Looking at a 350 conversion from out of state.

The person lives in a place without emissions testing.

How do I find out if it will pass testing in my area? I don't live in California which is a plus but I still have to be able to pass testing to be able to register the vehicle.

Ad says that engine is a "stock Chevy 350 crate engine"

I called my local emissions testing office and they said that testing is based on whichever is newer either the chassis or engine.

I don't know where to go from here

Any feedback would be awesome!

 

well what is newer the engine or chassis? itll just need to original emissions setup from the newer of the two.

 

Yes that would be pertinent info

New engine:

A "John's Cars" V8 conversion kit was used to install a stock 350 crate motor

Edelbrock intake manifold

Quadrajet carburetor with electric choke

I'm thinking the engine has to be stock so this wont work

I guess I'll have to call the emissions folks in the morning and see if they can give me a yay or nay with this info.

I HATE EMISSIONS TESTING

 

AND YOU AIN'T ALONE!!

Nix is due by May 15! She is Not looking forward to it!

However.

As this will be her second time during my ownership, I kind of know what to expect. My plan is to take her early one morning to a testing facility that also does general automotive work and has a Very good local reputation, and tell them, "Make it run well (runs pretty darn good now!), and make it pass SMOG. I'll wait."

It'll cost me, but she's worth it.
(';')

 

Alex:


Yes, talking to your local SMOG interpretors is the place to begin. Here in CA. it is BAR, Bureau of automotive Repairs. Usually cooperative and informative. As they are a form of car guys/gals. As opposed to pure bureuacrats lacking sensitivity and knowledge.


Yes, the carb and intake might be an issue. And if your car was EFI, in CA. it would definitely not pass. EFI down grade to carbs is a no, no.


No engine number on the crate engines for year ID.


Might try John's cars for a record check as to the kit contents.


So, I'd select a donor car year, Same or newer year than yours. Select the SMOG stuff on that "donor" year. EGR, cat converters, Vapor cannister, air pump, etc.


I fear the answer will not be pleasing...


Carl

 

Your state or county web page might have some useful info.

You might get lucky. Some areas...enlightened ones, in my opinion....have only a tailpipe test. They couldn't care less what's under the hood. They sniff the emissions from the tailpipe and either your car meets xxx-standard or it doesn't.

Others want to see that the applicable emission equipment is actually in place.

Cheers
DD

 

Texas , has a antique vehicle # plate, low cost, renew every three years, NO inspection!

they figure that anyone that would drive a 25year old car,regularly, would have it in good condition! most cars that old dont even have those strict emission junk!

Carl, gotta love the old Texas ways, altho things are changing, as more Yankees move down with there cold and miserable ways!

 

You've given virtually no information in order for people to help.

When the DMV says 'whichever is newer, engine or car', they presume the engine in question orignated in a regular production vehicle. They will then apply the pollution standards in effect for that vehicle.

If the engine is some nondescript mish-mash crate engine built by a speed shop, you're screwed. GM built 350 cu. in engines from 1968 up until today in thousands of variations. Which year and configuration does this one represent?

I'd pass on the car, frankly.

 

In Calif. I would contact the local "smog referee" and make a personal visit. This is where you would take the car for compliance testing anyway. This sounds like a very challenging situation and I would recommend that you pass on the car. In Calif. you want to start with a '75 or older vehicle which does not require compliance testing. I would say to buy a newer model XJ6 or a completely stock example. Lots of cars out there. Good luck!

 

First thanks everyone for their input.

So after a few calls to different people within the emissions testing agency in my area (Idaho) I got some good news:

If the chassis is 1981 or older than it doesn't need to be tested regardless of engine. The car I'm looking at is a 70's Jag so I'll be covered, whew.

***The following is a soapbox speech feel free to disregard***

Emissions testing is not only inconvenient it is completely backyards, unfair and hurts the poor specifically.

New cars don't need to be tested, only used cars. This has the effect of being a burdensome regressive tax.

People that buy brand new cars are going to be in general better off financially than people buying polluting old cars.

People that drive crappy polluting cars 99% of the time are doing so because that is what they can afford. If they can't pass emissions they could lose their car and lose transportation to a job.

The whole thing is just dumb.

Old cars that pollute naturally die off at a certain point and are replaced by newer more 'green' vehicles. Why not just let this process happen naturally instead of making people deal with these emissions testing laws?

Emissions testing is a con. It is a tax on the middle class and poor under the false promise of helping the environment.

***End soapbox speech***

 

That's Great!!

So much for your being "screwed!"
(';')

 

Alex:


I'm with you. Great speech. I wonder if our lib legislators that claim to be looking out for the interests of the poor and middle class might pay some attention?


Naah, they are at cross purposes. On one hand hard preaching for all electric cars and others with great miles per gallon.


