docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
I am arguing that I want to be able to build a LS1 944 Turbo
MrJoshua said:docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
I am arguing that I want to be able to build a LS1 944 Turbo
The GM E-rod engine would work in that application. Maybe not as cost effective as a junkyard swap, but the law allows for it. I guess the GRM equivalent would be to grab a running wreck and keep all the emissions stuff. Giant PITA compared to now, but it still lets us keep our toys.
I want to do an electric drivetrain swap in something. Been brainstorming converting our RV to electric. A wrecked Tesla would provide pretty much everything I can think of needing. Maybe homebrew some stuff to simplify things.
docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
It does impact cams - that is an internal engine component, so it affects emissions.
Ford somewhat famously noted that they were able to significantly reduce HC emissions on the Vulcan V6 by eliminating the arrow on the piston top that points to the front of the engine. Marketing hyperbole or not, it is a glimpse at how tightly controlled things are.
docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
Cams would probably be a no no, and would likely require a software change that would also be a no no. Intake manifolds would be a no no and it's likely the "cold air intake" stuff would too. Unless the maker of those parts bothered to get them approved.
Basically, you can't change hard parts between the air filter and last catalyst/O2 sensor on an emissions controlled vehicle unless those parts have been verified not to change any of the various things that come out of a tailpipe. Any software change would need approval as well.
STM317 said:docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
Cams would almost definitely be a no no, and would likely require a software change that would also be a no no. Intake manifolds would be a no no and it's likely the "cold air intake" stuff would too. Unless the maker of those parts bothered to get them approved together as a "system".
Basically, you can't change engine parts on an emissions controlled vehicle unless those parts have been verified not to change any of the various things that come out of a tailpipe and are just grouped together as "emissions".
Glad somebody else is understanding why I went on a "rant" about other parts. It is all related and will have an effect on emissions as STM summarized. So it's software flashes today then next year it's anything that changes parameters of an emissions controlled vehicle (cam, intake, whatever) will need certification to the point it's too cost prohibitive for manufacturers to obtain the cert and make a profit. That's my fear with overreach.
I don't know how somebody could read what I wrote and think I want to remove EGR,cats, etc.
That's not tomorrow, it's today. And yesterday. If it can affect emissions, you need to prove it doesn't. The only thing that is changing is enforcement outside CA.
crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:STM317 said:docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
Cams would almost definitely be a no no, and would likely require a software change that would also be a no no. Intake manifolds would be a no no and it's likely the "cold air intake" stuff would too. Unless the maker of those parts bothered to get them approved together as a "system".
Basically, you can't change engine parts on an emissions controlled vehicle unless those parts have been verified not to change any of the various things that come out of a tailpipe and are just grouped together as "emissions".
Glad somebody else is understanding why I went on a "rant" about other parts. It is all related and will have an effect on emissions as STM summarized. So it's software flashes today then next year it's anything that changes parameters of an emissions controlled vehicle (cam, intake, whatever) will need certification to the point it's too cost prohibitive for manufacturers to obtain the cert and make a profit. That's my fear with overreach.
I don't know how somebody could read what I wrote and think I want to remove EGR,cats, etc.
It's been on the books for decades. People abused it. Now they're enforcing an existing law. It's really not worth the extreme effort to go after individuals on this stuff. You can have a larger impact by going after the manufacturers that haven't bothered to get their parts approved. It's like police officers going after drug dealers/cartels rather than individual junkies.
The good news, is that there have been "CARB approved" parts for a long time. Things like software tunes, power adders, etc can all be made to pass emissions tests. Think of it as everything moving forward will need to be "CARB approved" rather than a death sentence for power train modification.
Keith Tanner said:That's not tomorrow, it's today. And yesterday. If it can affect emissions, you need to prove it doesn't. The only thing that is changing is enforcement outside CA.
The only thing changing is enforcement outside California is a pretty big change which I know you're acutely aware of in your business.
There are extremely limited amount of super weak spec stock valvetrain 50 state legal camshafts available on the market (I know COMP make a few). The other 98% of cams that say "for racing use only" just like these Hondata sales are doing the exact same thing.
