• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

November MM issue "Can they outlaw Mustangs?"

A

abrahamfh

Active Member
My sister is currently in the ER for some IBS issues that are not serious but ER drugs always makes everything better. On my way here I stopped at borders for a cafe and something to read. I picked up Mustang Monthly and one of the articles caught my attention, "Can they outlaw Mustangs?" I see certain points they are making but I would have to say that I don't want my neighbor leaving a parts car on blocks on his front lawn. It would be annoying to have to reinstall all the smog equipment that originally came with the car but outside of that I don't see how this outlaws my Mustang.

Is there any reason for us who restore our cars peacefully in the garage to be worried about other than paying higher yearly taxes or fees.

Just looking for some education.
 
Abe, can you summarize the points of the article? Was it just about smog equipment and the need to pass a smog check test?
 
"SAC69" said:
Abe, can you summarize the points of the article? Was it just about smog equipment and the need to pass a smog check test?
Click to expand...

I will do my best, but I'm pretty sure a lot of what they are stating is open for interpretation.

It lists the top threats:

Inoperable Vehicles: It mentions an example of "you could come home one afternoon to find a ticket on your project car that's parked on your property." and also states "Some zealous government officials are waging war against what they consider "eyesores." To us, they are valuable on-going restoration projects."

To me: Project cars shouldn't be kept where it is an eyesore, that's why Nick has his big tent hiding his.

Scrappage Programs: The programs accelerate the normal retirement of vehicles through the purchase of older cars, which are crushed. Enthusiasts suffer from indiscriminate destruction of older cars and their reusable parts."

To me: The scrappage program means that once Fred is done and I want a new project Mustang there will be less of them left but still doesn't mean they are outlawing Fred.

Exhaust Noise: Title is pretty much self explanatory on this one, basically states that they are attacking loud exhaust that is disruptive.

To me: Exhaust, yes I would like Fred to sound mean but I complain about the import fart cans, rice rockets and Harley's being too loud and purposely setting off all the car alarms on the block at midnight.

Taxes and Fees: "Older Mustangs are typically driven less frequently than daily drivers. In most cases, they are second or third vehicles deserving of reduced taxes and registration fees."

To me: Don't really know what to say other than, I always get screwed on taxes. LoL

Ethanol: Washington is trying to increase the ethanol amount in fuel from 10 percent to 15 percent.

To me: It would really suck if ethanol really does corode your fuel system and engine but eventually we will all be driving electric or hydrogen powered vehicles.

Smog Check Program: "The hobby must also pursue proactive legislative initiatives to establish exemptions from inspections for mileage vehicles, classic vehicles (defined as 25 years old and older), and newer vehicles."

To me: I can see a lot of people getting pissed off at having to put smog equipment back on if the car originally came with it but that's still doesn't mean that they are outlawing your vehicle. I think we do have a 25 year no smog law here in CA but that means I can go buy a piece of Shart that didn't get crushed during cash for clunkers from 1975-1985 and not have to deal with smog regardless of how bad of shape it is in.

Tire fuel efficiency: Both California and the federal government are pursuing regulations to rate replacement tires for fuel efficiency in an effort to influence consumer choice............When it comes to consumer information, the big question is whether the focus of attention is misplaced. Will consumers be dissuaded from buying tires that may have improved performance, handling, or appearance features based solely on a rolling resistance rating?"

To me: Consumers being dissuaded from buying tires solely based on fuel efficiency is another weird one, so what if they rate them for fuel efficiency, the article at the beginning states that you are probably reading this because "you likely own a vintage Mustang (or three, or four).........For you, Mustangs are a lifestyle." that to me means you are going to get what you want for your Mustang regardless of whether something is efficient or not, at least I didn't buy Fred to save me money on gas. The tires on my daily driver are no where near fuel efficient but I like them and I pay extra for them but again, no one is stopping me from doing it.

Paint Regulations: "As you probably know, paint is now heavily regulated to address environmental concerns. There are two main issues with respect to regulatory oversight, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants."

