COBB gets $2.9 million fine from EPA for the AccessPort

In reply to Opti :

Do you remember when Kumho (I think) came out with tires with a colored rib towards the middle?  People were buying the tires with the colors of their local youth group and doing burnouts to mark their territory.  Or other peoples'.

Very soon after, they stopped selling them...

The squeaky wheel isn't the one to get the grease, the squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced.

As has been pointed out, all of the emissions defeat crackdowns are because of a very visible group of people creating outrage from the general populace who wants Somebody To Do Something.

If you're not causing problems, nobody will care.  There are bigger, more problematic fish to fry.  So the first step is to not cause problems. Be respectful of others.  This is something hotrodders have had to deal with since hotrodding was new.

There are a lot of once popular drifting roads in Japan that have speed bumps mid corner, now...

When I go to rallycross events, I stay mindful and respectful for noise and such while driving to and fro because no matter where I am, that is someone's home.  The EPA has a mandate from the populace to crack down because some people just are not respectful of others and we are all going to have to pay that price.

maschinenbau said:

Imagine hating America so much that you want to pollute it unnecessarily

There is a saying about stones and glass houses im reminded of. I can say with the utmost confidence you pollute the US "unnecessarily".

Your "unnecessarily" is not the same as everyone's else's. People make decisions given their circumstances, and it's juvenile to paint with such a broad brush because it doesn't conform to your views.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to Opti :

Do you remember when Kumho (I think) came out with tires with a colored rib towards the middle?  People were buying the tires with the colors of their local youth group and doing burnouts to mark their territory.  Or other peoples'.

 

Very soon after, they stopped selling them...

The squeaky wheel isn't the one to get the grease, the squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced.

As has been pointed out, all of the emissions defeat crackdowns are because of a very visible group of people creating outrage from the general populace who wants Somebody To Do Something.

If you're not causing problems, nobody will care.  There are bigger, more problematic fish to fry.  So the first step is to not cause problems. Be respectful of others.  This is something hotrodders have had to deal with since hotrodding was new.

There are a lot of once popular drifting roads in Japan that have speed bumps mid corner, now...

 

When I go to rallycross events, I stay mindful and respectful for noise and such while driving to and fro because no matter where I am, that is someone's home.  The EPA has a mandate from the populace to crack down because some people just are not respectful of others and we are all going to have to pay that price.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the fact that the "populace" guides the decision. There is an argument, backed by some data, that 90 percent of people opinions have no impact on actual policy and it's a very small group of people that actually shape policy. I understand thats debatable but that's the side I lean to, even if you disagree your larger point still stands and I agree with it.

Now here is the problem and the whole underlying point to many of the people arguing against the EPA in this thread. Is that the most effective way to run the EPA to meets it's supposed mission of protecting human health and the environment, or is it a wasteful and vindictive way to spend our money and not actually make any improvements.

That's what I'm saying, I'm glad that most people comply and I don't care that a very very small percentage don't because the data shows that it ends up being a single grain on a heap, and I think it's wasteful to spend large resources chasing a tiny grain of sand. Its not that I don't want enforcement or regulation, I want regulation and enforcement that's  actually impactful and minimizes harm and expense, also called efficiency.

Good discourse here. But I feel like the thread lost course. It's not the EPA, it's the f'ng coal rollers who caused this. 

GTwannaB said:

Good discourse here. But I feel like the thread lost course. It's not the EPA, it's the f'ng coal rollers who caused this. 

Coal rollers have existed long before this started. they are dumb but I'm also dumb sometimes and I'd prefer that a large government agency not be turned on my dumb at some point, so I wont get too mad at coal rollers and instead point my ire at the agency wasting our money because someone was dumb, instead of focusing on doing something that would impact their "mission" in a real way

A lot of the teeth gnashing over motorsports/automotive interests being singled out for enforcement seems to come from having a limited perspective. I work for (contracted to) a large by big industrial/defense client. They complain about EPA/DEQ enforcement. My uncle is a farmer. He complains about EPA/DEQ enforcement. Buddy works for the railroad, which around here either means hauling containers, or hauling coal. After a few beers, he complains about his wife. And EPA/DEQ. 

Spearfishin said:

A lot of the teeth gnashing over motorsports/automotive interests being singled out for enforcement seems to come from having a limited perspective. I work for (contracted to) a large by big industrial/defense client. They complain about EPA/DEQ enforcement. My uncle is a farmer. He complains about EPA/DEQ enforcement. Buddy works for the railroad, which around here either means hauling containers, or hauling coal. After a few beers, he complains about his wife. And EPA/DEQ. 

I used to work at an iron foundry. Everyone there complained about the EPA too. Meanwhile we had black clouds of smoke rolling out of the furnace every day, and every night I came home and blew tar-black snot out of my nose. I only worked there for two years but I can't name a single coworker that lived to see 70. But that darned meddling EPA...

