Because California hates fun cars. It's almost impossible to tune or do anything interesting to modern cars in the state unless you have an address in a smog free county.
And if you grew up in the 70's and 80's in socal you know exactly why. I hope Leno is successful with this, hell, I'll donate but let's not act like CA smog laws just appeared for no good reason.
youre missing a lot of context. modern cars and EV's contribute far far far less to smog issues than oil burners and gas guzzlers from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. with most cars on the road being modern, i think allowing for some leeway on smog laws for enthusiasts would be perfectly okay
also im sure my turbo 4 cylinder nissan silvia produces a lot less emissions than a lot of cars that currently pass smog regulations but i cant register it in california because its an import and was never sold stateside so it doesn't meet CA's very strict smog regulations
No, I'm not missing context. I said "let's not act like CA smog laws just appeared for no good reason." Recess for school kids used to be canceled due to smog alerts.
CA is the reason new cars produce less pollution and is the largest EV market due to, yep you guessed it, CA-specific laws like EV incentives.
im not disagreeing with you, i just misinterpreted it. i just mean to say that californias smog laws are outdated with how good modern cars do on emissions
> i just mean to say that californias smog laws are outdated with how good modern cars do on emissions
They're not outdated at all. They say that cars can't emit more than what's allowed. But you have to prove it -- they're not going to just take your word for it.
i just want them to let me register my imported car without having to spend thousands to go through CARB certification. literally the only state in the union that has to go through this shit
This was Delaware when I was living there, had a Turbo LS swapped 1986 Monte Carlo and all they gave a shit about was that it had Cats, the charcoal canister they came with and if it could it burn clean at idle and 3k rpm. They didnt even care about PCV since that car didn't come with it. As long as a car from 1986 could pass the emission test for a 1986 vehicle. You could pass the test and go about your way and the test was at the FREE DMV inhoyse inspection line! SC is even better, air is so clean they don't do emissions for any vehicle!
I'd like to see a system where they sniffer your exhaust after the car is up to temp, and if you pass a threshold (smog threshold for passing from the year of your car's manufacture, or something) then you can register despite that. but you have to get tested to prove it passes.
That sort of criterion would miss a huge portion of the drive cycle. A car could be tuned to pass that test but still put out much more pollution under realistic driving conditions, cold start, etc.
I mean, you can move?
I get it, it sucks for you, but it's a completely ideologically consistent approach for a state that has had to deal with absolutely horrendous pollution. Your argument is basically "the rules suck for me, therefore they are bad laws", which is not a very convincing argument.
im not moving, i love it here
the amount of imported cars in california are so few compared to USDM vehicles. why cant they just let me register my car here? not to mention, the american version of my car, a 240SX, can be registered no problem. why do i have to spend thousands to register my car through CARB just because it has a different 4 cylinder in it? how do you not see how illogical that is?
> why cant they just let me register my car here?
Because it hasn't been proven to meet the emissions standards
> not to mention, the american version of my car, a 240SX, can be registered no problem. why do i have to spend thousands to register my car through CARB just because it has a different 4 cylinder in it?
Because Nissan specifically designed/tuned the 240sx to meet US (and California!) emissions standards, and then proved it via testing.
> how do you not see how illogical that is?
Don't you see how illogical it is to say "why is one 4-cylinder engine allowed but another isn't?"? As if all 4-cylinder engines are the same, are tuned the same, have the same emissions controls, and pollute the same amount. Think logically, not using wishful thinking.
"Because it hasn't been proven to meet the emissions standards
im saying the emissions standards need to CHANGE. there are so few imported cars here that that allowing them to be registered here without a ridiculous process would do absolutely nothing to harm air quality
do you know how convoluted the CARB registration process is for imports? they make you bring the car to CARB and pay thousands for emission equipment to be installed. its a process that can take over a year if you're unlucky
but i can register a gas guzzling, emissions spewing GMT400 truck as long as it meets their standards? id love to see a comparison of emissions from my "illegal" SR20DET compared to a legal iron block LS V8
> im saying the emissions standards need to CHANGE.
Why? Because you want them to? Seems like the emissions laws are doing exactly what they are intending, which is to prevent cars with unknown emissions performance from being driven in CA.
> do you know how convoluted the CARB registration process is for imports?
Yes. I was around the import scene during the whole MotoRex GT-R fiasco, so I have some familiarity (though 20 years old at this point) with the process.
> but i can register a gas guzzling, emissions spewing GMT800 truck as long as it meets their standards?
Yes, because that truck has been *proven to meet the laws that were in place at the time*. You can argue about whether those laws at the time were sensible, but you can't argue that there's some massive logical inconsistency in allowing a vehicle that met the standards to be registered while preventing an untested vehicle whose performance relative to the standards is unknown.
> id love to see a comparison of emissions from my "illegal" SR20DET compared to a legal iron block LS V8
So would I. Your SR might even be better! But there's no way to know without doing the full drive cycle testing program.
the motorex deal had nothing to do with californias regulations or even emissions at all. they were bypassing FEDERAL law by importing skylines before they met the 25 year rule. that rule wasnt even put into place because of emissions either, that was put into federal law because americans were buying new euro imports for cheaper than what you could get them for at dealers stateside
you just arent grasping at what im saying. there is no way to prove that my car meets any sort of emissions standards without spending thousands and potentially being away from my car for over a year. i am MANDATED to go through CARB certification to even have a chance at registering my car here.
There’s zero reason to roll back emissions from where we stand currently. I have over 1000 horsepower between my Camaro and my F-250 and both pass smog.
Well then we get into the overbearing nature of C.A.R.B... Im from CA originally but lived in DE for a decade and now SC. I have a LS swapped 86 Monte Carlo that's still port injected, has cats and has its charcoal canister. It is 10x cleaner than the old carbed 305 ever was and I passed with flying colors every year and I could even see the report of just how much I was passing the sniffer test with the LS. However I would be completely illegal in CA because I have a motor that didn't originally come with the car and have every emissions part number from that years motor. It's begs to question what is it all actually about? Because if it's really about clean air having a cleaner motor safely installed should be all that matters. I've ran 40k miles in this configuration that passes a sniffer for my car every year but not good enough for CA lol
> I have over 1000 horsepower between my Camaro and my F-250 and both pass smog.
Those are also fairly new vehicles and parts are readily available for them, both factory and aftermarket.
Older and less common vehicles have far fewer parts available, as fewer companies are willing to invest the money into getting CARB EO's for niche parts.
The camero is a very common car to mod so I bet it gets a lot of official support. So it’s pretty easy for companies to make carb compliant parts. If I wanted to toss in a turbo to any random car like mine, there’s no carb compliant parts so it would automatically fail smog. Which is sad from a fun standpoint and adding a turbo to an old 4 cylinder would have more positive effects then bad.
*Camaro
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's definitely a lot of room for making additional exceptions in the current laws. I'm hopeful Leno gets this bill passed, it would be a huge benefit to CA enthusiasts.
