Central Valley is very cheap compared to the southern part of the state. I've lived from redding down to Oxnard and the rent range is pretty big. Oxnard was $1000 a month for a studio and my 2 bed apt here in Visalia is $835 and I'm pretty sure I'm overpaying. Beers go for like $5-6 in the Ventura area and they're around $3-5 here. It's not uncommon to see mixed drinks in the $10 range in SoCal.
The Central Valley is pretty much 100% agriculture. If you can deal with the heat and want the cheapest place in CA to live, the Central Valley is it. There's houses around here that go for $90k.
Remember California HATES cars. Their emission program is the worst.
Either drive something older than 1976 that doesn't require testing, or fairly new with EFI (and keep it stock). Late 70's - early 80's carbed cars can be a lot of hassle to get too pass.
You've already heard about the expensive / crowded side of everything.
Like others have said, fun to visit, wouldn't want to live there.
Osterkraut wrote:
Pulling some quick numbers:
The government says $1266 would cover rent and utilities for me in Gainesville. In San Francisco, $2880. San Diego, $2088. So figure double, in housing alone.
Don't forget the income tax!
You have to look at more than just those raw numbers. San Francisco, for instance, is seven square miles of some of the most expensive real estate in America. Most people who work there don't live in the city. When I worked in San Francisco, I owned a house in the East Bay. Not cheap at all, but not as expensive as living in the city by a LONG shot.
For me, it's more about the trade off. I spent a lot of time commuting. I live in Denver now, in the city. I didn't save anything on housing, but my "commute" is only a few minutes.
Gearheadotaku wrote:
You've already heard about the expensive / crowded side of everything.
Crowded? What? CA is not a giant expanse of la and sf. SF is the only really crowded place. I live in a tiny town in the boonies.
Beer Baron wrote:
Gearheadotaku wrote:
You've already heard about the expensive / crowded side of everything.
Crowded? What? CA is not a giant expanse of la and sf. SF is the only *really* crowded place. I live in a tiny town in the boonies.
No, the really crowded places are the freeways in a 50 mile radius of SF and 100 of LA. Oh, and the 15 to Vegas and 80 to Reno. :)
On the smog front -- in the densely populated areas you need to get a car smogged every 2 years. In the more rural areas you only have to do it when you transfer ownership, which makes certain things easier.
If you're into firearms, note that Cailfornia has lots and lots of laws in that regard.
OTOH, the weather is great, and there is no "off season" for motorsports. Our local club regularly goes autocrossing on New Year's Day (alas, permit issues prevented it from happening this year).
Beer Baron wrote:
That dozen eggs will cost me $2.50 unless SWMBO wants to buy organic or something.
Uh dude a dozen eggs 'round these parts is like $.99. $2.50?!
Osterkraut wrote:
Beer Baron wrote:
That dozen eggs will cost me $2.50 unless SWMBO wants to buy organic or something.
Uh dude a dozen eggs 'round these parts is like $.99. $2.50?!
I think its more like $1.50. I dont pay much attention because it doesnt give me sticker shock. Just using the number thrown out by the previous poster. Organic are like$3 - $5. Produce is fresher and cheaper than when I wad in MN.
Gearheadotaku wrote:
Remember California HATES cars. Their emission program is the worst.
Either drive something older than 1976 that doesn't require testing, or fairly new with EFI (and keep it stock). Late 70's - early 80's carbed cars can be a lot of hassle to get too pass.
I could not possibly disagree more. (politely).
In most states, smog tests are every year. CA is every TWO years. OBD2 gets a plug in to verify sensor readiness and a VERY generous sniffer. Put it this way, if you fail the sniffer, something is way off. AND if you fail the test, yo get a free retest. If you fail the second one, there is a limit to how much you have to spend - the state picks up a large chunk of the repair bill over a certain limit.
I had friends in my Impala SS club putting 500 hp to the ground and they pass with flying colors. One of them had a Viper V10 that was a 100% legal swap.
Not to mention, CA doesn't have a safety inspection. Some of you might think that is a terrible thing, but in PA and TX (where I also lived) I couldn't pass if my windshield wipers left streaks or I have a hole in the sheet metal larger than a quarter.
I have never driven freakier or cheaper cars in my life than when I lived in L.A.
curtis73 wrote:
I could not possibly disagree more. (politely).