Oh, oh, revenue from the gas taxes are way down. Even if the highest or among the highest in the nation. Oh, did we? Neglected roads and bridges and spent transportation money elsewhere. Bullett train, anyone..


Classic lib Legislature fix. Raise the gad tax. Super registration fee for electric cars. Higher vehicle registration fees for all!! That wasn't hard??


OH, me even if the Libs have a super majority, they fall short of the 23 needed to tax. Polling the public shows strong opposition. "use what you have more efficiently". Gee, what a unique concept.
.


Ron. You just increased my creeping yearning for home. And the HGTV show of Chip and Joanna Gaines work in Waco makes it more so.


In the early 1800's, here was a saying. "GTT". Gone to Texas. A personal escape for many from personal issues.


Carl


Crl

 

A few very brief remarks. I don't have the strength at the moment for a big ol' hairy socio-political debate

I'm old enough to remember "the old days". I lived in Los Angeles from the 60s to the 90s and was therefore able to witness the huge improvement in air quality over the decades. Of course, emissions testing alone is not the sole reason for this, but, still, there's no getting around the fact that cleaner cars = cleaner air. It isn't a false hope. And there has to be 'some' method of testing to determine if a car is dirty. If you want to change *anything* (dirty exhaust into cleaner exhaust, in this case) there obviously has to be method of measurement and some method of ensuring compliance. So I have no problem at all with the *concept* of emissions tests. ** 'Tis the method of execution that rankles. **

Yes, the testing requires a fee be paid and thus can be considered a form a taxation....as can any other fee. There's no dispute on that.

I'm by no means insensitive to the plight of lower income people. Far from it. Every emissions certification program I'm aware of (not that I'm fully versed on all of them, mind you!) has waiver and hardship exemptions for low income car owners. Not a panacea, but it's something. How far we go to help and accommodate those on the lower rungs is a highly complicated and contentious issue. I don't feel like 'going there' at the moment

It's all highly imperfect, I agree. But at the end of the day "we", rich or poor or in the middle, can't have it both ways. We all enjoy cleaner air, but we can't enjoy cleaner air while simultaneously ignoring dirty cars.

I'll leave it at that. I may have already said too much....and for that I apologize. These sorts of conversations can go off-the-rails very easily. Let's all make sure that we stay friends !

Cheers
DD

 

I sure don't want to get so argumentive, so as to alienate folks here.


Indeed, I lived and worked in the LA Basin from circa 63 to 75. As Doug says, those early years were "dirty". Many tales about them, that I could relate.


And the abatement efforts, cars a definite part, did much good.


But, the really dirty cars are gone or seldom on the road. So, is the SMOG program for cars behind the times, I think so.


Passat to fix and bills to pay, yuk!!! The former makes Jaguar fixing a cake walk.


Carl

 

A *very* good point, Carl, and I agree. Behind the times. Inability and/or unwillingness to review, revamp, and streamline regulatory process is a very real problem, loaded with many conflicts of interest.

Cheers
DD

 

First I agree these threads can go sideways easily. I don't think I've ever seen a forum thread and thought:

"Wow, things were really getting off track, I'm sure glad we started talking politics to smooth things out!"

I shouldn't have even mentioned my frustration at emissions testing this really isn't the place for that.

Saying all that I get that there has been good that has come from emissions testing I just feel that it may have gone a little to far where it could be hurting people as much as helping.

Of course I could be wrong. As much as I like to think i'm the most intelligent and logical person in the room my wife is more than willing to remind me that isn't the case

 

Ha! Ain't that the truth !



Well, that's a valid observation applicable to a great many regulatory programs.

Any process/regulation/program needs constant review to A) make sure it does what it was intended to do and B) doesn't do more harm than good. That applies in business, government, education......even raising kids, and personal life/philosophy.



That's a universal situation


Cheers
DD

 

It's good to see that you guys understand how it really is.
(';')

 

That's what Wives do.

 

In Ca. new cars don't have to be compliance tested for ten years. My '07 truck and Mustang are going up for the first time. Realistically, twenty to thirty years old cars are often owned by hobbyists. I've got no mercy for gross polluters. When I've owned cars that were too old to be tested it wasn't that I wanted to pollute, it was that it was easier to rebuild a car that didn't have a compliance deadline getting in the way.

I've had my '89 XJS for over a year. Due to mechanical problems I haven't had the chance to complete the transfer of ownership because I haven't completed the smog check. I've paid over five hundred bucks in past due and current registration fees, since I bought the car last year. Hopefully my just completed transmission swap will be successful and my next hurdle will be completing the smog test. I knew all this going in, but the car was a good deal, actually it was dirt cheap! However when I bought my X300 I insisted on a currently registered, just smogged example. A lot less stress and work. Do your research and make your own decision.