That was back when every car was a smog nightmare. Today I doubt the modern suv drivers (which is most cars these days) would care to mess with smog stuff in their modern car. Only car enthusiast and those who can barely afford an old beater would benefit.
>modern cars and EV's contribute far far far less to smog issues than oil burners and gas guzzlers from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. with most cars on the road being modern, i think allowing for some leeway on smog laws for enthusiasts would be perfectly okay
The moment you decat, remove EGR, and all the usual bullshit I see on tuner cars this is all objectively untrue. If anything modern GDI is worse in some ways like higher PM than old gas engines with throttle body or port injection.
>also im sure my turbo 4 cylinder nissan silvia produces a lot less emissions than a lot of cars that currently pass smog but i cant register it in california because its an import and was never sold stateside so it doesn't meet CARB's strict processes
It doesn't meet tier 1 emissions from the 90s without extra cats. Japan didn't revise their emissions standards for 30+ years until the late 90s which is why the Supra, FD RX7, and R34 GTR all convenient ended production in 2002 which was the last year before the new emissions laws were fully phased in.
That's just it.
We're now far enough removed from the worst of the problem, that people have not concept and cannot properly conceptualize how bad smog was.
Being able to breathe frees up lots of time to bitch, I guess.
>let's not act like CA smog laws just appeared for no good reason.
I don't think they were acting like smog laws have no purpose. They merely think they are too strict.
CARB has gone too far in the other direction though. I can't put a bigger turbo or airbox on my TT if I want to legally pass smog.
CARB needs to ease up a bit on their restrictions and think logically instead of turning CA into a pay to play state for only the wealthy.
And so many mods are CARB legal because that's where the bulk of the market is for car mods.
I went to APR's website and found several performance modifications that carry the CARB EO sticker for the OP's TT, including engine tunes and the "[airbox](https://www.goapr.com/products/engine_hardware/intake/intakes_and_airboxes/parts/CI100040)" OP claimed wasn't legal.
> CARB needs to ease up a bit on their restrictions and think logically
CARB does think logically. The logic is: "We want the air to be clean so we have emissions standards. The car manufacturer has proven that their vehicle meets these emissions standards via testing. If you want to modify your car, go ahead, you just have to prove that it also meets those same emissions standards via testing."
It's not "pay to play", there's just no way to prove it doesn't pollute more without doing the test, and full drive cycle emissions testing costs money.
Newer vehicles you cannot tune extensively now. Any vehicle made before 1976 smog exemption can be tuned to high power levels.
The one loophole in all that is SB100, but a specific classification for special built vehicles and personally made vehicles from scratch. Only in CA. I make a vehicle using SB100, I may not be able to transfer the title to other states because it's a special title class. It's only for those with deep pockets like being able to spend $90k or higher to build a one-off car for personal use. That's how much it may cost for someone to DIY their own car.
It's not that hard to modify cars in California. You just need to flash back to stock before taking it in for a smog check. A lot of cars even have CARB certified tunes if you want to keep things legal.
The smog was so thick in LA in the 70s that people famously wore gas masks around the city. Talk to old heads and they’ll tell stories about not being able to see 100 yards ahead of them on the worst days. I grew up with smog days where we couldn’t play outside.
> It's almost impossible to tune or do anything interesting to modern cars in the state unless you have an address in a smog free county.
this is so untrue. I live in downtown san francisco and my car is **BADASS.** probably the coolest, most highly modified car i've owned so far.
As someone in CA, I would be very pleased with this bill. I think it strikes a good middle ground between allowing people to freely drive classic cars and protecting the environment.
On the environmental side I would wager most people driving 35+ year old aren't doing so as their only means of transportation, and likely aren't putting a crazy number of miles on them each year.
But on the practical side, finding emissions compliant parts for 35+ year old cars is challenging, especially when many cars in that age range are still carbureted. Carburetors and cats don't always mix well.
And even if you wanted to do something like an EFI conversion, which unquestionably improves fuel economy and lowers emissions, many of those are not approved in CA because manufacturers don't want to pay to certify them.
All in all, I'm hoping for good things. There have been quite a few 1975-1990 cars that I've basically written off buying because I don't want to deal with emissions, but that I would like to own.
But also I can't help but be a little pessimistic, I know of one or two other bills like this one that have died previously.
That means I can actually register my 1988 CRX with JDM B18C5 swap. This car has been parked for YEARS because I have not been able to find a 1997 USDM B18C5 ECU, which I would need to get it through the ref.
This bill actually seems awful. They keep saying "Collectors Insurance" which means nothing at all. You can register a "Historical Vehicle" with the DMV, which does mean something... needs to be of a certain age and limited use, so no daily driving. I forget how they define it exactly.
If this bill only applied to cars registered as "Historic Vehicle" that'd make total sense.
But "Collectors Insurance" means nothing. Companies typically have additional requirements and whatnot for "Collectors Insurance" but they don't have to. No reason they can't offer "Collectors Insurance" for a car you daily drive.
So the: "[35 Year exception w/ Collectors Insurance]" really is just "[35 Year exception]".
It means that a 3rd party needs to recognize that you're not driving the car like 10-30k miles a year and will be willing to give you insurance for it. Collectors car insurance only covers cars that are willing to be taken care of. Its basically a licence that certifies your car to meet the requirements of being an enthusiast car.
Where is the legal requirement that collectors car insurance cannot be had for a daily driven car? Collectors insurance is defined by the insurance company, they impose those limits. There is no law saying what those limits must be.
Some of the non salt belt states are obviously different, but how many 35 year old cars could even be left? Is this even a problem? Seems like out of 1000 cars on the road, probably less than 5% are over even 25 years old.
>California (where this law is being proposed) has absolutely tons of 90's-vintage Toyotas and Hondas.
Proportional to the other cars on the road? It's got to be a statistically insignificant number if you exclude work trucks/vans.
But even if they aren’t, the number of them is SO small in proportion to the number of other vehicles. And let’s face it. It’s not like they’re making more of them.
Yep. Near you in southern Arizona and it's wild seeing 80s and 90s cars still running around as daily drivers. Tons of old single cab pickups and compact sedans.
80s Toyota pickups alone could probably be a statistically significant amount of vehicles on the road up here in NorCal. Of course, a fair amount probably are work trucks.
There are currently only about 600000 pre-1996 vehicles on the road in California. Considering that this represents ALL makes as well as cars from before 1990, you can’t really say there are TONS (even if reliable makes like Honda and Toyota are overrepresented in this number).
washington state doesn’t even have emissions anymore for this reason. just a waste of everyone’s time and money to check whatever few beater cars are left. like seriously, are any cars made in the last 15 years seriously contributing to poor emissions?
I lived in California up until a few months ago.
They're not very common, but not totally rare either. You'd see a handful of 80s and 90s cars around town each week.
And even if people DID daily drive their classic cars, these cars represent such a tiny fraction of cars on the road that emissions from them are insignificant.
Yeah, I daily a 69 Beetle.. cheap on gas and easy to fix.. and currently smog exempt and only requires regular insurance to be registered. This law I'm assuming will make daily driving currently exempt cars impossible due to the requirements of classic insurance.
