My only hope for my 1985 Jeep J10 is “Leno’s Law,” Senate Bill 712. The state of California requires me to get my beloved old truck to pass emissions, which would involve me trying to find unobtainium parts, and then tuning my truck to run like garbage. Either those, or I’d have to go through the considerable trouble of trying to do an engine-swap. These are’t going to happen, meaning Leno’s Law — which seeks to extend California’s emissions relief from “all cars before 1976” to “all cars 35 years old and older” — is my only hope. But I think it’s doubtful that it’s going to pass.
I’ve owned my 1985 Jeep J10 for 10 years now, and I love it. It’s a truck’s truck, with a long bed, a manual transmission, 4×4, a bench seat, a regular cab, manual locking hubs, a gun rack, and a stamped tailgate — what more could anyone want in a pickup?
The problem is that my J10, which was legal to drive in Michigan despite missing emissions control devices (since they’re so failure-prone and hard to replace), is not legal to drive in California, where I now live. For me to get the vehicle back into compliance would cost me far too much money and time. To avoid this, I either have to sell the vehicle, register it elsewhere (California is cracking down on this, I’m told), or work with a California “referee” on an engine swap. And, with a new child in my home, I don’t have time for that.
Leno’s Law would exempt my truck, and any vehicle 35 years old or older.The upsides of the proposal would be preserved car culture, more money to the state in the form of taxes/consumer spending, less of a struggle finding specialized SMOG shops for folks who own older post-1975/pre-2000 cars, and just generally improved joy in this world.
Those who denounce the concept often cite emissions output and its deleterious effect on the climate and on human health. I recently read a story on Capitol Weekly, a news site about California politics, and in that article were a number of scary quotes about vehicle emissions. Like this one:
Will Barrett, national senior director for clean air advocacy at the American Lung Association, called SB 712 “one of the most problematic air quality bills of the year.”
“Older vehicles pollute a lot more than modern vehicles,” he told the Bay Area News Group earlier this month. “It’s that much more important to have them in the program to protect against millions of extra miles of smog emissions that would come as a result.”
Brendan Twohig, who spoke at the April 8 hearing on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [comprised of executive officers from all 35 local air districts] said California Air Resources data that shows that a 1982 passenger car that passes smog check emits approximately 123 times the Nox emissions of a 2025 car.
“So assuming a 1982 car has driven just 3,000 miles in a year, its Nox [nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide] emissions are equivalent of a 2025 car being driven 369,000 miles per year. And then for daily drivers, which would be allowed under this bill, at 11,000 miles a year, that’s the equivalent of 1,353,000 miles,” he said.
Twohig believes that without smog checks, emissions equipment can be tampered with or fail altogether, resulting in air pollution impacts that can be substantially high.
I haven’t confirmed any of these figures, but I buy it. I can totally see an old car like my J10 putting out hundreds of times as much NOx as a modern gas car, and so even if we consider mileage limits, it’s still going to be a significant net negative for pollution over a new car.
Of course, that’s assuming the person is replacing the old car with a new one, which is highly unlikely. These are collector vehicles, most likely with a mileage cap under Leno’s Law, so they’re clearly toys. And let’s be honest: There are lots of toys that aren’t the best for the environment, like, for example, pre 1976 cars! And older boats, and motorycles and, heck, private jets! A small number of people putting limited miles on their 1976-1990 (or whatever year they choose) isn’t really going to be that big of a deal for the environment, though per the quote above, it’s not going to be a positive one, and to some lawmakers, that makes Leno’s Law directionally-incorrect.
Leno’s Law Supporters suggest an emissions abatement fee, which they’d gladly pay.
View this post on Instagram
In my eyes, Leno’s Law is going to be a hard sell. “Let’s make it easier for polluting cars to drive legally” is how some people hear it, and emotional appeals like “let’s preserve car culture” aren’t enough. Economic incentives are there, but how significant are they? How do they compare to the potential increase in pollution? That’s a key question, as this clip from a Senate Appropriations Meeting makes clear.
