Knurled. said:In reply to aw614 :
All manifacturers discontinue parts. Legally they only have to meet warranty obligations, they don't have to stock anything at all.
NLA parts for 8 year old cars is common.
So why do I have to keep it legal if parts are not available? I mean Dorman can only make so many "LKQ style" of parts that will make them money or anyone else in the aftermarket OE parts biz...
Not everyone can afford forced obselence.
In reply to Ranger50 :
I mean, legally, you don't HAVE to buy a car.
In reply to Robbie :
That's just the nature of it. I've seen ten year old cars scrapped because the top of the fuel tank rusted off and nobody made new tanks, and used tanks were impossible to find locally, and you can't ship a used fuel tank.
If driving an older car, there is always the liability that you may not be able to drive it due to inability to find parts. If you can't afford that, then driving an older car is a liability you cannot afford.
Knurled. said:In reply to Robbie :
That's just the nature of it. I've seen ten year old cars scrapped because the top of the fuel tank rusted off and nobody made new tanks, and used tanks were impossible to find locally, and you can't ship a used fuel tank.
If driving an older car, there is always the liability that you may not be able to drive it due to inability to find parts. If you can't afford that, then driving an older car is a liability you cannot afford.
When this really sucks is for poorer people who can't afford to maintain an older car but at the same time can't afford a new car and have no access to public transit. One could totally flounder the thread with one's opinions on that subject though.
Knurled. said:In reply to alfadriver :
Like people trying to make Bosch injectors work in early Mazda DISI engines for availability reasons?
More of a total system then just parts swaps.
BTW. love Bosch Di injectors- they rock. But the issue with swapping is that DI injectors are are specifically designed for a combustion chamber.
Patrick said:Knurled. said:In reply to Robbie :
That's just the nature of it. I've seen ten year old cars scrapped because the top of the fuel tank rusted off and nobody made new tanks, and used tanks were impossible to find locally, and you can't ship a used fuel tank.
If driving an older car, there is always the liability that you may not be able to drive it due to inability to find parts. If you can't afford that, then driving an older car is a liability you cannot afford.
When this really sucks is for poorer people who can't afford to maintain an older car but at the same time can't afford a new car and have no access to public transit. One could totally flounder the thread with one's opinions on that subject though.
Very, very much suck for people who can't affort parts. Just imagine EVs.
In reply to Knurled. :
Here's what I don't get is there is a better environmental impact to keep old E36 M3 running than to have a new vehicle per an article I saw a few years back.
I will also say forced obselsance always means payments, you can't drive "unfixable junk", which just further drives people's debt loads that are increasingly unaffordable. Guess we have to live "the American way"?
amg_rx7 said:Knurled. said:alfadriver said:With all of the experience in the OEM sphere, if that manages to pass it's way into the aftermarket (which it does), there will be innovation. It's not as if solutions don't exist to make a very modified car fully compliant.
HKS had a CARB EO'd single turbo swap setup for FD RX-7s a long time ago.
Do you remember which kit?
I'm thinking more than just a basic turbo swap. Like and entire, proper, system approach to a great turbo set up.
Ranger50 said:In reply to Knurled. :
Here's what I don't get is there is a better environmental impact to keep old E36 M3 running than to have a new vehicle per an article I saw a few years back.
I will also say forced obselsance always means payments, you can't drive "unfixable junk", which just further drives people's debt loads that are increasingly unaffordable. Guess we have to live "the American way"?
At some point, older cars will be worse than the impact to make a new car. I used to think that it was roughly 96 for that breakpoing, but someone needs to do some research.
But cars are getting more and more reliable- the average age of cars on thie highway is longer than it ever has been- we are debating driving a roughly 30 year old car ('89 Miata) as a DD, and when I first started driving back in the early 80's, I would have never even considered a car over 10 years old as a DD- my first real car was a '77 Alfa that I got in '87. Times have changed a lot.
Patrick said:Knurled. said:In reply to Robbie :
That's just the nature of it. I've seen ten year old cars scrapped because the top of the fuel tank rusted off and nobody made new tanks, and used tanks were impossible to find locally, and you can't ship a used fuel tank.
If driving an older car, there is always the liability that you may not be able to drive it due to inability to find parts. If you can't afford that, then driving an older car is a liability you cannot afford.
When this really sucks is for poorer people who can't afford to maintain an older car but at the same time can't afford a new car and have no access to public transit. One could totally flounder the thread with one's opinions on that subject though.
