Is California Killing Off Car Enthusiast?
Valerie Raskovic
California has always had a complicated relationship with cars and the people that love them. On one hand, it is one of the greatest places in the country to be a car enthusiast. The weather is good, the aftermarket industry is enormous, there are countless car shows and events, and some of the most interesting cars in America can be found driving the roads of Southern California. On the other hand, California has also developed a reputation for regulating the automobile from almost every possible direction, making it very difficult for car enthusiasts to modify cars they plan to drive on public roads.
The California car scene is not all glitz and glamour. The reality of the present climate is far more complex. Emissions equipment, smog inspections, modification rules, noise regulations, registration fees, environmental standards and more recently, regulations affecting replacement tires are all part of an increasingly complicated ownership environment. For people who simply need a vehicle to get to work, some of these regulations may be little more than an annoyance and an additional expense or as locals refer to it the “Good Weather Tax”. For car enthusiasts, they can become a much bigger issue.
The concern isn't necessarily that all California regulations are unreasonable. Many of them have legitimate goals. Cleaner air, lower fuel consumption, safer roads and reduced environmental damage are all worthwhile objectives. The question is whether every new restriction produces enough benefit to justify the additional cost and loss of choice for ordinary vehicle owners. That is where the debate gets a bit heated.
Let’s Take the New California Tire Rule as an Example
California recently passed the country's first replacement-tire efficiency standard for passenger cars and light-duty vehicles. Nancy Skinner from the California Energy Commission claims that the program could help consumers save money by improving the vehicle MPG by only allowing the sale of low rolling resistance replacement tires that meet the standards originally supplied on new vehicles.
While on paper the law may appear to hold water, in reality it may have some very harmful effects not only on the enthusiasts’ community but on all drivers in the state of California, as the law would effectively ban close to 80% of tires being sold currently in the state. This will include a lot of cheaper and long-lasting tires as well as sticky performance tires, along with most, if not all off-road rated tires below the size of 34.5 inches. Keeping in mind that many modern off-road vehicles cannot even accommodate a tire this size without substantial suspension modifications. It feels like the state banned all off-road tires entirely.
To clear things up, it is vital that we mention that it doesn't make it illegal for someone to own or drive on an existing tire. It primarily restricts the sale of certain replacement tires manufactured after the applicable dates. While low rolling resistance tires may save some families a couple of gallons per month in fuel cost, it also means that cash-strapped residents will no longer be able to buy low-cost alternatives. Some have argued that coupled with the fact that most of the state does not mandate safety inspections, we will see more cars in the state driving with bold and unsafe tires, posing serious safety concerns.
The fact that this law was essentially enacted by unelected officials that do not have a background in the automotive industry shows how out of tune the state of California is with the needs of its residents.
Phase 1 of this absurd “tire ban" is scheduled to start on January 1, 2029, while Phase 2 begins in 2033. Needless to say, the state has come under heavy scrutiny for this bizarre move. In response, the state keeps reiterating their argument, stating that lower rolling resistance means less energy is required to move the vehicle, which means lower fuel or electricity consumption. However, as reviewed by many industry professionals as well as by most of the larger car tire manufacturers, the savings are marginal at best. While CEC claims that low rolling resistance tires will be approximately 16% more efficient on average and could save California drivers an estimated $1 billion per year in fuel and electricity costs. The reality of the matter is the real-world numbers are likely to be just a fraction of what is quoted by the California Energy Commission agency.
California has a history of passing laws that look good on paper but hurt consumers and car enthusiasts in real-world application. In this specific case the state not only ignores the affordability and availability dilemma but also completely ignores the fact that tires are purpose built. There are tires designed for fuel economy, tires designed for wet-weather performance, tires designed for track use, tires designed for off-road driving, tires designed for high-performance cars and tires designed to last for extremely high mileage. What they don’t seem to grasp is the fact that what works perfectly well on a Prius isn't necessarily what’s best for the consumer. In fact, as most enthusiasts can tell you, putting a low rolling resistance tire on a performance car will likely result in reduced traction, as the performance car will struggle to apply power to the road.
Could this law make purpose-built sports cars and modern performance vehicles less safe during high-speed maneuvering and emergency braking? As the backlash continued to intensify, California has made exemptions and modified the original proposal; however, the basic philosophy remains: the state is increasingly involved in determining what replacement parts Californians can legally purchase.
For a government trying to reduce energy consumption, it would only be logical to assume that the state should prioritize reducing the congestion and the number of vehicles on the state’s freeway by offering practical public transportation solutions; however, that does not appear to be the case. The facts are that in January of 2015 the state did start building a high-speed rail system; however, even after spending over $18 billion dollars, not a single operational high-speed rail track has been laid. In fact, the project continues to hemorrhage the state’s money going from $33 billion total projected cost to up to $231 billion by the time it is completed in the 2030s.
While we can all agree that the environment is an important topic that needs to be addressed with modern solutions, we also feel that the state of California should spend more time focusing on working on its shortcomings rather than punishing its residents by reducing consumer choice. The owner should decide which tire is appropriate for his or her vehicle.
