CA: New criminal cases filed

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by vanoochka

They didn't require a smog test, and my California registration and title note that it is a 1965 model year.

Is that what you are asking?

From my observations, this is very typical of the DMV. In this case, CA issued a CA Title & Registration for Van's 1965 Ford as a "1965 Ford", since Van's provided the DMV with 1) Current out-of-state title/registration and 2) Bill of Sale. With those two docs, the CA DMV issued him title/registration.

Interesting that the DMV had to do a little work on the VIN, but other than that, what the DMV did is as expected - they didn't question the model year or make. And based upon the model year (1965), it is smog exempt.

Again, the DMV has done this before with out-of-state purchases, and I'm sure they will continue to do so. And Van didn't know any different, until he began posting on this site a few weeks ago. I can't image how many other replicas (Cobra or otherwise) have model years from out-of-state like Van's (or from an out-of-state title service), where the owner has no clue. In fact, I can only imagine that the owners believe that their replica is smog exempt, and actually see the pre-1974 model year as an "added value".

[RodKnock]

Randy, you see this quite often on the local Craiglist, where the seller advertises their Cobra as smog exempt because it has a 1965 model year on the registration. You give them a call and ask them about whether the car has gone through the SPCNS process and received an SB100 #. Of course, the claimed ignorance, so I would roll my eyes and move on thinking of the work needed to register the car, uh, which I'm now starting on my own car.

[Chaplin]

Originally Posted by vanoochka

They didn't require a smog test, and my California registration and title note that it is a 1965 model year.

Is that what you are asking?

If the car was legally titled in another state as a 1965, then, according to CA's own statute as quoted by the good Morgester, then that should be the right answer, regardless of whether the CA DMV got there accidentally! Whether it remains to be the case, only time will tell.

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Randy, you see this quite often on the local Craiglist, where the seller advertises their Cobra as smog exempt because it has a 1965 model year on the registration. You give them a call and ask them about whether the car has gone through the SPCNS process and received an SB100 #. Of course, the claimed ignorance, so I would roll my eyes and move on thinking of the work needed to register the car, uh, which I'm now starting on my own car.

Agreed, however many of these sellers are truly unaware of how CA wants these car titled, so they view a 1965 model year as a value-add, being smog exempt. I sure many have no clue about SPCN and SB100. I was clueless many years ago, too! (Heck, some say I'm still clueless , but that's another matter).

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by Chaplin

If the car was legally titled in another state as a 1965, then, according to CA's own statute as quoted by the good Morgester, then that should be the right answer, regardless of whether the CA DMV got there accidentally! Whether it remains to be the case, only time will tell.

This is one facet, and maybe someday the DMV will "get back to" Morgester on this.

The twist is that if I build a Cobra in CA, then CA will want me to title it as SPCN and get an SB100 Sequence number, 'cause my motor is not 2007 smog compliant. So, why should I not have my cousin in Kansas or Ill or AZ title it for me in their state as a "1965 Cobra/Ford/Superformance/whatever", then sell me my car back, so I can title in CA as a "1965 Cobra/Ford/Superformance/whatever"? This way, I don't have to worry about getting one of 500 Sequence Numbers, and I'll be smog exempt forever. Sure I will have to pay taxes at the DMV - I'm not trying to avoid my tax responsibility.

Some might call this "title washing", but the paper trail is the same, as if I bought an out-of-state car...right?

How about if I just set up a small INC or LLC in Nevada or buy a vacation home, title my Cobra there as an 1965 Cobra, then transfer the title to my home on CA???

By accepting the "1965" title from another state, it opens a large number of legal ways to get around the SPNC/SB100 circus, and this is probably why the DMV has not "gotten back" to Morgester on this.

In a nutshell, this is exactly the service the TU was providing, which is why it was not uncommon to use an out-of-state titling service to acquire a "smog exempt" 1965 title for a Cobra replica.

[mr bruce]

Once a car recieves a VIN number it is that cars number for life (entered into the FEDERAL database) Some one with deep pockets will have to fight CalDot on this, using the reasoning of the permanent VIN number. The California emmission standards opens up another issue. Maybe they will just ban ALL kit/streetrod/ pre(insert year) cars.

[Excaliber]

The VIN number is not gaurenteed for life by every state, as the example of my ERA shows. It HAD a Calif vin, replaced by a Hawaii vin! Another guy here HAD an Arizona vin, replaced by a Hawaii vin.

