Excellent. Diesel brothers fined $850K plus $1.2m in fees.

In reply to Appleseed :

its not that its the end is near, not for awhile thanks to SEMA and similar lobbying

its that things are going to get significantly more difficult depending on how far the EPA wants to take things; especially if you're in specific circumstances.

Im in the middle of an SVT motor swap on my focus, from the factory those cars did not come with an EGR. The base 2000 model did come with an EGR. Swapping motors and getting rid of the EGR is against the EPAs will, sure there are ways I could retain it, most notably finding an ECU out of an SVT focus, swapping the entire harness over, getting my keys reprogrammed might be part of that as well. Suddenly the swap no longer makes any sense and I wouldn't bother.

What boggles my mind is that same motor in a car with a different vin is entirely legal but in mine its not. How does that make sense?

In reply to TurboFocus :

In the United States, if you are installing the complete engine and emissions system from a newer car, you are okay.  You can install a modern drivetrain in an older car that needed EGR and AIR, after all.  The car will then be considered the donor vehicle as far as emissions requirements are concerned.  The theory is that the newer drivetrain will be cleaner than the old one, even if it requires fewer emissions devices to do it.

For some people this isn't FREEDOM!!! enough, but for some people you will never make them happy, so it's best to have a sensible guideline in place that allows you to update cars with cleaner drivetrains.  The alternative is "no engine swaps", which is what we used to have.  (And in some countries you cannot even re-engine a car with a direct replacement, the engine is considered as much of the car as the shell is and cannot be replaced)

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Appleseed :

its not that its the end is near, not for awhile thanks to SEMA and similar lobbying

its that things are going to get significantly more difficult depending on how far the EPA wants to take things; especially if you're in specific circumstances.

Im in the middle of an SVT motor swap on my focus, from the factory those cars did not come with an EGR. The base 2000 model did come with an EGR. Swapping motors and getting rid of the EGR is against the EPAs will, sure there are ways I could retain it, most notably finding an ECU out of an SVT focus, swapping the entire harness over, getting my keys reprogrammed might be part of that as well. Suddenly the swap no longer makes any sense and I wouldn't bother.

What boggles my mind is that same motor in a car with a different vin is entirely legal but in mine its not. How does that make sense?

As long as you are not being fed this by a corporation that is making money, what you are doing is not something the federal EPA can ever do anything about.  The only people who will have a problem with it are the local authorities, and even in CA it seems that self work does have some options, as the enthusiast movement there seems rich and robust.

So you are left with re-programming the PATS for the key swap.  

The reasons for the VIN rule is to prevent tampering.  Not nearly as many people are willing to carry over the entire powertrain, including the emissions hardware.   Although, if you take a more modern powertrain as whole and put it in an older car, technically, you follow the powertrain's rules- so that may be legal.

In reply to alfadriver :

I wouldn't engage.  he's just raging becuase his swap is hard.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

lol, fair enough.

irish44j said:

Brett_Murphy said:

ebonyandivory said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

You make your points very well!

I have to mention though:  I do drive the truck as my only vehicle and I very rarely use its capabilities. Someone needs to tell me where I fall in the "he doesn't care about his fellow humans as much as X" gradient.

I just want to know where I stand and does the fact that I heavily recycle affect my score?

Pretty murky waters we swim in!

I know you're trying to stimulate thought and discussion, but your question is easy. If you've left the emissions regulation equipment in place, you're smack in the middle of where society thought driving was clean enough not to cause general harm for the period when that vehicle was made. If you keep your truck in good tune, maintain it and drive it until it no longer becomes practical, you're probably more green than somebody that leases a new Prius every two years.

As for your other green habits, they're placing you above the idiots I see chucking cans and bottles out of their window or just throwing them aside as they're jogging. Yeah, that still happens.
 

it always blows my mind when I see someone in front of me in traffic just chuck trash out the window. Like, in what alternate universe is that even remotely socially acceptable?? (me = the guy with a weeks' worth of random trash stuffed into the door map pocket lol). 

I'm a map pocket garbage can guy too!

Justjim75 said:

irish44j said:

Brett_Murphy said:

ebonyandivory said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

You make your points very well!

I have to mention though:  I do drive the truck as my only vehicle and I very rarely use its capabilities. Someone needs to tell me where I fall in the "he doesn't care about his fellow humans as much as X" gradient.

I just want to know where I stand and does the fact that I heavily recycle affect my score?

Pretty murky waters we swim in!

I know you're trying to stimulate thought and discussion, but your question is easy. If you've left the emissions regulation equipment in place, you're smack in the middle of where society thought driving was clean enough not to cause general harm for the period when that vehicle was made. If you keep your truck in good tune, maintain it and drive it until it no longer becomes practical, you're probably more green than somebody that leases a new Prius every two years.