There are tons of people who still daily 20 year old cars. I don't know what the half life of the early OBD2 cars is but 35 years feels a lot more practical than 20 for "classic" car status vs just "old car" status.
I'm okay with this law is it doesn't mess with the 1975 or older law that already exists.. I just don't have the money for a new car... and Iif it would require classic car insurance on the 1975 or older I wouldn't be able to use my car to get to and from work and because it's not garage kept I wouldn't even be able it register or insure it with classic insurance.
If anything I feel like this strikes well above the middle ground - I'd love to see it apply to anyone with collectors insurance or s&d given the likely mileage limits, these cars are impossible to daily drive and owners very rarely take them out.
Some combination of that & buying carbon credits or a tax funding alternative fueling, electrification, would be a very solid compromise I feel.
Look into where automotive emissions come from. Something like 90+% are from tampered, defeated or failing emissions equipment.
That said, the federal exemption is 35 years. I think it is still a reasonable thing to do. But people look at this and think "how bad could it be" when running a 2 stroke weed wacker for 30 minutes creates more emissions than driving a modern F150 from Texas to Alaska.
>when running a 2 stroke weed wacker for 30 minutes creates more emissions than driving a modern F150 from Texas to Alaska.
FYI CARB is also working to ban sales of new small engines for this reason. New gas mowers have actually been banned since 2024 along with other landscaping equipment. New generators are expected to have to be zero emissions as well starting in 2028. Gas furnaces and water heaters are going to be banned starting 2030.
California is finally getting serious about clamping down on air pollution now that battery equivalents are good enough. We will see whether this actually works out soon enough.
The difference in ease of use with an electric mower, trimmer, blower setup let alone the volume difference is insane.
Plus my greenworks 80v push mower is honestly a fucking animal compared to my previous Honda.
You must've had a cheap Honda then. My HRX lawnmower cuts through thick and high grass like butter where my 80v green works from Costco struggles. The cut quality on the Honda is also superior to the green works. I just keep the green works around so my wife can mow while I'm on business trips. I finally did try the Oso Electric commercial lawnmower. That one is better than my HRX, but it better be at $2600!
I bought that Honda 10 years ago the first time I was forced to live where the grass grows.
Bought the greenworks 3 years ago when I was forced to live where the grass grows again.
I got 24 months left and I’m gonna Facebook marketplace this yard equipment again so god damn fast
My actual house that I call home is xeriscaped and I spend maybe 10 minutes per week on it personally.
I think I’m just put out at the concept of a 800 dollar mower. I was annoyed enough that I had to buy this electric one on sale even for nearly 400 but I’ll do literally anything to stop the bleeding on satisfying a lease requirement for cutting grass.
Just so you know where I’m at on it haha
It would be cool if CARB could figure out that the laws of physics don't currently allow a zero emission generator to exist. There's no such thing as a battery powered generator.
And a battery powered water pump is pretty much totally useless if you need to dewater a field.
>There's no such thing as a battery powered generator.
Their current response seems to be solar panels + battery is in fact a generator. That obviously makes no sense but I don't make the rules here. It might change as the deadline approaches and people get louder about it.
>And a battery powered water pump is pretty much totally useless if you need to dewater a field.
Water pumps are still allowed to be gas powered for now. As are pressure washers. Seems like it's mostly stuff like lawnmowers where they're clamping down for now.
Yeah. I wonder how many solar panels it takes to make 10kw of power at night... I bet it's not something that I can fit in the bed of my pickup.
And as more big battery EV's become available it'll be less of an issue. My car can run my fridge/furnace for few days easily.
And I'm sure anyone that really needs one in california can just buy a used one or go out of state anyways.
> And as more big battery EV's become available it'll be less of an issue. My car can run my fridge/furnace for few days easily.
Maybe it could in California most days, but on cold says you could burn through that battery in a day. Especially since it will lose ~25% of it's capacity.
> now that battery equivalents are good enough.
I looked for a decent battery powered weed wacker. $400-500, plus replacement batteries when the time comes.
Decent gas ones are $200 or less.
Am I supposed to believe that the battery powered model saves $300 in emissions when it's made of mostly the same aluminum and steel, but also has a big honking lithium ion battery pack that needs to be mined, smelted, shipped, formed, shipped again....
This isn't wrong. But current rules favor 75 and older that have zero emission controls. Encouraging ownership of more modern classics that on average pollute less is a good thing. Its still illegal to delete emissions equipment. Lets remember, this rule doesn't make it legal to remove your cats. Laws are for rule followers; if we have to consider the effects of people breaking the law (ie deleting emissions equipment) we also have to consider the many cars I see driving around with expired tags (which also then have not passed smog). My point is, that's a different issue.
Federal exemption is 25 years from all FMVSS and EPA regulations. Not 35 years. How else you think R32, R33, Supra, RX7, and all kinds of cars from the 90s and now vehicles manufactured in Jan and Feb of 2000 are elligible? ;)
FMVSS is 25 years. EPA is 21 years for grey market imports with the original unmodified engine. Every one of those words is important. It has no relevance to what states do to enforce the clean air act.
Hmm I think you are correct. I was under the impression that was separate from the 25 year timeline for importing vehicles that haven't been put through us crash testing.
Well there is a massive difference between a emissions-deleted diesel daily driver and a collectors car that is mileage limited.
The issue here is on a lot of these collectors cars it’s difficult to source emissions equipment and difficult to get someone to do the work for you, it’s either this or the landfill
Whereas with coal rollers, it’s a completely deliberate, conscious choice
CARB is complicit too. There are numerous examples where boutique bike builders and custom shops delivered vehicles that did not meet emissions targets. When the shops offered to rework the delivered vehicles and correct the mistake, CARB just said "nah, we'll fine you", and that was that.
>Whereas with coal rollers, it’s a completely deliberate, conscious choice
Those people are bad but let's not forget the EPA found entire work truck fleets with deleted diesels. You wouldn't see it because the tunes weren't designed to roll coal but you could absolutely smell and measure just how bad it really was. Rolling coal is bad for fuel economy and fleet owners are only concerned with controlling costs.
The average work truck at state/local/fed agencies is not deleted. However, emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances get special exemption under the CAA to run emissions defeat devices. And even vehicles like the Stryker or HEMTT still meets some kind of emissions standard, even if it isn't the absolute latest that on-road vehicles are held to. The tunes that people run after deleting diesels tend to be absolutely horrific for emissions even by the standards of 1995.
I really doubt that the average construction worker has lives hanging in the balance if their truck goes into limp mode from lack of DEF.
Sort of? Rolling coal is particularly bad because of particulates and NOx. A gas engine sans emissions equipment is generating more CO2, but can also start spitting out NOx if you are running lean (turbocharged, tuned, etc).
I think it’s safe to say that we should enforce (and support, honestly, I wouldn’t mind a program to assist with these requirements) emissions requirements on vehicles that get the most mileage. 74 or 75 neither are gonna be significant in the grand scheme of things in 2024.
