Jim, in Cali if you put a newer engine in a non smog car, by law you ARE supposed to TECHNICALLY have the newer engine's smog controls. If you put a 4.6L out of a 2007 Mustang GT in a 67 Mustang, legally you're supposed to have all the smog equipment of a 2007 Mustang GT, BUT, since you never get inspected, it's a moot point(a non enforcable law really). The way to get around it though, is that since the law requires the smog equipment of a production engine swap(junkyard donor motor) you just get the late model engine block and some parts, but rebuild it with different stuff and it's not a production engine any more, and was therefore not offered in any vehicle with any smog equipment.

In reality you can basically do anything you want within reason to a non smog car and they don't care.

As far as reducing the emissions from our older cars, forget cats and air pump crap, the best and easiest way is to just do an EFI conversion, like Edelbrock's Pro Flo EFI, or another standalone(FAST etc)or a factory type setup. Not that carbs are bad either, but EFI is cleaner for those who care.

 

I think I pretty much said the 'quirk' in the law required the newer smog limits o engine swaps. To tell you the truth, nobody cares. I don't. My cars all conform to the limits of the year of manufacture anyway. When I was required to pass the test, I passed. The cars ran great then and still do. What the 'greenies' are after are the cars from the 80's and early 90's that were the worst at making smog. The state offers a $10,000 pollution credit to major polluters to remove a car from the street and destroy it. It's a government created joke that makes the 'greenies' happy, the crooked politicians in office and gives protection to big business. Nuff said.
Jim

 

There is no possible way that our elected officials are playing politics with our enviornment!! No way!!!!!!!! they would not do that Jim, it is simply way too important a subject to be playing games with.



















Just kidding,,,,,all the way around,,

 

I would think that floor pan would get hot enough to fry an egg under the carpet with a catalytic converter under there and not be hooked up to the computer that controls it. I sure wouldn't take that car out in a dry grassy field.

 

A few quick things to consider regarding emmisions and their impact on the environment:

1. The largest user/consumer of petroleum fuel in the world is the US military... by far. If the US was really serious about curtailing emmisions, the place to start would be with the largest consumer. But they are increasing their consumption, not decreasing it - it is disingenous for our leaders of any stripe to tell us to cut back when they are the largest offenders.

2. Check out this website for a "dust to dust" comparison of recent automobile impacts on the environment and you will think twice before buying the hype about "hybrids" being environmentally friendly - http://www.nvo.com/cnwmr/ In fact, careful reasoning will lead you to realize that restoring and daily driving even less fuel efficient cars is better for the environment than the "dust to dust" production of new fuel efficient cars! In essence, all classic mustang drivers are recycling!!!

3. Greater than 95% of climate scientists think Global warming is real. Many of the other scientists I have heard calling it "bunk" are usually supported financially by think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.... which is supported by Exxon. When examining the quality of advice, just as in these forums, one must consider the source.

There is some great advice on these forums - lets keep it going.

 

You third statement is totally incorrect. 'Global Warming' was the 'mantra' of these so-called climate scientists for the past thirty years, right after they predicted 'Global Cooling'. When the truth came out that they in fact were not climatologists but were nothing more than 'concerned' people in the quasi-science world with a political agenda, more published matter has come to light. So the 'kooks', and that's what they are - 'kooks', came up with a new buzz word - climate change. Well they got the name right but the reasons wrong. People - that's you and me, have little to do with 'climate change'. We live around a variable star, a star that has in the past, had changes in it's radiation. Ever wonder why Greenland got it's name? If you want to read some interesting facts, try this for some 'lite' reading - 'Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years' by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.
Jim

 

I was looking into putting a V8 in one of my trucks a few years ago and since it is a 91 I fall into the emision garbage. While talking to one of the guys at the emision station he told me that if I put in a V8 and didn't pass that I would have to take it to a mechanic and as long as I spent 150 dollars and made an attempt to pass that they would give me a waiver.

 

Not necessarily. The floor in my '79 Malibu has never got worse than slightly warm, regardless of what engine/intake/carburetion/distributor timing&advance was in use at the time. As long as it wasn't running excessively rich for too long. Right now, there's about 2.5: clearance between the upper side cat heat shield and the floor.

But in an early Mustang you'd be in for some floorpan surgery, just as GM had to rework the floorpan on the passenger side for precisely that reason. You'll need about 10" ground clearance to the floor - 1" heat shield to floor, 3.5" overall cat thickness, 5" ground clearance under the cat).

Miscellaneous semi-related ramblings dep't - I don't think I'd drive a car with headers on a dry grassy field either, but anyway . . . and I wish I could find the emissions report from when the '66 last ran through NJ inspection so I'd know how much 'headroom' was left. It wasn't really stock for either the car year, the engine year, any combination of or anything in between, but it passed OK.

Norm

 

Unfortunately, the rolling 30 years is kaput per the stroke of Arnie's pen a few years ago. The DMV summarizes everything on their website. http://dmv.ca.gov/vr/smogfaq.htm#BM2535 Two things that really frost my *** are that they don't require smog checks on vehicles for the first six years (makes sense statistically that a new car performs as certified) yet they make you pay a 'smog abatement fee' :cough: pork :cough: and that natural gas passenger vehicles are tested yet hybrids aren't.[:@] Perhaps I'm biased, having owned a CNG vehicle, but any vehicle running on natural gas makes a hybrid look like a gross polluter.

I don't know if any of you guys ever brought an out of state vehicle into CA, but they used to charge you a 'smog impact fee' of about $300. They had to eat crow when it was found to be illegal and had to provide refunds, yours truly being one of the recipients.

Just did a search and found the info on the repeal of the smog exemption, California AB 2683,introduced by an assemblywoman from Mountain View, passed by the assembly and signed by Arnie. Not surprisingly, the Sierra Club lists it on their website. http://www.sierraclubcalifornia.org/...ndex2004.shtml

[edit] If somebody is hellbent on adding cats, be sure to also install the insulated shield between the cat and the floorboard.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only average person to understand this. It's also the same reason that Mars is currently experiencing global warming and ice cap melting to the same degree as Earth. I'm pretty sure it's not the HC and CO emissions from the local Martian industrial machine.

On a side note I saw a report on Fox recently, a guy has started a website dealing with the several thousand temperature monitoring stations throughout the US that NOAA uses to record national climate changes, and not only is nearly every station not in compliance with the NOAA placement standards, but nearly all of them have their temperature sensors placed close to some sort of heat producer(tennis court surfaces, a/c vents, inudstrial machninery, exhaust vents, buildings etc etc). His purpose isn't to show there's no global warming, because even he thinks there is, but to show that the temperature changes we're experiencing are actually stated to be higher than they are due to the failure to comply with the NOAA standard for temperature monitering station placement.