Clunkers get pass with plates

Regulators eyeing ozone may tighten emissions rules

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 4, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated February 4, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.

Text size  

• 17 Comments
• Email
• Print

Thousands of metro-area drivers are legally dodging emissions tests by registering their early 1980s models as "collector" cars, even as skeptics ask whether such cars really qualify for the status.

Local air-quality regulators say the practice needs scrutiny as the region battles ozone pollution caused, in part, by clunkers that need to be tested and repaired.

State rules allow any car 25 years or older to be registered as a collector car. To do so, the owner buys special license plates and the car must pass an emissions test. But once it passes, it isn't required to be tested again unless the car is sold.

Regulators and some classic car aficionados say it's led some owners to take advantage of the rules and register a 1982 Ford Escort, for example, as a collector car to avoid the pollution testing.

"There are people taking advantage of it, obviously, and they have for years," said Ken Lloyd, executive director of the Regional Air Quality Council, which helps set pollution policy for the metro area.

"True collectors of vehicles are as upset as anybody at seeing old cars run around the streets with collector plates on them," Lloyd said. "It devalues their (actual collector) cars and the whole reasons we have collector plates."

Air quality at issue

Some 60,000 cars in the metro area have collector plates, and 3,145 of those plates are on model years 1980-1984, Lloyd said.

One metro-area Corvette dealer said many of his customers in the market for muscle cars buy early '80s models so they can avoid emission testing.

"We sell a lot . . . for that simple reason," said the dealer, who declined to allow his name be used for fear of angering his customers. He said collector plates allow clients to increase the car's power and "still keep it street legal."

But regulators looking for ways to cut elevated ozone levels are weighing changes to the rules that would make it harder to evade emission testing.

The shift follows last summer's high pollution levels. After years of growing problems, the Denver region violated the Environmental Protection Agency's health standard for ground-level ozone.

The high ozone levels mean the region must win EPA approval of a plan that makes deep cuts in ozone-forming pollutants. That has regulators looking at myriad options, including more scrutiny of older cars that have been passing as collector vehicles.

Collectors on board

Evidence suggests older cars are more likely to be high polluters.

In 2006, 12.6 percent of vehicles 1981 or older failed an emissions test - results that should come as no surprise, said University of Denver chemistry professor and emissions testing pioneer Don Stedman.

"Just because they're old doesn't mean they're broken, but the probability of them being broken is much higher when they're older," Stedman said.

Car collectors, too, recognize people are taking advantage of the law, said Leo Boyle of the Old Car Council of Colorado.

"We recognize there are vehicles out there that are sporting collector series plates that don't receive the loving attention and care that my clients provide for their cars," Boyle said. "We're not trying to defend people who are abusing the plate."

Boyle's organization and local regulators are meeting to consider how rules might be changed to limit abuse and cut emissions.

One idea: draw a line at a single year - 1975, perhaps - and make that a cut-off for collector cars.

Current rules allow a new batch of cars to be considered collector vehicles every year. Now, in 2008, 1983 models have moved into the collector phase.

But collector car owners do face one new hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, regulators began using roadside emission test devices to find dirty cars as they pass. Under the rules, a dirty car flagged under those conditions - even if it's a collector car - must be brought in for an emission test.

If the car still shows high emissions, the owner must fix it or face a $100 fine and suspension of the vehicle's registration.

Said the Corvette dealer: "That could put a damper on things."

Old cars, dirty cars

Older vehicles typically are higher polluters than newer ones.

* Data: Scientists at Denver University recently took measurements over four days on 21,000 vehicles exiting northbound Interstate 25 onto Sixth Avenue West.

* Findings: Eighty of those vehicles were model year 1982 or older. Those 80 alone accounted for 10 percent of hydrocarbon emissions and 8 percent of carbon monoxide emissions of all the cars measured.

