[CA] New Emissions Regulations for RV

[Grovess]

Hello Skoolie community,

I’m seeking advice regarding the recent changes in California’s emissions regulations for skoolies registered as RVs.

Recently, the California Air Resources Board (CAR introduced new rules that affect RVs, complicating matters for those of us with older diesel engines like the DT466. I want to purchase a bus that is already registered as an RV, but it has this old diesel engine, which likely won’t meet the new emissions standards.

If anyone has insights on how to navigate these regulations or any alternative options available for skoolies with older engines, I would greatly appreciate it!

Thank you!

 

[Rucker]

What have you learned so far?

A simple google search will give you the Cali site that discusses in plain language the requirement. Use those guidelines to determine what testing the bus you are interested in needs, and get a test to confirm it passes.

I've not had direct experience with CARB testing but I live in Cali and get my vehicles smogged; it's probably no different: you have to meet the standard, whatever that is.

 

[s2mikon]

My understanding of the test requirements is the following, a visual inspection of the engine and the engine certification label affixed to the engine and a snap idle test to look at smoke opacity. No dyno testing. Watch the due date with registering it with CARB as a diesel rig. The fines are per day late. Yes excessive!

 

[Grovess]

I'm still not entirely sure if a 1995 bus with a DT466 engine can pass any CARB tests, because it doesn't have DEF or any of the modern emissions systems

 

[s2mikon]

Here is the page you need to know. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/do...ia-motor-homes-annual-compliance-requirements If it is registered as a motorhome it has to have what is on the emissions certification label. If the label dos not state DEF it does not need it.

 

[nikitis]

So what he's saying to be slightly more clear, California understands the engine is old and doesn't have those measures, but California wants to be aware that it exists as a statistic so they can know how many polluting diesels are still on their roads. They care more about documenting it than you changing things because they understand those diesels will eventually die out and they care more about monitoring it. And by you going through the process it shows the state you care about what they think and are want to be compliant.

 

[PorchDog]

I just hope and pray that the federal government does not adopt the California laws for all 50 states. Kamala is from California, you know.

Alabama is a poor low population state with few electoral votes, but we also don't have a lot of government oversight. We do not have annual vehicle inspections or smog testing. I bet half the vehicles in this state have a service engine soon light on, and many folks could not afford to make the repairs to turn that light off.

Rich folks will always be OK-- the folks toward the bottom of the food chain are the ones who will struggle...

 

[Rucker]

Alabama is a poor low population state with few electoral votes, but we also don't have a lot of government oversight. We do not have annual vehicle inspections or smog testing. I bet half the vehicles in this state have a service engine soon light on, and many folks could not afford to make the repairs to turn that light off.

Rich folks will always be OK-- the folks toward the bottom of the food chain are the ones who will struggle...

Air quality is a function of geography and population, which is why California is so tough. I just looked at wikipedia and learned it has eight times the population of Alabama, and two and a half times the density. Lots of cars.

I live in the Central Valley (Sacramento) and the smog is ridiculous on summer afternoons. I can only imagine what it would be like without smog controls.

But it would not surprise me if we had a similar percent of the population with engine lights on.

 

[Kentucky Dreaming]

Air quality is a function of geography and population, which is why California is so tough. I just looked at wikipedia and learned it has eight times the population of Alabama, and two and a half times the density. Lots of cars.

I live in the Central Valley (Sacramento) and the smog is ridiculous on summer afternoons. I can only imagine what it would be like without smog controls.

But it would not surprise me if we had a similar percent of the population with engine lights on.

Zackly. prevailing winds in North America go west to east. The Sierra Nevada mountains block a huge amount of airflow, hence containing smog AND other pollution in the Central Valley. I have photos taken from 7200 feet above sea level in Kings Canyon National Park looking west and down from a crystal clear sky on the smog layer over Fresno.

Different areas require different measures. Politics ain't got a damn thing to do with the air we breathe. Science do.

 

[Kentucky Dreaming]

Smog leaving Fresno in mid May. Mountains are barely visible:


Smog looking back from 7200 feet toward Fresno:


Clear skies on the other side of the first range of the Sierra Nevada:


My little buddy Amber at the base of Mist Falls with clear blue sky. She and hubby now live just a couple of hours from DeMac:

 

[nikitis]

Hazes that you view aren't always smog. Oxygen has a density as well, though mostly clear when enough distance is put between you and the remote object like mountains miles away it can appear to be pollution but may still just be Oxygen.

The effect can change based on temperatures. Colder temps tend to cause Oxygen to compress so it falls more towards the ground creating crystal clear views of stars at night and mountains views looking up and on summer days oxygen expands and is denser higher up causing a smog effect.

I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, sometimes it's just smog, but sometimes it's just oxygen too. The unaware may not be able to tell the difference.

 

[desrtdog]

Hazes that you view may be smog, or may be due to dust or water vapor in the air...

Oxygen as you breathe it is O2 - the diatomic form... a colorless, odorless gas...not smog, nor a "haze"...