To me: I do like the look of the old paint, but going waterbased whether its better for the environment or not also doesn't mean that they are going to outlaw Fred, just mean my paint job wont look as good as other folks cars or I have to go outside of the bay area for a non waterbased paint job.

Engine Swaps: "The basic rule of engine switching is that the change must do no harm, meaning that the engine must theoretically be at lease as "clean" as the one taken out."

To me: Does this mean it has to look cleaner, or it has to run cleaner?

A lot of what they are stating is actually more confusing, I really don't see how they are outlawing my Mustang. Are they making it more difficult and expensive, YES! but we all know that this hobby isn't cheap.

Disclaimer: I think I am just really annoyed with the current way things are getting done, lawmakers only telling us what they want us to hear, Whitman did this and Brown did that, or maybe I never cared to pay attention until now. What I do know is that I was pissed seeing this article, I consider my Mustang to be my escape, my garage being the United Garage of Abraham Hernandez where nothing else matters but music, rust, sports and the company of friends, and the fact that MM is reminding me of those annoying commercials and advertisements really rubbed me the wrong way. BLAW! Once again, sorry everyone. I apologize to those that are going through difficulties being caused by these laws or those that might be going in to law soon, enjoy your cars as much as you can and I am sure some folks in Washington will do their best and help all of us enjoy our passions for a long long time.
 
i think this is total BS and that if this was to ever really happen which this would include all older cars/trucks, many people would be without a Job as far as restoration shops, parts suppliers, and so on.. its just another BS idea that the government came up with..
 
"Badass70" said:
i think this is total BS and that if this was to ever really happen which this would include all older cars/trucks, many people would be without a Job as far as restoration shops, parts suppliers, and so on.. its just another BS idea that the government came up with..
Click to expand...

As much as I don't believe they are outlawing my Mustang just trying to make it harder for me to keep it, I agree with you 100 percent that it is just plain freaking annoying.
 
"Exhaust Noise: Title is pretty much self explanatory on this one, basically states that they are attacking loud exhaust that is disruptive."


Phhhhhht, I'll take my loud exhaust over a horn or radio any day!
 
Now what sense does it make for the government to run a multi-billion dollar industry out of business? The revenue they collect from the aftermarket industry is huge.

Bill
 
I think this is all very amusing. All of these things are already active in CA:) I see mostly good reasons for the current laws, although they are annoying to those of us in this hobby.

The eyesore deal is common in almost every urban environment. Nobody wants derelict cars sitting all over people's properties, reducing property value in surrounding neighborhoods. Many cities, and almost every home owner's association, have laws about these kinds of things for exactly this reason. Keep your projects out of sight (mine's in the garage) and there are no problems.

Exhaust noise laws have always been around, but tickets are subject to law enforcement officer judgement. At the end of the day, noise ordnances are made by the county and city you live in.

CA has had an active smog check program for years. They stopped the rolling exemption year a while back (it's stuck at '75 and earlier, right now), but federal law still prohibits you from altering emissions equipment on any vehicle so equipped. This means '66+ cars built in CA, and '68+ federal vehicles. That said, you can't really be required to go find a fully functioning air injection setup for your '68 S code, simply because it doesn't exist anymore in the aftermarket. Assuming you were given a ticket sending you to the smog ref for inspection (yes, you can be required to take your car in for a smog check even it's exempt from biannual checks), the smog ref would determine that you can't put factory smog equipment on that you can't get anymore. He can, however, pull your registration if you've got other mods that aren't smog legal but are easily replaceable with stock items, like intake, carb, air cleaner, cam, heads, etc. It's happened. An extreme situation, to be sure, but still possible if you piss off the right cop/judge. But in all actuality, don't do stupid things to get pulled over, and don't piss off the officer that does pull you over, and it won't ever be a problem.

These are the same laws that make it legal for cops to do the same thing to ricers. CHP loves giving tickets to fart-canned ricers for not-street-legal HID lights, intake kits, turbos, JDM engine swaps, etc. They get sent off to the smog ref and told to make everything smog-legal before they can put the car back on the street. Failure to do so can result in the state impounding the vehicle and potentially crushing it.