What I'm hearing is eventually every part sold will need a 50 state certification for things to legally be run on a emissions controlled street car. I guess I just don't understand how all sellers of cams, pistons, rods, fuel injectors, etcetera that can change emissions output and aren't 50 state compliant wouldn't be at risk to be on the chopping block at the same time since it's the exact same loophole as an ECU.
crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:Laws change. Enforcement changes.
Read what I wrote about older cars. I didn't say they are going to make them illegal but the parts they use to increase their emissions regardless of year or use may be banned from future sale in the same manner as a Hondata using that logic.
I'm not sure you understand the law. As I read the ex-post-facto logic, it's not legal to apply laws to old, legal, products. You can't apply crash, bumper, seat belt, etc laws to old cars- let alone not being practical. I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to change emissions laws on cars pre 1968. By the same logic, you can't apply Tier2 or LEVII standards to '70's cars, or Tier3/LEVIII standards to 90's cars- both are quite illegal to apply those standards. I think it would take a change in the Constitution for that to happen- and I see no reason why that would happen.
In terms of enforcing the old standards on cars, that's 100% up to each state, not the EPA. And if they don't have to, they most certainly wont. California needs to, and thats why they have such stringent inspections. But the EPA has no specific ability to enforce the CAA on your individual cars. Again, for that to happen would take a pretty considerable act of Congress, and I just don't see that happening.
And that means there is no Anti-Tampering law on anything pre CARB or CAA, so no parts can be banned for older cars.
Enforcement does change. But there's nothing that can even be enforced on pre CAA cars.
crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:What I'm hearing is eventually every part sold will need a 50 state certification for things to legally be run on a emissions controlled street car. I guess I just don't understand how all sellers of cams, pistons, rods, fuel injectors, etcetera that can change emissions output and aren't 50 state compliant wouldn't be at risk to be on the chopping block at the same time since it's the exact same loophole as an ECU.
There's no "eventually" about your last paragraph. That's been a law for almost 50 years. And there's also a process to make them legal.
While I appreciate how SEMA is trying to make a law for race cars, they also should be spending a lot of effort hooking up the small parts makers with the organizations that are capable of certifying the part. And they may already do it- I just don't know.
BTW, the standard that the parts have to meet isn't exactly what we release. I *think* that just passing the test with new parts would statisfy an EO test, whereas we have to age the system to full useful life (which is currently 150k miles in the eyes of the regulators) and then make sure that all of the cars sold at FUL pass with variability over the entire fleet of cars.
crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:STM317 said:docwyte said:You guys are going off on rants that are just humorous. This is easy, keep the emissions stuff intact on your car and you're good. There. Done. Doesn't impact cams, cat back exhausts, most intakes, most tunes.
What exactly is the issue here? Are you really arguing that removing cats, EGR, DPF, etc is OK and good?
Cams would almost definitely be a no no, and would likely require a software change that would also be a no no. Intake manifolds would be a no no and it's likely the "cold air intake" stuff would too. Unless the maker of those parts bothered to get them approved together as a "system".
Basically, you can't change engine parts on an emissions controlled vehicle unless those parts have been verified not to change any of the various things that come out of a tailpipe and are just grouped together as "emissions".
Glad somebody else is understanding why I went on a "rant" about other parts. It is all related and will have an effect on emissions as STM summarized. So it's software flashes today then next year it's anything that changes parameters of an emissions controlled vehicle (cam, intake, whatever) will need certification to the point it's too cost prohibitive for manufacturers to obtain the cert and make a profit. That's my fear with overreach.
I don't know how somebody could read what I wrote and think I want to remove EGR,cats, etc.
Cams already are not legal. Nothing is new here. There are, or were, EO'd camshafts available for popular applications in the 90s. (I think the E303 cam for the 5.0 got an EO! Not sure how they managed that)
Hell. Old build diary for a Mustang engine for a California guy. He wanted a 351W. The only legal 351W for a Mustang was the Cobra R engine, which had a block with its own part number. Yeah, not finding one. They went to the trouble of getting it in writing from Ford that a 351W truck block was an acceptable replacement part for a Cobra R. https://suicideslabs.com/dw/engine/wein410/wein410.htm
alfadriver said:crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:Laws change. Enforcement changes.
Read what I wrote about older cars. I didn't say they are going to make them illegal but the parts they use to increase their emissions regardless of year or use may be banned from future sale in the same manner as a Hondata using that logic.