As for your other green habits, they're placing you above the idiots I see chucking cans and bottles out of their window or just throwing them aside as they're jogging. Yeah, that still happens.
 

it always blows my mind when I see someone in front of me in traffic just chuck trash out the window. Like, in what alternate universe is that even remotely socially acceptable?? (me = the guy with a weeks' worth of random trash stuffed into the door map pocket lol). 

I'm a map pocket garbage can guy too!

I mean, not like we need to carry a bunch of maps in it like we used to 20 years ago lol

irish44j said:

Justjim75 said:

irish44j said:

Brett_Murphy said:

ebonyandivory said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

You make your points very well!

I have to mention though:  I do drive the truck as my only vehicle and I very rarely use its capabilities. Someone needs to tell me where I fall in the "he doesn't care about his fellow humans as much as X" gradient.

I just want to know where I stand and does the fact that I heavily recycle affect my score?

Pretty murky waters we swim in!

I know you're trying to stimulate thought and discussion, but your question is easy. If you've left the emissions regulation equipment in place, you're smack in the middle of where society thought driving was clean enough not to cause general harm for the period when that vehicle was made. If you keep your truck in good tune, maintain it and drive it until it no longer becomes practical, you're probably more green than somebody that leases a new Prius every two years.

As for your other green habits, they're placing you above the idiots I see chucking cans and bottles out of their window or just throwing them aside as they're jogging. Yeah, that still happens.
 

it always blows my mind when I see someone in front of me in traffic just chuck trash out the window. Like, in what alternate universe is that even remotely socially acceptable?? (me = the guy with a weeks' worth of random trash stuffed into the door map pocket lol). 

I'm a map pocket garbage can guy too!

I mean, not like we need to carry a bunch of maps in it like we used to 20 years ago lol

What's a "map"?

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I wouldn't engage.  he's just raging becuase his swap is hard.

Also, if I am not mistaken, not in the US.

As much as a lot of people in this country like to complain, we really do have quite a lot of leniency and avenues for legally modifying and upgrading cars compared to the rest of the world.

I'm happy they are being held responsible for their illegal behavior.  The exhaust I put on my 911 includes cats, the APR downpipe I have sitting in my basement for the R has a cat in it.  As others have pointed out there's no reason to remove cats anymore power wise.

Here in Colorado a new car gets a 7 year grace period of emissions testing, so I could literally do whatever I want to my R and it wouldn't matter.  So people take advantage of that.

Another friend of mine modified her Mk6 R heavily, to the point where it didn't pass smog here.  She had to spend a bunch of money to get it to pass and is very upset that she had to.  So despite her modifying the car outside of the boundaries, she's upset at the regulations, not at what she did.  I think there are many people who feel the way she does, it's not their fault they modified their car to an illegal level, it's the laws fault!

Knurled. said:

In reply to TurboFocus :

In the United States, if you are installing the complete engine and emissions system from a newer car, you are okay.  You can install a modern drivetrain in an older car that needed EGR and AIR, after all.  The car will then be considered the donor vehicle as far as emissions requirements are concerned.  The theory is that the newer drivetrain will be cleaner than the old one, even if it requires fewer emissions devices to do it.

 

For some people this isn't FREEDOM!!! enough, but for some people you will never make them happy, so it's best to have a sensible guideline in place that allows you to update cars with cleaner drivetrains.  The alternative is "no engine swaps", which is what we used to have.  (And in some countries you cannot even re-engine a car with a direct replacement, the engine is considered as much of the car as the shell is and cannot be replaced)

im taking a 2002 motor and putting it in a 2000 car, I dont think that is going to make that much of a difference when both motors were offered simultaneously. more on this a little later as well, alfa driver's section.

I'm part of that FREEDOM crowd but I see the value of some of the other points... more on this later in this response

alfadriver said:

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Appleseed :

its not that its the end is near, not for awhile thanks to SEMA and similar lobbying

its that things are going to get significantly more difficult depending on how far the EPA wants to take things; especially if you're in specific circumstances.

Im in the middle of an SVT motor swap on my focus, from the factory those cars did not come with an EGR. The base 2000 model did come with an EGR. Swapping motors and getting rid of the EGR is against the EPAs will, sure there are ways I could retain it, most notably finding an ECU out of an SVT focus, swapping the entire harness over, getting my keys reprogrammed might be part of that as well. Suddenly the swap no longer makes any sense and I wouldn't bother.

What boggles my mind is that same motor in a car with a different vin is entirely legal but in mine its not. How does that make sense?

As long as you are not being fed this by a corporation that is making money, what you are doing is not something the federal EPA can ever do anything about.  The only people who will have a problem with it are the local authorities, and even in CA it seems that self work does have some options, as the enthusiast movement there seems rich and robust.