The only laws I really don't like are the vehicle scrapping laws, which are actually smog credit laws for big companies with factories, power plants, refineries, huge vehicle fleets, etc. The laws allow companies to buy old cars and scrap them for smog credits. They provide these "credits" to the govt, which has told them they need to reduce their emissions by X this year. So instead of actually cleaning up their factories which pollute more than all of the vehicles in the state, they get to claim they reduced smog emissions by simply crushing old cars. This is simply a case of big business lobbying to keep from having to overhaul their factories to clean them up, putting the focus on cars instead. So while big companies get to dump massive amounts of pollution into the air all the time, the idiot public thinks that old cars are really the problem.
 
"67 Fastback" said:
Now what sense does it make for the government to run a multi-billion dollar industry out of business? The revenue they collect from the aftermarket industry is huge.

Bill
Click to expand...
since when does the government make sense?

I think Starfury said it well. But these are REAL threats to our hobby. Among the already active laws in CA, EPA has already passed the increase from 10% Ethanol to 15%. Supposedly they will have to keep it labelled and 100% gas still available for older cars but that's already pretty hard to find.
I have been personally harassed by the city about having a 67 Mustang sitting in my driveway with out plates. It was a complete car with no flat tires, broken glass, etc. but faded paint and rusty. I had to hide it in my back yard. I understand why it might be an eyesore to some so does that mean we can't have a project car? To some local, state and other law makers, they don't care if you support an aftermarket hobby.
There are states right now trying to outlaw NOS even on race only cars. The lists go on and on. Don't stick your head in the sand and think it won't happen, that's what they count on!
They don't look at it the way we do, they are trying to satisfy tree huggers and gain popularity for votes from the majority of voters. We need to be the majority protecting our freedom to have this hobby!

sorry, off my soapbox now
 
"67 Fastback" said:
This was my attempt at sarcasm :lol
Bill
Click to expand...
sorry, I get carried away when the Government tries to mess with my Mustang!!!

here is an example of one proposed law... AB-859
The Official Summary:

This bill requires vehicles 15 years and older to undergo annual smog check inspections, and changes the amounts of financial assistant available for vehicle repair and the eligibility for that assistance. Specifically, this bill:

1) Requires vehicles 15 years and older, with certain exceptions, to undergo annual smog check inspections, instead of the existing biennial inspection schedule.

2) Directs any additional revenue resulting from more frequent inspection to be deposited in the High Polluter Repair or Removal Account (HPRR Account).

3)Increases from $450 to $750 the maximum possible payment to an eligible owner of a high polluter vehicle.

4) Restricts eligibility for financial assistance for vehicle repair to "low-income motor vehicle owners."

5) Increases the maximum income for purposes of defining a "low-income vehicle owner" from 200% of the federal poverty level to 300% of that level.

6) Requires BAR, in cooperation with ARB, to perform biennial analyses, instead of "periodic" analysis as currently required, of the statistical and emissions profiles of vehicles subject to smog check.

As you can see, this is more Green Legislation. This could void the current "older than '76" exemption and put collector vehicles into CARB's new smog program. (AB-2289). Estimates run as high as 50% of our cars on the block out of state just for starters. As time went by, CARB would sharpen their pencil to put any remaining vehicles "out to pasture" too. Can you imagine a Model T or a Dusenburg with smog equipment? We would also be paying for the crusher to eliminate our parts cars.

This is just one reason why this election is so important. The California legislature has got to be given a wakeup call to stop this. California is a state, not a National Park and should be run like one. Opression of our hobby, anti-business and jobs, and regulating every facet our lives has got to stop.
Click to expand...
 
I would expect that collector cars would be exempted would they not? I know they do not plan to require me to put smog controls on a car that never had them do they? If so I am moving to Mexico!
 