[MaSnaka]

This does in fact sound like a loophole in titling an out of state car. And doesn't this bring us full circle back to why the SB100 was started in the first place. To weed out the smog exemptions? So then why is California tracking down these 1965 titled replicas as being fraudulent?

When I was shopping for my Cobra I saw one of these 1965 registered replicas (17 digit vin)and was also shown a bill for insurance on the same car for a rediculously low anual amount (approx $200/yr). The car was appraised at near 50K. This all seemed very legit at the time (2004).

Even with my A plus multi vehicle policy I pay more than triple that amount for a considerable lower valued Cobra titled 1997 with the SB100 number.

I know this is a regitration issue but the way it's registered and titled does affect the cost of insurance. I would prefer the 1965 title for this reason alone. It's way cheaper every 6 months.

I'm curious if there is any discussion regarding this issue?

Thanks,
John

[MaSnaka]

And I had a Nevada VIN replaced with a California VIN.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by MaSnaka

And I had a Nevada VIN replaced with a California VIN.

Add a Texas VIN replaced with a California VIN.

[Excaliber]

Well so much for a Vin being a 'Federal' thing. States Rule!

[Trueoo7]

Just found this posted on AOL tonight under "What DMV Won't Tell You"

3. "When it comes to car theft, we're part of the problem."
There's another way criminals take advantage of flimsy DMV car records: "VIN cloning," a kind of vehicle laundering. A stolen car's vehicle-identification number is switched with that of a junked car, and a clean title is obtained from the DMV. To combat this practice, the 1992 Anti-Car Theft Act authorized the creation of a database, known as the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, which allows state DMVs to verify a car's title, theft and damage history before issuing a new title. But 15 years later only 30 states belong to the network, and those that don't, including California and Illinois, are havens for car thieves and chop shops. "Until all 50 states participate, the system is full of holes," says Rosemary Shahan, of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a nonprofit consumer-advocacy group.

[JohnWorthing848]

As long as registration and title regulations are different from state to state these problems will continue. My SPF #848 is registered as a first time 2004 Specially Constructed Vehicle in California under SB100. If I move to AZ are they going to ask me to smog it as a 2004 model? Good question huh! If states are supposed to respect the chain of registration .... RIGHT!

I just took delivery of a 2008 Denali XL from a dealer client of mine in NV. I am required to get a smog certificate on the vehicle, yes, actuallty take the brand new 2008 vehicle to a smog station and have a physical inspection to make sure I did not alter the smog system on the way to CA from NV. I have done this several times over the years, bit of an inconvenience but no big deal.

What this does is insure that a citizen who is asking the state to title and register a vehicle is doing so correctly. This hopefully insures the integrity of the proccess. When I look at a car for sale and the owner shows me a title and reg I want to know that it is accurate.

Our cars are kit cars, manufactured replica's, home built in some cases. They will never ever be on an equal footing with a manufactured vehicle. To try and draw comparisons to federal vin laws and such is silly. This has become a symantic circle jerk for some of you. I don't give a damn what your state says your car is, it is what it is. Do the best you can where you live.


Our situation in CA is what it is.. If the SB100 limit is not increased and you don't get a number you will be forced to have your cars pass smog or sell them.

Sad but true!

[vanoochka]

I'm wondering, if California replaced Nevada and Texas VINs with California VINs, why did they not replace my Arizona VIN with a California VIN? The supervisor was pretty clear on what he thought the correct procedure was - which was to use the Arizona VIN.

Any thoughts?

[Excaliber]

Could be like the inspector I went to here. The guy actually hesitated while pondering WHICH Vin to use! Heck, he might as well have flipped a coin. Perhaps the next guy along got the Calif (Texas, Nevada, AZ) vin. Others have simply gone to the local DMV here and registered as a 1965 Ford Cobra straight up, no inspection, no SPCN designation, nothing, just change out the title and drive on. Seems to be a roll of the dice and is dependant on the person doing it at that time, even in California.

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by JohnWorthing848

What this does is insure that a citizen who is asking the state to title and register a vehicle is doing so correctly.