In reply to Spearfishin :

Amen.  I've worked in manufacturing my whole life and I feel this. 

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

Spearfishin said:

A lot of the teeth gnashing over motorsports/automotive interests being singled out for enforcement seems to come from having a limited perspective. I work for (contracted to) a large by big industrial/defense client. They complain about EPA/DEQ enforcement. My uncle is a farmer. He complains about EPA/DEQ enforcement. Buddy works for the railroad, which around here either means hauling containers, or hauling coal. After a few beers, he complains about his wife. And EPA/DEQ. 

I used to work at an iron foundry. Everyone there complained about the EPA too. Meanwhile we had black clouds of smoke rolling out of the furnace every day, and every night I came home and blew tar-black snot out of my nose. I only worked there for two years but I can't name a single coworker that lived to see 70. But that darned meddling EPA...

To be clear, my point was only that the EPA is definitely NOT just focused on the "small fries" of tuned cars. I very much believe in the need for regulation/enforcement, as much as it pains me to say it. But in my experience, "people" just can't be trusted to work for the good of the whole without some external controls. 

EPA and Health and Safety are often combined functions at a manufacturer/facility, but they are totally different regulating bodies.  I would not expect the EPA to prevent you from inhaling tar at work.

 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

One side effect having to remove lead compounds from fuel to protect catalytic converters was a decrease in violent crime.  The lead compounds in the air were affecting peoples' rationality and reason.

That sounds awfully similar to a controversial claim made in the Freaknomics book. But this thread has already gone far enough off the rails. 

My question in the OP was to Keith about making more power and retaining a CARB EO.

Opti said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to Opti :

No. He said selective enforcement.  There is no selective enforcement in this case. 
 

if you or he is butt hurt about it.  Then that's different. 

You are right, if you looked to the term "selective enforcement" for the legal definition and not the colloquial one. It doesn't meet the legal definition when the people writing the laws decide they are exempt from it, but my point still stands. Their reasoning to be exempt is the same reasoning used by people deleting these components and the same reasoning used for people stating this enforcement is dumb

Thank you for understanding this.  Rules for thee and not for me is a terrible thing.

What we have done to clean up the air in our country is a beautiful thing and we should all be proud.  A few days spent in Monterrey, Mexico would show anyone how far we have come.  

But targetting mom and pop tune shops and the very low percentage of guys with deleted diesels didn't get us here, and it won't get us further.  

Anywho, I am off to go drive my deleted (and yet disappointingly non-smoky) diesel with a big smile on my face knowing it has lower EGTs, a less complicated exhaust, no need for DEF, no need for big dollar parts that somehow always fail right after warranty, no EGR to gum up, fresher breath, whiter teeth....

In reply to Spearfishin :

"But in my experience, "people" just can't be trusted to work for the good of the whole without some external controls."

This ^ all day every day and twice on Sunday.

In reply to 93gsxturbo :

Hi. Quick reminder that the epa does not mandate solutions. Only the limits.   If the solutions aren't reliable, your beef is with the manufacturer and not the epa. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to 93gsxturbo :

Hi. Quick reminder that the epa does not mandate solutions. Only the limits.   If the solutions aren't reliable, your beef is with the manufacturer and not the epa. 

Disagree. its just as easy to say the limits are so tight that to meet them the only feasible option is expensive and unreliable.

Note that Cobb didn't have trouble reaching the limits, they were selling devices that allowed people to bypass federally required emissions controls. That's a very different thing.

I know you guys are arguing about something a bit different.  But can someone explain me why the EPA is requiring manufacture only cat replacements?

The only thing I can see is if replacement cats are sooo bad, that they will fail soon after replacement, leaving the car effectively cat'less until the next smog test two years later.

In reply to aircooled :

Aftermarket cats can be so bad that they fail immediately.  Try running an aftermarket converter on many Subarus and it will set a P0420 the first time the catalyst monitor runs.  Subarus are one make that we only use dealer supplied converters.  Also some Nissans and Toyotas.  (Just look on iATN or Identifix and see how many help requests or confirmed fixes are "replaced new aftermarket converter with OEM, problem solved")

In the pre-OBD-II vehicles, we knew to never use certain brands because they would be guaranteed to fail NOx on the roller test.  Great, you can get a converter for $59.  It won't pass emissions but it's a converter.  GM vehicles were the worst for NOx reduction sensitivity.  I guess the Caddy aluminum pushrod engines and certain truck engines were exceptionally dirty and they leaned heavily on the converter for cleanup purposes.

