California Guys! Need some advice.
11-17-2012, 09:03 AM
#1
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 99
California Guys! Need some advice.
I am comtemplating a move back home to So Cal in a year or so. Both my '06 Mustang and 2000 F150 are stock mechanically (except V6 brake upgrade on the Mustang). Has anyone gone through the process of having a non-California car registered in California? Over the years, I have dialed both in to exactly what I want; I don't want to buy new.
I read online you need a smog test and have to have it inspected by the CHP (or someone). Just how picky are they on the inspection and are there any pitfalls they are not mentioning?
I read online you need a smog test and have to have it inspected by the CHP (or someone). Just how picky are they on the inspection and are there any pitfalls they are not mentioning?
11-17-2012, 10:07 AM
#2
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 874
I just did a smog test and VIN inspection here. I have an intake, tune, and catback exhaust. Passed everything with flying colors. If you're stock mechanically you'll be fine.
Edit: I am registering my car in Oregon though. California exhaust laws and fees are absurd. The military forced me to live here, I would never do it of my own free will.
Edit: I am registering my car in Oregon though. California exhaust laws and fees are absurd. The military forced me to live here, I would never do it of my own free will.
11-17-2012, 05:41 PM
#3
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,670
There is a lot of info on CA's DMV web site: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/newvehicle.htm. You can even make an appointment online to do most things so you don't have to wait in never ending DMV lines.
I've got a mildly modified Dodge Durango and it passes SMOG without issues. They are mostly concerned with emissions and that you don't have any Check Engine Light codes. So if your CEL isn't on and you haven't deleted your CAT(s) you should be fine.
I've got a mildly modified Dodge Durango and it passes SMOG without issues. They are mostly concerned with emissions and that you don't have any Check Engine Light codes. So if your CEL isn't on and you haven't deleted your CAT(s) you should be fine.
11-18-2012, 09:44 AM
#5
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 99
Thanks, guys. I appreciate your input. I am not worried about passing, but I was just curious. I worked with a guy in the '80s who bought an Arizona car and after finding out what was involved to get it California compliant, resold it in Arizona.
11-18-2012, 01:09 PM
#6
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Clinton, Tennessee
Posts: 761
Truthfully as long as the Exhaust still has the cats and all the emission crap is still there I would not worry about it to much.
Ex-Californian living in Tennessee
11-18-2012, 01:15 PM
#7
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 187
I believe you have to get your car smogged to be registered in California, I don't remember any inspections by CHP when moving here a few years back with out of state car.
I have aftermarket Intake, Headers, X-Pipe, and Mufflers on my car, and they passed Smog with flying colors.
As long as you have cats, you should be fine.
I have aftermarket Intake, Headers, X-Pipe, and Mufflers on my car, and they passed Smog with flying colors.
As long as you have cats, you should be fine.
11-18-2012, 02:17 PM
#8
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 224
Moving TO California is one of the silly moves.
You may not be aware that the Democrats have finally gotten their supermajority in this state. That means they have the ability to raise taxes for whatever, whenever.
They are already talking about tripling the car registration. Next year it'll cost me 1200 bucks to get a year sticker on my plates. I'd rethink that move.
You may not be aware that the Democrats have finally gotten their supermajority in this state. That means they have the ability to raise taxes for whatever, whenever.
They are already talking about tripling the car registration. Next year it'll cost me 1200 bucks to get a year sticker on my plates. I'd rethink that move.
11-18-2012, 04:34 PM
#9
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 187
Proposed, but unlikely. They just can't raise taxes for whatever, whenever, they still have to put it to a vote.
Touted as a test of the new Democratic supermajority in Sacramento, South Bay state Sen. Ted Lieu plans to introduce a measure to triple vehicle license fees.
The constitutional amendment would restore the 2 percent vehicle license fee slashed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after he won office partly on that pledge.
The 1.35 percent transportation system user fee increase would generate an estimated $3.5 billion to $4 billion annually for roads and public transit in yet-to-be-decided proportions, Lieu said.
Buoyed by the Democratic supermajority achieved just last week, Lieu, D-Redondo Beach, plans to introduce the legislation in either December or January. He envisions the Legislature will approve the amendment and place it before voters in November 2014.
"It would be a test to see what the two-thirds (majority) Legislature means," Lieu told the editorial board of the Los Angeles News Group. "The best way for us to lose the supermajority is to overreach.
"I'm not saying it would be an easy sell," he added of the proposal. "I'm aware of the fact I may be attacked for it."
Lieu's name will be on the same ballot, although his real election battle likely will be in the June 2014 primary.
Vehicle license fees currently stand at 0.65 percent of a vehicle's value, so the increase would round that up to an even 2 percent.
Lieu said that means someone who paid $50 in vehicle license fees today would pay $150 if
Advertisement
the amendment is approved by voters.
Ed Costantini, professor emeritus of political science at the University of California, Davis, said the Democratic strategy of sending the legislation to voters rather than voting for it directly appears designed to blunt criticism of the supermajority's power to raise taxes unilaterally.
"It kind of protects them because they haven't imposed anything and they can certainly wrap themselves with the mantle of democracy," Costantini said. "It also seems consistent with the pledge by the governor that any tax increases would be subject to popular vote."
Lieu's proposal was hatched by Transportation California, an industry group that includes construction companies and labor unions.
While Lieu has contemplated the idea for some time, he said Gov. Jerry Brown's administration asked him to hold off on the proposal while Proposition 30 was before voters. That measure, including increases in the sales tax and income tax for high-end earners, was approved last week.
The lobbying group has proposed several taxing mechanisms to pay for more roads.
The vehicle license fee increase is the most palatable to potential voters who have provided feedback in focus groups, said Executive Director Bert Sandman.