Here’s what SEMA has to say about Leno’s Law:
The passage of SB 712 is expected to have positive economic and cultural impacts. California’s specialty automotive aftermarket industry supports more than 149,000 jobs and contributes $40.44 billion to the state’s economy.
The bill aims to keep these jobs and businesses thriving by reducing regulatory burdens on classic car owners.
“This bill ensures California remains a welcoming home for car culture—whether you’re restoring a ’76 Trans Am, cruising in a lowrider, or just visiting your local classic car show,” added Grove. “We’re embracing the history, innovation, and pride of these collector cars.”
If the economic benefits can be leveraged into environmental remediation, then maybe Leno’s Law won’t be such an environmental detriment. Otherwise I just don’t see how it’s going to move forward. I also have to wonder if there are other answers to this problem — As an example: Your car is emissions exempt and mileage-capped if and only if you daily-drive an EV and put at least 3x the miles on it.
Here’s more from the bill’s author, Senator Shannon Grove:
“These classic cars aren’t just hobby vehicles—they represent generations of craftsmanship, culture, and community pride,” said Senator Grove. “With this bill, we’re protecting small businesses, empowering car enthusiasts, and preserving a vital piece of California’s heritage.”
Right now, cars before the catalytic converter era are legal to drive in California without any SMOG checks. The idea that California will say “your car actually came with emissions equipment but we no longer care if it works” seems tough to me. But I’m still a proponent of the bill, because I think car culture matters. And also, come on: Who wouldn’t want to see this truck out on the road? Joy, folks — it’s the only emission that matters:
I did recently buy a 1989 Chevy K1500 five-speed extended cab. Maybe it’s time for this to just take the spot of the J10? It doesn’t have a spot of rust and it SMOGs nicely, even though it’s not quite as cool or “pure” as a pickup truck:
Here’s the answer to your problems — maybe.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fcfJBgqZGCeY7r599
When it comes to car related laws, FUCK CALIFORNIA
I feel like much of the problem is the physical inspection. If you want clean emissions, test the emissions. If it passes, let people register it. If people want to swap in a 2024 engine that produces 1/200th the emissions of the original vehicle, stop harassing people for how they did it, and focus on the goal: clean air.
It’s (federally) illegal for someone to add OR subtract catalytic converters to a vehicle from what it came with originally. Are we REALLY saying that if someone wants to put a converter or two on a 1977 truck so it doesn’t stink, and it then passes emissions better than when it came off the show room floor, we care how they made that happen? The intent is lost.
People in CA know, due to stringent physical inspection, that any mods are likely to result in a failure. So even if the mod improves emissions, they fail, so there is no incentive to even attempt to improve emissions. That’s nonsensical, but then again, it’s the west coast.
You are perfectly describing what is often so wrong with the laws passed by various governments, an error which the state of California has raised to an art form: proper observation of the protocol is more important than the actual results. DT is not the first California gearhead I’ve heard describing this emissions debacle, where cars that run cleaner than OEM are required to include their factory emissions control devices in order to pass an emissions inspection, even though they pollute MORE in stock form.
Imagine a guy with a 1977 Camaro with a Holley Sniper fuel injection system, who has to spend an hour removing it and reinstalling the factory Quadrajet and the smog pump that never really pumped any smog in the first place in order to “pass emissions.” That car literally will “emit” more pollution in stock form than in dangerous, selfish, modified hot-rodded form. When he goes home and removes the smog pump and reinstalls the Sniper, his car will be “illegal,” despite running cleaner than it did at the emissions test that he passed with flying colors. Results don’t matter – the process does? Go to hell, California.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think the environment gives a damn how you come to polluting last, as long as you pollute less than you were before. But Sacramento sure does.