In most states, smog tests are every year. CA is every TWO years. OBD2 gets a plug in to verify sensor readiness and a VERY generous sniffer. Put it this way, if you fail the sniffer, something is way off. AND if you fail the test, yo get a free retest. If you fail the second one, there is a limit to how much you have to spend - the state picks up a large chunk of the repair bill over a certain limit.
CA hates modified cars. The visual inspection and CARB certification required to pass it make the every-2-year smog check a major problem if you want to do interesting things to the motor on the car.
I'm really surprised at the Viper motor swap. Technically it's possible to swap a motor -- but the list of requirements is so long that it's not really practical. Want an LS engine in a Miata? You can't, not unless you can get the stock (or CARB-approved replacement) headers to fit, which they don't. The CARB approval process is expensive, very technical, poorly documented, and somewhat capricious in the rules. Ask Keith about the turbo kit process that Flyin' Miata went through some time.
If you have a mostly-stock motor it's not a big deal. If you have a car that's popular enough to have a lot of CARB-approved parts (Mustangs, Camaros, and some Hondas), then it's livable. If you have something as rare as a Miata then, well, you're either SOL or you're swapping parts every couple years to pass the test and hoping that you never get pulled over and asked to open the hood.
As much as I love cars, I don't really care for modifying them, so that's not much of an issue for me. I appreciate everyone's input, and keep it coming!
In reply to codrus:
...or you find a shop with an owner who fudges the visual inspection as long as you can pass the sniffer test.
codrus wrote:
.....In the more rural areas you only have to do it when you transfer ownership, which makes certain things easier.
I did not know that.
My brother lived in the Bay area for 20 years and smog time was always a PITA. His cars were stock, but anything with a carb suddenly needed $400 worth of repairs to get it to pass, despite running just fine.
At one time, they changed to a 'rolling' 30 year exemption for emissions. Anything older than 30 years no longer needed testing. Sounds somewhat better compared to what they had. After a few years they went back to 1976 and newer. Anyone who had changed a previously exempt car was now screwed and had to change everything back. Can't imagine how much money people lost and how many cars were scrapped because they couldn't fix them at a reasonable cost. Almost felt like a trap...
Is the 'surrender' law still in place? Something to the effect of "if you give up a car older than (don't know the exact date) to the state, they will give you $500"
While car culture and car lovers abound in CA, the gov't doesn't seem to like us.
Gearheadotaku wrote:
...Is the 'surrender' law still in place? Something to the effect of "if you give up a car older than (don't know the exact date) to the state, they will give you $500"...
I think something like that is still in effect, but it is more like: If your car fails smog and is more then $800 (?) to repair it, the state will pay you $1000 (?) to scrap it. Something like that.
I think the program was based on a fund... so it probably no longer exists.
I live on SF bay. Lots of CA is ridiculously beautiful. The people... uh, they need to slow down. There is too much gimme gimme short sightedness in politics/biz/culture. Today's wailing masses were yesterday's middle class. Having been here for 6 years, the thrill is almost gone.
The 1976 cutoff for emissions was well received in the J-H community, it meant all the ones which were worthless and could not be registered due to not passing emissions were now back in play.
I would like to visit Cali. But after all the reports about the high cost of living and the schizophrenic attitude toward my other favorite sport of dirt biking I don't think I'd want to live there. Guess I'll just stay here with all the other low class rednecks. 
Curmudgeon wrote:
I would like to visit Cali. But after all the reports about the high cost of living and the schizophrenic attitude toward my other favorite sport of dirt biking I don't think I'd want to live there. Guess I'll just stay here with all the other low class rednecks.
The attitude isn't schizophrenic, it's regional. You'll hear wildly divergent stories based on where the person is coming from, and of course there's always that one wacko wherever you go. If what you like is dirt biking, the answer is that you need to live in or right near the Sierra foothills. Some place like Placer county, which is actually fairly conservative (very economically conservative, socially moderate).
Beer Baron wrote:
The attitude isn't schizophrenic, it's regional. You'll hear wildly divergent stories based on where the person is coming from, and of course there's always that one wacko wherever you go. If what you like is dirt biking, the answer is that you need to live in or right near the Sierra foothills. Some place like Placer county, which is actually fairly conservative (very economically conservative, socially moderate).
Not to mention that it's rather beautiful down there, too...