"Everyone realizes we need to improve our infrastructure, so the debate is really how do we go about doing this," he said. "The feeling is (raising) vehicle license fees are a more fair way of doing this than raising the gas tax because it's a regressive tax, not a progressive tax."
That's because buyers of more expensive cars would pay higher vehicle license fees under the proposal.
The idea is to backfill revenue lost from the sunset of Proposition 1B, passed by voters in 2006, Sandman said.
Transportation California estimates there is a $5.4 billion shortfall to upgrade state highways.
The constitutional amendment is seen as a more permanent solution - and source of money - than the temporary nature of Proposition 1B.
The vehicle license fee would drop for the first 11 years, so motorists would pay less each year as the value of their vehicle diminishes.
Transportation California estimates the vehicle fee increase would create about 18,000 new construction-related jobs.
Lieu said he would not like to see any of the money go toward California's controversial bullet train proposal that critics have assailed as a waste of money.
The constitutional amendment would restore the 2 percent vehicle license fee slashed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after he won office partly on that pledge.
The 1.35 percent transportation system user fee increase would generate an estimated $3.5 billion to $4 billion annually for roads and public transit in yet-to-be-decided proportions, Lieu said.
Buoyed by the Democratic supermajority achieved just last week, Lieu, D-Redondo Beach, plans to introduce the legislation in either December or January. He envisions the Legislature will approve the amendment and place it before voters in November 2014.
"It would be a test to see what the two-thirds (majority) Legislature means," Lieu told the editorial board of the Los Angeles News Group. "The best way for us to lose the supermajority is to overreach.
"I'm not saying it would be an easy sell," he added of the proposal. "I'm aware of the fact I may be attacked for it."
Lieu's name will be on the same ballot, although his real election battle likely will be in the June 2014 primary.
Vehicle license fees currently stand at 0.65 percent of a vehicle's value, so the increase would round that up to an even 2 percent.
Lieu said that means someone who paid $50 in vehicle license fees today would pay $150 if
Advertisement
the amendment is approved by voters.
Ed Costantini, professor emeritus of political science at the University of California, Davis, said the Democratic strategy of sending the legislation to voters rather than voting for it directly appears designed to blunt criticism of the supermajority's power to raise taxes unilaterally.
"It kind of protects them because they haven't imposed anything and they can certainly wrap themselves with the mantle of democracy," Costantini said. "It also seems consistent with the pledge by the governor that any tax increases would be subject to popular vote."
Lieu's proposal was hatched by Transportation California, an industry group that includes construction companies and labor unions.
While Lieu has contemplated the idea for some time, he said Gov. Jerry Brown's administration asked him to hold off on the proposal while Proposition 30 was before voters. That measure, including increases in the sales tax and income tax for high-end earners, was approved last week.
The lobbying group has proposed several taxing mechanisms to pay for more roads.
The vehicle license fee increase is the most palatable to potential voters who have provided feedback in focus groups, said Executive Director Bert Sandman.
"Everyone realizes we need to improve our infrastructure, so the debate is really how do we go about doing this," he said. "The feeling is (raising) vehicle license fees are a more fair way of doing this than raising the gas tax because it's a regressive tax, not a progressive tax."
That's because buyers of more expensive cars would pay higher vehicle license fees under the proposal.
The idea is to backfill revenue lost from the sunset of Proposition 1B, passed by voters in 2006, Sandman said.
Transportation California estimates there is a $5.4 billion shortfall to upgrade state highways.
The constitutional amendment is seen as a more permanent solution - and source of money - than the temporary nature of Proposition 1B.
The vehicle license fee would drop for the first 11 years, so motorists would pay less each year as the value of their vehicle diminishes.
Transportation California estimates the vehicle fee increase would create about 18,000 new construction-related jobs.
Lieu said he would not like to see any of the money go toward California's controversial bullet train proposal that critics have assailed as a waste of money.
Last edited by SD 197; 11-18-2012 at 04:45 PM.
11-18-2012, 06:04 PM
#10
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 15
Getting back to cars:
When I brought in my '56 Triumph TR3 with a V8 conversion from AZ 10 years ago, I only had to take it to the DMV to verify the vin#. No CHP inspection. And because it was a 1956, no smog inspection was required either. 1975 and earlier are smog exempt in CA.
That thing smoked so bad, the DMV inspector stepped away and fanned her hand in front of her face trying to get some fresh air. But she didn't care about that, she checked the vin #, signed off on a form and returned to her stressed out overworked cubicle.
Smog can be a problem as in the past there have been 50 state smog legal cars, 49 state smog legal cars (not legal in CA) and CA only smog legal cars. You probably want to check your window sticker to see what emissions your car was built with. There are a lot of states that have adopted California's emission requirements so chances are you will be fine. Use this link, changing to your vin in the link to see what you've got:
http://services.forddirect.fordvehic...BP8CF4D5241486
When I brought in my '56 Triumph TR3 with a V8 conversion from AZ 10 years ago, I only had to take it to the DMV to verify the vin#. No CHP inspection. And because it was a 1956, no smog inspection was required either. 1975 and earlier are smog exempt in CA.
That thing smoked so bad, the DMV inspector stepped away and fanned her hand in front of her face trying to get some fresh air. But she didn't care about that, she checked the vin #, signed off on a form and returned to her stressed out overworked cubicle.
Smog can be a problem as in the past there have been 50 state smog legal cars, 49 state smog legal cars (not legal in CA) and CA only smog legal cars. You probably want to check your window sticker to see what emissions your car was built with. There are a lot of states that have adopted California's emission requirements so chances are you will be fine. Use this link, changing to your vin in the link to see what you've got:
http://services.forddirect.fordvehic...BP8CF4D5241486