford 4 door sedan with a 289 and a three speed column shift...complete, well preserved. The car's exterior had a bit of surface rust, but other than that it was probably restorable. I thought about buying the car just for the engine, but farmers are becoming well aware of the value of these older cars and, sadly, are just not parting with them.
I will be back in the area in a month or so, might well check further with the landowner...no telling who owns the old car, it has been sitting for a long time (windows all closed, hood closed, has NOT been invaded by rhodents yet).
Texas has adopted the SEMA "plan"....apparently the sequence in which you proceed is important. Here is what worked for one of the Club Cobra members:
1. Get the car insured and get from the insurance agent an insurance card stating the car is a 1965 model.
2. Take the car and the insurance card to a state "inspection station"...in TX when you first register a car, you have to obtain a "green slip", which is NO LONGER green, but the idea is that the car is inspected for safety and smog items necessary for the year in which it was manufactured. The inspection station makes sure the tag and accompanying paperwork states the car is a 1965 model, as the insurance card says.
3. Take the MSO, the insurance card, and the inspection report to the courthouse. You then have a preponderance of evidence that the car is actually a 1965 model, not a 1966....not suggesting this might work in CA, but if it is possible to get the sort of documentation I mentioned it might support your argument that the car replicates a 1965 and the MSO is incorrect.
Good luck...this is an incredible dilema you are facing and raging against the machine does not seem to work with bureaucracies such as the BAR.
Cheers!
Doug
IMHO, that sounds like a great idea and an excellent business opportunity for some enterprising individual.
I was wandering around the area where I use to work (farming) back in the 1960's and found what I think is a 1965 Ford 4 door sedan with a 289 and a three speed column shift...complete, well preserved. The car's exterior had a bit of surface rust, but other than that it was probably restorable. I thought about buying the car just for the engine, but farmers are becoming well aware of the value of these older cars and, sadly, are just not parting with them.
I will be back in the area in a month or so, might well check further with the landowner...no telling who owns the old car, it has been sitting for a long time (windows all closed, hood closed, has NOT been invaded by rhodents yet).
Texas has adopted the SEMA "plan"....apparently the sequence in which you proceed is important. Here is what worked for one of the Club Cobra members:
1. Get the car insured and get from the insurance agent an insurance card stating the car is a 1965 model.
2. Take the car and the insurance card to a state "inspection station"...in TX when you first register a car, you have to obtain a "green slip", which is NO LONGER green, but the idea is that the car is inspected for safety and smog items necessary for the year in which it was manufactured. The inspection station makes sure the tag and accompanying paperwork states the car is a 1965 model, as the insurance card says.
3. Take the MSO, the insurance card, and the inspection report to the courthouse. You then have a preponderance of evidence that the car is actually a 1965 model, not a 1966....not suggesting this might work in CA, but if it is possible to get the sort of documentation I mentioned it might support your argument that the car replicates a 1965 and the MSO is incorrect.
Good luck...this is an incredible dilema you are facing and raging against the machine does not seem to work with bureaucracies such as the BAR.
Cheers!
Doug
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I don't think I'd go after the "motor-based" option just yet.... consider this:
There's something very strange about your case that makes me think you're suffering from a referee station who haven't done this before.
The whole idea that the engine has to exactly match its original configuration is associated with the practice of periodic visual inspections and tailpipe tests of non-SPCN cars, not the one-time SPCN sequence number test. If exact match is required how do you ever pass with a bundle of snakes exhaust?
Besides, an SPCN can have any engine it wants. Yours could be a Valkyrie with a VW engine. There are GT40s all over california with EFI. There are Cobras with all kinds of intake systems. There are fiberglass bucket T's with GMC 6-71 blowers. The government has a duty to apply consistent standards ("equal protection under the law" so to speak) and here they are being very inconsistent. The SB100 engine "test" is just supposed to mean taking the tailpipe emissions measurement, not verifying that the engine is some kind of meticulous replica itself. After all, non-SPCN CA cars before '76 or so aren't inspected at all.
So, either the BAR policies and procedures have changed, or you are dealing with a rogue office.
So aside from trying to convince your office that you have a '63/4/5 (and a letter from SPF admitting to a clerical error on the MSO would help a lot with that), I think you should try talking to someone at BAR central, or talking to someone at a different referee station (Jim Craik's example would be a good one) about the insistence that the motor details match the year of the chassis.
IAE if that fails, consider that the engine need not be a Ford. You could put in a 63 VW engine and sail right through.
Also re: the carb, etc., recall that after-market performance parts in CA are "CARB certified" so presumably you can use any such component on your engine; you don't have to find an original part.
