Does your vehicle violate the Clean Air Act?

ProDarwin wrote:

SVreX wrote: Funny thing is, most of those would pass (because they are exempt).

Pass *local testing*. They still violate the Clean Air Act. I think many are still overlooking that the Clean Air Act and local testing are totally different things.

I am not sure that is correct. Local policies may not be more lax than the EPA guidelines.

Alfa, help me understand. What is the basic overview?

As I understand it:

Manufacture date 1970 and earlier- no requirements at all.

Standards are graduated, and progressively more difficult for newer vehicles (which does not change the standard for earlier vehicles)

1996- lead gasoline banned.

I believe emissions testing is not required for vehicles after their useful life (120,000 miles for a light duty vehicle)

Off-road and recreational vehicles now have emissions requirements- not clear if this includes race vehicles.

Removing or modifying the pollution equipment is illegal, but having it on the car does not necessarily mean the car is compliant (without further testing)

Am I close?

Swank Force One wrote: 1995 Miata: No cats, aftermarket engine management system. Violates the act, but i doubt that it's truly any "dirtier" than a stock Miata.

Not that I'm calling you out SF1, but I see this idea quite a bit.

Being that catalysts are one of the most important emissions control devices on a car, why do people think that a non-catalyst car could be as clean as a car with a cat?

Even heavily degraded catalysts are better than none at all.

Back in 1995, the catalyst would clean up roughly 90-95% of what an engine would make. So even if the catalyst was half as good as it was certifued, that would clean up 80% of what an engine makes.

Current cars are about 99% of the raw engine emissions are cleaned up.

I honestly can't think of a way to pass emissions (real emissions, the ones laid out by the Clean Air Act and CARB) without catalysts. Other than by using 70's era standards.

Again, this isn't to call you out, SF1, just to clear up this thinking.

(and FWIW, if a car is a race car, and isn't used much, well...)

alfadriver wrote: (and FWIW, if a car is a race car, and isn't used much, well...)

Would you consider an autocross car to be a race car?

In reply to ouchx100: Only $300? You are pretty lucky, any of the ones I have checked the price on for other cars were 2-3x that much.

alfadriver wrote: Being that catalysts are one of the most important emissions control devices on a car, why do people think that a non-catalyst car could be as clean as a car with a cat?

I think I do know why people think this, although you are absolutely right, especially on newer cars, but I know a lot of older cars (1976 Bronco my parents used to own for example), would barely pass the sniffer test (whatever they used 20+ years ago) with the cat, but without it was far cleaner. I think its pretty ridiculous how many cars are pretty much parts cars if the cat ever fails though, because it would cost more than the car for someone to have it repaired.

SVreX wrote:

ProDarwin wrote:

SVreX wrote: Funny thing is, most of those would pass (because they are exempt).

Pass *local testing*. They still violate the Clean Air Act. I think many are still overlooking that the Clean Air Act and local testing are totally different things.

I am not sure that is correct. Local policies may not be more lax than the EPA guidelines. Alfa, help me understand. What is the basic overview? As I understand it: Manufacture date 1970 and earlier- no requirements at all. Standards are graduated, and progressively more difficult for newer vehicles (which does not change the standard for earlier vehicles) 1996- lead gasoline banned. I believe emissions testing is not required for vehicles after their useful life (120,000 miles for a light duty vehicle) Off-road and recreational vehicles now have emissions requirements- not clear if this includes race vehicles. Removing or modifying the pollution equipment is illegal, but having it on the car does not necessarily mean the car is compliant (without further testing) Am I close?

The way the rules are laid out, the Clean Air Act only requires the OEM's to do the testing, and that they are required to prove that a car will both meet the emissions and stay durable. For the durability part, the EPA does do some in-use testing, but that's not to check an individual owner or their car, but to test the OEM and if their claim to meet durability is correct or not.

That I'm aware of, the EPA has no jurisdiction over individual car owners. They can go after business owners who tamper or lie about the certified emissions.

For states that can not meet the air quality standards that the CAA lays out, they get labled as non-attainment areas, and are then told to do something about it. That can be as simple as specifying a unique fuel blend all the way to requiring owners take their car in for some kind of inspection program (be it for an actual emissions test or check engine light inspection).

States are also allowed to CHOOSE to be part of the California Air Resourses Board program. By that, the cars sold in the state have to meet CARB standards, and also have to meet CARB inspection programs as well. States like Oregon and New York are known as Green States to us.