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048

• February 4, 2008

  6:26 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jzavist writes:

  Two current hurdles for owners of clunkers are that you have to pay for five years of registration at a time and the car or truck does eventually wear out and die. The proverbial '82 Escort owner won't pay for a new transmission, and likely won't even pay for a new water pump. If it's not worth nuthin, it will go away. Better to chase 10-15 year old vehicles that are worn out after 150,000+ miles on the road . . .

• February 4, 2008

  6:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  VVVV writes:

  That figures. When it's the baby boomers wanting to drive around their 454 cubic inch muscle cars that get, what about 3 mpg, the law protects them and it is fully justified by their impression of what is or is not a collector car. Now the Gen Xers are out there using the same law to justify their 1982 Ford Escort (~30 mpg), and the boomers get all up in arms that the law is being abused?! The law was an abuse from the beginning to allow the boomers to enjoy their toys with full abandonment, but now that someone else gets to join in the fun, they want to limit it to cars older than 1972? I've seen plenty of hypocrisy, but this takes the cake.

• February 4, 2008

  6:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  Looks to me like they already have a solution in the drive-by emissions tests. It will catch those that are dirty no matter what their registration status and make a difference that way. Sometimes politicians want to meddle in things for the simple reason that they can't stand to see people get around stupid laws. Wasn't it in the books to phase out the emissions testing centers in favor of more portable drive by stations? Of course they are forgetting that they have multi-year exemptions for new cars so the rich will get another "pass."
  Of course using only drive by stations would identify polluting cars, permit those with clean cars to avoid an expense and in general save money for consumers and actually save the state money in the "make up" payments they pay the company doing the testing.

  Should they decide to pass a law restricting collectors' plates to vehicles older than a certain year, it will increase the value of such cars. Go to any used car lot that has older cars for sale. The "break line" of age for emissions tests adds value to the cars old enough to qualify for the plates. The "out of state" plates will increase for those who don't need to commute. People will defy the tyranny of the state in any manner they can. Perhaps the state should find some way to encourage the illegals to register their vehicles. That would put a chunk of change in the till too.
  Sometimes politicians would do well to leave well enough alone.

  And yes, we have collectors plates on one of our cars. It is one of about a hundred Checkers left. We spent over five hundred dollars on exhaust equipment on it to pass the emissions laws. In the past five years it has gone exactly six hundred miles. The collectors insurance limits the mileage a collector car is permitted to drive yearly. If the government were to copy that into law, it would be a solution to those using those plates on rust buckets.

  I'd rather they spent their time getting rid of the arbitrary difference in the tests, if we keep them, for 1982 and older cars. All cars should take the same test. But beware, there are still products on the market, even those illegal in our state, that will allow any non-smoking car to pass an emissions test in any testing facility. As I said, the more the government meddles the more the people rebel.

• February 4, 2008

  9:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  How dare citizens follow the screwy laws that idiot politicians passed. How dare citizens demonstrate more intelligence than politicians. The nerve of "those little people" to flaunt the errors and mistakes of the "elite" that crafted such legislation. Maybe it's time to elect fewer lawyers.... and more normal people. The normal people keep outsmarting the "elite" lawyers.

• February 4, 2008

  9:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  aeb1barfo writes:

  Meddling again.

  Try buying Insurance for a REAL collector's car.

  This smells like a MONEY problem to me. The STINK of the RICH ELITE.

  You already get hosed by Envirotest and Big Brother by drive-by (emissions) shooters...

  So level the playing field. NO EXEMPTIONS. ALL CARS ( and I mean ALL ) get tested! Government vehicles too! That includes COP CARS that have " modified " setups...

  While we are on the MONEY issue, NO EXEMPTIONS for fees on GOVERNMENT vehicles...That would solve some fiscal problems if agencies had to BUDGET for their vehicles privilege to use the roads...

  It kinda hurts when the ELITE have to follow the same rules as the (unwashed) lower classes..

  So don't screw with my 1977 Jag collector plates....
  Or I will add my older Taurus Station Wagons to the list...