I’ve been having a hell of a time getting a 1982 VW golf running good enough for smog(or good enough in general, so many parts aren’t made anymore and rebuilds are expensive)
They make a kit to turn make it carbureted and I would have done the conversion already if not for smog.
Yes exactly. I have a 78’ 280z and am putting a modern EFI on it to pass emissions. But one of the questions asked at the smog booth is “is the car modified”, and some attendants will auto-fail the car if it looks modified.
The issue is, OF COURSE it’s modified, the car is like 40 years old.
Also the fact that motorcycles get a pass from smog, it always seemed silly to hold cars to such a high standard when hardly anyone is actually driving a car this old.
There are 10 de-catted bikes on the road for every 1990 car I see.
we do 35 years is no inspection, no collectors insurance needed. I'd be screwed if I did - and yes, one of them was my main mode of transport and would be still if I didn't have an increase in income a few years ago
Also currently means smog shops have to maintian both the modern and ancient emissions equipment, and check compliance with ancient emissions requirements
There is a clear conflict here of rich vs poor. I like Leno, who owns a zillion 35+ year old cars and barely drives each because there's so many, and likely insured them all as collector. But if someone wants just one old car to restore and drive routinely, this doesn't help.
This is angled directly for his own benefit and other people like him who are rich enough to maintain collections and cut emissions headaches and cost for themselves. He could drive a different one every day, polluting every day. A normal person might be lucky enough to have one that they can only drive on special occasions at best. So the rich get to pollute and enjoy themselves. Regular people breathe smog.
I'd rather be without it. As much of a car guy as I am, I like the 1975 rule. It will help move us toward lower emissions for the cars on the road rather than making a carve out for the rich. If rich guys get to drive around their polluting cars every day, so should the poor. And at the end of the day, we know no one should...
As a 45 year CA resident, and active old car enthusiast, this is for wealthy collectors only. The yearly mileage will be very limited and strictly enforced.
They will monitor your vehicle mileage (don’t bother disconnecting your speedo, they use Flock cameras) and fine or deny registration to vehicles used for daily transportation.
This is not for the poors to limp around in vehicles running on less than the supplied number of cylinders, smoking like a locomotive, with gutted cats and missing smog pumps.
Not going to happen.
>But if someone wants just one old car to restore and drive routinely, this doesn't help.
Honestly, for purely practical reasons this should be discouraged. A 1990 Civic is not a good daily regardless of whether it's collector-grade Type R or a DX. Terrible crash safety, you spend a ton of money on parts because anything 35 years old with 200k miles basically needs to be fully rebuilt, everything is NLA, list goes on. It's not even like they're exceptionally fuel efficient or anything.
I say this as someone driving a 25 year old car. It's not a good idea. We shouldn't be handing out subsidies for "the poor car enthusiast" who wants to do it. If you want to force the issue and do it anyways that's fine but the state should not be exempting you from literally the only inspection that is ever done in California.
There are a lot of older cars that are great to drive regularly, but I agree on inspection. This seems like it's moving in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons. Cars should be inspected regularly, you dead right on that.
I live in CA and would selfishly love to see this bill pass (I have a project car that would be eligible in 2 years), but I (perhaps also selfishly, having lungs) also really like having clean air. Given that non-controlled vehicles can pollute significantly more than emissions-controlled vehicles, I really would want to see some data on:
1 - how many 35+ year old cars are registered in CA
2 - an estimate of what the increase in the number of those cars insured under classic car policies would be
3 - some sort of reasonable worst-case estimate of what the increase in overall emissions is from these vehicles would be (like...just for argument's sake, assuming each vehicle emits the same as a well-maintained carbureted Chevy 350 from 1974)
If the increase in emissions relative to the total is sufficiently small (let's say less than 1% of the total), then it seems like a reasonable way to go.
Man, my car is almost 20 years old and it’s painful trying to find a cat that isn’t some universal one that needs flanges welded on and still costs $2k. It’s really annoying.
Making classic car insurance a requirement makes sense. If you're using the car normally and trying to skirt regulations the insurance companies won't tolerate it.
25 years means a lot of poorly maintained 90s Camrys, Accords, Crown Vics, and other beaters are suddenly allowed back on the roads in California.
If they were maintained properly, these vehicles would otherwise be emission-compliant, but making them exempt would allow them to smog the streets despite being someone's daily driver.
The law is meant to protect classic cars, which typically aren't going to be someone's daily driver. Vehicles over 35 years old have no chance of being compliant, while '90s cars can meet compliance if adequately maintained.
Right now, the law is for vehicles built in 1975 and prior. The proposed law pushes the year up to 1980 and a year up after that.
This is such a straw man argument. If the car was not maintained properly, not only would customers move to a new car, they'd move to a much more fuel efficient car. The vast majority of cars on the road now are ill maintained/barely serviced, but the average age of a car as mentioned is 12 years old. Not only that, the fuel efficiency technology has improved so much that customers would more likely still choose to drive fuel efficient cars rather than their old crusty cars that averaged 10 miles a gallon. And in addition to that, you're talking about a state where EVs/hybrids and environmentalists dominate the major population zones. These are where most of the smog laws were there to protect people. I own a hybrid and 2 muscle cars and I can tell you right off the bat that I drive my hybrid 80% of the time simply because gas is expensive af in California, so why would I drive a car that would make me pay loads more? Companies aren't just gonna stop innovating on fuel efficiency and ev's simply because of a rolling 25 year window.
Dude I live in Texas so the conditions here arent too different from those in California, meaning that salt isnt something that will kill a car.
I have to tell you that what youre describing just.. isnt something thats going to happen. Cars from the 90s that are poorly maintained are exceptionally rare. Seeing a car from the 90s is very uncommon to begin with because these are old cars and people dont really try and keep them alive, they just move on.
> Dude I live in Texas so the conditions here arent too different from those in California [...] Seeing a car from the 90s is very uncommon to begin with
Yea, doesn't sound like Texas is too much like California, then. 90's cars are everywhere you look.
I’m in the bay area and I never see regular cars from the 1980s. It’s been forever since I’ve seen a first gen Taurus on the road or any Scirocco or Mk I GTI. First or second gen Camry? Never. Every now and then a 90’s Civic maybe, but 90’s cars are rare for sure. I have a 1983 308 and a coworker has an ‘83 DMC. Those are the only 80s cars I’ll see for months on end.
80s cars were the first era of computers and fuel injection and they were hard to keep running new. By the 90s they perfected the technology so those cars are still everywhere.
I mean just statistically thats not true. The average age of vehicles in the US is [12 years old](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states).
While this [infograph](https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/uploads/Cal-Covering-4Q-23.pdf) doesnt go all the way back to the 90s, I find it highly unlikely that youll see a huge amount of registered vehicles from the 90s or older.
Youre probably confusing 2000s cars for 90s or something.
For the average to be 12 years old means there are a lot of cars that are much older, because it's not like they sold a billion cars in 2013 to skew the age that much.
