There's nothing wrong with my car, so it failed inspection

93celicaGT2 wrote: Why couldn't Subaru let him have MORE fun with MORE MPG like he did, then?

because MPG isn't the only environmental impact. Perhaps if Subaru were more creative with their solutions, they may have, but for whatever reason, the solution they came up with was the best they could do to meet all of the requirements.

If MPG is enough, then I would challenge you to route the exhaust into the interior of the car. Or sit in your garage with the door closed while idling.

With the current focus on global warming, we seem to have forgotten the currently regulated emissions.... The ones that make the air brown, and do wonders to trees, and can really do harm to a person.

I have to agree with alfa- there may be a reason everyone has asthma now.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/02/pediatric_asthma_linked_to_car_emissions/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/exhaust_emissions.shtml http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/link_exhaust_asthma.shtml

These took me 30 seconds to compile.

So, yeah, it is sort of a dick move to remove the emissions devices. For my sake, I'm going to put a cat on my MG even though they didn't have them in '69. It'll be downstream of the turbo though- wouldn't want those cat bits killing it.

alfadriver wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Why couldn't Subaru let him have MORE fun with MORE MPG like he did, then?

because MPG isn't the only environmental impact. Perhaps if Subaru were more creative with their solutions, they may have, but for whatever reason, the solution they came up with was the best they could do to meet all of the requirements. If MPG is enough, then I would challenge you to route the exhaust into the interior of the car. Or sit in your garage with the door closed while idling. With the current focus on global warming, we seem to have forgotten the currently regulated emissions.... The ones that make the air brown, and do wonders to trees, and can really do harm to a person.

Neither one of those would help my MPG, i'm unsure why i would do that...

i call BS on the combination of "40-50 whp more" plus "4 mpg more" plus "it smells like a lawnmower"

alfadriver wrote: With the current focus on global warming, we seem to have forgotten the currently regulated emissions.... The ones that make the air brown, and do wonders to trees, and can really do harm to a person.

Yeah... go to a classic car meet sometime and then hang around at the end when everyone leaves... Even when tuned well, these cars stink.

AngryCorvair wrote: i call BS on the combination of "40-50 whp more" plus "4 mpg more" plus "it smells like a lawnmower"

I don't know about WRXs, but i've over doubled my hp, and i'm getting 7+mpg more than factory, and it still stinks of fuel on onset of boost.

That said, i'm sure if these things didn't have the exhaust they had from factory, they would have reeked in stock form, so it's probably a moot point.

On my 2002 WRX, I was running a tune along with my modifications. It raised boost from 12 to 17-18psi, and recurved the fuel/timing maps to make more power. On the very same tune I ran with the same mods, people were seeing increases of 40-50 WHP on the dyno. It "smelled like a lawnmower" because the map I was running was a little on the rich side, and there were no cats. Before I touched the car, I was averaging 21mpg at best. After, I got anywhere from 24-26 on average. Why would I lie?

Also, As far as the Subaru engineers "knowing better"...

For the U.S., to pass federal emissions standards, they had to use a combination of a really crappy base map and three catalytic converters. There was one before the turbo and two after. Before long, people began to lose turbos on BONE STOCK cars because the catalyst would break up and go through the turbo. They didn't know any better because this car wasn't offered here before that.

They probably ran it this way as a "band aid" until they could figure out a better way for the U.S. market. In 2004 with the introduction of the 2.5L Turbo engine in the STI, they did figure it out. These (and later 2.5L Turbo motors) have a catless uppipe and an air pump. They also have a completely different, larger, and better flowing exhaust system with two cars in the downipie.

They have learned a lot since the early U.S.-bound WRX's were built. My newer 2009 WRX has an air pump, 2.5'' exhaust (as opposed to the 2.25'' on my WRX), one high-flow cat, and it makes almost 40 more hp than my old car did. And you know what? I'm not messing with it! There's no need to, because they got it right. The thing also gets 23-27mpg's on average! That's some pretty good progress in 7 years' time if you ask me. They pretty much made the stock car as efficient with full federal emissions equipment as my old car was with a full tune and aftermarket exhaust, and nothing is gonna come up and munch my turbo!

Looking back, If I had to do it all over again with my old car, I would do everything the same, except get a catted downpipe to cut down the smell and the sound a little bit. After 3 years of driving it like that, it got annoying.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

In reply to SilverFleet:

So you know, not all of what they did was for the emissions requirements. The car also has to hold together- and while it seems as if they failed on the pre-turbo cat, the car is required to survive as well as meet emissions for 120k miles. Being that they have to pay for it, even if you screw it up and break it.

