Looks like the EPA isn't done with amateur race cars

In reply to Keith Tanner:

CARB and the EPA are very different. EPA only regulates output. They don't really care how you get there as long as it provides no harm to the general public. Look up the clean air act.

EPA should be spending their time on pipes and water quality and actually delivering their reports rather than waiting years.

The sponsor of the RPM Act is well-regarded in the party. He is a proponent of less government regulation, and is very colorful while doing it. But he's not one of the "no government regulation" guys.

There's little chance the bill will be passed by the House, and no chance it will be passed by the Senate. Senate bandwidth is otherwise occupied.

It might serve to influence EPA leadership to moderate their position, or consider the matter further. But maybe not, since Mr. Henry's party has often been opposed to regulatory initiatives of this type; it may already be part of the background in which the EPA assesses the issues. I have no idea whether they have jurisdiction to promulgate the standard. Only a federal court can decide that.

I think your local state or commonwealth will be the arm of the government that determines whether this kind of requirement would change current behavior. I already live in a community where I can't register a car that has a performance muffler on it. The car won't pass the emissions inspection that's done every other year, and probably won't pass the annual safety inspection. I have two motor-swapped cars that I track. One is in a '79 chassis, so it's exempt from the regulations. The other is a 94, and I have to rent storage for it near the track.

rslifkin wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: So how about we take a specific car, apply a specific modification, and put it through the full test battery? If it passes, then any identical car with the same modification should pass. All you'd need is the paperwork. And voila, we have the California ARB EO program.

Now if we can limit the testing to items that may be effected by a given mod (a cam would need a re-test of exhaust emissions and cat light off time, but not evap stuff, for example) and make it possible for individuals to get this done, rather than just companies, it might be viable. By only letting companies get these tested for their parts, we end up with some cars with big aftermarkets and others with none because they don't want to invest in them.

What's stopping an individual from doing it? Nothing but cost. If you've got $5-10k to throw into testing your own car, go for it. You'll get your own personal EO number.

The tests are tailored to the modifications. A supercharger system requires idle testing because of the extra load on the engine, turbo systems do not. It's quite possible a cam change would not require the evap test, but it would still need the cold soak test which is usually done at the same time.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: CARB and the EPA are very different. EPA only regulates output. They don't really care how you get there as long as it provides no harm to the general public. Look up the clean air act.

I'm drawing a parallel here. I'm pretty sure the EPA would be quite happy with an EO type system across the board to make sure that emissions are not being affected. The goal is the same, to ensure that cars have a specific emissions output regardless of how it's obtained.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Kreb: No I don't see it that way. A cam isn't an emissions control device. Your vehicle lists the emissions control devices on the emissions sticker. https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicles-and-engines/locating-vehicle-emissions-label .

A cam is very definitely implicated in emissions. Changing it would not be cool with the EPA.

Yes, but it is not an emissions control device under law as far as I can tell. This effort is aimed at emissions control devices, such as parts of the evaporative system or cats or air pumps.

It very much is. I can tell you that.

edit- to clarify- the engine, as an entity, is an emissions control device. So any part on it is one by definition.

It would be easy to get a waiver for an engine mount change. Slightly harder for a water pump pulley- but both could be done with a paper. Testing would be required for cams, pistons, crank, etc.

Kreb wrote:

alfadriver wrote: It's well known that the EPA can not enforce their rules onto individuals. I called once to ask about that, and got a clear message that they can not do anything to an individual. That's entirely left to each state to enforce. I've pointed this out before, but I see this as closing the biggest loophole for enthusiests- the "off road use only" thing. And I really bet that it was SEMA who can be traced to the attention- as I'm sure they bragged about the industry and the cars that they represent. So some person probably did the rather simple math to determine that there are a lot more sales of off road use only parts than there are racers. And then brought that to the EPA to point out that there are sales of parts to road use vehicles that should not be allowed. In the end, though, they can only go after the companies that sell the parts.

That's what I'm talking about. Certain states (California most prominently) have stringent enough rules that the number of compromised emission systems is relatively low, while other states make it pretty easy to cheat. Since the EPA cannot force the states to adopt CAs rules, they are trying to put the hurt on the less compliant states by interfering with the flow of aftermarket stuff. Summit, Jegs et al, have to be going nuts right now. I have mixed feelings about it. There's no reason that production-based race cars have to be smog exempt. It's more crap to sort through however. For a lot of us, one of the appeals of working on old or race-oriented stuff is getting rid of all the crap and reducing the mechanicals to their most basic, purpose-oriented form. But I'm coming from the POV of someone who grew up in an era when big cities were cesspools of polution at times, and sports were what you did between coughing fits. That's relatively rare any more, and rural people undoubtedly see this as yet another government overreach. I don't disagree. I understand that some want the world to be a perfectly healthy, risk-free place, but to me that's kind of like saying that the only color available is beige. Life tastes best when served with a side of risk.