"34isgreat" said:
I would expect that collector cars would be exempted would they not? I know they do not plan to require me to put smog controls on a car that never had them do they? If so I am moving to Mexico!
Click to expand...
they don't care if it's a collector car, it would have to pass CARB's new smog emissions if you want to drive it. (if it get's passed)
 
"tarafied1" said:
and here is a good example of how goofy the "city" can be over an inoperable vehicle
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_16320447
Click to expand...

Not saying the whole thing is right but....

They say in one statement that they never got the citations.....then later say the fines came at a time when the money was tight. So.....did they never get the tickets or was it that they could not afford to pay them? After several months of seeing them taking pictures and getting the un-delivered citations, one would think they could put on the spare or at least drive the car........ Then, $1800/month unemployment should have a couple bucks to fix the flat. Guess they over spent somewhere........

It really sounds to me like there is a lot more than meets the eye here but still, it has gone way to far.
 
"tarafied1" said:
since when does the government make sense?

I think Starfury said it well. But these are REAL threats to our hobby. Among the already active laws in CA, EPA has already passed the increase from 10% Ethanol to 15%. Supposedly they will have to keep it labelled and 100% gas still available for older cars but that's already pretty hard to find.
Click to expand...

Great...we get to cause more food shortages in parts of the world while we burn up the grain in our cars all to fix Al Gore's imaginary global warming "climate change".

My step dad already has to go up to Conroe to buy gas for his boat. If he puts the crap with even 10% ethanol in it then it runs like crap.
 
"AzPete" said:
It really sounds to me like there is a lot more than meets the eye here but still, it has gone way to far.
Click to expand...
I agree but the point is, they can fine and arrest you for a flat tire if they really want to. I know we can't have a salvage yard going on in our driveway but I can relate to this issue. They came and took pictures of a 67 sitting in my driveway, mailed me a nasty letter. When we would see them they wouldn't talk to us either. They are not interested in finding a solution. They have a rule and want to generate revenue or punish the non-conformer. They don't care what the situation is. They don't bother to find out.

As for Ethanol, I'm all for a renewable source of fuel but corn is not the best way and forcing it on us isn't either. It is corrosive and attracts moisture. It's also less efficient. On the positive side, it runs cooler and has higher octane. The problem is that the fuel systems in older cars are not designed to handle it and cannot adjust for it's inconsistency. Race cars have run Alcohol successfully for a long time but are built specially for it's use and run a consistant "race only" product. Current E10 and E85 is not a consistent product. Until we have a consistent and widely available source for Ethanol it does not make sense to convert a classic car to run it. However, the EPA doesn't care about us. That's the point of all the magazines bringing it to our attention. This November, find out who is running and which are supporters of our hobby. Then we will have a voice (maybe).
 
What I am saying is I feel they have tried to avoid the issue by playing dumb.....didn't receive anything.....don't know nothing attitude and they got caught. Now it is bigger than they thought it would develop into, both dollar wise and jail wise.

Yes, I agree that the way things are written, the flat tire turns into a ticket, but not the first, or even the second time most likely. The rule makers are trying to avoid the snowball effect of a flat tire turning into a pile of spider webs and crap. Going at it wrong but that is what I see. I would guess most people do not want a non running car in the neighbors driveway. I have been on both side of that too.

If they really wanted to stop it all, they would not even give you one warning......you know the rules, you broke them, you lose. Having lived in military housing for years, we were always subjected to housing rules. It sucks for sure and yes, it is somewhat different from the case stated. I argued with the military on the definition of "minor work" as to what could be done in the carport. After I showed them that under their wording, I was able to rebuild a VW dunebuggy engine in one day, they decided that they needed to work out better wording and make the rules more understandable.

With your case, you solved the issue the smart way when you were notified about it where the couple in the article did not. You could have played it out as they did and we would be sending the drag car parts to the jail......

What makes one situation different from another......a broken car in a driveway is still a broken car no matter what the situation. One needs to fight the basic law now, not just when they are caught by it.

Just my view point....but I do agree that there is to much "governing" in our world today............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top