Gearheadotaku wrote:
codrus wrote:
.....In the more rural areas you only have to do it when you transfer ownership, which makes certain things easier.
At one time, they changed to a 'rolling' 30 year exemption for emissions. Anything older than 30 years no longer needed testing. Sounds somewhat better compared to what they had. After a few years they went back to 1976 and newer. Anyone who had changed a previously exempt car was now screwed and had to change everything back.
Hm. My understanding was that the 30 year rolling exemption was stopped in 2005 -- that is, they never made a car exempt and then non-exempt, for precisely the reasons you mention.
Diesel trucks, OTOH, did suffer like this. They don't have a sniffer test for them, but a few years ago they added a visual test for emissions equipment on diesel trucks that hadn't existed previously, and a lot of people who'd modified their trucks and tossed out the catalytic converters/etc wound up having to spend big piles of money to convert back. It was never legal to remove the cats on the trucks, it's just that there was previously no program to catch people who did it.
codrus wrote:
Hm. My understanding was that the 30 year rolling exemption was stopped in 2005 -- that is, they never made a car exempt and then non-exempt, for precisely the reasons you mention....
You are correct, the 30 year rolling exemption is not in effect. They try to bring it back every few years, but it fails.
We have been stuck at 76+ for a while now. They also seem to be trying to clamp down a bit on early smog cars (I have a 86 Mazda truck I have to smog and it seems to be getting harder each year despite a new engine etc.)
It brings up what sometimes call the 76 Corvette Gambit. Corvettes (one of the few interesting late 70's cars) drop wildly in value at 1976. You can buy one cheap and hope for the exemption to more, then put a nice non-smog engine in it... but it is a gamble.
codrus wrote:
Technically it's possible to swap a motor -- but the list of requirements is so long that it's not really practical.
It's been 10 years since I lived in CA, but I know people do it all the time.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/3518160490.html
I'm not sure it's quite a daunting as you're painting it. After being transfered to about a dozen people, I talked to a guy here in Colorado about an engine swap and it didn't sound any easier than CA. Basically everything from the donor car has to go in the "new" car.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
It's been 10 years since I lived in CA, but I know people do it all the time.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/3518160490.html
I'm not sure it's quite a daunting as you're painting it. After being transfered to about a dozen people, I talked to a guy here in Colorado about an engine swap and it didn't sound any easier than CA. Basically *everything* from the donor car has to go in the "new" car.
People do it, but the majority of them aren't doing it legally. Many of them find a shop owner who's willing to look the other way for a few hundred dollars at smog time (although those are getting harder to find, I'm told). Sometimes they live in a rural area where they only have to smog the car on ownership transfer, or they know someone who does and register the car at that address instead. Sometimes the new motor looks enough like the old one that a smog tech won't notice (putting a 1.8 into a 1.6 Miata, for example). Sometimes they have another car that looks exactly the same and swap license plates. I don't think I've met a single person who's got an engine swapped in post-1976 car who's actually done it fully legally.
Going to leave this here.
www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2846/project-v8-rx-7-goin-legit-project-rx-7-vs-the-state-of-california.aspx
Despite being a gigantic pain in the ass the general rule of thumb from my reading and understanding is that it is ok to engine swap a car as long as you can prove the new engine pollutes less than the old one.
I'm not saying it isn't poorly defined and horribly opaque (as anything with multiple layers of bureaucracy is) but a little research and getting things in writing helps a lot. Just looking for CARB certified parts sucks though.
Or just do what everyone else does and get a po box in AZ or NV and register the car to that. Not that I condone that behavior...
The0retical wrote:
Despite being a gigantic pain in the ass the general rule of thumb from my reading and understanding is that it is ok to engine swap a car as long as you can prove the new engine pollutes less than the old one.
No, there are plenty of potential swaps that would pollute less and yet are still not allowed. The rule is that it's OK to swap an engine so long as it is:
- From the same type of vehicle (car vs truck)
- Same model year or newer
- Includes all emissions-related components or CARB-approved replacements
- Gets approved by the ref
motoiq is missing the last step and my understanding is that, strictly speaking, because they modified the pipes with the cats in them (which they refer to as a "gray area" at the bottom of that article) the law says that the ref is supposed to refuse to approve it. He might be a nice, understanding guy who agrees that a pipe's a pipe, but then again he might just hate Chevy engines and have missed his morning coffee. Supposedly there's not much you can do if he decides he hates your car.