So you are left with re-programming the PATS for the key swap.  

The reasons for the VIN rule is to prevent tampering.  Not nearly as many people are willing to carry over the entire powertrain, including the emissions hardware.   Although, if you take a more modern powertrain as whole and put it in an older car, technically, you follow the powertrain's rules- so that may be legal.

 no EPA can't do anything to me but they can do it to DERIVE and then I'll be stuck with a constant glowing engine light or ECU/harness deal that would no longer make it worth the bother.

Its the same car, two years apart, with the same chassis, same everything. All that emissions stuff literally just plugs in (minus the EGR obviously) between the cars, its more effort to turn off the emissions than it is to remove or disable them. They're only 2 years different and the same generation, same chassis, same motor family, etc etc. With everything else being so similar, i just don't understand how this is suddenly illegal.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I wouldn't engage.  he's just raging becuase his swap is hard.

Well, thanks for completely discouraging thoughtful and productive conversation. While I may not agree with everything being said, for whatever reason I choose, it does give me something to ponder over. Someone earlier said that personal freedoms stop when it infringes on someone else, a sentiment that I typically agree with. The question for me then becomes is a catalytic converter enough to keep the air clean or is me turning off rear an EGR or something else like that infringing on someone else or is the EPA infringing on my ability to modify the automobiles I own?

For the record the swap is straightforward and going easily at the moment, waiting on parts at the moment you complete and total jerk.

Knurled. said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I wouldn't engage.  he's just raging becuase his swap is hard.

Also, if I am not mistaken, not in the US.

 

As much as a lot of people in this country like to complain, we really do have quite a lot of leniency and avenues for legally modifying and upgrading cars compared to the rest of the world.

Somewhat recently back in the USA, had the opportunity to live overseas for a few years so I experienced what that is like.

Dealing with TUV is a massive reason why I'm so scared of this hobby getting regulated. Unhealthy or not, its my only hobby I truly enjoy and life would be worth living a lot less if it has a j-dam dropped on it from regulations (see TUV and other more stringent countries). The things many germans go through to have a modified car is ridiculous from the legal or less than legal standpoint. I think the complaining is healthy, it draws up something that's more fair for all parties involved. I'm allowed to swap motors around in stuff but I have to keep a CAT, totally fair and reasonable.

If you are in the USA, updating a 2000 model year car to a 2002 model year drivetrain is expressly legal, even if the new engine does not have EGR.  Your car effectively becomes a 2002 SVT Focus.

You DO have to swap over everything that is different.  IIRC the SVT had a rear mounted cat, for example. The evap stuff should all be the same, or close enough to equivalent that nobody would notice.

Knurled. said:

If you are in the USA, updating a 2000 model year car to a 2002 model year drivetrain is expressly legal, even if the new engine does not have EGR.  Your car effectively becomes a 2002 SVT Focus.

 

You DO have to swap over everything that is different.  IIRC the SVT had a rear mounted cat, for example. The evap stuff should all be the same, or close enough to equivalent that nobody would notice.

I was unaware that 2 years was enough to be totally fine. That's pretty neat.

What if it was vice versa? 2000 into a 2002 w/ no egr?

EVAP is the same as far as I can tell, or if there are differences I cant see them. No one would be able to tell from first glance, it would require research or plugging in a tool to see that the EGR is turned off... which would be my issue if emissions suddenly rolled into town.

wae said:

What's a "map"?

In reply to logdog :

I award you 5,000 internets!

I want to echo the point someone made about “Troll culture” here; there really is an undercurrent now about the death of context, the whole “If they hatin’ you must be doin’ somethin’ right!” that means the best way you can display you don’t like something is to just not pay attention to it. That attitude has needed to take some hard knocks for a LONG time in my opinion. Who knows, maybe this’ll force other aftermarket suppliers to clean up their act and make better stuff.

In reply to Curtis73 :

There’s other options to ethanol production than corn- switchgrass may be capable of producing hundreds of times the ethanol for the same weight and less water/pesticide “cost”, but I am not sure if it can be produced from the current facilities. You also have to consider the transport of the fuel as a part of its carbon “cost”, one of the many reasons EV win out within ~2 years on average.

In reply to alfadriver :

Something I’d like to hammer on- why hasn’t there been a case study, a “baseline” of sorts, of the ACTUAL environmental cost of common options? Like an outline of the CO2 produced when it comes to the actual “cost” of new production and it's transportation versus something tuned/reused to give people a real sense of scale? I ask because not only do I think it’s a big blind spot, but I also think it would help people make choices effecting the environment they otherwise don’t think they’d have. I KNOW that driving a “classic” car rebuilt to run E85 can be (situationally) better for the environment than even buying a new EV (the cost is already sunk for production) but I want to see some hard math so I can really make an informed choice. When is a rebuilt gas/E85 engine better than an EV? When should someone environmentally conscious just ditch an old vehicle for something new?