There are two levels of cat certification: CA and federal. I don't know the details, but the federal specs must be pretty loose. The CA ones are original equipment spec, which is why they're so much more expensive - they're full of all the precious metals that make cats work. That lack of precious metals is why you can't sell an aftermarket cat to a recycler after you've sawzalled it out of some poor sap's car - they'll only take OE.

Some states only allow you to use cats with an EO - aka, the CA ones that have been tested and met original equipment specs. Those states include CA, CO and NY (there are some year breaks in the latter). There might be more, I forget.

aircooled said:

I know you guys are arguing about something a bit different.  But can someone explain me why the EPA is requiring manufacture only cat replacements?

The only thing I can see is if replacement cats are sooo bad, that they will fail soon after replacement, leaving the car effectively cat'less until the next smog test two years later.

They don't require OEM only cats. They require cats to be certified to meet the same emissions regulations as the OEM. Aftermarket companies are still free to spend money to certify and produce cats (or software tunes, camshafts, turbo kits, etc) that meet the regs, but for economic reasons they have historically chosen not to. And certification (at least at the OEM level) isn't only about meeting the regulation once, when brand new. Standards apply until the vehicle meets the "End of useful life" point. For light duty vehicles, it's currently 120k miles, but may increase in 2027. So an OEM will test their system when brand new, and then multiple times throughout it's life until whatever the "EUL" point is. The standards loosen somewhat as the age/miles of the vehicle climb, but the system must meet the standard throughout it's useful life. So a "49 state" or "Federal" part may meet the regulations initially, but may breakdown sooner than OEM.

The loosening is also different between Fed and Cali, to where it may be possible for California emissions may be easier.

One is, I think, that it still has to pass the test when old, and the other is that it may be no worse than 150% the emissions than new.  So if the car had only 10% of allowed emissions new, but degraded to 50% of allowed emissions, that would still be a fail.

Keith Tanner said:

There are two levels of cat certification: CA and federal. I don't know the details, but the federal specs must be pretty loose. The CA ones are original equipment spec, which is why they're so much more expensive - they're full of all the precious metals that make cats work. That lack of precious metals is why you can't sell an aftermarket cat to a recycler after you've sawzalled it out of some poor sap's car - they'll only take OE.

Some states only allow you to use cats with an EO - aka, the CA ones that have been tested and met original equipment specs. Those states include CA, CO and NY (there are some year breaks in the latter). There might be more, I forget.

I have a close friend in the converter industry. He's told me many of the CA cats are the same as the same brands no CA cats but are more expensive due to certification. Not all of them but many 

In reply to Opti :

That's quite possible. They haven't taken the steps to prove that they are compliant, therefore they are not. Burden of proof is on the vendor. I'd love to know actual numbers of what percentage of their cats fall under this category.

Opti said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Opti said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to Opti :

In the situation I pointed out, they found a problem first, then traced that problem to a source, then worked to mitigate that source.

They didn't hold a board meeting over cigars and brandy and come up with someone new to lord over.  It was a well reasoned and researched reaction to an issue that cropped up.

One interesting thing is that when a vehicles emissions are measured, EVERYTHING that the vehicle emits is measured.  So, really, in addition to paint and interior fumes (notice new-car smell had changed over the years?) the tires evaporating and wearing while on the rollers actually is something that is being taken into account currently.

Chrysler switched to R1234yf very early on (2016 or thereabouts) because it gave them an emissions credit so they could make slightly dirtier cars and trucks, too.

I'm aware it all gets measured and brakes and tires are a large part (studies have said over half) and when we modify them it gets worse, but for some reason the EPA decided that's okay, even though as someone mentioned particulate emissions is a real problem.

The EPA didn't say it's okay.  If anything, rubber compounds and brake materials ARE changing in part for emissions reasons.

It's obviously not an easy question, to be sure.  I am not a tire engineer, but what of the balance between, say, tire life and fuel economy? Is there a tradeoff?

I will allow an interesting statistic, that the first half or so of tread depth loss is due to evaporation, not mechanical wear.  I am not sure how this plays out re: fuel economy and I am sure it is a rather nuanced subject matter.

Certainly the Continental ECS wears like iron, and my average fuel economy goes up by 20% when I switch them back on from my winter tires 

Yes but somehow it's legal for me to take a car that has LRR tires and put dot legal track tires on it and massively negatively impact my emissions, particulate and otherwise. Yet its considered acceptable because it's a small chunk of the actual pie. Same as deleted diesels except some Prius on Sport Cups hasn't coal rolled a senator and got this admittedly vindictive crusade going.

So you're angry that they haven't gotten down to restricting the tires you run? Are you TRYING to give the government ideas?

In reply to iansane :

Nope not at all. In my experience many people are okay with restrictions until it applies to them specifically and generally it's too late at that point. 

I was only trying to follow the same logic the EPA is using, and apply it to something that most of this board would be guilty of and see if they still supported it.