If the EPA was going to go after competition vehicles, why not mandate the use of an exhaust catalyst, or that they pass a tail pipe test? Banning the modification of 'any component of the engine, fuel, and emissions systems' would make all sorts of DIY, tuning, and hobby activities illegal -- not just racing. I suspect that millions of currently registered vehicles would be in violation of such a regulation.
What happens to all the cars that are already modified?
nderwater wrote: If the EPA was going to go after competition vehicles, why not mandate the use of an exhaust catalyst, or that they pass a tail pipe test? Banning the modification of 'any component of the engine, fuel, and emissions systems' would make all sorts of DIY, tuning, and hobby activities illegal -- not just racing.
now you're catching on... there are people out there that don't think that people should be allowed to work on their own stuff, and that modifying something in any way that deviates from the way it left the factory is something that should never, ever be done.
and some of those people work for the government. they are bureaucrats that live and work in their own little world, surrounded by like minded people, that have little knowledge of the ways that the stuff they dream up affects anyone else or how much it would cost to implement and enforce.
hell, i see that same kind of attitude on boards like this one all the time, too. just go back to the first few pages of this thread and read the comments about how this will only affect the "bro dozers" that roll coal so they are totally cool with it. they don't even think that maybe, just maybe, the people in the government that are in charge of these things don't know or care that a 3/4 ton truck that spews black soot everywhere and never actually gets worked hard or goes offroad is a totally different thing than making 20-30 year old street cars into race cars that see the track a few times a year. to them, they are all just vehicles that need to meet certain standards and they all get lumped in together.
nderwater wrote: If the EPA was going to go after competition vehicles, why not mandate the use of an exhaust catalyst, or that they pass a tail pipe test? Banning the modification of 'any component of the engine, fuel, and emissions systems' would make all sorts of DIY, tuning, and hobby activities illegal -- not just racing. I suspect that *millions* of currently registered vehicles would be in violation of such a regulation.
Agreed. I have no problem with them saying "your modified car has to meet X, Y and Z emissions specs." I have a problem with them telling me how to get it there. As long as the thing can meet the emissions requirements, it shouldn't matter what kind of cat I have on it, whether it has EGR, etc.
novaderrik wrote: ...a totally different thing than making 20-30 year old street cars into race cars that see the track a few times a year. to them, they are all just vehicles that need to meet certain standards and they all get lumped in together.
I would be willing to bet that the folks who wrote this don't even know that this is a real thing, and just think that racing is F1 and NASCAR.
Tuna, ALL government agencies answer to the executive branch in that manner, so by extension you disagree with the following departments?
Homeland Security
USDA
FDA
BATF
DOT
Education
Energy
Interior
Treasury
Vetrans Affairs
State Department
(Pretty much all branches of the military, yeah they are executive branch as well)
(list goes on... see https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a )
They ARE constitutional as the branches of government are able to create them. They are not unilaterally created, but are voted on by your elected officials in the Executive AND Legislative branches. IF the legislative branch as a while wanted to shut down an agency they easily could through appropriations as well as other measures.
I think your stance on them being unconstitutional is based on you being under-informed and wanting to only look at the first level of direct influence of the document and not the secondary levels which the constitution allows to be generated to allow for governance. I dont mean this as a call-out, but to urge you to do some more reading into it as I feel you are missing the big picture. It seems a common thing that people want to brush away all secondary levels (which are allowed for) and rely only on the parent document to the exclusion of all else.
In reply to Apexcarver:
Yes. Most of those departments at the federal level have no constitutionally allowed power.
But, this is not a conversation about constitutional politics, so we should probably stop now. PM me if you want.
tuna55 wrote:alfadriver wrote: In reply to tuna55: You accusations do matter to some of us. So far, some see sema as fishing for donations, and some are ready to plan a revolution as they may not be able to participate in entertainment.The note from Lemons explains things more than SEMA, and I am using that as corroborations. I don't give money to SEMA nor any other lobbying group at the moment. I see government overreach and it's the worst form (in my opinion) since it's not based on legislation which can be voted up or down.
Hopefully you see that there are people out there that see the EPA as underreaching. Which is why they are sued to tighten the regulations.
This board represents a community that bases entertainment on racing cars. There are people out there that would like that community to stop doing that. You think that the EPA is doing this on their own, they are not. Heck, could be sea going vessels who see this loophole and want do distract things, I dunno.
Personally, I support the changes that are coming wrt leviii and tier3 as I benefit from that a lot.
I also like clean air and water, too. Without the EPA, I'm confident that it would get worse, like the 60's.
In reply to alfadriver:
I, too, enjoy clean air, and would not support complete dissolution of the EPA, but I believe their power needs to be firmly defined and controlled and that they are accountable to the taxpayer.
alfadriver wrote: Hopefully you see that there are people out there that see the EPA as underreaching. Which is why they are sued to tighten the regulations. This board represents a community that bases entertainment on racing cars. There are people out there that would like that community to stop doing that. You think that the EPA is doing this on their own, they are not. Heck, could be sea going vessels who see this loophole and want do distract things, I dunno. Personally, I support the changes that are coming wrt leviii and tier3 as I benefit from that a lot. I also like clean air and water, too. Without the EPA, I'm confident that it would get worse, like the 60's.