• February 4, 2008

  10:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Brockage writes:

  Just what government does well - the very worst polluters are off the hook while the rest of us drivers are held against the wall -- doesn't anybody think ahead down there under the golden dome?

• February 4, 2008

  11:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Ramm writes:

  Let me think about this. At one time my family could afford only older car/truck that were on the verge of being exempt. So if you are poor and cannot drive a newer car- you will be screwed by those who can afford newer cars. Sweet! I am sure that the estimated 60K cars that are running around the area are totally the fault for all the ozone problems in the city. Gov vehicles? Good idea. Never happen. Wow....yawn. Now let's move on to the homeless unwashed drunk guys downtown. I am sure if we hosed them down once a week, that would help too since they would not pass the test either. And people with bad breath. And Ken Lloyd who's "whatever" doesn't stink. The list goes on and on and on..........

• February 4, 2008

  12:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  Some of the rich elite don't want to share their special status plates with cars not in great shape. Our Checker was parked at the first snow last year. Since we don't have the funds to do any work on it, it hasn't moved for over a year. It probably won't move until some time after June 2009. Were it not for that collectors plate and the amount of insurance we have to buy for it to remain valid, it would be parked in a storage yard unlicensed for the entire period. Ask the state how much revenue that would cost them.

  BTW the law also includes other exemptions from emissions including one if you convert your car to propane. EPA finally has backed off modifications like that. We are hoping to convert the Checker to Ethanol. Quite simple to state but complicated to complete. Parts were purchased so we could do the work last summer and my husband had to spend his free time last summer taking care of me.
  Government cannot compel people to take actions. It can threaten and punish, but if people wish to avoid a certain law it is done. I used to think the emission tests were a good idea. That was before a car with over a thousand dollars of repairs and refitting on the exhaust system went untested because the previous owner, a teenager, had replaced the shift lever on the column with a homemade one. It worked quite well. They refused to test it with that shift lever even though the car worked quite well. A transmission shop took a look at it and said it would cost several hundred dollars to replace it. Their "repair" consisted of a shift cover and a new knob that didn't have the shape of a female nude. They tested it, it passed. While we were there, they failed three cars because they had minor leaks. One car left about 2 drops of oil on the floor. It failed. Since then I realize it is nothing more than a money transfer to the governments' cronies. Drive by systems catch cars that actually pollute. It tests cars in real situations without the opportunity to alter fuel mixes or make other temporary changes. Hmmm a program that works, saves taxpayers money and reduces governmental control over the people. No wonder they are fussing. First the older cars then the rest of us.

• February 4, 2008

  1:41 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Who is to say what is collectable. If someone likes '82 Escorts, then they should be able to collect them. There are a lot of cars made in the 80s and 90s or newer that are collectable. How about the person with the '87 Grand National...definitely a collector. Or, a '93 40th anniversary ZR1. 'and so on. Capping the model year on a collectable to 1975 is completely stupid...maybe if it was an old car plate.

  I have a '79 Trans Am with 40,000 miles, all original, WS6, 400 4sp that I have collector plates on. I drive this car maybe 100 miles per year.

  I have collector's insurance on both my Trans Ams, the other is a '97 that I drive maybe 2,000 miles per year. In order for me to obtain collector's insurance, I need to have a 15 year or newer model year car for every driver in the house. My wife and I have a 2001 and 2006 model year for this purpose.

  Both my collectors pass emissions with great marks, but it would make very little difference if they didn't...they're simply not driven enough.

  I think collector's plates should be open to those who have collectables (what they personally deem collectable), not restricted to year. However, those registering the collectable should have insurance and registration on a 15 year or new vehicle they drive daily.

• February 4, 2008

  2:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  notbeinfringed writes:

  I drive a 25 year old f-250 diesel that is in better repair than 95% of the vehicles on the road. I get 18mpg out of my truck and I have better emissions than most people because I use WVO/SVO and BD - each your hearts out.