Ozone, on the other hand, is a pale-blue gas with a chemical formula O3...a component of smog, it is produced in the lower atmosphere when NOx and VOCs (both resulting from burning of hydrocarbon fuels) react...so more cars (industry, etc) in densely populated areas (LA, Houston, Mexico City, ...) = more pollution = more ozone...

Technically still "oxygen", but not the same as the "oxygen" in the pristine mountain areas...

 

[Kentucky Dreaming]

Not sure about the reply since Nikitis is the only member on my "ignore" list.

 

[Kentucky Dreaming]

Hazes that you view may be smog, or may be due to dust or water vapor in the air...

Oxygen as you breathe it is O2 - the diatomic form... a colorless, odorless gas...not smog, nor a "haze"...

Ozone, on the other hand, is a pale-blue gas with a chemical formula O3...a component of smog, it is produced in the lower atmosphere when NOx and VOCs (both resulting from burning of hydrocarbon fuels) react...so more cars (industry, etc) in densely populated areas (LA, Houston, Mexico City, ...) = more pollution = more ozone...

Technically still "oxygen", but not the same as the "oxygen" in the pristine mountain areas...

I guess i'm stoopid. I saw air I didn't want to breathe.
I am old enough to remember the photos and videos of the air over Los Angeles that was toxic in the late 60's & early 70's. CARB has cleaned it up a bit.

 

[desrtdog]

I guess i'm stoopid. I saw air I didn't want to breathe.
I am old enough to remember the photos and videos of the air over Los Angeles that was toxic in the late 60's & early 70's. CARB has cleaned it up a bit.

No…I was just trying to make a distinction about the air you breathe and the air you shouldn’t…in general, the good stuff is not going to cause haze unless there is something else suspended in it - dust, water vapor, etc…

60’s and 70’s were definitely bad in those large metro areas that also happened to be nice basins…CARB cleaned it up some, along with EPA Regs on clean air…hopefully we don’t take a giant step backwards…

 

[cadillackid]

I guess i'm stoopid. I saw air I didn't want to breathe.
I am old enough to remember the photos and videos of the air over Los Angeles that was toxic in the late 60's & early 70's. CARB has cleaned it up a bit.

geography.. those valleys collect smog.. CARB was necessary to a point but its bene taken too far and continues to be.. other cities in areas without stagnant air dont seem to have big issues.. so why is it becoming a one size fits all?


californians that live in warm cliate dont care if you take away the ability for me to heat my house efficiently because they dont use much heat... for me it means a large bill or lots of sweaters.. the sweaters are a non starter for me... whats wrong with a hybrid solution? not good enough for the californians that push their wishes beyond their borders... 2024 here in ohio was an exception in that we had lots of sunny days.. usually we have many any cloudy days.. yet california says i should have solar panels and electric heat... I have the most efficient heat pump class built.. and a nearly max eficiency gas furnace for the colder days so i can keep the house 75.. california says it should be 65 and a couple layers and all electric heat...

 

[Albatross]

I've talked to come clients of our shop up in places like Maine, and they were telling me how a bunch of old farms and forests are being bought up and cleared so they can install massive solar farms--which is absolutely ridiculous considering that they average something like 4-5 hours of sunlight in peak winter, assuming that they aren't overcast for weeks at a time.



I can see something like that in the Southwest, but up north it's just kind of stupid, and doesn't make any logical sense.

 

[s2mikon]

This is a long post and I’m just sharing my perspective of my involvement with the Smog Check program.

Never forget the financial incentives involved in all of this. I got my first California smog license in 1979. It was for financial reasons. Smog Check wasn’t even there yet. A smog test was only required at time of transfer. When the “Smog Check” program started (BAR 84) A 4 gas anylizer would now be required and a 2 mode test, idle and a 2500rpm no load test. Also all of us would have to attend a re-education class held by the BAR. At the time of re-education I asked why the 2500 rpm no load test, after all no one operates their car in such a manner right? The BAR clown didn’t have an answer. If you think about it, that is a very inefficient way to run an engine and gives meaningless data feedback. I had very few cars fail the high idle test. Idle testing was a different matter because many cars in traffic jams idle a lot so that was meaningful. Later they decided to do dyno testing next and this would up the cost substantially for shop owners. When I put the pencil to that it didn’t pencil out. So I passed on it.

My lawyer suggested a way to look at this from a different angle so I did. We found the state Assemblymen and Senators that sponsored the smog testing laws and I requested a list of all of their financial doners for the last 4 election cycles. They refused. Then my lawyer sent the request and they slow walked it to the end but finally complied. What a treasure trove. It was a long list. California New Car dealers association, AC spark plug, Walker Tenneco (the catalytic converter manufacture) Allen test equipment, Bear test equipment, NAPA auto parts and on and on. And so as with most laws passed que bono? (Who benefits) The failure rate with any car built in the last 15 years is now less that 5 percent. Then consider that the average age of automobiles is 12.5 years, most of the older cars are gone or not driven much.