I don't think the EPA is bad or unconstitutional. And I wouldn't even mind the EPA saying that all cars including race cars had to meet emissions standards. I wouldn't be happy about it but I wouldn't hate it. What I have problem with is the way they are approaching in terms of basically banning any engine modifications and two that it is not a law that is being passed through Congress.
rslifkin wrote:nderwater wrote: If the EPA was going to go after competition vehicles, why not mandate the use of an exhaust catalyst, or that they pass a tail pipe test? Banning the modification of 'any component of the engine, fuel, and emissions systems' would make all sorts of DIY, tuning, and hobby activities illegal -- not just racing. I suspect that *millions* of currently registered vehicles would be in violation of such a regulation.Agreed. I have no problem with them saying "your modified car has to meet X, Y and Z emissions specs." I have a problem with them telling me how to get it there. As long as the thing can meet the emissions requirements, it shouldn't matter what kind of cat I have on it, whether it has EGR, etc.
You just nailed. Example: my track car is a 2002 Ford Escort Sedan. It left the factory with maybe 90 HP at the wheels. With my porting of the top end, balancing/blueprinting of the bottom end, custom ground camshaft (actually just slightly more lift and duration than the old 1.9 Escort GT cam), header and bigger exhaust with a Magnaflow catalytic converter, and steady-state dyno tuning it now puts about 130 HP to the wheels. And, I can garandamntee you it is actually a cleaner running, less polluting engine than the way ford delivered it. For the life of me, I can't fathom why "certain someones" out there wants to make my engine/car illegal. Who will gain by doing that? That is the question that needs to be definitively answered.
tuna55 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I, too, enjoy clean air, and would not support complete dissolution of the EPA, but I believe their power needs to be firmly defined and controlled and that they are accountable to the taxpayer.
The law does define that. And the EPA is accountable to the tax payer. The fact that they are closing a loophole you have been entertaining yourself with does not change that.
Get involved, go to public hearings. They have them.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
The law was passed by congress. It gives them a lot of leeway, and this is closing a loophole.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: The law was passed by congress. It gives them a lot of leeway, and this is closing a loophole.
Except it was never intended to be used that way.
In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments (the “C AA ”). The C AA did not disturb the definition of “motor vehicle” as set forth in the 1965 Act, but it did mandate new emissions standards and expanded the anti - tampering provision to require that no person render emissions controls inoperative after first sale. While on first blush that would seem to require emissions controls on all racing vehicles that are converted from their original street use, the committee notes make it clear that the intent of the legislation was n ever to regulate racing vehicles: M R . N ICHOLS : “I would ask the distinguished chairman if I am corr ect in stating that the terms “vehicle” and “vehicle engine” as used in the act do not include vehicles or vehicle engines manufactured for, modified for or utilized in organized motor racing events which, of course, are held very infrequently but which ut ilize all types of vehicles and vehicle engines?” M R . S TAGGERS : “In response to the gentleman from Alabama, I would say to the gentleman they would not come under the provisions of this act, because the act deals only with automobiles used on our roads in everyday use. The act would not cover the types of racing vehicles to which th e gentleman referred, and present law does not cover them either.”
The fact that Alfaracer keeps referring to our sport/industry/lifestyle/livelihood as "entertainment" certainly illustrates the varying viewpoints here.
WildScotsRacing wrote:rslifkin wrote:You just nailed. Example: my track car is a 2002 Ford Escort Sedan. It left the factory with maybe 90 HP at the wheels. With my porting of the top end, balancing/blueprinting of the bottom end, custom ground camshaft (actually just slightly more lift and duration than the old 1.9 Escort GT cam), header and bigger exhaust with a Magnaflow catalytic converter, and steady-state dyno tuning it now puts about 130 HP to the wheels. And, I can garandamntee you it is actually a cleaner running, less polluting engine than the way ford delivered it. For the life of me, I can't fathom why "certain someones" out there wants to make my engine/car illegal. Who will gain by doing that? That is the question that needs to be definitively answered.nderwater wrote: If the EPA was going to go after competition vehicles, why not mandate the use of an exhaust catalyst, or that they pass a tail pipe test? Banning the modification of 'any component of the engine, fuel, and emissions systems' would make all sorts of DIY, tuning, and hobby activities illegal -- not just racing. I suspect that *millions* of currently registered vehicles would be in violation of such a regulation.Agreed. I have no problem with them saying "your modified car has to meet X, Y and Z emissions specs." I have a problem with them telling me how to get it there. As long as the thing can meet the emissions requirements, it shouldn't matter what kind of cat I have on it, whether it has EGR, etc.