I'm not sure you understand the law. As I read the ex-post-facto logic, it's not legal to apply laws to old, legal, products. You can't apply crash, bumper, seat belt, etc laws to old cars- let alone not being practical. I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to change emissions laws on cars pre 1968. By the same logic, you can't apply Tier2 or LEVII standards to '70's cars, or Tier3/LEVIII standards to 90's cars- both are quite illegal to apply those standards. I think it would take a change in the Constitution for that to happen- and I see no reason why that would happen.
In terms of enforcing the old standards on cars, that's 100% up to each state, not the EPA. And if they don't have to, they most certainly wont. California needs to, and thats why they have such stringent inspections. But the EPA has no specific ability to enforce the CAA on your individual cars. Again, for that to happen would take a pretty considerable act of Congress, and I just don't see that happening.
And that means there is no Anti-Tampering law on anything pre CARB or CAA, so no parts can be banned for older cars.
Enforcement does change. But there's nothing that can even be enforced on pre CAA cars.
It's not that I don't understand this law, it's that I don't like the implication for where dramatically increased selective enforcement leads.
My examples of potentially making performance products ineligible for sale without certification on even emission exempt vehicles was just that. An example of where this can go. That has nothing to do with ex post facto.
Ex post facto would make your existing car that already has these products illegal.
It is Not ex post facto to make future sales of a product banned from sale due to new tougher regulations. Hypothetical example: not being able to buy a new "for racing only" Texas Speed cam for your Datsun with an LS3. Sure the Datsun is emissions exempt but Texas Speed now can't sell them because it doesn't have an EO.
My point is new enforcement could make all parts that impact emissions output banned from Future sale if they do not have a 50 state certification and that absolutely affects the vast majority of all power adders and hard parts that people currently use because the vast majority aren't certified. If people don't care about increased enforcement because it's just coal rollers and standalone users, they might care when it is applied to other parts they do want to buy.
Anyway, I'm tapping out since "I'm not a fan of where this trend is headed" apparently equates to advocating for rolling coal and cutting off catalytic converters. If that's what I sound Iike I apologize.
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
The certification process is just to prove that the performance part does not increase emissions beyond what OEM was. Or the standards for the model year, I forget which.
If there was no standard for the OEM, then they have no baseline to test against. Before 1966, you had cars with road draft tubes instead of PCV systems, for cryin' out loud! And two stroke SAABs that would pass a third or so of the air and fuel right out the exhaust pipe unmolested by combustion.
When people complain about emissions controls, they don't have a context about how bad it was before it started to get reined in. At work today we had three cars running inside a building with only one door open off to the side, that sort of thing would NOT have been possible before 1966. Hell, maybe not before 1996.
so, I come at this from a different perspective/background of experience and knowledge. I'm not sure I can finesse the language correctly, such that people misunderstand my meaning; but I reckon I'll give it a try. My perspective is that in the US, "just because something is banned, doesn't mean it's not allowed".
During prohibition, when it was generally held that "consumption of alcohol effects us all, negatively... and thus should be banned"; my Great-Grandmother was granted a permit to brew beer at home. No, I don't have the permit... yes, I got this story second-hand from my now-deceased Grandmother. Nevertheless, this ethos was codified by Carter in 1976: That there exist a compelling reason to allow individuals the ability to produce and consume a regulated substance, outside the regulator scheme... so long that it does not cross the boundaries of a commercial enterprise.
The second example is probably the closer analog to this discussion. The CAA and now FAA required that aircraft have to be certified in order to access the Federally Regulated Aviation System. In the '40's, this effectively created a ban on private individuals constructing and certifying and flying their own aircraft... unless the constructor submitted to an inspection that was equivalent to what manufacturers (i.e. Boeing) went through before flying their prototype aircraft. Eventually, that was rectified via Congress, through the creation of the Experimental category, which does not have to meet the same certification standards that "normal" 'Part 23' aircraft have to be designed/built/certified to.
via this article:
" The official justification for permitting homebuilt aircraft was and still is education and recreation. "
Sleepydad was an EAA member, and partially completed a Evans VP-1... and pouring over old EAA magazines is non-trivially responsible for my completing college.