Every once in a while, I end up stopped behind a mid-late 60s muscle car and despite a cabin filter, smell the unburned or perhaps partially burned hydrocarbons and it reminded me of what L.A. smelled like, even in the 70s. I don’t miss it.
And David, nobody walks in LA.
https://youtu.be/80WyBxo0Hto
Add this article to the list of reasons why I will visit California if I have to, but I will not move there. There are clearly others, including in this comments section, who will draw an opposite conclusion.
Thus the state-by-state political self-sorting bias continues.
I never thought I’d move here, but I did, and I love it. And I’ve got gas in my veins.
So don’t knock it! There are people of all walks here!
“The problem is that my J10, which was legal to drive in Michigan despite missing emissions control devices ”
Which is to say that on a federal-law level, it’s illegal… and technically illegal in Michigan too. It’s just that Michigan chooses not to enforce those federal laws.
I was thinking… the easiest way to get that old J10 emissions compliant might be to convert it to a BEV.
If CA would allow older vehicle owners to simply put in a carb-certified universal cat & ; make it a requirement of 76-up vehicles, without smog testing, it would be the solution I think. Straight piping cars is stupid anyway, and trying to make old smog equipment work is like chasing a well-slept cockroach
@David tracy – long time lurker here, and even longer CA resident with an assortment of post-1976 smog rehabilitation projects (including a CARB-legal SBC swap into an FJ60, etc.).
Before you get to the point of desperation of parting ways with your J10 (assuming you want to keep it), DM me.
Happy to help share any recommendations/tips/tricks I have gathered over the years that might be applicable for your unfortunate – though all too common nowadays – situation.
David, this is an excellent opportunity to get in touch with Deboss Garage, who is doing the pickup conversions for Edison Motors. Their swaps have been sticking to Ontario’s emissions, which are similar. Imagine having the worlds first hybrid J10 that keeps the original suspension and feel of a purely utilitarian truck, but can pass with the best on the sniffer. It also helps that Rich and Aaron are just great guys off camera and would be excellent friends to have.
I’d love to meet them, though this truck has to keep its manual transmission, as to me, that’s kinda the point!
Could it keep the manual transmission with a hybrid system kinda like those from Toyota? AKA Motor sandwiched between the engine and transmission? That would be rad..!
if you want to keep a J10 around you just need to find the more mythical 1974/1975 versions now. Or somehow “convince” someone yours is that old.
Here’s my suggestion:
Can’t go wrong!
I wonder how killing CARB (as the senate did last night) do to this?
They revoked the waiver that allows California to set stricter (than federal) emissions standards going forward. It did not kill CARB, nor that agencies ability to enforce the existing smog laws that were on the book for cars build prior to the revocation of the waiver.
The state of California can continue to require the bi-annual SMOG check on any car built since 1976 (current law), can continue to require that any aftermarket equipment installed on cars has to have the CARB EO number, in order to pass that SMOG check.
I don’t like it (one reason I had to get rid of my 1977 Aspen wagon many years ago), but that’s how it is here.
I’d just be happy with dropping the inspection requirement, you still have the emissions test for vehicles over 35y old, but you don’t have to be stock any more. The crazy swap is diesel, so you no longer have tests, then don’t tell them you swapped a gas engine back in.
I agree with you on that. Keep the 30/35yr exemption, and as long as it passes the sniff test what does it matter. Engine swap. Aftermarket cats*, Holley Fuel injection swap, etc. Those would make for much cleaner running older cars, and still meeting the emissions standards of when the car was built. Go for it. That’s my take.
When I brought my 2001 Bullitt back to CA from my brother in Louisiana, the cats were gutted. OEM cats aren’t available anymore, and I was only able to locate 1 CARB Approved Cat X-pipe. Thankfully it was only $700 at the time. It’s now a $2300 part, compared to a few other aftermarket cat pipes at $600-$900. From a sniff test, I really wonder if those non-CARB approved pipes would still have it pass the sniff test or not.
