ADVICE NEEDED FOR NEW ENGINE

Some guys are Pro smog/CCC equipment and some are not. I’m guessing they may also follow all the other vehicle rules as well. Dressed BluePrint are all Dynoed with their respective carb and distributor. They also recommend headers with their engines.

While removing smog equipment is technically against federal laws, it’s been done since the beginning of smog introduction.
I know I will have absolutely no problem whatsoever selling my Malbu with BluePrint engine and built my way.
I have always been a proponent for 'clean air' when it comes to vehicles. But, I was NEVER an advocate of the regulation that older/classic vehicles must have every piece of OE hardware to 'visually' pass an inspection.

My thing is..... Smog test it. If it reads @ or below the certified levels & passes the sniffer testing, it's good to go. Hot rodders are a crafty bunch. They often know how to make things work much more effectively than the corporate, political, bean counting federal person/people in charge that rubber stamps the rules.

My previously mentioned Elky w/its mildly massaged 350 & no CATS dual exhaust ran cleaner (= passed a sniffer test) than the single exhaust catted/2bbl 305 (which legit passed emissions). I wanted to put CATS on the duals but was told it's illegal because it never came that way. The duals w/CATS would have likely yielded even better results.

Which is better for the planet?
 
Yes. L82's came w/a Qjet. Holley made a spread bore 650 VS replacement model (4175; p/n 0-9895).
I have this same Holley on my '81's L48 I built. It was also on the LG4 that it replaces. I picked it cause it was listed as emission freindly for the CCC removal from going from the 229 to the 305.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rktpwrd
Jan 1 2025.... san antonio did away with state inpections, i have no idea what the angle is unless its about money(revenue), which it always seems to be.

Maybe soon they'll start tail pipe sniffing everyone in the inspection's place, if so, i know for sure my malibu wont pass, ZZ4 engine, 1 5/8" headers, no catys, 2 1/2" dual exhaust to flowmaster with tail pipes, probably be exempt anyway being 46yrs old.
My 1980 Malibu with a ZZ4, Performer RPM air gap, 750cfm Holley, 1 5/8" headers with Flowmasters would sniff cleaner than the completely stock 267 with all emissions back in 99'.
 
I have always been a proponent for 'clean air' when it comes to vehicles. But, I was NEVER an advocate of the regulation that older/classic vehicles must have every piece of OE hardware to 'visually' pass an inspection.

My thing is..... Smog test it. If it reads @ or below the certified levels & passes the sniffer testing, it's good to go. Hot rodders are a crafty bunch. They often know how to make things work much more effectively than the corporate, political, bean counting federal person/people in charge that rubber stamps the rules.

My previously mentioned Elky w/its mildly massaged 350 & no CATS dual exhaust ran cleaner (= passed a sniffer test) than the single exhaust catted/2bbl 305 (which legit passed emissions). I wanted to put CATS on the duals but was told it's illegal because it never came that way. The duals w/CATS would have likely yielded even better results.

Which is better for the planet?

Again, tailpipe exhaust is only part of the story with emissions. Another major source of pollutants from engines is fuel fumes evaporating from the fuel system and gas tank, both when the engine is off and on. As long as the gas tank has a trace of fuel in it, it emits vapors, a source of pollution. The Evap system traps all these fuel vapors to be consumed by the engine reducing pollution and improving MPGs. Evap being closed venting also reduces moisture entering the gas tank, keeping your fuel system cleaner and improves longevity and reliability. Its not just the gas tank either, for carbed engines Evap is also closed venting for the carb bowl, which also keeps the carb cleaner and reduces gunk buildup. However, with older cars the only way to test Evap is visual, only other way is to lock the car in a air tight test chamber for two weeks. Modern OBD2 cars have built in sensors to test their enhanced evap systems. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

PCV is also similar to Evap, it closed vents the crankcase keeping moisture out. The same moisture that forms acid in motor oil. However, it only works if you keep the breather to the aircleaner. This also lowers under hood fume buildup thus slowing engine bay degradation. Again the only practal test is visual.

Then there are the snorkel aircleaners, the main function is to trap the fuel cloud above the carb inlet formed by reversion. You really don't want a fuel cloud floating in the engine bay either. A well designed snorkel should plump cool outside air into the engine as well as using Thermac to speed up engine warmup and reducing wear. PCV also has reversion which is why the PCV breather is routed into the stock snorkel aircleaner to be trapped and burned. Once more the only practical test is a visual inspection.

In short, low emissions is much more than just cleaning up the exhaust pipe. It is also cleaning up all the powertrain venting which has the beneficial side effect of increasing reliability and longevity of components. Its not just burning cleaner, but also venting cleaner and even sitting around turned off cleaner.

Because many of these systems are hard to test in the field at inspection stations is why the government lab tests engine packages submitted to them for certification. Every entire engine/powertrain configuration, including their low emission package is certified by the EPA or CARB. One reason they don't like tampering is because many modifications can't be tested at inspection stations and the average Joe can't afford a certification test that costs millions of dollars and subjects the test vehicle to 100k miles of testing. Its not just certifying that a car burns and vents clean, but also that is does so for many miles without degradation. Instead they mandate everything must be in place and working according to factory specs as a matter of practicality for inspections. OEMs have far larger R&D budgets than the aftermarket let alone shade tree mechanics, they know what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
Again, tailpipe exhaust is only part of the story with emissions. Another major source of pollutants from engines is fuel fumes evaporating from the fuel system and gas tank, both when the engine is off and on. As long as the gas tank has a trace of fuel in it, it emits vapors, a source of pollution. The Evap system traps all these fuel vapors to be consumed by the engine reducing pollution and improving MPGs. Evap being closed venting also reduces moisture entering the gas tank, keeping your fuel system cleaner and improves longevity and reliability. Its not just the gas tank either, for carbed engines Evap is also closed venting for the carb bowl, which also keeps the carb cleaner and reduces gunk buildup. However, with older cars the only way to test Evap is visual, only other way is to lock the car in a air tight test chamber for two weeks. Modern OBD2 cars have built in sensors to test their enhanced evap systems. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

PCV is also similar to Evap, it closed vents the crankcase keeping moisture out. The same moisture that forms acid in motor oil. However, it only works if you keep the breather to the aircleaner. This also lowers under hood fume buildup thus slowing engine bay degradation. Again the only practal test is visual.