It is not as bad as it may seem. Ohio, at least, allows you to get a waiver if you spend a certain amount of money ($300 right now, if I recall correctly) to try to make the car clean, even if it's not enough to actually pass emissions. Yes, it's $300 when that may represent three months' worth of free money, but it's still better than "suck it, chump, there are sidewalks for a reason."
I also recall from my time working in one of the poorer emissions counties that there were programs in place to get government assistance for auto repair. The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
alfadriver said:amg_rx7 said:Knurled. said:alfadriver said:With all of the experience in the OEM sphere, if that manages to pass it's way into the aftermarket (which it does), there will be innovation. It's not as if solutions don't exist to make a very modified car fully compliant.
HKS had a CARB EO'd single turbo swap setup for FD RX-7s a long time ago.
Do you remember which kit?
I'm thinking more than just a basic turbo swap. Like and entire, proper, system approach to a great turbo set up.
From recollections of reviews, it was not very good. It was 400whp, but it was a horribly laggy pain in the ass to live with unless you lived your life over 5000rpm.
Knurled. said:The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
This pretty much summed up the attitude of all of the folks at the various meetings I attended. Not "we want to shut you all down", but "how can we make this work"?
Eventually, old cars will reach end of life. That's often because they're not fit for road use. Where that line is will be a matter of debate. For some, it includes their ability to function without being gross polluters or the ability to stop on demand. For others, it means "has at least three wheels".
alfadriver said:But cars are getting more and more reliable- the average age of cars on thie highway is longer than it ever has been- we are debating driving a roughly 30 year old car ('89 Miata) as a DD, and when I first started driving back in the early 80's, I would have never even considered a car over 10 years old as a DD- my first real car was a '77 Alfa that I got in '87. Times have changed a lot.
When I was 20, I had a ten year old Subaru that I paid $700 for a year earlier. It made it to 180k and I mercy-killed the car by driving it without coolant. The body was so rusty that I removed two of the seatbelts by pulling gently.
I currently have a 14 year old car with 222k on it, and it looks and drives like it was new. Well, except for the check engine light, which is due to catalyst inefficiency. Magnaflow has a "50 state" cat/pipe for $500, a genuine Volvo part is about $1100. Given my experiences with aftermarket converters, I'm leaning towards spending the extra six hundred now, as opposed to $500 now and then in two years when it sets a 420 again, finding out that Volvo no longer stocks the part and I'm stuck buying an aftermarket cat every two years.
The emissions standards for certified aftermarket cats are different than OE, surprisingly. They have fewer precious metals in them which is why they're less expensive to buy and worth so much less as scrap. I would have thought that a 50-state cat would be built to OE specs, but it's not.
Keith Tanner said:Knurled. said:The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
This pretty much summed up the attitude of all of the folks at the various meetings I attended. Not "we want to shut you all down", but "how can we make this work"?
That was the only sales pitch that made any sense. They were at a SEMA event. An organization that rallies the vendors and customers support to lobby against regulation they feel is hurting the hobby. They were trying to get the exact people they want to regulate to be on their side instead of inciting them to all scream for SEMA's help.
Keith Tanner said:Eventually, old cars will reach end of life. That's often because they're not fit for road use. Where that line is will be a matter of debate. For some, it includes their ability to function without being gross polluters or the ability to stop on demand. For others, it means "has at least three wheels".
I know this is un-American, but I wish more of an effort was put on keeping cars from reaching end of life. Its such a wasteful thing and hard to quantify in terms of carbon.
MrJoshua said:Keith Tanner said:Knurled. said:The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
This pretty much summed up the attitude of all of the folks at the various meetings I attended. Not "we want to shut you all down", but "how can we make this work"?
That was the only sales pitch that made any sense. They were at a SEMA event. An organization that rallies the vendors and customers support to lobby against regulation they feel is hurting the hobby. They were trying to get the exact people they want to regulate to be on their side instead of inciting them to all scream for SEMA's help.
"The hobby" represents a significant enough percentage of the economy to take notice.
At the same time, there are certain realities that have to be accepted, such as vehicle emissions' impact on the environment, which is a place where everyone is forced to live.
It's a tough line to tread, and the visible scofflaws (the coal-rollers) force their hand, and thus ruin it for everyone.