That process, alone, implies that everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.....not quite how the founding fathers envisioned it. It is, for me, a Constitutional issue and NO rationalizing will alter that. This is not the only case like it, there are many in other areas besides the Cobra world. The only way to stop the progression to tyranny is resist it at all venues.
We have had several inquiries from people in Ca. about our Coupe, the 1965 listing (as required here) automaticly puts a cease to the discussion.
The states that have accepted the titling process Illinois uses, and the numbers are growing, require the car be titled as the year it represents as well as the manufacturers name. So a Deuce, that has a "Rod Bods" body would be a "1932 Rod Bods Ford roadster". I see no deception. Cars that are not replicas are covered in the second paragraph of registration form.
The fact that these cars are so few in comparison to the major numbers of general vehicles, and travel considerably less than most everyday transportation illustrates, to me, an over use of govt.(read;yours and mine) funds in an area that will have little effect on the real issues that Ca. and the nation need to address.

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by Woodz428

...We have had several inquiries from people in Ca. about our Coupe, the 1965 listing (as required here) automaticly puts a cease to the discussion.
The states that have accepted the titling process Illinois uses, and the numbers are growing, require the car be titled as the year it represents as well as the manufacturers name. So a Deuce, that has a "Rod Bods" body would be a "1932 Rod Bods Ford roadster". I see no deception. Cars that are not replicas are covered in the second paragraph of registration form...

SEMA did a great job on lobbying in Illinois for this change - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=60246

Read more about what SEMA has done has done recently in Florida - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62294

...Importantly, kit cars and replica vehicles will be assigned a certificate of title bearing the same model-year designation as the production vehicle they most closely resemble.

Florida joins Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington as states that have enacted similar bills into law...

...In addition, the measure exempts street rods and customs from a range of standard equipment requirements and emissions controls (only that equipment required in the model year that the vehicle resembles)...

I wish that they would do that here in CA!

Here's a link the latest that SEMA has done in CA - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=61557 - read it carefully, as this is the very same "smog by year of block" that Morgester is leading us to believe will be ending soon.

Originally Posted by Morgester

Note BAR will be changing the process shortly. Outside the SB100 process they will no longer test to the year of the block. They will instead test to the year of build. This means that you must meet 2007 standards if you do not have SB100.

Additionally, I've never heard anyone acquire successful smog exemption (or smog every two years) to the year of the block, when a "crate replacement" block is used.

In the second case, for specially constructed vehicles without a Senate Bill 100 sequence number, the only emissions controls required are those used when the engine was originally manufactured. For example, a Cobra kit-car using a 1968 351C Ford V8 would require all emissions equipment originally required for that model year engine. A dune buggy upgraded with a '91 L79 TPI GM V8 would require all emissions equipment used on that engine. More generally, if a configuration precedes 1966, no exhaust emissions controls would be required. If the configuration precedes 1961, no PCV system would be required. If a range of model years applies to any particular engine configuration, vehicle owners will have the option to select the model year of emissions controls to be used. Further, according to the BAR, new and rebuilt "crate" engines fall into this "range of model years" category. As an example in this category, the use of a Chevrolet 5.7L ZZ4 V8 engine in a replica of a '32 Ford roadster would require emissions equipment used found on the first 5.7L engines used in '67. Finally, and in some instances, vehicle owners may be required to provide engine information to aid in the identification and inspection process.

SEMA has a good track record for their work in other states - they need to focus on CA in order for us to see any changes.

[RodKnock]

I've been curious about this topic for a while. If someone were to buy a Pond or Genesis block which have C5 casting stamps, with the present laws, could someone pass smog certification with the 1965 rules, at least for the time being? Of course, this assumes that the rest of the engine would be smog legal for 1965 as well. If this hypothetical engine were to pass and the law is changed subsequently to remove the year of engine rule, then would this engine and car be grandfathered under the old law?

[Morgester]

Let me share with you why I am interested.

1. Why is there a problem?

This of course relates to using out-of-state title services to register what should be a special constructed vehicle (SPCN) as a specific model year vehicle. Based upon my interviews with car owners most of these custom-car owners were under the impression that out-of-state titles are "the way it's done" in California. (See http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/.../article_281652 ) This mindset was not helped by the lack of published guidelines showing what the process was for dealing with the emission issues for a SPCN.