Vehicle sales are close to what they were in the 2000s, which means the number of new vehicles skewing the age newer still isn't doing enough to lower the average age. So the conclusion is that there are a lot of late 90s and early 2000s cars.
The gap between OBDI and OBDII cars I see is a cliff, much more 1996-2000 cars than 1990-1995 cars. Early 90s cars were more rare 5 years ago than late 90s are now in my area.
If you mean 90s in the literal sense it is, but if you refer to the era of vehicles it isn't as far back because not every vehicle got redesigned in 2000. And the early 2000s were a booming time for car sales.
You are moving the goal posts by pedantically trying to redefine 2000s cars as '90s cars. That doesn't work, because 2000s cars passed stricter emissions requirements. If they didn't pass, they were discontinued or updated as the stricter laws specifications rolled into place
I'm being pedantic? There is nothing more pedantic than saying the 2 cars made by the same factory by the same people 5 minutes apart are completely different eras of vehicles because one has a different catalytic converter.
I'm not saying a car released 3 days before 2000 is a 90's car. But a car made in the 2000s can be considered as a 90's era vehicle if it is part of a generation that has a substantial number sold before 2000 and is tied to the previous decade
Then I don't see what the problem with a 35 year old limit is if that's the case.
If these cars are going to be well maintained and thus be emission compliant or either junked then the law is perfectly fine.
Because im telling you that the amount of cars from the 90s that are on the road is already a very small number. Making it 35 is excessive for no reason.
The law specifies that a vehicle must also be insured as a collector car to be exempt from emissions inspection. The restrictions of such insurance (usually they prevent you from driving them daily for commute purposes and/or or have annual mileage limits) probably mean you wouldn't see a huge influx of junker Camrys and stuff.
So basically what you’re saying is it’s a nice little cut out for rich people to drive their nice second or third cars, but when a poor guy with a single 90s beater wants to drive to work that’s where we draw the line with the environment
>25 years means a lot of poorly maintained 90s Camrys, Accords, Crown Vics, and other beaters are suddenly allowed back on the roads in California.
So like everywhere else in the US where it isn't a problem at all.
Cars that weren't maintained end up crushed in the junk yard, not terrorizing your pickle ball courts with smog.
Emissions system components on 10 year old cars are not at risk of being difficult to repair or even remotely near worn out. There’s nothing in a cat delete.
Have a street car or not. That’s it.
what?
I had to change the cat on my 2012 volt in 2022... it was 10 years old.
Thank god I don't live in california so I could buy an aftermarket one because OEM ones cost $1000 more than I paid for the whole car.
I agree that 10 years is way too soon to exempt things - 20 or 25 is probably reasonable, and even 35 is far better than the "forever" it is currently.
But there are absolutely 10 year old vehicles with difficult /expensive to repair emissions issues.
The car was 1500 for a reason. 2700 dollars for new cats is not that crazy when you're talking about two of them. Precious metals have gotten crazy expensive hence why tweakers keep sawing them out of cars to sell. The CARB-compliant ones have to have far more precious metals in them otherwise they don't last the 10 year 150k mile emissions warranty that is required these days.
I dunno where this 6000 dollar cat job comes from but probably don’t go back to that shop.
California has programs to authorize aftermarket cats when OEM ones aren’t available and also has programs to assist with the cost.
Regardless, not a big deal on a 10 year old car.
You paid 1500 for a 2012 Chevrolet Volt huh
Man, it’s too bad there isn’t websites like CarGurus that graph out average transaction data to demonstrate that 1500 bucks for a 2012 Volt resides somewhere between highly unlikely and complete bullshit
Find me any 1500 dollar 10 year old car that can get itself home. Please.
Did I say it did?
Also there's way cheaper than $5k volts all the time
Go on the FB groups, someone was selling a high mile kinda beat but totally functional one for $800 today. I see ones for around a grand all the time. Several a week.
Here in Maryland, we can get 'Historic' plates for any car that is 20 years old. These plates exempt the car from emissions testing.
By law "A vehicle registered as historic cannot be used for general daily transportation, or primarily for the transportation of passengers or property on highways. It can only be used in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses. " Guess how often that's enforced? That's right. Never. So practically we just have a bunch of rusting 90s Civics, Corollas, and Camrys rocking the plates despite having zero historical value.
I love the *idea* of Historic plates and some kind of minimum age of the vehicle. And it could very well be 20 or 25. But there really also needs to be additional restrictions of some kind on their issuance that would, in my opinion, relate to the historical importance of the vehicle, or perhaps initial production numbers, or sales numbers, or quantities that remain registered in the state. Something more so that cars with clearly no historical significance can't dodge emissions with them.
They never smogged pre-emissions cars.
CARB (California Air Resource Board) used their special status to override the US EPA rolling 25 year rule. They did that in 2000 because if they hadn’t then in 2001 the first full year of emission cars (1976) would have been exempt and they never wanted to allow emission cars to be exempt.
>CARB (California Air Resource Board) used their special status to override the US EPA rolling 25 year rule.
There is no "special status". It's not even 25 years. It's technically 21 years for imported cars. 25 years only applies to federal safety standards. 25 year rules for emissions exemptions are entirely state-level.
Also, let's not forget that the Clean Air Act technically never sets an end date for emissions enforcement. There is no arbitrary date where it's ok to decat a car period.
People need to actually do some research and learn what the laws are, because even if CARB went away tomorrow California would still have the legal right to keep the law as it is today for smog checks.
My first thought was why not 25? The vast majority of cars on our roads are newer than that. If anything they need to make sure people have working brake lights, turn signals and tires.
Right now it's 50, so 35 is a decent compromise.
Cars here don't really rust out so it's pretty easy to find 20-25 year old cars on the road, and I imagine CA wants virtually no cars on the road to be exempt. 35 would reduce that number significantly.
I've always thought this would be good policy in every state. A similar law exists here in Utah (except it's 1967 model year and older). The amount of emissions from cars that predate 1990 and also are insured by collectors insurance is virtually zero percent.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for people thinking they have a loophole to remove emissions equipment. I'm just saying that emissions testing them every year is probably unnecessary from an environmental standpoint.
So google's ai is saying a car without smog equipment puts out 100x the pollution compared to one with. So for every car they allow to go without that is 100 more cars on the road. Read through this thread. You have plenty of people who want to modify their cars.
My point being is that even if that were the case, it would be insignificant.
I would guess that the number of registered vehicles that were a) built more than 35 years ago, and b) are covered with collector car insurance, is probably well under 1%. Even if you assumed they all had emissions equipment removed (which would still be illegal), they are typically subject to mileage restrictions by insurance.
A few tens of thousands of cars accumulating 1,000 miles a year is likely a rounding error in total emissions produced annually.
A few tens of thousands of cars that produce 100 times the emissions of new cars. Let's say 30k cars get added. If they on average only do 1500 miles a year california just added the equivalent pollution of 300k new cars doing 15k miles per year.