ProDarwin said:Keith Tanner said:Eventually, old cars will reach end of life. That's often because they're not fit for road use. Where that line is will be a matter of debate. For some, it includes their ability to function without being gross polluters or the ability to stop on demand. For others, it means "has at least three wheels".
I know this is un-American, but I wish more of an effort was put on keeping cars from reaching end of life. Its such a wasteful thing and hard to quantify in terms of carbon.
That's very pro-American, really. It seems to be very European or Japanese to accept that new is always better. Ending is better than mending.
I agree that a well maintained 20 year old car is better for the environment than having replaced that same car three or four times with new. But the key is "well maintained", which is where emissions compliance comes in to play.
Knurled. said:That's very pro-American, really. It seems to be very European or Japanese to accept that new is always better. Ending is better than mending.
I don't view it that way. We are a society driven by consumerism and paralyzed by fear that "the economy" will tank if you encourage people not to buy new cars. Additionally, due to the race to produce the cheapest item, things are designed to be easy to manufacture, not to repair - and there is no incentive to maintain parts availability.
Sweden on the other hand has large tax breaks for repairing old cars/appliances/etc. and keeping them alive vs. buying new crap.
Outside of the rust belt, parts availability will kill a car for an enthusiast before many other things.
I do find that it is much easier to get parts for the Euro and Japanese makes though compared to anything American.
MrJoshua said:Keith Tanner said:Knurled. said:The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
This pretty much summed up the attitude of all of the folks at the various meetings I attended. Not "we want to shut you all down", but "how can we make this work"?
That was the only sales pitch that made any sense. They were at a SEMA event. An organization that rallies the vendors and customers support to lobby against regulation they feel is hurting the hobby. They were trying to get the exact people they want to regulate to be on their side instead of inciting them to all scream for SEMA's help.
And part of that "sales pitch", they were asking for feedback on changes to processes and answering direct questions that ranged from legislative to very technical. The CARB EO process has been shaped by SEMA over the years and the industry feedback on the new proposals is changing them. They actually complained that there wasn't enough industry feedback, which is one of the reasons for the workshops this week. The EPA was very clear about their priorities and answered direct questions on enforcement. SEMA works with the agencies first, the kicking and screaming comes if that doesn't work.
There are car guys working in the government agencies. They're trying to come up with ways to allow the aftermarket to exist within the regulations. We could be like Belgium, where engine modifications are simply not allowed. I've worked with a lot of these guys over the years - we did our first EO testing back in 1999. I believe their intentions are good and I don't have any beef with the implementation.
Keith Tanner said:MrJoshua said:That was the only sales pitch that made any sense. They were at a SEMA event. An organization that rallies the vendors and customers support to lobby against regulation they feel is hurting the hobby. They were trying to get the exact people they want to regulate to be on their side instead of inciting them to all scream for SEMA's help.
And part of that "sales pitch", they were asking for feedback on changes to processes and answering direct questions that ranged from legislative to very technical. The CARB EO process has been shaped by SEMA over the years and the industry feedback on the new proposals is changing them. They actually complained that there wasn't enough industry feedback, which is one of the reasons for the workshops this week. The EPA was very clear about their priorities and answered direct questions on enforcement. SEMA works with the agencies first, the kicking and screaming comes if that doesn't work.
There are car guys working in the government agencies. They're trying to come up with ways to allow the aftermarket to exist within the regulations. We could be like Belgium, where engine modifications are simply not allowed. I've worked with a lot of these guys over the years - we did our first EO testing back in 1999. I believe their intentions are good and I don't have any beef with the implementation.
Having worked in the aftermarket performance industry before, I've known a lot shops that had the same experience. The ones who were helpful to the process when new laws and regulations were being dreamed up found that they were easy to live with, didn't really add much extra cost or stress and generally worked to the end goal of more power with less environmental impact (both as far as emissions went but also on the industrial processing/producing side). The ones that waited until after it because the rules and then protested were the ones who were shouting how THE MAN was keeping them down and killing their buisiness.
Now that I'm on the software side of the fence, the law of unintended consequence is a daily thing we deal with, where we fix one problem and it causes a problem for that one guy whose been exploiting a bug for the past 25 years. In that one guys' opinion, our software stinks and no one tests it, for the other 300,000 people, it's great that the annoying bug was fixed. The people proposing these can't think of every edge case, and I appreciate that they're looking for feedback from the professionals, just like we do with our beta testing cycles.