There are rules for pretty much every product- from lawn mowers all the way up to the multi engine ships. Racers do have some wiggle room, but some series to have rules to have catalysts. Even so, I see more European series force catalyst than US ones.

As for the specific rules that each model year had to meet- there are a few different levels of emissions rules. Since I started working in 1993, there have been 3 changes each in Federal and California rules. And we are working quite hard on a 4th. By the time I retire, the fleet average of new cars will be what we currently call PZEV. And new rules are coming in all across the world- China is actually going to end up more restrictive than Europe, it appears. (oh, and I'll also state my opinion that new Euro rules will force the phase out of diesels up to BMW and Mercedes- all lower won't be able to afford it. Unless a BIG development happens- which it very much could)

Travis_K wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Being that catalysts are one of the most important emissions control devices on a car, why do people think that a non-catalyst car could be as clean as a car with a cat?

I think I do know why people think this, although you are absolutely right, especially on newer cars, but I know a lot of older cars (1976 Bronco my parents used to own for example), would barely pass the sniffer test (whatever they used 20+ years ago) with the cat, but without it was far cleaner. I think its pretty ridiculous how many cars are pretty much parts cars if the cat ever fails though, because it would cost more than the car for someone to have it repaired.

I guess I can see using 70's data, but that's also vs 70's standards.

It does not take much of a catalyst or control system to cut a vehicle's emissions in half.

Oddly enough, all of my vehicles are 100% emissions compliant. Huh... I think I need to fix that.

mndsm wrote: Don't know, don't care.

Quoted for truth.

I can say, the raptor probably doesn't, but at least it burns its excess hydrocarbons in a brilliant ball of light instead of a smoke screen large enough to hide an aircraft carrier.

In reply to alfadriver:

FWIW, there are some 89-95 sho owners in Cali that have been beating the sniffers there for years without catalysts.

Granted, that's not how they keep them year round.

alfadriver wrote:

Travis_K wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Being that catalysts are one of the most important emissions control devices on a car, why do people think that a non-catalyst car could be as clean as a car with a cat?

I think I do know why people think this, although you are absolutely right, especially on newer cars, but I know a lot of older cars (1976 Bronco my parents used to own for example), would barely pass the sniffer test (whatever they used 20+ years ago) with the cat, but without it was far cleaner. I think its pretty ridiculous how many cars are pretty much parts cars if the cat ever fails though, because it would cost more than the car for someone to have it repaired.

I guess I can see using 70's data, but that's also vs 70's standards. It does not take much of a catalyst or control system to cut a vehicle's emissions in half.

More than in half. I'd say more like cut them by 90% Or 98%.

Relevant: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/09/inside-line-pits-ford-f-150-svt-raptor-versus-a-leaf-blower/

http://autos.aol.com/article/your-leaf-blower-has-dirtier-emissions-than-your-pick-up/

article said: The site found Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower emitted close to seven times more oxides of nitrogen and 13.5 more carbon monoxide than the two-and-a-half ton 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor. The Echo 2-stroke leaf blower created 23 times the carbon monoxide and close to 300 times more non-methane hydrocarbons than the pick-up. "The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor," said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com. "As ridiculous as it may sound, it is more 'green' to ditch your yard equipment and find a way to blow leaves using a Raptor."

My lawn mower (2012 Honda pushmower) is the most polluting thing I own. All of my other yard equipment is electric.

bgkast wrote: The van and 560SL are stock, so no and no. The Miata has a flyin' Miata exhaust with high flow cat and passed the required sniffer test, so no.

You can pass a sniffer test and be in violation of the Clean Air Act.

Amazing the things that break the law. Changing your tire diameter or transmission affects emissions and therefore is afoul of the act.

alfadriver wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: 1995 Miata: No cats, aftermarket engine management system. Violates the act, but i doubt that it's truly any "dirtier" than a stock Miata.

Not that I'm calling you out SF1, but I see this idea quite a bit. Being that catalysts are one of the most important emissions control devices on a car, why do people think that a non-catalyst car could be as clean as a car with a cat? Even heavily degraded catalysts are better than none at all. Back in 1995, the catalyst would clean up roughly 90-95% of what an engine would make. So even if the catalyst was half as good as it was certifued, that would clean up 80% of what an engine makes. Current cars are about 99% of the raw engine emissions are cleaned up. I honestly can't think of a way to pass emissions (real emissions, the ones laid out by the Clean Air Act and CARB) without catalysts. Other than by using 70's era standards. Again, this isn't to call you out, SF1, just to clear up this thinking. (and FWIW, if a car is a race car, and isn't used much, well...)