You are also forgetting the cars that exist currently in California where people will happily strip the emissions equipment off and proceed to modify them. That number of cars will continue to increase as cars age out. It isn't the rust belt. The cars aren't going to have the attrition rates that they do in the salt belt.
Getting collector car insurance is trivial. I know, I have it. Buy a beater to insure as a daily. Get the rider for commuting to work and you can drive your "Collector car" as if it were a daily. Mileage limits? You set those by car. I can have more than the average driven miles on mine, it just costs money.
If you give car enthusiasts a loophole, they are going to exploit it.
There is a reduction, but not 300x. Nowhere near that if we are looking at Co2. There’s also a latent assumption that these are all new classics either replacing modern cars, or that there are lots of 80s and 90s cars that will suddenly delete emissions equipment and be gross polluters as a result of dropping smog. It’s still illegal to remove emissions equipment. There are still visual check points. The reality is there's a finite number of us that want to drive classics, and I see far more 75 and older than I do 80s and 90s cars around LA. To that point, most folks just buy 75 and older cars which in stock form have zero emission control. This will open up ownership to newer cleaner running fuel injected classics that have on average much lower emissions. Source [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/50-years-epas-automotive-trends-report](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/50-years-epas-automotive-trends-report)
Yeah, they will, just like anyone else in any other facet of life. There are unintended consequences to every piece of legislation at every level of government.
But I wasn't just talking about vehicle emissions. Even then, I'd guess that 35+ year old cars with emissions exemptions would still make up under 1% of total vehicle emissions. I'm talking about ALL emissions. Cars make up something like 10% of global emissions. So if you assume 1% of that, you're in rounding error territory. Classic cars without emissions equipment just aren't doing damage to the planet in any significant way.
Problem with your logic is California has experienced the damage first hand. CARB exists and is why you no longer need a gas mask some days.
I love cars, but I also hate this logic. I live in a suburb outside a major us city. Not the largest. We have smog days. You don't need a gas mask, but the air quality is measurably worse and affects the old and sick. As a car person I know way too many idiots that do stupid crap with their cars. Some don't even accomplish anything other than making them worse.
Your pulled out of thin air thoughts on rounding errors are moot. You act as if the pollution is spread out evenly over the state. It isn't. It will be concentrated in the most densely populated areas. You acknowledge the system will be abused. So here is an unintended consequence to a current piece of legislation, owning a classic car in California is costly. Wanna drive a classic? Maintain it. Can't? Get something else.
This bill will be DOA because it is put forth by a Republican. The leftists who run this state don't give a shit about your hobbies or interests, especially when it comes to a bill coming to them from across the aisle. Bills like this have come around before, and the Democrats always, *always,* kill them. And they'll kill this one, too.
Then there's the requirement that the cars be insured as classics. News flash to ultra wealthy entertainment personalities, most, if not all classic car insurers require that the cars being insured must be garaged. What if someone doesn't have a garage? What if someone has more than two classic cars? There are so many *what ifs* it boggles the mind. But those "*what ifs*" mean nothing to those, like Jay Leno, who have warehouses to store their collections.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, it still kinda sounds like BS to me. All Show and Display vehicles or Collectors Insurance vehicles should be exempt PERIOD. 35 is too old. It should be 20yo or older that are automatically exempt regardless of insurance. If someone can't get anything newer, it ain't their fault at that point.
I think the idea behind it being collectors insurance is that collectors insurance has mileage limits, which would also dictate and limit how much the car is driven.
Could you just have mileage limits on the registration itself ? Yes. But people lie.
Can people lie when it comes to mileage they drive for collectors insurance? Also yes, but then you're risking not being covered if something happens.
For those who don't know- what is collectors insurance? Is it literally a type of insurance that an insurance company decides on? Is it regulated in any way? For example, could an insurance company just call my normal insurance "collectors" insurance if they wanted to?
I don’t think it’s a regulated thing, but usually, collectors policies are agreed-value policies with very low mileage limits (like 5k a year at most). If they’re like Hagerty, then they even throw a shitbiscuit if you’re under 30. They could create insurance policies of the sort to confirm this
Thanks. Knowing this, I think I oppose the bill as written. Too easy to loophole. I think the government should define a class of car that has milage limits and allow smog exemption for those cars. The show and display definition might be that. If so, use that.
I mean, that should be easy to relatively fix, implement a type of insurance policy defining number of miles and age of vehicle, and whatever else might be relevant
My collector car insurance is a CA thing. There are rules insurance companies need to follow to get the classic car insurance label.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/business-partner/classic-insurance-services/
I can’t find actual CA requirements for it cuz im on mobile. And CA gov site sucks on mobile
You set the mileage limit with the insurance company. I have my cars set at 3500 miles. If I want more miles it is simply a matter of upping the amount which costs a little more.
Furthermore, I can say national corvette museum (viper and mondial) and state farm (morgan) have never asked how many miles I drive. Not once.
If you set it to 20 years everyone’s beater Saturn from 2003 will be exempt. We’ve had 30 years in Sweden for a long time and you have to have an insurance saying that you don’t drive above 10k km/year. Which is fine imo.
This also greatly simplifies things for people who truly want to do the right thing. I have a 1983 Jeep Scrambler in need of an engine. A more modern V8 would be more efficient and cleaner.. but current standards go beyond sniff and gas cap test. A Chevy E-Rod crate motor that comes out of the box certified for California is $12,200.
Yes, but devil is in the details. California-specific cats have to be purchased (no used or 49 state ones), and as one example, cat placement (distance between manifold flange and cat) have to be identical/similar to original vehicle, which can make things difficult. And the donor engine has to be from the same vehicle class, even though the blocks may be the same between car/suv/light duty truck. And on newer vehicles (Gen IV, I believe) the transmission may also be part of the emissions system. And vins may or may not have to match between motor and trans. I've been partially down the swap road, and you really need a BAR ref you can consult with regularly, show receipts, etc. PITA factor is high.
Congrats, you're taking the engine out and starting over. If it's VIN wasn't tied to a CA vehicle, you're back to square one. Did you have the O2 sensors within 1" of their original location, relative to the cat? Did you use the gas tank from the donor vehicle? Depending on model, it may be considered part of the emissions system. Is the EO label on the catalytic converter shell at least ½ inch high and large enough to be read from a distance of 5 feet from either side of the vehicle? That's also in the requirement.
Not just good weather, good roads, good tracks, lots high paying jobs to fund car hobby. Not having smog is a good thing, smells like shit whenever you’re behind an old car
Til only pre 1976 vehicles are exempt from smog in ca....So what would happen if I moved to ca with my 1977 jeep that is non-catalyst from the factory?
My understanding is that they check that it was california compliant when sold new. Then it gets emissions tested to the levels it was required to be when new.
California seems to be run by rich NIMBYs that just want the tax payer to absorb all of these insane restrictions they impose on everyone. Driving an old car into the ground even though it may not be as emissions friendly as a newer vehicle or most likely better for the environment and unquestionably easier on your wallet all things considered. Insane and draconian. Car culture was invented here and they’re doing everything they can to stomp it out.
