How do you interpret this?
#46
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: northwestern Ontario
Posts: 263,002
Received 4,132 Likes
on
2,656 Posts
Fun thread. I say the only thing more difficult than interpretation of this regulation will be enforcement. Here in the US we are innocent until proven guilty and proving when the current engine was installed in my truck will not be easy. And proving it is a 1998 or a 1978 SBC 350 isn't easy either without pulling it out. But no matter, Oregon is pretty green but they haven't threatened the hot rod hobbyist in the least.
I think the valve covers would be an indication between those years
#47
Speaking of California, a friend sent me this link I found interesting...
For Cam Newton, Adding Super Tax Insult to Super Bowl Injury | Cato @ Liberty
For Cam Newton, Adding Super Tax Insult to Super Bowl Injury | Cato @ Liberty
#48
#49
What does "K"alifornia stand for? I see it a lot, but all I ever find is a movie of the same name sake!
Anyways - I don't know if I should start another thread or slightly nudge the direction this one is already heading: when I first started I was s bit worried about building such an old vehicle because Denver residents had just defeated a bill to ban pre-catalytic vehicles from their city (Memory is a bit weak on this one - it could have been a different city or slightly different requirements). So I was worried about spending a lot of money on a vehicle I could only drive for a few more years. But, any thoughts on the likelihood of something like this article:
The Old Car Loophole: When Will It Close? | The American Spectator
Additionally, and a bit ironically, I just got an email from Summit Racing about how the EPA is trying to ban vehicles originally manufactured for the road from being converted to race vehicles - yet another push that worries me about building an expensive truck.
Anyways - I don't know if I should start another thread or slightly nudge the direction this one is already heading: when I first started I was s bit worried about building such an old vehicle because Denver residents had just defeated a bill to ban pre-catalytic vehicles from their city (Memory is a bit weak on this one - it could have been a different city or slightly different requirements). So I was worried about spending a lot of money on a vehicle I could only drive for a few more years. But, any thoughts on the likelihood of something like this article:
The Old Car Loophole: When Will It Close? | The American Spectator
Additionally, and a bit ironically, I just got an email from Summit Racing about how the EPA is trying to ban vehicles originally manufactured for the road from being converted to race vehicles - yet another push that worries me about building an expensive truck.
#50
#51
It's not just Colorado, the EPA is trying to ban people from using your car on a racetrack:
SEMA Action Network (SAN) AA2016FED1
Makes me a bit worried about this slippery slope. That previous link brought up some good points about the graying of the hobby - luckily for us that's the demographic most likely to vote!
SEMA Action Network (SAN) AA2016FED1
Makes me a bit worried about this slippery slope. That previous link brought up some good points about the graying of the hobby - luckily for us that's the demographic most likely to vote!
#52
And at the rate they're spending money they don't have, the state will be bankrupt soon. We really need to spend $68 billion on a high speed train that, if they could get 1,000 passengers a day, will take 216 years to break even at $86 a ticket.
Okay, I'm done. Sorry for the soap box.
#54
#55
I should have kept the link, but the discussion on engines a page or two back had some paragraphs on the onus being on the owner to prove that the engine swap happened pre-99 or such, otherwise it would be assumed it was post 99.
Now, does that go against what most of us believe to be the letter and spirit of the law? I would argue yes, but how many of us have the money to fight it?
Now, does that go against what most of us believe to be the letter and spirit of the law? I would argue yes, but how many of us have the money to fight it?
#56
#57
#58
That's no joke! There was a piece in a magazine that old goats in their 70's are getting it, and their wives want no part of it. Also a problem in old folks' homes. Modern times... gotta love 'em.
#59
"Old goats "we are going to resemble that statement very soon then you won't think of it as old!!!!!
#60
Lawmaker files bill requiring men to have note from wife, other requirements to get Viagra
It's kind of a joke - the representative that introduced it (I could only find Kentucky) did it as a response to the bills other legislators introduced about abortion.
I had to look it up - it just seemed like something you'd find on the onion. Probably not a bad thing - if the government gets bogged down in ridiculous legislation, then maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone!
It's kind of a joke - the representative that introduced it (I could only find Kentucky) did it as a response to the bills other legislators introduced about abortion.
I had to look it up - it just seemed like something you'd find on the onion. Probably not a bad thing - if the government gets bogged down in ridiculous legislation, then maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone!