K19 option

[Ray K.]

Re: K19 option

Duke,

My theory is that the 4 cyl engine and the Corvette L-72 were such low volume production that there must have been a California exemption for low volume situations, or at least GM maybe filed a petition for an exemption and somehow got it done. With regard to the truck engines, full compliance for trucks was delayed at least a year or maybe 2.

Not sure about the later field emission tests for the mid eighties. Colorado was my home base for those years.

Ray

[Michael J.]

Re: K19 option

So evidence has been presented that California-bound L-72s along with a couple of other engine options did not need AIR. This begs the question why. Why would California offer any "exemptions"? I have never seen any statutory authority for this, and those engines would have definitely needed AIR to pass tail pipe standards because they all have relatively high overlap cam engines, which produce greater HC and CO at idle and low load than more moderately tuned engines.

Also, another question is how did any '66 models without AIR pass field emission tests when they became law back in the mid-eighties for all vehicles back to the '66 model year?

Duke

Duke, it could be the politicians back in the day in Cali were quite more pro-business and less concerned with environmental regs than today's.......?

[Joe L.]

Re: K19 option

So evidence has been presented that California-bound L-72s along with a couple of other engine options did not need AIR. This begs the question why. Why would California offer any "exemptions"? I have never seen any statutory authority for this, and those engines would have definitely needed AIR to pass tail pipe standards because they all have relatively high overlap cam engines, which produce greater HC and CO at idle and low load than more moderately tuned engines.

Also, another question is how did any '66 models without AIR pass field emission tests when they became law back in the mid-eighties for all vehicles back to the '66 model year?

Duke

Duke------


I've wondered about it for years and have never come up with a definitive answer. However, whatever the reason was for the 1966 "exemption", with one possible exception, it did not carry over to 1967 or later. The possible exception? 1967 L-88. I don't know how many of the 20 1967 L-88's were shipped to California and I don't know if those that were were equipped with AIR. However, there was no specific engine suffix code for 1967 L-88 with AIR so I strongly doubt that any were ever so-equipped. Thus, if any were shipped to California, they were not equipped with AIR and were, thus, "exempt".

[Darryl D.]

Re: K19 option

Emissions compliance is now and likely back then based on number of units produced so the anticipated low production of a particular engine option would get a pass for the emissions controls.

[Gary J.]

Re: K19 option

This sticker was on my car when I purchased it 34 years ago in South Carolina.

[Joe L.]

Re: K19 option

This sticker was on my car when I purchased it 34 years ago in South Carolina.

Gary------

This looks like a State of California sticker but I can't say, for sure because I can't read the name of the state.

In any event, if it's a California-issued sticker it relates to the retrofit NOX device that was once required in the 70's in California at the time of change of ownership for certain model year vehicles. Some cars were exempt for a number of reasons. Of course, if the car had never changed hands, it was exempt. If it was outside the required model year range it was exempt and if there was no device available for a particular car and engine, the car would be exempt. In the vernacular, these devices were called the "Echlin Device" because many were manufactured by Echlin. These devices made the cars run miserably and were usually disabled as soon as possible after installation.

[Duke W.]

Re: K19 option

The '67 L-88 is an interesting case study. It was not legal to register for road use anywhere in the USA because it lacked a "closed" crankcase ventilation system that was required on all cars beginning is 1963 (1961 in California). It just had an old fashioned vented oil fill tube cap and road draft tube.

I know the "12-mile" L-88 that I helped the owner disassemble in the Spring of '67 was never registered for road by the original owner. It was transported on a flat bed from Alan Green Chevrolet to the owner's garage on a flat bed truck. I have no idea if any '67 L-88s were registered for the road, but it probably could have been done. It always surprised me that GM would install and ship an non-compliant engine to dealers. Did they notify dealers that it could not be registered for road use? I don't know, but even if they were it would have been easy to do with very little chance of getting caught until field emission tests were required years later.

The '68 and '69 L-88s had both PCV and AIR to meet tailpipe emission standards, so they were legal for road use.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: K19 option

The '67 L-88 is an interesting case study. It was not legal to register for road use anywhere in the USA because it lacked a "closed" crankcase ventilation system that was required on all cars beginning is 1963 (1961 in California). It just had an old fashioned vented oil fill tube cap and road draft tube.

I know the "12-mile" L-88 that I helped the owner disassemble in the Spring of '67 was never registered for road by the original owner. It was transported on a flat bed from Alan Green Chevrolet to the owner's garage on a flat bed truck. I have no idea if any '67 L-88s were registered for the road, but it probably could have been done. It always surprised me that GM would install and ship an non-compliant engine to dealers. Did they notify dealers that it could not be registered for road use? I don't know, but even if they were it would have been easy to do with very little chance of getting caught until field emission tests were required years later.

The '68 and '69 L-88s had both PCV and AIR to meet tailpipe emission standards, so they were legal for road use.

Duke

Duke-----


I would think that GM could have notated on the MSO that the vehicle was not intended for on-road use.

[David B.]

Re: K19 option

Breakdown of '66 Corvette K-19 option
Air Injection Reactor Eq.
Exc.
AA 502
BA 67
CA 258
DA 342
EA 440
EB 96
EF 23
EJ 31
EL 0
EM 1
EN 0
EP 0
FA 527
FB 54
FE 39
2,380 Total
Don't ask what the first 2 letters mean!!