And of course I really would like to hear from SPF on this one. I think they're going to have a tough time selling GT40s in CA now that the word is out that the MSO's are poisoned.... A public response would be a good idea before this goes viral....
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but I've been through the process.
Several years ago, BAR did away with "engine year" as an option for determining emission control requirements for SPCNS vehicles. The BAR referee has been using "vehicle model year" for determining emission control requirements for SPCNS cars. Thus, buying a '65 engine will not work.
See #5.
http://www.bar.ca.gov/01_ConsumerActivities/Specially_Constructed_Vehicles/SPCN_Fact_Sheet.pdf
I think the least path of resistance would be to find a CA 1966 289 engine with the air injection system and install it.
Ron, I wish you the best of luck.
Clearly, there is no consistency in how the regulations are interpreted by the local inspectors. My local guy seemed to take great joy in explaining how one of their failed clients finally gave up and sent his car back to the manufacturer.
As for using a 1966 vs 1965 engine, regardless of what any law may say, the local guy said I could avoid the air injector issues by using a 1965.
I am convinced that their application of the law is entirely subjective, and their attitude suggest that they act with impunity.
The only real hope that I have now, short of installing a new engine, is finding someone of equal or greater authority that disagrees with their interpretation.
As for using a 1966 vs 1965 engine, regardless of what any law may say, the local guy said I could avoid the air injector issues by using a 1965.
I am convinced that their application of the law is entirely subjective, and their attitude suggest that they act with impunity.
The only real hope that I have now, short of installing a new engine, is finding someone of equal or greater authority that disagrees with their interpretation.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Rod -- the text you included contradicts your assertion. See #6 & #8:
"if the consumer chooses to have the model year based on the body, the Referee will compare the vehicle to other previously manufactured vehicles. The Referee will then determine the model year of the vehicle."
Ron --
This language does NOT say he will read the model year off the MSO; it says he will "compare the vehicle." So if you go in with the production numbers by year for the MK I, along with pictures of Mk Is, Mk IIs, Mk IIIs and Mk IVs, and with this text, a reasonable person would assign '64 or so. You can also use the argument that the car you are duplicating was at various times registered in the state in the past and ask them simply to look up all the registered "real" GT40s and look at their listed model year.
So I still think you have a good argument based on the MSO simply having a typographical error that contradicts the actual history of the "previously manufactured vehicle."
By the way I believe the referee station employees are private employees, since the BAR site says that function is contracted out. I think you have an employee with an attitude and/or training problem and you should appeal his decision to whoever in the BAR itself supervises those stations, including your comment about his apparent glee at your predicament.
Has Lance said what he is going to do?
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I think you have a defense against that too, although you have to be careful what question you ask. I would ask "When I bring my car back, how are you going to determine whether it is compliant; that is, what reference document will you use?". Then ask for a copy.
Check this with a local smog station, but I believe they have a book or database of pictures of engine bays, since part of the semi-annual test is a visual inspection to detect tampering. You should be able to get that document, at worst by filing a freedom of information request (yes, California has a freedom of information act (California government code 6250 through 6276.48, 1968)) and the state constitution Article I, Section 3 (b). They can't hide from you how they make the determination.
""The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny."[
Last edited:
Alan, as much as I understand, there are two "decisions" to be made.
1. The "model year" must be assigned to the vehicle. The applicant has the option to pick "year of manufacture" that the vehicle most closely replicates or assign the "model year" based on engine manufacture date.
2. Once "model year" has been assigned to the vehicle, then the emissions will follow the assigned "model year." Most of us that build Cobra's and GT40's install aftermarket blocks, which don't have 1965 casting numbers and dates, but for aluminum Pond and Genesis FE blocks, which can be painted to resemble original blocks and have 1965 casting info.
I'm not sure what Ron installed for an engine block, but "year of manufacture" per the MSO shows 1966, so the Bar tech went down that road.
1. The "model year" must be assigned to the vehicle. The applicant has the option to pick "year of manufacture" that the vehicle most closely replicates or assign the "model year" based on engine manufacture date.
2. Once "model year" has been assigned to the vehicle, then the emissions will follow the assigned "model year." Most of us that build Cobra's and GT40's install aftermarket blocks, which don't have 1965 casting numbers and dates, but for aluminum Pond and Genesis FE blocks, which can be painted to resemble original blocks and have 1965 casting info.
I'm not sure what Ron installed for an engine block, but "year of manufacture" per the MSO shows 1966, so the Bar tech went down that road.
Alan,
You are likely right on multiple accounts...however, I have appealed to regional manager of the local inspector (at a local community college), explained my thinking, and asked him to consult his superior...which he says he did.
As you mention in your post (#51), the inspector will determine the year of make. I think that they have already done that, and I don't think that they are going to help me prove them wrong. They feel that they are the law, and will do as they please.