On top of that, while I’ve seen some studies showing the “cost” of manufacturing an EV, I’ve never seen the environmental cost/monetary cost comparing different lithium chemistries; like how does Lithium Iron phosphate compare to Lithium cobalt for the planet? Does the additional energy capacity of NMC Lithium win out environmentally versus the hardier-but-stores-less Lithium iron?

Good points Girthquake.

I recall the debacle that Subaru got into with their "zero footprint" plants.  They just made a couple assembly facilities mostly neutral and ignored the manufacturing and shipping footprints in Japan, China, and other countries.

The whole carbon-neutral thing has become a buzzword with very little cohesive application.  I always thought that true "environmental impact" labels should be put on anything sold new; toothbrushes, cars, coffee, whatever.  How much impact did this IKEA dish set cost the environment so that you could have pretty flatware for $10?  How many exotic trees were cut out of a forest so you could have that $40 Acacia-veneered nightstand from Target?

You'll have to forgive me, I'm watching a lot of documentaries recently.  Rotten, Broken, King Corn are on my recent list.  We just don't really think (in general as a society) about where stuff comes from.  I just bought some Luan for the theater with wood that was cut down in Asia, shipped to somewhere in Europe for manufacture, shipped to Washington state for warehousing, shipped to OH for distribution, taken to a local HD store, then put in my truck to be transported to the theater.  $8/sheet.

I'm all proud of the fact that the two dying maples I cut down in my back yard are being turned into T&G flooring for my house.  I would venture that the ghost of my great grandfather (a farmer) would say something like "that's cute.  In my day...."

logdog said:

wae said:

What's a "map"?

 

 

HAAAA.  I thought it, you memed it.

wae said:

In reply to logdog :

I award you 5,000 internets!

Awesome!  How many internets does it take to buy a roll of toilet paper these days?

Kreb said:

Everything becomes a freaking debate with political undertones. There should have been but one post on the subject -  along the lines of "F those guys. They got what they deserved." End of story. 

This!

TurboFocus said:

Knurled. said:

If you are in the USA, updating a 2000 model year car to a 2002 model year drivetrain is expressly legal, even if the new engine does not have EGR.  Your car effectively becomes a 2002 SVT Focus.

 

You DO have to swap over everything that is different.  IIRC the SVT had a rear mounted cat, for example. The evap stuff should all be the same, or close enough to equivalent that nobody would notice.

I was unaware that 2 years was enough to be totally fine. That's pretty neat.

What if it was vice versa? 2000 into a 2002 w/ no egr?

 

EVAP is the same as far as I can tell, or if there are differences I cant see them. No one would be able to tell from first glance, it would require research or plugging in a tool to see that the EGR is turned off... which would be my issue if emissions suddenly rolled into town.

It's a different engine you are swapping in.  It would be treated as a conversion, not a re-engine.

If you were dropping in another plebeian Zetec with no EGR, and not using the computer that goes with it, yes that is the same as deleting the EGR.  What you are doing would be treated the same as if you were doing a Duratec swap.

Which brings me to the point of the transmission... technically, the transmission ratios also go with the emissions package, so you need to be using the 6-speed.  Will someone notice if you don't?  Maybe, maybe not.

Technically you can't backdate an engine.  So putting a 2000 engine in a 2002 is a no go.

For the purposes of engine swaps, the rule (as of the last one I did about 4 years ago) can be boiled down to this:

1- same year or newer, and then you'll be tested by the limits of the year of the engine, not the car.  So if you use a 2004 engine in a 1996 car, you're tested as if the car is a 2004.
2- same vehicle class (can't put a truck motor in a car)
3- all of the applicable emissions equipment must come from the donor vehicle.
4- swapping within the same vehicle is fine, for instance, you can swap out the 3.8v6 in your mustang for a 5.0L without calling it an engine swap as long as all the appropriate 5.0L stuff gets installed.

In truth, most states are practical about it.  If you (for instance) had an 86 Mustang v6 and wanted a 5.0L, you could most likely get away with a 5.0L from an F250.  The reason is, the actual people certifying the swap know that they are functionally the same engine assembly, even used the same heads and ECMs.  They're not going to quibble over VIN comparisons since in the real world they know they are actually the same exact engine assembly.  As long as you use the Mustang emissions equipment, they'll likely let it slide.  Where they would get antsy is if you used a 460 from an F250 since that engine wasn't used in cars in those years or since.

In reply to Curtis73 :

And for California swaps there's #5

5- Donor engine must come from a vehicle that was sold new as California compliant. In other words, the emissions equipment and engine must be Cal versions not just federal 50 state versions.