"the EPA turned a blind eye, until they couldn't" / "but, the EPA doesn't have a way to distinguish use" / "if they open regulation on one thing, they'll just get sued for preferential treatment"
I don't particularly agree with these arguments. I think it's more accurate to say that the EPA doesn't have the budget/resources, and I fully acknowledge that none of this is going to be rectified without something passing through Congress. However, my view is that the EPA's reasoning for regulating this has more to do with the recent GHG determination, than it has to do the previous regulatory ('turned a blind eye') scheme... based on the timing. The same GHG determination has lead to the EPA creating proposed rules for Aviation Emissions Regulation under the same guidance... and that applies to aircraft over 5700kg MTOW (which, in case you were wondering, is* a KingAir or bigger... which is pretty big from a 'personal aircraft perspective'). So, the argument that they can't treat some road users different than others, I feel is suspect... since that's exactly what they're doing with aviation.
So, there exists already the concept that individuals have a demonstrable and reasonable expectation to be able to create or modify vehicles for reasons of recreation, education, and experimentation; with the caveat that they limit the use of such creations, don't use them for commercial purposes, and potentially don't exceed a determinable maximum weight. If they do so, they agree to a less strict regulatory environment, which may mean increased to risk to them and the public. This pool (based on the number and flight hours of sub-5700kg aircraft burning low-lead gasoline without any emissions systems) is non-trivially large... and could be easily accommodated by a 5000mile yearly mileage limit, the presence of cats, and a tune that meets Federal Year 2000-emissions specifications. IMHO.
I think, though, there are probably a couple of main issues to actually having such a scheme passed.
One is, that this might turn into a turf fight between DOT, EPA, and the States.
Another, is that none of the "big organizations" that might fight this are 'consumer oriented'; so this concept is completely off their scope. Although, it's kind of surprising that a certain National auto association, and that big Car-Sporting Club, among other entities aren't realizing their own possible exposure in this... and attempting to band together in fighting for such a regulatory scheme being passed by Congress... which the RPMAct does not come close to addressing.
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
I'm studiously avoiding speed-talk because there are a lot of small/mid-size industry players there, engine builders, component manufacturers, etc - and when the subject of other countries banning all modified cars came up, and I pointed out that the US was going to see a wider crackdown on components that might be used on road vehicles, starting from studies in 2018, I was told, in a nutshell, I didn't know what I was talking about and that it couldn't happen here.
Of course, the same people also have strong political leanings and will be happy to blame the Other Side when reality hits them, never mind that it isn't a political-climate issue.
In reply to MrJoshua :
And I built that car completely LEGALLY. I brought over EVERY SINGLE EMISSIONS part from the donor car, which was a 2002 Camaro SS. I took the car to the Colorado emissions referree station where they went through it with a fine toothed comb, then gave it their blessing. After that it got smog tested as a 2002 Camaro SS.
You can do that too. Anyone can modify their car as long as they abide by the laws.
About cams in particular since it's been brought up a few times: the reason you don't see big racing cams with EOs is because you just can't get them clean enough. A cam (or cams) has a massive impact on emissions output. That's where stuff like variable timing and variable lift work their magic and why you're seeing them on everything.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Also a lot of why LS engines are so good. Their heads flow like nobody's business, allowing them to have fairly small cams and still make a lot of power.
In reply to docwyte :
The turbo as well?
In reply to MrJoshua :
What turbo? The LS 951 never had a turbo. Both my current turbocharged cars meet Colorado smog just fine, have all emissions installed and operational.
docwyte said:In reply to MrJoshua :
What turbo? The LS 951 never had a turbo. Both my current turbocharged cars meet Colorado smog just fine, have all emissions installed and operational.
Gotcha. The link for the car said LS1 944 Turbo. I incorrectly assumed LS1 with turbo not LS1 converted 944 Turbo
I stand corrected. I assumed a turbo LS build and assumed a non compliant setup. I apologize for the accusatory post. I am impressed by the level of work it must have taken to make that work.
In reply to MrJoshua :
Probably not as much work as the hassle of dealing with Porsche purists... 
In reply to MrJoshua :
Dealing with the Colorado Smog referree's was a PITA. I had to go back several times and each time I'd be there for an hour. Meanwhile they were in the back trying to figure out what was wrong to help me out. I knew what I needed to do, so that was just sort of a waste of time. Once it passed, everything was fine.
Found on iATN.
Yep, I saw that on one of my Facebook groups. Apparently Colorado is also doing that.
You'll need to log in to post.