I'd hate to have $20K into an engine swap and then have a ref refuse it.
codrus wrote:
The0retical wrote:
Despite being a gigantic pain in the ass the general rule of thumb from my reading and understanding is that it is ok to engine swap a car as long as you can prove the new engine pollutes less than the old one.
No, there are plenty of potential swaps that would pollute less and yet are still not allowed. The rule is that it's OK to swap an engine so long as it is:
- From the same type of vehicle (car vs truck)
- Same model year or newer
- Includes all emissions-related components or CARB-approved replacements
- Gets approved by the ref
motoiq is missing the last step and my understanding is that, strictly speaking, because they modified the pipes with the cats in them (which they refer to as a "gray area" at the bottom of that article) the law says that the ref is supposed to refuse to approve it. He might be a nice, understanding guy who agrees that a pipe's a pipe, but then again he might just hate Chevy engines and have missed his morning coffee. Supposedly there's not much you can do if he decides he hates your car.
I'd hate to have $20K into an engine swap and then have a ref refuse it.
Sigh This is why it's so impossible for people to understand CA's rules. I don't have much love for this state but if you gloss over details of CA's laws, as most people do, it becomes very confusing.
The Air Resource Board website
The ARB Website said:
Engine Changes
Engine changes are legal as long as the following requirements are met to ensure that the change does not increase pollution from the vehicle:
The engine must be the same year or newer than the vehicle.
The engine must be from the same type of vehicle (passenger car, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, etc.) based on gross vehicle weight.
If the vehicle is a California certified vehicle then the engine must also be a California certified engine.
All emissions control equipment must remain on the installed engine.
Vehicles converted to 100% electric drive, with all power supplied by on-board batteries are considered in compliance with the engine change requirements.
All fuel system components must be removed prior to inspection. For additional information contact the ARB helpline at (800) 242-4450
After an engine change, vehicles must first be inspected by a state referee station. The vehicle will be inspected to ensure that all the equipment required is in place, and vehicle will be emissions tested subject to the specifications of the installed engine.
The RX-7 LS Swap is legal because they put an E-Rod LS3 (2008+) in a FD RX-7 (1993-1996). So it meets criteria 1. "Same year or newer."
The FD is a passenger car the LS3 is from a Corvette so it meets criteria 2 "The engine must be from the same type of vehicle (passenger car, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, etc.) based on gross vehicle weight" because the 'vette is roughly the same weight and is a passenger car. Note again it is Type of Vehicle not same vehicle. Therefore a 6.7L Cummings into a Miata would be illegal because it's a heavy duty engine into a passenger car.
The E-Rod LS3 comes with the EO sticker so it meets or exceeds criteria 3 "If the vehicle is a California certified vehicle then the engine must also be a California certified engine."
The E-Rod LS3 retained its computer and its cats so it meets criteria 4 "All emissions control equipment must remain on the installed engine."
You'll need work within the rules for engine emissions equipment but it is more feasible than most people suggest. The rules are somewhat ambiguous in a lot of sections and much of the approval hinges on how the referee is feeling that day. The gray area you're referring to is mostly about the relative distance to the engine that the cats need to be. The real "grey" areas that MotoIQ ran into were due to the fact that the directions were slightly ambiguous and which ran into the ref deciding that he could decide how long the intake tube should be rather than using some sense.
I'm not saying it isn't stupid just that it's not nearly as complicated as people make it seem.
Or you could do what I am doing and buy a 240z to swap a VQ engine into so it doesn't matter at all.
As a California native who has lived all over the state, I can say DO NOT COME HERE. The state is going down the tubes in a hurry. We have incredibly ineffective leadership, from the city to the state level, high taxes, high living expenses, there is an unnatural hatred of cars and car people, the schools SUCK (for if you ever plan on having any kids), the people are shallow, money-driven, disposable culture shiny happy people, and it is being taken over by Mexico. If I could leave I would in a heartbeat. Of course, the fact that my house lost 40% of its value hurts, and then there is the fact that my wife's family is all based here.
It would be a mistake to move here. For every good thing someone says about CA, I can give you at least two bad things. DO NOT MOVE HERE. WARNING WARNING WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!