Keith Tanner said:MrJoshua said:Keith Tanner said:Knurled. said:The government isn't out to make your life hell, they really do want us to be productive members of society, but they also want us to not E36 M3 in everyones' cornflakes in the process.
This pretty much summed up the attitude of all of the folks at the various meetings I attended. Not "we want to shut you all down", but "how can we make this work"?
That was the only sales pitch that made any sense. They were at a SEMA event. An organization that rallies the vendors and customers support to lobby against regulation they feel is hurting the hobby. They were trying to get the exact people they want to regulate to be on their side instead of inciting them to all scream for SEMA's help.
And part of that "sales pitch", they were asking for feedback on changes to processes and answering direct questions that ranged from legislative to very technical. The CARB EO process has been shaped by SEMA over the years and the industry feedback on the new proposals is changing them. They actually complained that there wasn't enough industry feedback, which is one of the reasons for the workshops this week. The EPA was very clear about their priorities and answered direct questions on enforcement. SEMA works with the agencies first, the kicking and screaming comes if that doesn't work.
There are car guys working in the government agencies. They're trying to come up with ways to allow the aftermarket to exist within the regulations. We could be like Belgium, where engine modifications are simply not allowed. I've worked with a lot of these guys over the years - we did our first EO testing back in 1999. I believe their intentions are good and I don't have any beef with the implementation.
And that follows the trend with the OEMs too. They are involved in the decision making as well when it comes to things like fuel economy and emissions standards. These aren't cases of the government just throwing out new standards and expecting everybody to comply with a random regulation limit. These governing agencies are seeking input, advice and cooperation from those within the industry being regulated so that the regulations are attainable and businesses can plan ahead without being caught flat footed. There is a give and take involved when setting new limits, or timelines for achieving those limits, or testing methods, etc. There will be change no matter what, the only question is whether you can shape the change in a way that benefits you or not.
When emissions for heavy diesels were first regulated, some companies cooperated and helped to shape the regulations while others lawyered up and fought them. The companies that were involved in the process had their compliant products to market before the deadline, and were able to capitalize on extra credits for achieving standards ahead of schedule. The companies that lawyered up either exited the market entirely, or they now buy their equipment from the companies that were onboard with the upcoming changes. The companies that supported the regulations grew their market share while others withered away.
In reply to STM317 :
And there's a lot of economic gain to be had for the people who drive the standards. If you know how to do it cheaper and more robustly than the other guys, you make more money. For the companies that don't cheat, it's a very level playing field that everyone works in.
I do see the point raised about a higher cost of entry. If you come up with an awesome idea for a power product, you have to prove that it will not adversely affect emissions. In the always-popular "one guy in a garage" scenario, that can be too much cost. But how common is that, really?
There's an intake for the Miata called the "Randall" cowl intake, named after the inventor. It's a carbon fiber tube that adds cowl induction to the stock airbox. Actual documented dyno gains. It's made by a guy who owns a bicycle shop, of all things. Turns out the EO for that was just an engineering evaluation, so it was zero cost. So no barrier to entry there other than some paperwork. FM sells this product now, but that's because we took over distribution from Randall so it could reach a larger market. We managed the EO for it, but there's no reason that Randall couldn't have done it.
Then there's the typical guy who decides to make turbo kits in his garage by welding up manifolds when orders are placed and controlled by a Megasquirt. No EO there except maybe for a pre-OBD car with a LOT of work. Not viable. So let's say our garage turbo supplier goes with a piggyback system. Now it's about $5-10,000 worth of testing to get an EO. That's a serious barrier to entry, so this guy is going to count on being under the radar until 1) he gets big enough to go legit or 2) never getting any bigger. If there is serious innovation involved and he's not willing to invest himself, he'll have to interest an outside investor - just like he would if he had a cast manifold, or he wanted his own electronics built from scratch. So it's a different path, but it's not impossible. In reality, these little guys just aren't going to get the attention of the EPA although nobody in California will be able to buy the product.
It's like this in a lot of industries, honestly. Trying to scale past one-off hand-built stuff is expensive. In some cases it's due to production (switching from 3D printing to injection moulding, for example), in some cases it's due to the cost to meet regulations.
Woo!
SEMA emissions compliance handbook
This is a good read that explains the various tests and the process. I THINK it's free to everyone, but I'll let someone else try downloading it. I have print and digital copies but I don't want to share without SEMA's permission. I'll ask.
You'll need to log in to post.