The Environmental Argument Isn't Always as Simple as It Sounds
There is another issue that deserves more attention: environmental policy can sometimes produce unintended consequences. The argument against the tire regulations is not necessarily that fuel efficiency has no environmental benefit. It can have some marginal effect on improving vehicle MPG (Miles Per Gallon) which can reduce production of greenhouse gases. The question is what happens elsewhere in the system as it should be calculated in an overall cost benefit calculation for most of the state’s newly enacted laws and restrictions.
Continuing with the tire example, it is important to understand that modern tires undergo a complicated manufacturing process. They contain rubber compounds, steel, synthetic materials and numerous chemical additives. California is already regulating the tire chemical 6PPD because of concerns about its environmental impact, particularly its effects on Coho salmon. Manufacturers are currently evaluating alternatives. The state is simultaneously trying to force manufacturers to make tires more environmentally friendly while also regulating what chemicals can be used to manufacturer them. This raises a broader question, at what point does constantly redesigning and replacing products create environmental costs of its own?
While the California Energy Commission argues that the new efficiency standards will not shorten tire life, its analysis of 89 popular tire models found that tires meeting the stricter standard averaged about 60,000 miles, and the agency says drivers should not expect reduced treadwear or lifespan. However, those facts and figures are not rooted in reality, as they do not account for a lot of variables. For example, the prediction assumes that the tires are rotated every 5,000 to 7,500 miles; it does not take into account staggered wheel setups and specialized vehicles. That is very important because one of the strongest cons of this regulation is the fact that the policy would be weakened if the tires really do last just as long and pose safety concerns on purpose-built vehicles beloved by enthusiasts.
But the Broader Issue Remains Worth Discussing.
Environmental policy shouldn't simply measure the emissions saved while a product is being used. It should also consider manufacturing, transportation, disposal and the number of materials that ultimately enter the waste stream. "Green" is not automatically synonymous with "better for the environment" simply because the word appears in the explanation.
Tires are only one part of the story; the main problem revolves around cars becoming harder to repair and modify.
As most of us know so very well, lack of choice tends to have a direct correlation with price. When options are bountiful, prices tend to become more competitive and more affordable for the customers; however, when choices are limited, the opposite is true. The state of California is reducing consumer choice by enacting various laws that have a marginal real-world positive effect on the environment but have a huge effect on people’s wallets.
California has some of the country's most restrictive rules concerning emissions-related modifications. Existing law generally prohibits disconnecting, modifying or altering required pollution-control devices, although there are some limited pathways for approved aftermarket parts. A new 2026 law, SB 1069, is intended to streamline the approval process for certain aftermarket emissions-related parts. That is actually a positive development for enthusiasts. But it also illustrates the problem.
A person building a car in California can find himself dealing with a completely different regulatory environment than someone doing the same project in another state. Something as simple as changing an air intake, installing an oil catch can, performance exhaust or other emissions-related part can potentially become a regulatory issue. For someone building a $100,000 show car, perhaps the additional legal paperwork and expense are simply part of the hobby. For a teenager building a 25-year-old Honda in his driveway, it can be enough to kill the project altogether and that's an important distinction.
The car hobby has historically been one of the more accessible hobbies in America. You didn't have to be wealthy to buy an old Mustang, Miata, Civic, Camaro or pickup truck and spend weekends working on it. You could buy inexpensive parts, learn how things worked and gradually turn the car into something of your own. As the regulatory environment becomes more complicated, that entry-level part of the hobby becomes harder.
The Montana Registration Phenomenon
Then there is the issue of vehicle registration.
Anyone who spends time around expensive cars has probably noticed something of a strange phenomenon. Montana license plates seem to appear on a lot of custom built, and high-end vehicles everywhere. There is a reason for this simple occurrence. When you create barriers for people, they will find a way around them and register a car in the state of Mantana that does just that, finding a way to go around the barriers.
The state of Montana does not require smog checks or emission testing for passenger vehicles. The state also has no sales tax and has historically made it relatively easy to title vehicles through Montana entities. California officials have increasingly targeted arrangements in which California residents use Montana shell companies to avoid California smog checks and taxes and fees.
In 2026, California lawmakers advanced SB 1406, designed to tighten California's rules around these arrangements. State officials say that since 2023, at least 2,500 vehicle sales involving California residents have been associated with the practice, and California estimates roughly $20 million in annual lost revenue.
The Montana registration phenomenon also illustrates something else: people respond to incentives. When taxes, registration fees and inspections become significantly different from one jurisdiction to another, some people will look for ways to structure their ownership differently. California is now moving to close that avenue.
From the state's perspective, that means collecting taxes that it says are legally owed. From the enthusiast's perspective, however, it is another example of California making it harder to escape the strict regulations and costs associated with owning expensive or unusual vehicles.
In Some Cases, the State's Argument Is Not Hard to Understand
When it comes to tax avoidance tactics, California has a strong point. If someone lives in California, drives his $200,000 Ferrari primarily in California and uses a shell company to avoid taxes that other California residents must pay, the state has an obvious reason to object. The same principle applies to registration fees.