I love the J10 as much as any other person not really into American cars, and I totally get it. I want to agree with “these are enthusiast cars and see low miles” etcetera (an argument I often apply to imports), but having lived in California and seeing how many pre-smog, 1970s cars are used as dailies I have to admit that the case is not very strong. The climate makes it a possibility; you live in the State that Rust Forgot after all.
Perhaps there could be a mileage limit, but I also know that a bunch of people would immediately take advantage of this by disconnecting their odometers or whathaveyou, thereby ruining it for everyone else. Perhaps a sizable annual tax?
In Virginia, we have “Antique Vehicle” tags that make the car exempt from all inspections, but have a mileage limit. Mileage isn’t tracked so it can’t be enforced. So what we see are drivers putting antique plates on crappy 80’s beater cars because they won’t pass a safety inspection.
It’s totally a quandary, the J10 is such a unique vehicle. I personally never see them on the roads anymore here in the northeast. Good news is that you already have a truck for truck needs. I’m a weirdo but I always take lots of pics with my cars and when it’s time to move on you’ve got a ton of memories. Go on a long drive with an Insta360 on the dash and record all the sounds and feels. I wish there was tech like that back in the 90s when I sold off cars I loved and had to part ways with.
Cali’s smog rules are what they are but they do seem to be effective. I can remember LA being clouded over with a perpetual gray haze that’s gotten better over the decades. Don’t downplay health, im only in my 40s but I’m feeling it more each year. It’s only going to get worse. Health is taken for granted, and you can’t really buy your way our of bad health.
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80’s and there was a constant haze in the horizon. Often I couldn’t even see the mountains at the other end of the valley. During visit a few years ago, I noticed that the haze is gone. I may pound my fist at government regulations, but it worked.
I gotta say, its like lighting up a cigarette on an airplane and saying ‘no, I bought this pack before it was against the saw’
“I bought it BEFORE Elon went crazy”
Suuuureee ya did….
yeah this sticker makes me laugh, he was ALWAYS crazy, at least us enthusiasts new that lol
That ridiculous submarine/”pedo guy” fiasco was a big red flag.
I know California has a particular NO2 problem that will not be completely solved by my solution, but hear me out.
Classic cars should be exempt from emission as long as they are burning pure synthetic fuel.
Synth fuels burn a lot cleaner, meaning less unburnt fuel into the atmosphere. No catalyst needed. Less smell, less lung problems, less risk of cancer.
The downside is price. In my country, synth fuel is more than double the price of normal fossil fuel. But this also means these cars will be used and treasured as classics instead of just dodging the rules.
I’d need to see some proof of that.
Synthetic fuels may contain less sulfur and such but as far as combustion goes I question whether it has any meaningful impact on NOx, unburned hydrocarbons or CO.
Synthetic motor fuels are not commercially available anywhere, and they don’t necessarily reduce emissions at all.
That may depend on how you define “synthetic”.
I think biodiesel could be considered a synthetic fuel since its synthesized from vegetable oil and alcohol. Ethanol too since its enzymatically synthesized from sugar. Both of those are commercially available.
Both reduce overall CO2 vs dinofuels. I don’t know about CO, NOx or unburnt hydrocarbons though.
Their combustion still typically produces as much CO2 as a fossil fuel equivalent, it’s just that the carbon used to create them was taken out of the air by the crops (corn, soy, even algae etc) used to produce them so overall the effect on atmospheric CO2 is lower compared to fossil fuel where all the carbon content comes straight out of the ground where it didn’t contribute to the atmospheric levels.
Unburned hydrocarbons and NOx are typically similar unless you have tweaked the synthetic fuel properties to specifically reduce them, such as reducing the viscosity and surface tension of a diesel substitute so it mixes more quickly after injection, reducing HCs and shot but increasing the premixed spike which increases NOx and engine noise. Often this isn’t done though, since the tradeoff of reducing HCs increases NOx and vice versa, plus the engine won’t run the same and the fuel is no longer a “drop in” replacement, which is generally the goal of synthetic fuels.