Then there are the snorkel aircleaners, the main function is to trap the fuel cloud above the carb inlet formed by reversion. You really don't want a fuel cloud floating in the engine bay either. A well designed snorkel should plump cool outside air into the engine as well as using Thermac to speed up engine warmup and reducing wear. PCV also has reversion which is why the PCV breather is routed into the stock snorkel aircleaner to be trapped and burned. Once more the only practical test is a visual inspection.

In short, low emissions is much more than just cleaning up the exhaust pipe. It is also cleaning up all the powertrain venting which has the beneficial side effect of increasing reliability and longevity of components. Its not just burning cleaner, but also venting cleaner and even sitting around turned off cleaner.

Because many of these systems are hard to test in the field at inspection stations is why the government lab tests engine packages submitted to them for certification. Every entire engine/powertrain configuration, including their low emission package is certified by the EPA or CARB. One reason they don't like tampering is because many modifications can't be tested at inspection stations and the average Joe can't afford a certification test that costs millions of dollars and subjects the test vehicle to 100k miles of testing. Its not just certifying that a car burns and vents clean, but also that is does so for many miles without degradation. Instead they mandate everything must be in place and working according to factory specs as a matter of practicality for inspections. OEMs have far larger R&D budgets than the aftermarket let alone shade tree mechanics, they know what they are doing.
Since you quoted me, I can assume this response is directed toward me.

I knew/know all of this info. I understand the why's & how's for the regulatory stuff as I read up on the subject many times in various car mags while coming of age.
My illegal Elkys 350 combo utilized the same evap & PCV systems its smaller displacement emissions legal predecessor did. It also used the OE, untouched fuel system (lines/hoses) as well other than the 'certified' replacement carb.
 
Since you quoted me, I can assume this response is directed toward me.

I knew/know all of this info. I understand the why's & how's for the regulatory stuff as I read up on the subject many times in various car mags while coming of age.
My illegal Elkys 350 combo utilized the same evap & PCV systems its smaller displacement emissions legal predecessor did. It also used the OE, untouched fuel system (lines/hoses) as well other than the 'certified' replacement carb.

Hopefully I didn't sound antagonistical as that wasn't my intent. I have seen many post why the need for visual inspections when the tailpipe tests clean and I was putting forth the explanation for everyone to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scoti
Hopefully I didn't sound antagonistical as that wasn't my intent. I have seen many post why the need for visual inspections when the tailpipe tests clean and I was putting forth the explanation for everyone to know.
I believe it was valid back when there was hundreds of thousands of these cars out & about. Now? Not so much. I still like the idea that things run as clean as they should/can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pagrunt and Rktpwrd
The problem with allowing exceptions is that it often quickly dominos into everyone wanting and expecting to be an exception. Why him but not me?
 
An interesting discussion. I agree with the 'clean tailpipe' crowd. If the emissions are what they should be, no evap issues, what is wrong with eliminating all the junk, legal issues aside? I had my 1981 Malibu wagon with Chevy 229 V-6 and it would never pass emissions. I rebuilt the CCC Dual-jet carb to death- it never ran clean enough. Everything else was dead stock, evap, CAT, complete CCC system. It was doomed to fail. I replaced the 229 with a 1976 Pontiac 350 w/2GC carb that I reworked to run lean and clean. 1976 HEI ignition, stock CAT, stock charcoal canister, EGR, and it passed the tailpipe sniffer like a champ. At the time, that was all that was required to pass. No one ever looked under the hood. Technically illegal, but realistically better than the stock arrangement. Years later, I was using a Pontiac 400, but emissions had tightened up. I just put a CAT on each of the dual exhausts and that passed too.

I'm not saying that everyone has the skills to accomplish that, but if they did, why not? Let's say you replaced a worn out 40 year old engine with a fairly new engine complete with OBD2 and all the hardware that it needed. It would run 100% cleaner than the 40 year old junker, yet you are illegal. Nothing would be there that came with the car.

California has the right idea. Let's say you have a really old car, 1930's to 1950's way back before any emissions. If you place a modern engine in the car, it must conform to the emissions regs of the engine's year of manufacture. So a 1979 350 would need to pass 1979 emissions regs. Makes sense, right? They are fine with you upgrading the emissions, but not with using an older engine with NO emissions hardware.

I also agree with states like mine [NY] that exempt cars 25 years or older. Anyone still running a 25 year old car is not negligent about tune-ups or emissions. There are so few of them that are seldom even driven, what is the harm? Instead, I think the fleets of commuter cars that slog back and forth every day should all be zero emissions vehicles. Eventually there would be no pollution from vehicles at all.
 

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck Consoles Dixie Restoration Depot UMI Performance

Contact [email protected] for info on becoming a sponsor