While I may not be impressed with Subaru's engineers, I respect their decisions a lot more than the aftermarket.

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Lainford_Express wrote: It drives me nuts that the the people in PA that've had inspection their whole lives go on and on about how great it is... and they always reference "well, it makes the roads safer". Has anyone ever seen a passenger car get into an accident because of a rust whole in a fender (btw, my Grand Marquis is body-on-frame, son. No stressed body panels for me, damnit)? Or any of the other litany of things some 10th grade dropout thinks makes my car unsafe? Jeez, I live in a state of Ralph Naders.

No, but I have seen cars with rotted frames, rotted out suspension attaching points, rotted floors where the driver's seat attaches (or used to attach) rotted brake lines, no brake lining left, bad ball joints (ones under tension, not compression), etc. I've even seen a coil spring rot and snap on a late model. That's stuff just still on the car. Then there's things like mufflers and chunks of exhaust that have detached themselves while driving down the highway. I've been driving in PA for almost 24 years now, and live here my whole life. Before my time PA required an inspection every 6 months. Once upon a time cars didn't have the quality of steel or rust proofing they have now. They would rot out in a few years. When the lower quarters rotted out so did parts of the trunk or floors. If the only rot on the car is a rust hole in the fender slap some metal tape over the hole and run it through inspection. That's legit in PA. If the inspection station you are going to is a shiny happy person, find another garage. It's not like some states where it's a state run station. They are independent garages. If non enthusiast driver's aren't attentive when driving, why would there be an expectation that they would be attentive to the condition of their car? I'm really surprised by the number of people in this thread that have a problem with inspection.

People have unsafe extension cords too, I have seen it! Duct tape, electrical tape if you're lucky. I vote mandatory annual inspections for extension cords!

In reply to alfadriver:

Put it this way: I removed that pre-cat because I didn't want to have to put a motor and turbo in my car before the thing hit 50,000 miles, like a lot of other people were doing. It spiraled into me wanting to go faster. And I did. No trees, kittens, ponies, etc. died in the process. I bet my car put out less emissions in it's lifetime than a big rig diesel truck does in a week.

I'm not "proud" of removing my emissions equipment. That would be stupid, and If I came off that way, I'm sorry. I am proud that I prevented my engine from grenading prematurely, and I'm proud that I could make my car go a lot faster by clicking a few buttons and turning some wrenches. If I had to do it all over again, like I said before, I would install a catted down pipe, like Subaru installed on my new car.

I don't feel emissions truly hurt performance. Plenty of cars make great power and still pass.

SilverFleet wrote: If you guys are so worried about emissions, then I challenge you all to install full OBD II emissions systems on all of your cars, performance-minded, full race cars, or not. I don't care how old they are. Go ahead, see how fun they will be to drive after that. We can have a hypermiling competition at the $2011 Challenge.

I'm in.

In reply to Nashco:

You win by default!

Sorry for causing such a stink. (Pun intended)

Nashco wrote:

SilverFleet wrote: If you guys are so worried about emissions, then I challenge you all to install full OBD II emissions systems on all of your cars, performance-minded, full race cars, or not. I don't care how old they are. Go ahead, see how fun they will be to drive after that. We can have a hypermiling competition at the $2011 Challenge.

I'm in.

Me too. My challenge car is fully obdII compliant with a recent MA inspection and I have seen 41mpg. You can borrow it any time you like and then you can tell me if it is fun to drive or not...

tuna55 wrote: People have unsafe extension cords too, I have seen it! Duct tape, electrical tape if you're lucky. I vote mandatory annual inspections for extension cords!

I'm no Nader fan. If somebody wants to electrocute themselves at home with a crappy power cord go for it. I can't believe the direction this thread has taken.

PA requires safety and emissions inspection annually. The vehicle needs to meet certain requirements to pass. If it's broken fix it. If a hole in the fender is keeping it from passing yea that's stupid. Fill the hole with spray foam and spray paint it to get it to pass. I don't care.

Twin_Cam didn't fail the safety inspection. He failed the emissions test. He's not and idiot and he takes care of his car. Something in the OBD-II system is not working or did not work. It didn't trip a light. I understand his being annoyed. I had a car fail for being under the 100 miles on the "readiness" when I replaced a dying battery in less than 100 miles before inspection. I don't wait until the stickers expire to take my cars in so there was time to drive it over 100 miles and take it back. All was good.

Twin_Cam, you shouldn't have to pay for a re-inspection when you take it back to the same shop. Have you found what was triggering it or have you racked up the 100 miles and taken it back?