I suppose that I could start a paperwork war, but don't think it's winnable, as ultimately there is no higher power to appeal to ( that I've found yet).
You are likely right on multiple accounts...however, I have appealed to regional manager of the local inspector (at a local community college), explained my thinking, and asked him to consult his superior...which he says he did.
As you mention in your post (#51), the inspector will determine the year of make. I think that they have already done that, and I don't think that they are going to help me prove them wrong. They feel that they are the law, and will do as they please.
I suppose that I could start a paperwork war, but don't think it's winnable, as ultimately there is no higher power to appeal to ( that I've found yet).
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Jerry Brown does seem like an unlikely ally, doesn't he? :lipsrsealed:
Any word from Lance? I'm nearly certain he could solve this problem if he wanted to. All it would take is a couple sentences on letterhead. After all, it's his incorrect MSO that got you into this.
Not to be a dick, but that is not the case. All of the SPF GT40s registered in Cali to date have that MSO. And to my knowledge all were accepted and titled.
SPF/Lance is not the problem here, an individual BAR site is. I assure you Lance WOULD solve this if he could do so within the law.
Lets not toss the blame where it doesn't belong. Do you think Lance has a business model that has his customers NOT being able to use his product? The MSO is NOT incorrect, all to date have been done in this manner, the problem is downstream of Superformance.
Guys,
Lance has sent me the name of a private agent that he says has had pretty good luck getting things done. Unfortunately, he's in SoCal. I may have to tow my car down there, but it beats pulling an engine.
As far as the MSO, Lance picked up right away the potential issue with using the year 1966. If you have a car, and haven't started with the DMV, I suggest you contact Lance before you do anything. That's as much as I can say about that. Unfortunately, I'm beyond that stage.
Ps the contact info I need is in a " win mail.dat" format. Anyone know what that is, I can't seem to open it.
Lance has sent me the name of a private agent that he says has had pretty good luck getting things done. Unfortunately, he's in SoCal. I may have to tow my car down there, but it beats pulling an engine.
As far as the MSO, Lance picked up right away the potential issue with using the year 1966. If you have a car, and haven't started with the DMV, I suggest you contact Lance before you do anything. That's as much as I can say about that. Unfortunately, I'm beyond that stage.
Ps the contact info I need is in a " win mail.dat" format. Anyone know what that is, I can't seem to open it.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Same qualifier...
And just to be clear, the motivation to call it "incorrect" is because it allows the manufacturer a wide open door to help the end user out of the jam that Ron is in. They just have to admit to a typographical error in an insignificant field.
As for facts...
Rick, you are using bad logic, or you mean "invalid" not "incorrect". I am referring to factual correctness. Just because up until now the MSO "worked" doesn't make that particular field on the MSO factually correct; it can be wrong but the referees ignored it (as they should have based on the state documentation quoted above).
Also, the MSO did not need to state the year of the replica. But assuming a need to do so, to be factually correct is should have stated a range of years (for Mk Is), since there is nothing (other than certain paint schemes) that ties a GT40 Mk I replica to a particular year, and Mk Is were made for several years. To put it another way it is factually incorrect to call a car a replica of a 1966 when it is just as accurately a replica of a 63 or a 64 or a 65.
So to give an example that illustrates the issue of factual correctness: the most common paint scheme for an SPF is "Gulf Livery" with a number "6", that of P1075 which was not built in 1966, right?. So if we're going to write a single year on the MSO, is that a replica of a '66 GT40 or of a '68 GT40?
It can't be both.
By the way, it looks like another method for making a "correction" (OK, Rick, how about "enhancement?") to the MSO would be an MSO extension. From the CA DMV industry manual chapter 7 at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk/main_toc.htm
MSO Continuations
- Any continuation to an MSO must clearly state “Continuation” on the face of the document and contain the same security features as the original.
- A “continuation” MSO must be used in conjunction with the original MSO.
As for the Lance business model rhetorical question... of course not, and isn't that a bit theatrical? People make mistakes. Filling out the MSO the way they did was a mistake. What's the big deal? Just admit it, do what you can to fix it, and move on. Same as the handbrake, etc. :laugh:
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
That's the format of an attachment to the e-mail on a windows machine. Get somebody to type it or paste it into the body of the e-mail.
Jack Houpe
GT40s Supporter
Just buy a lot here in AR for 5k, get a mail box and register it here, no problem, no inspection ever and if your lucky you can get an antique tag which is $14 for life as long as you own it, if not you have to pay $35 a year for tags.
I have a second home in norcal, we always have one of my cars there and its never been an issue.
I have a second home in norcal, we always have one of my cars there and its never been an issue.