Race cars is one thing. Cars that are actually only used in competition.

Cars using "for race use only" on the road is another. If the number of cars actually used for competition<< hardware sold for race use only, there's a problem. This whole thing came up via diesels in the first place- and I'm pretty darned sure that there are quite a few more diesel trucks using "race use only" parts driving on the road vs. racing. The whole blowing coal crap that people do- companies should not be selling that hardware to people who drive that on the road- yet they do.

kanaric wrote: EPA should be spending their time on pipes and water quality and actually delivering their reports rather than waiting years.

Totally different parts of the EPA. Just so you know.

If any of you have autocrossed with me, it's highly likely that you competed with an EPA worker at the site that is responsible for this regulation. And it's just as likely that the car is not compliant, as some company sold a set of hardware on their car that is for off road use only.

Which is to say (again) that the source of this focus isn't likely the EPA, but someone who gave them data showing that there are a number of "race cars" that are being used for normal use. Therefore the EPA had to look into it. It's in their charter to do that.

If you sent the EPA some off the wall idea to lower CO2 or lower emissions, they HAVE to investigate it as an idea to pass onto the OEM's- no matter how crazy the idea is. That is what they are supposed to do.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: CARB and the EPA are very different. EPA only regulates output. They don't really care how you get there as long as it provides no harm to the general public. Look up the clean air act.

I know you have done a lot of diesel work, so you have experience dealing with both. So can you explain what you mean? To us, CARB and EPA are not really different- just different numbers we have to meet.

alfadriver wrote: If you sent the EPA some off the wall idea to lower CO2 or lower emissions, they HAVE to investigate it as an idea to pass onto the OEM's- no matter how crazy the idea is. That is what they are supposed to do.

Ooo. I have this idea for a perpetual motion machine that produces no CO2...

ProDarwin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: If you sent the EPA some off the wall idea to lower CO2 or lower emissions, they HAVE to investigate it as an idea to pass onto the OEM's- no matter how crazy the idea is. That is what they are supposed to do.

Ooo. I have this idea for a perpetual motion machine that produces no CO2...

They actually have to take it seriously. I've heard about some (first hand, from people who reply).

Here is my $.02 reading the following document from the EPA site It was created in 2002 in regards to recreational vehicles, but I believe it is applicable. It outlines EPA certified racing/recreational vehicles and has a clause for older vehicles. I think what the EPA and the manufacturers are trying to create are EPA certified races cars. Perhaps that is why Chevy, Ford, and Mazda are selling race cars. I would think that the aftermarket sellers, will now have to get parts EPA certified, which will drive up the prices, and will have the consumers purchase the manufacturers rather then the aftermarket.

I'm still going to blame coal rollers for this.

Appleseed wrote: I'm still going to blame coal rollers for this.

If it takes losing my hobby and half of my career to get coal rollers punished and removed, then I'm okay with it.

I'd much prefer a middle ground.

In reply to alfadriver:

Based on your understanding of all this. Where would modifications to the air intake prior to the air filter fall? Exhaust aft of the cats? The only engine modifications I'd be prone to do on a car new enough to be covered under the regs would be to get more induction and exhaust noises. I find it more engaging when I can hear the engine.

After the cats is free, that I know. The air cleaner depends on what's in the box- if it's just a box and a basic filter, it should be allowed to modify it. Sensors in the box may mean some paperwork to make legal. If there's a HC trap in the box (and there are an handful out there), then it would have to stay stock.

In reply to alfadriver:

Prior to the box.

What I've done in the past is run a duct from the cowl area to a place on the stock air box, in addition to, or a replacement for the stock air ducting that feeds the box.

I love me some induction noises.

JBasham wrote: I already live in a community where I can't register a car that has a performance muffler on it. The car won't pass the emissions inspection that's done every other year, and probably won't pass the annual safety inspection.

Wow. Does that mean douchebags with Harley Davidsons have to run mufflers versus straight pipes?

In reply to Nick (LUCAS) Comstock:

I should note, the legality I'm talking about is someone selling the product. Not for you to modify your own. The former comes under what the EPA can cover, the latter is up to your localities.

In reply to alfadriver:

OK, gotcha.

That's probably why at least one of the tuner companies still standing for diesel trucks is based in Europe...