This forum seems to be filled with ignorant kids who don't understand what brought about CARB. No one cares about your fart can exhaust. Everyone cares not to have to wear gas masks on smog days.
Some of these cars are driven so little that making them emissions compliant with shipping, etc., costs more emissions than are emitted from the car itself.
True, but then you have people in this thread that want to take it too far. That is the problem. We can't just have 35+ year old cars not having to pass smog. No, all the clowns have to come out of the wood work ready to modify them. They think it is a free pass and that is the issue.
Yup and life isn’t bad with those restrictions. I have 2 classics both on like 2500mi/yr classic policies and I don’t even come close to hitting those limits. Bear in mind 2500/52 weeks in a year is like 50mi a weekend.
Yes has to be stored in a locked garage ie if there’s a side door it needs to have a lock on it. There are other things like it can’t be your daily driver, etc. but the benefit is it’s wickedly cheap.
It can't be your daily driver, but most offer an additional addendum to allow you to commute to work in the car. Mileage limits are meaningless because you can pay more to have higher limits. I could own a beater that as long as insured would count as my daily. I could then drive my viper or ferrari as my actual daily.
The only one who has rules so stringent that you could never put real miles on is Grundy.
And that’s my problem with the proposal. Sure it’s better than nothing but lots of folks in CA with infrequently driven classics that can’t afford a place with secure parking. (I was one of them once) It’s a bit classist.
My Z has classic car insurance through hagerty, it's not parked in an enclosed garage, a garage car port. However I am not in CA and it seems to be a CA specific requirement for locked garages. https://www.hagertyagent.com/insurance/eligibility-guidelines
The policy is set by insurers, not CA. The reason why all collector car insurance companies here mandate locked garage storage and in some cases private garages as well is because theft is such a problem in urban CA.
> is because theft is such a problem in urban CA.
And older cars are generally trivial to steal, unless the owner puts in the effort to build in a custom Konami code to start the car. I say Konami code because thieves are generally able to find simple solutions, like a fuel pump switch under the seat.
90s Honda Accords stayed on the list of most stolen cars for a long ass time because they were so easy to steal.
As someone who once had to keep my car in a storage unit for that very reason, I understand. Of course the garage thing is just the requirement for my company, maybe others have different rules on how the vehicle is stored.
I live in a cheap (for my area) apartment complex that still has secure underground parking. I don't even think my collector's insurance requires it tbh, but if it did it would count.
I would need way more cars to get down that far in mileage. As is, I generally sit at about 5k, 12k, and 12k a year.
Now, I do fully plan to own 12 random weird, old, high-milage cars eventually, but I will probably never be wealthy enough to house them all indoors.
The issue isn't GHGs - it's air pollution i.e. Carbon Monoxide, Particulate matter particularly PM2.5 (Which can get into your bloodstream and cause all sorts of health issues), hydrocarbons i.e. unburnt fuel so benzene etc being spewed onto the street plus all manner of nonsense like cat deletes etc....before you know it the air quality will make Beijing's air look clean......
You'd be likely both shocked and appalled at how many would suddenly appear on the roads....before you know it every junk heap would be on the road belching out pollutants
yes, but it's a stupid point.
it doesn't matter if every single one of those cars removes the enitre emissions system (which they wouldn't) and then every one of their owners drives it 30,000 miles a year (which they won't) because it would still work out to be less than 1/1000th or the total and therefore just not matter.
>it doesn't matter if every single one of those cars removes the enitre emissions system (which they wouldn't)
You would be surprised.
>because it would still work out to be less than 1/1000th or the total
You would be shocked at how much older vehicles contribute to local air quality issues. It's not insignificant at all.
You're making the assumption that this wouldn't change people's behavior. If I'm 5 years away from not having to worry about smog, then it gives me a reason to keep driving it. And it gives me a reason to go with a slightly older car over a slightly newer one.
I'm sure I do, it has been obvious for decades at this point that the vast majority of politicians are somewhere between misinformed and completely delusional when it comes to anything climate related.
And I say this as someone who owns an EV, which replaced my plugin hybrid, which replaced my 2000 insight, and has planted over 10,000 trees.
The smog forming emissions difference on the tiny portion of the total vehicle fleet that will now be exempt is already not going to be a big deal because the majority of those cars will likely stay compliant anyways, they just won't need to be tested now.
Of the few that will no longer be compliant, the majority of those will only get driven infrequently.
And of the few that do, and aren't complaint, the total amount of emissions they make is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the remainder of the fleet.
This is also a state government that thinks that passing laws will enable companies to break the known laws of physics and start building things like battery powered generators.
Since it's a good idea it will struggle to pass in California. They really should get off people's backs entirely with any car that's over 25 years old. It's clearly a classic and not daily driven.
I'm tired of emissions crap slowly ruining the enthusiast car hobby. Just stop. Go after real problems, please.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are a lot of cars and trucks made between 1975 and 1990 that would be awesome hot rods if we could utilize them without the constraints of the smog system.
There wasn’t a standard if I remember correctly, which was part of the problem they fixed with OBD II. I also just read that some cars had OBD I all the way up to 2006, I had no idea
Imagine being able to swap an LS motor or Coyote into a light 1980’s vehicle and run it with an aftermarket ECU. I love to build fast cars, but it sucks how limited I am in my choices if I don’t want a track only car.
I know it can be done now via the referee system, but that’s a pain in the ass.
Yes please.
I don’t mind having a car that can pass smog. I just hate paying for smog and expensive cats that aren’t always needed. For example my mr2 is missing a cat and it still passes smog legit.
> I think they should have to buy offsets for their cars personally. Jay Leno can afford it.
Buying offsets isn't a bad idea, but there are plenty of people who aren't Jay-Leno-rich that would love to have a way to modify their cars more easily.
I think the "solution" to this is to make them pay a higher tax that gets collected into a separate fund, and the "profits" from that fund go to promote an environmental charity.
I have no earthly idea how California bureaucracy works or if something like that is even possible from a legal perspective.
That works in theory, but speaking as a Californian, there's no guarantees any tax collected for an environmental charity would actually make it to said environmental charity, and that's also assuming the charity wouldn't misappropriate tax money collected either.
a rolling 35 year rule makes *WAY* more sense than the current 1975 rule.
Even if you exempted them completely and everyone that owns one removed the emissions system completely the same day, they'd still make up like 0.1% or less of total emissions.
It just doesn't make any sense to do it the way it's done now.
i would be interested seeing the math on the amount of carbon emissions to operate a 1990 car compared to the emissions to *build* and operate a 2025 car.
Cash for Clunkers was responsible for scrapping a bit under 700,000 cars. [There have been over 10 million cars sold per year in the US since at least 1976](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199983/us-vehicle-sales-since-1951/?__sso_cookie_checker=failed).
People often dramatically overestimate the impact that C4C had on the cars on the road.