In reply to tb:

Color me impressed.

tb wrote:

Nashco wrote:

SilverFleet wrote: If you guys are so worried about emissions, then I challenge you all to install full OBD II emissions systems on all of your cars, performance-minded, full race cars, or not. I don't care how old they are. Go ahead, see how fun they will be to drive after that. We can have a hypermiling competition at the $2011 Challenge.

I'm in.

Me too. My challenge car is fully obdII compliant with a recent MA inspection and I have seen 41mpg. You can borrow it any time you like and then you can tell me if it is fun to drive or not...

I always liked that portion of the SCC ultimate street car challenge. If the challenge could somehow incorporate a fuel efficiency/emissions it would be even more interesting. Only so much you can cram into a few days though.

Ian F wrote:

alfadriver wrote: With the current focus on global warming, we seem to have forgotten the currently regulated emissions.... The ones that make the air brown, and do wonders to trees, and can really do harm to a person.

Yeah... go to a classic car meet sometime and then hang around at the end when everyone leaves... Even when tuned well, these cars stink.

To some, it's stink. To others, it's the sweet smell of nostalgia!

Don't think you can simply bolt a cat onto the exhaust of a vintage car and magically get clean air out. But if you do insist on believing that will work, I'd like to sell you some 'fuel magnets' and 'electric vortex turbochargers'.

erohslc wrote: Don't think you can simply bolt a cat onto the exhaust of a vintage car and magically get clean air out. But if you do insist on believing that will work, I'd like to sell you some 'fuel magnets' and 'electric vortex turbochargers'.

If you add megasquirt and a catalytic converter and tune it to run as it should with that cat on there, you're a hell of a lot better off than the carb+no cat....right? It's not "clean" air, but it is cleanER and it's not magic!

Bryce

1988RedT2 wrote: To some, it's stink. To others, it's the sweet smell of nostalgia!

Sure... but it's also a reminder of what the air was like not too long ago...

Nashco wrote:

erohslc wrote: Don't think you can simply bolt a cat onto the exhaust of a vintage car and magically get clean air out. But if you do insist on believing that will work, I'd like to sell you some 'fuel magnets' and 'electric vortex turbochargers'.

If you add megasquirt and a catalytic converter and tune it to run as it should with that cat on there, you're a hell of a lot better off than the carb+no cat....right? It's not "clean" air, but it is cleanER and it's not magic! Bryce

Obviously genius here doesn't know I've got a 4age 20v under the hood. It's magic allright!

Rob_Mopar wrote: Twin_Cam, you shouldn't have to pay for a re-inspection when you take it back to the same shop. Have you found what was triggering it or have you racked up the 100 miles and taken it back?

I found out I don't have to pay if I go back within 30 days, which is nice. Not all shops are like that.

I haven't yet put 100 miles on it, and I'm going to look up this 'EPA 74 drive cycle' thinger and do it Saturday. If that still doesn't work, I don't know what I'll have to do. I'm only sure it'll be expensive.

Glad I could create a giant argument over emissions controls and state inspections hahaha.

In reply to Twin_Cam:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/emisslab/methods/uddsdds.gif is a small picture You can plot this text file up, and then try to follow it- http://www.epa.gov/oms/emisslab/methods/uddscol.txt

You can get close enough, and all the monitors will run.

If you really want to make sure- run it from an 8 hour soak, then wait 10 min, and run again.

(you can find info of all the cycles that have to be run- http://www.epa.gov/oms/sftp.htm#cycles)

Here's some more info from the EPA- the 74 is also called UDDS, and the whole 75 is called FTP- both graphs have text files that you can graph yourself.

Eric

1988RedT2 wrote: I actually agree with this. The problem is, many if not most states are suspending the safety inspection part and only doing the tailpipe sniffing part. While it is amusing, metaphorically speaking, that the government has it's nose up your butt, the sad truth is that your car can be a rolling deathtrap and it will still pass, so long as it doesn't burp a tiny bit of NOx into the atmosphere.

Emissions testing does a handy job of removing ill-maintained vehicles from the motor pool. Heavy salt application to the roads does the rest.

Sure, it sucks sometimes as an enthusiast. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I worked on a "dark days" (smog era with vacuum-nest carburetion control, or EFI before live data) car for any kind of drivability problem, and I've been doing this since 1996.

Not counting personal cars, of course.

PS - 2005 Magnum yesterday was in the shop for basic maintenance, checky checky looky looky. Oh wow, look at that, the upper radiator support is basically rotted off...