  Oh and btw my carbon footprint in the vehicle is much lower than your precious Prius - because #1 my emissions are lower than yours and #2 it's been on the road twice as long as your econo box will be. Never mind that your vehicle required SIGNIFICANT energy to be manufactured. What ya gunna do when the batteries in your yuppie mobile die? Pollute the planet? Thought so. Get over yourselves.

• February 4, 2008

  3:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  Some of the rich elite don't want to share their special status plates with cars not in great shape. Our Checker was parked at the first snow last year. Since we don't have the funds to do any work on it, it hasn't moved for over a year. It probably won't move until some time after June 2009. Were it not for that collectors plate and the amount of insurance we have to buy for it to remain valid, it would be parked in a storage yard unlicensed for the entire period. Ask the state how much revenue that would cost them.

  BTW the law also includes other exemptions from emissions including one if you convert your car to propane. EPA finally has backed off modifications like that. We are hoping to convert the Checker to Ethanol. Quite simple to state but complicated to complete. Parts were purchased so we could do the work last summer and my husband had to spend his free time last summer taking care of me.
  Government cannot compel people to take actions. It can threaten and punish, but if people wish to avoid a certain law it is done. I used to think the emission tests were a good idea. That was before a car with over a thousand dollars of repairs and refitting on the exhaust system went untested because the previous owner, a teenager, had replaced the shift lever on the column with a homemade one. It worked quite well. They refused to test it with that shift lever even though the car ran clean.. A transmission shop took a look at it and said it would cost several hundred dollars to replace the shift. They had an idea. Their "repair" consisted of a shift cover and a new knob that didn't have the shape of a female nude. They tested it, it passed. While we were there, they failed three cars because they had minor leaks. One car left about 2 drops of oil on the floor. It failed for "leaking fluids." Since then I realize it is more than a money transfer to the governments' cronies. It is a means to meddle. Drive by testing systems catch cars that actually pollute. It tests cars in real situations without the opportunity to alter fuel mixes or make other temporary changes.
  Hmmm a program that works, saves taxpayers money and reduces governmental control over the people. No wonder they are fussing. First the older cars then the rest of us.

• February 4, 2008

  8:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

  If a vehicle is still on the road after 25 years apparently someone thinks it has value and is worth keeping, hence collector.

  Trust me there are plenty of newer emissions exempt vehicles that have been modified and are pumping some extra emissions.

• February 4, 2008

  10:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BKindel writes:

  Neo-classic cars (over 25 years old, but not true antiques) shouldn't be exempted. They should be tested like the rest of us, and required to meet the emission standards for the year in which they were manufactured. That way, the true collectors (who want their cars to be as close to vintage as possible) wouldn't be unduly penalized, but the scofflaws would lose their free ride.

• February 5, 2008

  5:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  notbeinfringed writes:

  Your post smacks of idiocy. I'm sure that people in the 80's felt that way about 65' Mustangs.

• February 7, 2008

  8:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  oldcarguy writes:

  Well here we go again with the "old cars, dirty cars" mantra that the government has been chanting for years. Why is it that EVERY time the issue of air quality comes up the politicans and evironmentalists immedately run to this issue? We never hear them come down on the oil/gas refineries, trucking compies, municipal fleet vehicles and the like. The real issue is that the vintage / old car owner makes an easy target for this whole air quality issue. These folks are not represented by high priced attorneys and powerful lobbyists so they become convenient scapegoats in this emmissions debacle.

  Personally, as an vintage vehicle owner I am offended and insulted by this longtime Communist propaganda. I already do my part to limit (when practical) my driving and take the time and expense to maintain my vehicles. Now we have folks like Ken Lloyd telling us he understands the difference between an 1980's car and a 1960's or '70's classic. Rubbish! I think these guys just want to get cars off the roads!