The debate becomes more complicated when the discussion moves beyond tax avoidance and into the broader question of whether California's overall vehicle ownership regulation and lack of choice increase costs and effectively make the car hobby unlawful.
From an Enthusiast’s Perspective
Many car enthusiasts own several vehicles. Maybe there is a modern daily driver, an old truck, a project car and a classic that comes out of the garage once a month. None of those cars necessarily represent the same environmental impact as a person driving a modern vehicle 20,000 miles a year. Yet many regulations are written broadly because government agencies have to regulate millions of vehicles rather than evaluating every owner individually. That's where enthusiasts can feel forgotten.
While the state has been working to decimate the car hobby, there has been at least one recent development that car enthusiasts can point to as a genuine win. California's new "Jay Leno's Law," SB 1392, was signed into law in September 2026. The law provides a smog-check exemption for qualifying collector vehicles from the 1976 through 1985 model years when they are preserved and primarily used for limited purposes such as car shows, parades, exhibitions and charitable events.
That's a meaningful change in the right direction because it recognizes something that enthusiasts have been saying for years. A 40- or 50-year-old collector car that gets driven a few hundred miles a year isn't the same thing as a commuter vehicle traveling 15,000 miles annually.
But even this victory has a very specific boundary. It doesn't suddenly make every classic or enthusiast vehicle exempt from California's emissions requirements. A 1990 Mustang isn't covered simply because it is now more than 35 years old, nor is a 1993 Toyota Supra or any of the other modern classics that we have come to love and reverie.
The sad truth remains that a 1990s Japanese performance car that someone has spent years restoring remains subject to the rules that apply to it. That's frustrating because many of the cars that define today's collector market aren't old enough to fall within the 1976-1985 window.
Effect on the local economy
California is also home to a surprisingly large number of small and independent companies that make aftermarket automotive parts, from body kits, custom wheels and exhaust systems to suspension components, engine parts and other performance equipment. Many of these businesses were built around California's enormous car culture and have spent decades developing products for enthusiasts, shops and specialty builders.
If increasingly restrictive state regulations make certain aftermarket parts difficult or impossible to legally sell or install in California, the consequences could extend far beyond the enthusiast who wants to modify a car. Small manufacturers may lose a significant portion of their customer base, distributors and installers could see business decline. A lot of these mom-and-Pop shops will be forced to either redesign products, pursue expensive certifications or simply stop offering certain products to California customers.
For a small manufacturer, losing access to one of the country's largest automotive markets can be a serious financial hit, potentially putting jobs and entire businesses at risk. In other words, these regulations don't just affect the hobbyist turning a wrench in his garage they can also affect the small businesses that have spent years building the aftermarket industry in the first place.
What Happens to the Next Generation of Enthusiasts?
This may be the biggest question of all. The automotive hobby has traditionally been passed from one generation to another. It can start with something as simple as a father teaches his son how to do an oil change. Eventually that teenager grows up and buys a cool car of his own, whether it is a classic Corvette or a vintage Toyota really does not matter.
But what happens if the cheapest cars available to young enthusiasts are also the cars most heavily restricted by regulation? If the cost of modifying these cars keeps increasing, and the cost of registration, insurance, parts and tires continues rising, the hobby becomes increasingly dependent on people who have enough disposable income to absorb those costs. These variables could change the character of the hobby. Instead of being something a regular working person can participate in, it gradually becomes something primarily enjoyed by collectors with substantial financial resources. That would be a shame.
The Real Issue Is Balance
The argument shouldn't be that California should have no environmental regulations. We all want to breathe clean air and drink pure water. It is possible to reduce harmful chemicals from polluting our environment and preserve mother earth with sensible regulations and reforms. The problem arises when every individual regulation is considered in isolation without looking at the cumulative effect.
It is important to bear in mind that these laws on their own have individual costs.
- One regulation might add $50.
- Another might add $100.
- Another might eliminate a modification option.
- Another might require additional testing.
- Another might restrict a particular replacement component.
None of these changes alone necessarily destroys the car hobby. However, eventually they do add up and force people to make a hard choice, to say goodbye to their beloved past time of working on their cars and taking them to car shows or finding ways around the restrictions.
While stopping genuine tax evasion is a legitimate function of government, it may not be effective at doing so when a good portion of the population feels they have no other option than to break the law. For someone with a $7,000 project car, costs and regulations can make the difference between keeping the car and selling it. That is why California's automotive regulations deserve to be discussed in terms of more than emissions reductions and environmental targets. They should also be evaluated in terms of affordability, repairability, consumer choice and the ability of ordinary people to continue participating in automotive hobbies.
California has demonstrated with Jay Leno's Law that lawmakers can recognize the difference between an everyday commuter and a collector vehicle. That same thinking could potentially be applied more broadly because preserving the environment and preserving the car hobby don't necessarily have to be opposing goals.
The challenge is finding regulations that actually accomplish the environmental objective without making it so expensive and complicated to own, maintain and modify an automobile that ordinary enthusiasts simply give up. For a state with such a deep automotive history, that would be a loss worth avoiding.
Read more articles
Post a comment
Popular Articles