Sulfur and other contaminants are a good point, but in the US at least, those are regulated to such a low level for aftertreatment protection that there is no appreciable effect to reducing them further.
Their combustion still typically produces as much CO2 as a fossil fuel equivalent
Of course. I did specify “overall” levels but thank you for filling out the detail of how. And those other details too.
It’s a bit like using a refrigerator from the 1920s with methyl chloride.
It will kill you in the end. So if you keep that refrigerator OFF then it’s fine. if you want to use it 3 hours a day, then it is a serious health hazard.
I’m fine to allow old classic cars to be a classic car, a collectors item, a museum piece. Old Ferraris. Old Bugattis. But this is clunker, a junker and you want to keep using it for -reasons- but this isn’t a classic car. It is old, but it looks like shit. Either it should be restored to a classic car state and then exempted or something, or it should be taken of the road, in California.
Why are you here?
Respectfully, that’s bullshit.
As I read it in the first paragraph, the law currently goes by a fixed date, and the proposal is to change the law to go by a rolling date.
What difference does it make – at all – if anyone thinks any given car is a classic vs a clunker? Who are you to say that this truck is not “good enough” to qualify? Eff off.
Originally, the law was that any car built after 1974 had to pass smog check until the car was 30 years old. That 30-year rolling exemption kicked in in 2004. Quickly, the law was ammended and starting in 2006 there was no longer a 30 year rolling exemption and it was that any car made after 1976 model year had to pass the bi-annual smog check. My 1977 Aspen wagon fell victim to that. It did pass smog in 2007 and again in 2009, but by 2011 it wouldn’t pass and I wasn’t in a place I was able to get it fixed …. so I had to say goodbye.
That’s rough. RIP to a truly shaggin wagon. *salute*
Thanks. it was a great wagon. My parents bought it new in 77 when I was 4 months old. Was in the family ever since. I drove it for 3 years in college. When I finally said good bye, it had approx 360K miles on it.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1977-dodge-aspen-wagon-the-party-wagon-for-the-whole-family/
Ok, I’m curious. Why are the only classic cars Ferraris, Bugattis, and vehicles restored to a “classic car state?” Respectfully, that’s reads as sort of elitist. Sorry if that wasn’t your intent!
Personally, I’d rather see a vehicle proudly wearing its several decades of use than a no-expenses-spared restoration. But that’s the great thing about classic cars. There’s something for everyone. Restored cars for some, patina for others, hot rods, and restomods, too.
So, picture this. Back in 2021, I was riding down Cali’s PCH and took a detour to try In-N-Out for the first time. I saw a first-generation BMW 7 Series in the parking lot. Its paint was severely faded, its body dinged up, and its engine had a nasty tick. The owner couldn’t understand why I was so excited about her “old car.” But here’s the thing. Those cars just don’t really exist anymore here in the Midwest. So even a beater 7 Series was so awesome to see.
Disagree, entirely.
I mean that’s such a bad take it borders on ragebait. What you’re effectively saying is that ownership of classic cars is only for the wealthy. That they must be something that a random person deems worth it, and then 10’s of thousands must be spent into putting it on showroom condition where it will not be enjoyed aside from being gawked at in a museum.
You analogy with the fridge is way off too. These cars are not serious health hazards. I have a completely rust free (Lee Iacocca era) 80’s Chrysler product complete with antique tags, 300,000 miles that sure, leaks, but has everything functioning like day 1. But since its a Chrysler product during the K car era I’m sure you’ll dismiss it as a death trap. Some of us middle class people would like to enjoy the Neon ACR’s, Taurus SHO’s, XJ Jeeps, and GM 3800’s of our era.
Not me, desperately trying to figure out how on earth a 1985 truck would qualify as older than 35 years old.
Huh?