Factory emissions tests are a whole lot more comprehensive than the simple little dyno test you do at the corner station. Evaporative emissions, cold starts, cat light-up, emissions under all load ranges - do you really want to pay for the test that proves that your homebrewed car meets those numbers?
That's the purpose of the CARB EO system. You prove that a particular car will pass ALL the tests, then any identical car is given the stamp of approval. I'm glad I don't personally have to live with it, but it's actually a good solution to the problem.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
My Escort still has ALL of it's emissions gear still installed and functioning like new. The only real change is the location of the cat; light-off time, I know, but that metal matrix cat is better at being a cat than the OEM style. If the OEMs used better chemistry, they wouldn't have to use manicats and all the bad compromises that go with them.
On my Jeep, the cat is actually further forward in the system than it was stock. Stock, if you started it cold and let it idle, it took several minutes to stop smelling. Now, even though the motor is cammed, it stops smelling at idle within 30 seconds (closer cat location and different tuning). The rest of the emissions gear is intact, only the cat and tune are tampered with.
The only way it's probably worse than stock on emissions is slightly higher HC output at idle due to idling a little rich and the mild cam as well as a little higher NOx at cruise, as I have a lean cruise tuned in. Other than maybe NOx at cruise, I'd be surprised if it couldn't pass a sniffer test well within the specs a stock one is held to (keeping in mind, most stock ones will come in under the test specs).
Flight Service wrote: The EPA is NOT un-Constitutional. They are a department of government that answers to the Executive branch and was ratified by both houses of Congress.
There's a reasonable case to be made that the EPA (along with a lot of other federal agencies) represents an unconstitutional transfer of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. The Consitution gives certain powers to the legislature, and the legislature is not allowed to pass a law delegating those powers to other branches. Congress is supposed to make law, the executive branch is supposed to enforce it, not make new law. A law that creates an executive agency with sufficiently broad guidelines that said agency can effectively make its own laws inside a certain area is therefore unconstitutional.
The reason why it's unconstitutional is precisely what people are griping about in this case -- there are so many layers of indirection between the voters and the government agency that's making these laws that it's very difficult for the voters to exercise the oversight that they are supposed to have. You can't vote the EPA director out of office, he's not elected, he's appointed.
WildScotsRacing wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: My Escort still has ALL of it's emissions gear still installed and functioning like new. The only real change is the location of the cat; light-off time, I know, but that metal matrix cat is better at being a cat than the OEM style. If the OEMs used better chemistry, they wouldn't have to use manicats and all the bad compromises that go with them.
It's got a different cam, that's a change. I'm assuming you've messed with the computer as well. Both of those will have some effect on emissions.
And metal matrix cats are compact, but they don't have the lifespan of a ceramic core. Remember, the OEs have to warranty emissions parts for 100,000 miles. I've got a ruined metal matrix cat core on my desk here. Light-off time is important. In fact, new cars do all sorts of odd things to get the cat to full temp - it's why they all sound weird for the first 30 seconds.
There are a lot of really smart people working for the OEs.
Yeah, retarding the ignition timing on cold start lights the cat off much faster, as does the insanely high idle most new cars have when started cold. I ended up doing that in my tune when it's cold enough because it ran better that way (less of a dip when throwing the trans in gear, as it was using more throttle to hold the target idle).
In reply to rslifkin:
If you think new cars have an "insanely high" cold idle then you must not remember the carbureted cars from the 80s where cold idle spec was in the 2500-3000rpm range.
A lot of cars now just advance the exhaust cam to get the cat to light off faster. Cheap variable cam timing and drive by wire are glorious things.
Knurled wrote: In reply to rslifkin: If you think new cars have an "insanely high" cold idle then you must not remember the carbureted cars from the 80s where cold idle spec was in the 2500-3000rpm range. A lot of cars now just advance the exhaust cam to get the cat to light off faster. Cheap variable cam timing and drive by wire are glorious things.
Yes, but those were typically kicked off high idle before moving. Some new cars with autos will hold 1200+ rpm in gear when cold, which leads to a heck of a lot of push without throttle. Compare that to my 90s build Jeep, on which the stock tune didn't idle up at all on cold start until the coolant temps were below freezing! On a 50* day, it would just go right to 700 rpm after startup. 
Question. Will running the shift points and firmness in an automatic trans equipped car affect emissions according to the EPA?
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: Question. Will running the shift points and firmness in an automatic trans equipped car affect emissions according to the EPA?
Yeah, altered shift points would likely affect emissions in some way.
The new Miata runs crazy timing and actually opens the throttle on the cat warm-up mode. It has almost no vacuum at this point and idles at the usual 850 rpm or so. Just sounds very flatulent.
It'll do this at various points while driving if the cat temps start to get out of range as well. The car actually runs a vacuum pump so the brakes still work. Miatas have always been fairly crude from an electronics point of view, it's really interesting to get inside a modern one.
You'll need to log in to post.