  Additionally I question the validity of this "test" the DU scientists peroformed. First of all I am hard pressed to count 8, never mind 18 or even 80 pre '79 or older cars/trucks on the road in the metro area. There just simply not that many vintage vehicles left anymore. Or of those that still exist, how many are actually driven on any sort of a regular basis? Second, how exactly did Don Stedman and his coherts determine that those 80 cars were actually pre 1982? I seriously doubt that these scientists have either the knowledege, interest or appreciation for vintage classics. Short of culling the license info for those 21,000 vehicles there really was no way for them to claim this. Its a real shame that these politicans and environmentalists have taken environmental responsibility (a legit issue) and turned it into an obscene dog and pony show. They need to stop harassing and discriminating this segment of society simply because it is easy and convenient for them! Make everyone carry their share of responsibility and leave the classics alone!

• February 24, 2008

  7:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  maxvamp writes:

  Ok, I live in Boulder county ( Just barely ) and I am interested in protecting the environment.

  With that said, I find this complaint, and some of the comments made by the proponents of having the laws changed, such as those commented by the folks on Drive Radio on KHOW Saturday Morning almost totally offensive.

  I have heard how the collectors should be penalized in having a collector plate by having the plate prices go way up in cost. I have heard people ( on the radio ) comment that no one would ever consider cars like an 83 olds to ever be a collector's item.

  Fact of the matter is that you cannot tell what cars will ever be valued as a collector's item. Cases in point.

  In 1984, I purchased my 1969 Camaro for $500. It was just an old clunker. Today, I could sell it north of 20k. A 1970's dodge Monaco is considered a collectable because of movies like the Blues Brothers, or the many tv shows of that era using them for cop cars. The 69 charger became an instant classic due to Dukes of Hazzard.

  But even those shows don't account for the obscurity of cars that you cannot predict will become classics. In some circles, the 1987 and 1988 Chevy sprints that were turbocharged from the factory , and indeed some escort are considered collectable due to their cult followings ( and how fun they were ) . The Honda CRX is in the same class.

  Fact of the matter is if the government is trying to get their emissions quota in line, trying to guess what is a classic car is, is an absolutely horrible idea that is comparable to putting President Bush in an articulation contest.

  As I mentioned before, I do have a classic or three. I have a 66 Chevy II, and 1969 Camaro, and a 1993 Geo Metro ( a future classic in my opinion, due to the building cult following ). I am also concerned about the environment, and as such, I keep my Metro well within spec of emissions standards for Boulder County. I have thought about trying things to reduce the 66 and 69 chevy's emissions, but I drive them rarely, so I am unlikely making a dent in the environment with them.

  I believe though the problem is people using the smokers as daily drivers.

  I would propose that the state adopt the same policy as the insurance companies. If an owner drives a car more than 5k miles a year, the insurance for these cars is charged as a standard car, with no breaks in pricing. For those with classics, we get a deal because we do not use our cars that much a year.

• February 24, 2008

  7:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  maxvamp writes:

  Based on the concept of a carbon tax, I believe that if this thought was carried forward, people that have the older cars and have a classic plate on them should be tracked with annual mileage ( as done in other states, like Florida ) .

  If someone goes above 5k miles, they lose the privilege of no emissions testing, and have to pay a carbon tax based on their emissions results. Those that have brought their drivetrain up to date, and have a car as clean as a late model car, get no carbon impact fee, and those cars in original shape or hot-rodded have either substandard, or no emissions equipment, and with an opened up 307 chevy with no cat conv. etc, get a proposed (up to ) $700/year carbon fee.

  With this form of policy, you can have the people that have collector plan as it was intended, and those who are just trying to get by with an old clunker are discouraged from doing so. Either way, I get to keep my Metro, Chevy II and Camaro, all in great shape, and the guy trying to drive the smoke bomb around without getting caught has to re-think their plans. Either way, no one in the government is trying to dictate to me what a classic are or truck is.

  A pattern like this could also be applied in future greener vehicles as well. Lower registration fees for green cars anyone?

  Just my thoughts.

  Max.

Featured

• Legislature Blog

  

  Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Who's next?

  

  Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.

• Rocky year in photos

  

  View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.

• Winter Escapes

  

  Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs

• Shanahan's career

  

  See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.

• 12 days of Drew

  

  Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production