awatkins

Which exact EPA text do you see as stating special situations where the Clean Air Act does not apply?

Tom -- Really important question: did the BAR people point you to those documents? If not, why do you think they are related to your situation? KnifeySpooney — Please read this text from the ARB web site at (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/spmv_test.htm): ”SB 100 allows up to 500 specially constructed vehicles per year to be assembled and registered for on-road use, the individual builder/owner is given the option to choose the vehicle’s make and model year based on the representation of how the vehicle looks or its engine configuration. These vehicles are exempt from the state’s smog check requirements” [underlining mine] “How the vehicle looks” should have been written as “what year car it replicates”. Given the above, the fact your MSO does not describe your car as a replica of a pre-70s Lotus or Caterham dumps you out of SB100. You should go back to Caterham or your dealer and get a correct MSO before proceeding.

KnifeySpooney -- Is yours registered under SB100 in California? If so where exactly (in which field) on the MSO does it say that? In particular, what does it say in the "year" field, the "make" field, and the "model" field?

No. I’ve never heard of an SB100 engine needing to meet any federal standard when the car in question is listed as a replica of (in this case) a Lotus Seven, because when Lotus Sevens were made there were no federal emission standards. The whole point of SB100 is that you are registering a replica of a vehicle from before there was significant smog control, as you should have stated in your application and hopefully on the MSO. For example, If you state (as I and my MSO did) “replica of 1966 Ford GT40” then your engine needs to meet only the CA standards in effect in 1966 (which was having a PCV system). There are no engine stickers involved. The fundamental question is: how exactly has your car been described in your application and on your MSO? It should say “replica of <year> <make> <model>“. So please tell us what it says for those three fields.

Our thoughts are with you.

The SPCN rules as described on the DMV site (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/specially-constructed-spcns-vehicles-ffvr-23/) state: "Some nonresident vehicle registration applicants may be issued an SPCNS certificate of sequence when the out-of-state title identifies the vehicle make as SPCNS, homemade, assembled, etc. and the vehicle meets the SPCNS definition per CVC 580" First of all, note the use of "some" and "may." Second, if that is the only governing language on this subject then it may be that you cannot (legally) register a kit vehicle (or whatever) as a SPCN if it was registered as an ordinary car in another state, thus supporting RNR's point about the risk of getting caught.

“You still have too go through sb100 if you are registering a kit car from out of state.” There are at least three different cases: out of state but never registered, registered out of state as special construction, or registered out of state as ordinary vehicle. To which one(s) are you referring?

Which specific facebook group?

Hi Daniel — Thanks, I’m glad to know there is a known SB100-compliant solution for dry sumps. I’m a little unclear on your layout. Where in your system is the pcv? I built new as well and did not find the procees onerous. Until this thread I did not know it was even possible to transfer one in, although I gather the OP’s car had never been registered, so hsi case is not really different from one built in-state as I did (after all, they don’t ask where it was built). So the only real difference is the OP is not the first legal owner of the assembled car and that case could happen in state as well. I’m curious to know what happens if you try to register a “kit” car already registered under some other state’s version of “SPCN” or for that matter registered as a normal vehicle. I imagine most people in that situation would simply start at the DMV the same as if they had bought normal out-of-state car, so the question might become whether the CA DMV ever detects that case and if so what do they do?

Google “dry sump street pcv” and you will find many discussions of this issue.

Talking to them is the best idea. My command of all this is superficial. I don’t think you can vent the tank directly to vacuum; that might mess with the mixture, which I believe is the whole point of the PVC valve itself, i.e. to limit inhaling of crankcase fumes to when it does not upset the carburation. What I think would work is to put a PVC valve between the tank and the intake tract, but there might be side effects’m unaware of. BTW I did look at the PVC system for a 70’s dry sump Maserati V8 as shown in its parts book and it looks to me just like a normal PVC system.

I wondred if this might be a dry-sump-related issue. I suspect the referee would accept a hose connection from the oil tank to the air cleaner, but of course don’t know. I have read of race engines that have scavenge pumps deliberately designed to pump at a rate that keeps the crankcase under negaative pressure thus preventing the pumping losses from allowing the crankcase to be pressurized, and I assume requiring vacuum relief valves. These obviously would emit no crankcase fumes. One line of inquiry would be to see how emission-controlled street cars with dry sumps deal with this. I have a couple so will try to figure it out. In the meantime, for this to be a real issue (as opposed to what the referee thinks is required) there would have to be a place on the engine that exposes the crankcase to the outside atmosphere. Is there one? If so, what does it look like?

Mine was an American V-8 so a PCV valve connecting the intake manifold to crankcase was all it took. Seems unlikely to me any modern production engine would normally vent to the atmosphere, and I would assume the shop manual for any car using that engine family would document how crankcase fumes are managed

I do know that since I did mine the sequence of submissions changed such that you have to demonstrate posession of the car before receiving a sequence number. The Coddington, et al, story very nicely explains that change. I don’t think this really matters to the typical applicant, unless I’m missing something.

Yes, please share any useful contacts you make at BAR. I took a Superformance GT40 through this about 10 years ago. does not capture some important subtleties. The expected sequence is: Applicant buys a kit from source A (Caterham). Applicant buys at least the engine but perhaps additional drivetrain parts from Source B. Source A and B cannot be parts of the same legal entity. Applicant or his chosen shop C assembles it all. C cannot be part of either A or B. Applicant then applies for SPCN using documentation of transactions with A, B and C, specifying the car is a replica of a year X Lotus Seven. X should be ‘75 or earlier, ideally before ‘68. Hopefully the MSO describes the car in that way. Applicant has the option to use the year of the engine “family” to set this year but to do so with a Caterham would be suicide beause then you would be subject to the emission standards in effect when the engine was “current”. (199x through today) Car cannot be assembled “on spec.” by any of A, B or C. IOW applicant must initiate the process of purchasing unassembled components and services in individual transactions from A, B and C. I think it is critical that we determine conclusively: 1. What part of that is Caterham allegedly guilty of violating?” and even so, 2. if WE have followed the above rules why are Caterham’s purported actions relevant?