I think he is making the comment that 1985 doesn’t seem so long ago, even though it is now 40 years
Yep. I’m in my 40s, and refuse to believe the 80’s were 40 years ago..
Ah, OK! Yeah, somehow 1985 has become “40 years ago.”
I get this same feeling when I see a Cavalier with classic tags
My question is this: if you’re doing truck things, which set of keys are you grabbing?
Or
Chevy might get me 10 big-ones though! The J10 might be hard to sell for $4. Decisions, decisions.
David, your articles in the last couple of weeks have been really fun to read for both the content and the comments. I am basically you but further along in the process. I have been waiting to comment if you put out any other articles that parallel my life.
My last move into my current house, my wife was 5 months pregnant, I didn’t want to hire movers due to cost, we hired movers and it was worth it looking back (I had a very full garage). I worried about the damage my child would inflict on my vehicle, I got basic covers and the car has been fine. I had way too many projects and cars, decisions had to be made. My wife is a saint, the entire first year of our child’s life, my dadmobile was inoperable so we had only her car to shuttle the kid. My other cars were all 2 seaters. I am sure you have heard it, but your time is now extremely valuable.
While the extra money that the Chevy could bring is nice, I can tell you the satisfaction of just being able to use your vehicle and keep it going with small basic jobs is what you are going to want at this time. The Chevy scratches itch that not the Jeep. I sold the cheapest vehicle in my fleet and it was the right move. Don’t give up wrenching, the garage is still my zen place when I want a break from the kids, but I have become very realistic about the time I have for big projects. This coming from someone who has had 3 classic Jeep pickups and a multitude of other weird crap. Eventually I will buy another classic and hopefully my kids will want to help dad work on it. Until then, it is my daily and 2 pretty well running spare/fun vehicles plus my wife’s car.
Good luck with your decision.
I have two kids.
My rebuilt engine will finally be dropped in to my project car at the end of this month.
At that point, it will have been 5 1/2 years since it first came out.
MrAcoustics, thank you so much for the advice! I think you pushed me over the edge; I’m a Chevy truck guy now!
J10, live on somewhere dry and SMOG-free!
As a fellow parent I concur with this advice.
And who did you vote for Governor in 2018 and 2022? How about US Senate in 2024? Elections have consequences.
You ask for it if you live in a blue state. Zero sympathy. They hate classic cars, police, israel, the military, firearms, low taxes and etc. Heck, each of those are quite important to most sane people. You begged for it. Now suck it.
Nonsense. I love classic cars, hate Israel, would like to have a functional police rather than a bunch of criminals wearing blue. Taxes are useful in a society where we can agree what the money is for. California has definitely lost the plot in many ways, though – I think they might be forced to figure their stuff out if they became an independent country.
It’s always the same drivel and hasty generalizations. I guess the playbook down there in the south is if you repeat it enough it becomes true huh? I would like to hope that you know deep down its more nuanced than that. But hey, sweeping generalizations rule the day in America 2025.
Without getting political- just please remember there’s only a couple of large urban areas that undoubtedly drive the larger political directives that swallow up the rest of the state. The 2 party system is broken here.
Outside these areas, there is a much different political climate, just for this posts general reference.
He didn’t even live there at that time…
Ah, California. Good luck. Even Pope Leo wouldn’t be able to get an old Popemobile SMOG’d there, and he’s on emission from God.
LOL.
What he needs is Absolut(ion) Vodka to drown out the sorrows.
Well, it looks like COTD for today is squared away. LOL
You were just singing the praises of your newer truck! You need to reduce the fleet. Sell the J10 to someone who’ll love it and doesn’t live in CA. Call it a win for more time with Delmar.
I’m with you.
This is the way, you had a great run with the J10, and you’ve already got a solid, more capable replacement. It’s time to pass the J10 on to someone who will use it, instead of spending the time and energy to keep the J10 going when you’ve got better things to do with Elise and Delmar.