2. AB 619

To deal with the estimated 70,000 vehicles that have fraudulent registration and to recover an estimated $230,000,000 in loss tax revenue there is proposed amnesty legislation to allow the correction of registration information, to bring these cars back into compliance with emission requirements, and to recover lost fees, taxes and penalties.

At the time amnesty was proposed we were informed by BAR that emission tests for SPCN's were either based upon the year of the engine or upon a SB 100 exception (500 per year). Although we knew that not all fraudulently registered SPCN could meet these requirements, we felt that the standards were reasonable enough that we would get the majority of these vehicles to self correct.

3. New BAR rules

We received further clarification on California emission standards as it relates to SPCN that do not have a SB100 exemption. BAR's will be shortly begin to comply to with existing law which requires SPCN to meet the emission requirements of the year that they are first registered in. If you do not have a SB100 exemption and your vehicle is first registered in 2007, you will be required to meet 2007 emission standards.

BAR's previous policy of testing to the year the engine replicates was at odds with Vehicle Code § 4750.1 (effective Jan. 1, 2003). This section states in part:

"the vehicle shall be assigned the same model-year as the calendar year in which the application is submitted, for purposes of determining emissions control equipment and inspection requirements for the vehicle."

With reference to those vehicles that were passed by BAR under the old standard, it appears that BAR will "grandfather" those vehicles in. So the standard that you had to pass to get your vehicle registered will continue to apply to that vehicle.

BAR will begin to implement that standards outlined in Vehicle Code § 4750.1 once DMV begins assigning a "model-year" to SPCN. DMV is aware of this requirement.

The net effect is that SPCN registrations will be limited to 500 vehicles per year (hot rods / kit cars). I do not anticipate any SPCN vehicles meeting 2007 or latter emission requirements.

4. Impact of new BAR rules

BAR reports having tested over 400 SPCN SB 100 exempt vehicles in the last year. They also tested over 300 SPCN that were outside of the SB100 program. On our end we are still seeing the fraudulent registration of vehicle via false title documents, as well as the "legal" registration of SPCN using valid out-of-state title. I would estimate that these account for at least 200 vehicles per year. Total SPCN currently introduced into California per year would be around 1,000. This number will increase.

With the new 500 limit we anticipate a number of registration schemes to be used to allow these vehicles to be driven in California.

5. A legal registration scheme - foreign certificates of title

Presently there are a lot of "ifs" in this response. Both BAR and DMV will have the final word on how this will be interpreted.

Numerous states have replica registration laws that allow SPCN to be titled per the year the body replicates. A 2007 SPCN Cobra kit car would be titled as a 1965 Ford. These states place mileage restriction or other emission restriction on the vehicle.

Assuming a California resident legally registers their SPCN in one of these states, they would be granted a title document describing their vehicle as a 1965 Ford. Vehicle Code § 4304 requires DMV to grant "full faith and credit to the currently valid certificate of title describing the vehicle." Thus it would appear that DMV is required to register this vehicle as a 1965 Ford.

The next question is what impact, if any, does this have on SPCN emission requirements? One view point is that since Vehicle Code § 4750.1 requires that emission testing be done by a "model year" that DMV assigns, and in that DMV is required to accept the vehicle as a 1965, that emission standards will be set at 1965.

Regardless of ones stance on emission requirements for SPCN vehicles, Vehicle Code § 4305 raises some very unique and interesting problems by its possible unintended consequences.

6. Dealing with this mess.

Currently AB 619 has been placed on suspense in light of the new BAR rules. Amnesty will not be an effective tool if there is no perception that the owner may legally drive the vehicle.

Vehicle Code § 4304 creates a potential legal loop hole that will allow SPCN to be brought into California outside State emission requirements. Based upon registration issues currently present in the RV industry, I anticipate registration services to provide vehicle delivery and appropriate title documents in SPCN friendly states. These documents would then allow the vehicle to be registered in California outside of existing emission requirements. I would also anticipate that the industry that currently supports SPCN construction to relocate to these states.

To encourage self correction and to maintain current California emission requirements, SPCN emission standards, including SB100 exemptions should be re-examined. Any proposed changed to SPCN emission testing must be tied to closing the Vehicle Code § 4304 title loophole.

Which leads me to my question, what is DMV doing with out-of-state SPCN emissions? All of this has been in play, it is just figuring out what is happening at ground level that is challenging.

[RodKnock]

Well, that answers my question above. Thank you.