There’s still **a lot** of older cars in California. Especially out in Southern California, it’s easy to find a ton of 20+ year old cars still humming along the freeways. They don’t really rust out there and the people that are willing to work on cars out there are plentiful, which means that you kinda have to run the gamut for emissions enforcement.
Hard to imagine the politics of this panning out, even though it's an extremely reasonable compromise and there's pretty much zero chance it negatively affects the air quality there. Hope I'm wrong! I'd love to move to California, but I have too many old cars that I'm too attached to.
Great news if I ever lose my South Dakota tags for my RX-7.
Emissions components for a first gen fuel injection system don’t exist lmao. Even if I had all the stuff on there I’m sure it all wouldn’t work anyway and the lights still wouldn’t come on.
284 Comments
MrPterodactyl@reddit
gmchurchill100@reddit
HeavyHands@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
HeavyHands@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
asad137@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
Such_Weight2543@reddit
ritz_are_the_shitz@reddit
asad137@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
asad137@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
asad137@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
asad137@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Such_Weight2543@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
alexlikespizza@reddit
alexlikespizza@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
HeavyHands@reddit
alexlikespizza@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
thefanciestcat@reddit
Leather-Range4114@reddit
gmchurchill100@reddit
crsn00@reddit
TurboFucked@reddit
asad137@reddit
Terrh@reddit
ChiggaOG@reddit
hundredjono@reddit
LA-ncevance@reddit
hundredjono@reddit
Leather-Range4114@reddit
FarSolar@reddit
stoned-autistic-dude@reddit
Cheap-Worldliness291@reddit
86Austin@reddit
ZachtoseIntolerant@reddit
MrPterodactyl@reddit
MJather@reddit (OP)
cargarfar@reddit
Impressive_Coyote_57@reddit
TemporaryKooky9835@reddit
HerefortheTuna@reddit
bexamous@reddit
catjewsus@reddit
bexamous@reddit
FesteringNeonDistrac@reddit
Striking-Bluejay-349@reddit
dam_sharks_mother@reddit
TheJamintheSham@reddit
TemporaryKooky9835@reddit
velociraptorfarmer@reddit
boomerbill69@reddit
TemporaryKooky9835@reddit
LeetcodeForBreakfast@reddit
Knotical_MK6@reddit
Oyyeee@reddit
TemporaryKooky9835@reddit
democracywon2024@reddit
Appropriate_Ant8919@reddit
AndroidMyAndroid@reddit
burbet@reddit
agileata@reddit
Appropriate_Ant8919@reddit
hi_im_bored13@reddit
gimpwiz@reddit
G36_FTW@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
magbarn@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
PRSArchon@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
masterventris@reddit
Time-Maintenance2165@reddit
nondescriptzombie@reddit
audioguru1@reddit
gehzumteufel@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
gehzumteufel@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
gehzumteufel@reddit
G36_FTW@reddit
gehzumteufel@reddit
hi_im_bored13@reddit
Oo__II__oO@reddit
Slideways@reddit
AndroidMyAndroid@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
UnnamedStaplesDrone@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
G36_FTW@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Leather-Range4114@reddit
CodyBlues2@reddit
Jpaynesae1991@reddit
spongebob_meth@reddit
olov244@reddit
Horror_Flower_2371@reddit
start3ch@reddit
MrAnalogRobot@reddit
SAEftw@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
MrAnalogRobot@reddit
asad137@reddit
stoned-autistic-dude@reddit
jmbre11@reddit
spency_c@reddit
compu85@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
RAM_AIR_IV@reddit
catjewsus@reddit
Insanity-Paranoid@reddit
kagemusha35@reddit
Few_Highlight1114@reddit
Striking-Bluejay-349@reddit
_Banned_User@reddit
mondaymoderate@reddit
boomerbill69@reddit
stern1233@reddit
Few_Highlight1114@reddit
Snazzy21@reddit
ritz_are_the_shitz@reddit
Snazzy21@reddit
ritz_are_the_shitz@reddit
Snazzy21@reddit
Insanity-Paranoid@reddit
Few_Highlight1114@reddit
MDA123@reddit
VaccinatedApe@reddit
Trollygag@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Two_Shekels@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Two_Shekels@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Terrh@reddit
3v01@reddit
Two_Shekels@reddit
Fishinabowl11@reddit
agileata@reddit
Noopy9@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
tendollarstd@reddit
gimpwiz@reddit
STREETplatoon_79@reddit
binding_swamp@reddit
ThinNeighborhood2276@reddit
the_house_from_up@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
the_house_from_up@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
audioguru1@reddit
the_house_from_up@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
Thegreatrobinsoni@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
j_knolly@reddit
RiftHunter4@reddit
AznTri4d@reddit
e136@reddit
bullet50000@reddit
e136@reddit
bullet50000@reddit
mmmmmyee@reddit
GreatBallsOfFIRE@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
Yoda2000675@reddit
Drdres@reddit
Eonir@reddit
DeepDishlife@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
DeepDishlife@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
DeepDishlife@reddit
Toxik916@reddit
bwoah_gimmethedrink@reddit
withsexyresults@reddit
MotorcycleCar@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
hartzonfire@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
c0rbin9@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
AndroidUser37@reddit
e30kid@reddit
chucchinchilla@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
chucchinchilla@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
thememeconnoisseurig@reddit
frankztn@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
shot-by-ford@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
TurboFucked@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
chucchinchilla@reddit
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
tazercow@reddit
Specialist-Size9368@reddit
Cessnaporsche01@reddit
JovianPrime1945@reddit
HalfFrozenSpeedos@reddit
JovianPrime1945@reddit
HalfFrozenSpeedos@reddit
JovianPrime1945@reddit
Terrh@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
Snazzy21@reddit
asad137@reddit
e30kid@reddit
Terrh@reddit
LA-ncevance@reddit
CantSeeShit@reddit
AznTri4d@reddit
BloodDK22@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
flabbyfool@reddit
DeusMexMachina@reddit
cat_prophecy@reddit
IcameforthePie@reddit
Noobasdfjkl@reddit
DeusMexMachina@reddit
Whiskeypants17@reddit
spency_c@reddit
DeusMexMachina@reddit
Whiskeypants17@reddit
DeusMexMachina@reddit
DeusMexMachina@reddit
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
OkDirection8015@reddit
memebigboy13371@reddit
Bonerchill@reddit
saml01@reddit
Occhrome@reddit
Occhrome@reddit
yakkowitt@reddit
LoPanDidNothingWrong@reddit
asad137@reddit
LoPanDidNothingWrong@reddit
ardoin@reddit
RevvedUpLikeADeuce09@reddit
D-Smitty@reddit
orangutanDOTorg@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
orangutanDOTorg@reddit
Terrh@reddit
RevvedUpLikeADeuce09@reddit
Terrh@reddit
c74@reddit
bobotwf@reddit
quantum-quetzal@reddit
bobotwf@reddit
handymanshandle@reddit
twothoutwo@reddit
Abba_Fiskbullar@reddit
JDMClassics@reddit
s3cf_@reddit
Rebote78@reddit
skankhunt1738@reddit