Some states have learned that smog check is now a waste of time and money and have either eliminated or reduced the size of their programs because the newer automobiles are very clean burning. If they go wack they don’t run much longer.

California has a huge budget and a large tax base and that creates a large bureaucracy that makes sure that they stay relevant.

I used to have a chart that showed the number of days that the SCAQMD exceeded the federal clean air standards and it showed a trend of fewer days as the years went by showing the progress of cleaning up the air. It also had a line showing the average age of automobiles and the 2 tracked each other perfectly. It is the newer cars that helped the most. Not the smog check program. The cost of these programs BAR and CARB in CA exceeds 650 million dollars a year. Plus they have other programs too that spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Do they need to spend more money? Who knows.

 

[PorchDog]

My wife says I need to quit worrying about things I have no control over-- but I still do. I'm old, and old people complain about the government.

The point made above by s2mikon is directly on target.

If the the EPA requirements were frozen right where they are--or even what they were 7 years ago-- the air will get cleaner due to normal attrition of the fleet. Older dirtier stuff will phase out, and the stuff made in the last 10 years will never last over 10 or 12 years, ---because of timing chains-- sooty oil from direct injection--, oil consumption--low tension rings, turbo chargers, variable valve timing, and direct injection. All brought on by the EPA, and all are long term reliability killers. Plus every vehicle has a zillion modules, will not function without them, and many can only be programmed once, and they will not be available to fix this junk.

But-- the screws continue to be tightened...

 

[Albatross]

This is a long post and I’m just sharing my perspective of my involvement with the Smog Check program.

Never forget the financial incentives involved in all of this. I got my first California smog license in 1979. It was for financial reasons. Smog Check wasn’t even there yet. A smog test was only required at time of transfer. When the “Smog Check” program started (BAR 84) A 4 gas anylizer would now be required and a 2 mode test, idle and a 2500rpm no load test. Also all of us would have to attend a re-education class held by the BAR. At the time of re-education I asked why the 2500 rpm no load test, after all no one operates their car in such a manner right? The BAR clown didn’t have an answer. If you think about it, that is a very inefficient way to run an engine and gives meaningless data feedback. I had very few cars fail the high idle test. Idle testing was a different matter because many cars in traffic jams idle a lot so that was meaningful. Later they decided to do dyno testing next and this would up the cost substantially for shop owners. When I put the pencil to that it didn’t pencil out. So I passed on it.

My lawyer suggested a way to look at this from a different angle so I did. We found the state Assemblymen and Senators that sponsored the smog testing laws and I requested a list of all of their financial doners for the last 4 election cycles. They refused. Then my lawyer sent the request and they slow walked it to the end but finally complied. What a treasure trove. It was a long list. California New Car dealers association, AC spark plug, Walker Tenneco (the catalytic converter manufacture) Allen test equipment, Bear test equipment, NAPA auto parts and on and on. And so as with most laws passed que bono? (Who benefits) The failure rate with any car built in the last 15 years is now less that 5 percent. Then consider that the average age of automobiles is 12.5 years, most of the older cars are gone or not driven much.

Some states have learned that smog check is now a waste of time and money and have either eliminated or reduced the size of their programs because the newer automobiles are very clean burning. If they go wack they don’t run much longer.

California has a huge budget and a large tax base and that creates a large bureaucracy that makes sure that they stay relevant.

I used to have a chart that showed the number of days that the SCAQMD exceeded the federal clean air standards and it showed a trend of fewer days as the years went by showing the progress of cleaning up the air. It also had a line showing the average age of automobiles and the 2 tracked each other perfectly. It is the newer cars that helped the most. Not the smog check program. The cost of these programs BAR and CARB in CA exceeds 650 million dollars a year. Plus they have other programs too that spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Do they need to spend more money? Who knows.

When you say "BAR", are you talking about a lawyer, or some other left-coast air-cleaner nonsense that I haven't even heard of yet?


This was also part of that push from the Obama years to sell your junk cars--although I think that was as much from the auto-industry bail-outs as much as anything else.


What I hate most about all of this nonsense, is that it is essentially a monument of patches on top of patches on top of patches all trying to fix something that is fundamentally wrong with something far, far earlier in the engineering process. Like catalytic converters are pretty much not even needed with the control-systems on modern vehicles; they also require some significant down-tuning of the engine in order to accommodate them and the way that they work. You've got to have a certain amount of pressure coming from the exhaust, and your exhaust temps NEED to be above a certain temperature--and if you didn't have to meet those requirements, then engines could be designed to run in a much more efficient manner. Because heat is wasted energy, and so is having to increase pressures beyond what is necessary for the engine to do its primary job. And yet they are still a "requirement" for all vehicles--except for the majority of those older vehicles in which they would actually do something useful, as they're grandfathered out pretty much everywhere except for perhaps CA.

"California has a huge budget and a large tax base and that creates a large bureaucracy that makes sure that they stay relevant."
​

This is all government, as well as many "charity" programs, and why I generally avoid and advocate against both. I've heard Thomas Sowell say something like, "Nothing is as permanent as a 'temporary' government program."