I say this because it's been well-documented a few times in sniffer-only states that good Megasquirt users running turbo Miatas can pass a sniffer test without any emissions controls present.

Which... is better than the thousands of stock miatas in the country that wouldn't pass said sniffer test.

I suppose i mis-spoke, though.

I wouldn't really expect a Miata with all emissions controls and cat removed to be cleaner than a 100% perfectly functioning stock Miata.

I would, however, expect my Miata to be cleaner than my Cherokee.

As for the rest of my cars that are likely FAR dirtier: If the Gubment has such a hard-on for me keeping my cats, then maybe they should start a $free.99 Cat For Every Car program, or maybe regulate costs?

One other tidbit.

You can fail a sniffer test spectacularly, and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Knurled wrote: One other tidbit. You can fail a sniffer test spectacularly, and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

This little tidbit, along with the part about changing tire diameter ends up putting me squarely into the "I really don't give a berkeley" camp.

Being a Mississippian, any car I've ever had that was emissions compliant was quickly decatted. But currently I drive a 1.6 miata and b230 volvo. Only the miata has a muffler much less a cat haha

Swank Force One wrote:

Knurled wrote: One other tidbit. You can fail a sniffer test spectacularly, and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

This little tidbit, along with the part about changing tire diameter ends up putting me squarely into the "I really don't give a berkeley" camp.

Indeed.

I have had two personal cars that had to have their intact, functioning, un-tampered with emissions systems hacked (therefore tampered with, therefore NOT CAA compliant) in order to pass a sniffer test, because the sniffer test can and does put cars outside the bounds of the Federal test loop.

I have "heard" of certain cars requiring up to 20 degrees of timing pulled out in order to pass a sniffer test, too.

Swank Force One wrote: I say this because it's been well-documented a few times in sniffer-only states that good Megasquirt users running turbo Miatas can pass a sniffer test without any emissions controls present. Which... is better than the thousands of stock miatas in the country that wouldn't pass said sniffer test.

That is a very misleading example, though. Many state's sniffer tests are just there to see if the engine runs reasonably well. Other states have sniffer tests that are closer to a production standard.

Heck, even the "white paper" that many turbo companies rely on is currently bogus, and they are all lucky that they can lean on an incredibly out of date paper. If they were ever investigated, there would be a zero chance that many turbo kits would end up surviving.

What owners have to face is incredibly varied around the country- some have no inspection at all, others have to put the car on a chassis dyno and run a specific cycle. I like to know what the sniffer pass/fail standards are before making any judgement. And that's for HC, CO, AND NOx. Not just HC and CO.

Still, very few of those are close to what OEM's have to pass.

Swank Force One wrote:

Knurled wrote: One other tidbit. You can fail a sniffer test spectacularly, and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

This little tidbit, along with the part about changing tire diameter ends up putting me squarely into the "I really don't give a berkeley" camp.

The tire thing- I'm pretty sure that fits under a normal maintence update that makes it legal to change tire size.

The failure on the sniffer test is a local ordinace issue, the CAA is a federal issue where the failed car is not actually individually tested. Totally different animals.

Not sure why people don't care about the CAA, though. Me? I personally like clean air, and really don't enjoy the headache I get driving old cars. CO sucks.

I don't even know what all those symbols stand for. I just know that i don't have to worry about them, and that i could probably pass a sniffer in some states with the Miata.

In reply to ProDarwin:

We are currently over 99% right now. That includes starting an engine from 70F and running the tests.

so....

chiodos wrote: Being a Mississippian, any car I've ever had that was emissions compliant was quickly decatted. But currently I drive a 1.6 miata and b230 volvo. Only the miata has a muffler much less a cat haha

Why?

What do you gain by taking the catalyst out?

Really? GRM did a dyno study showing that it does not help power by taking it out.

It would be good to understand what people are gaining. Or think they are gaining.

alfadriver wrote: for anyone who is happy and proud to be a gross emitter, is it ok that I drop my oil off in your veggie garden? I need a place to put it, and it would keep the dust down.

Don't get yer panties too too wadded up. That was a legitmate means of disposal at one time (which I suppose you are referring too?). We were also allowed to spray leftover experimental pesticides in dirt roads (or so I was told).

We are down to just 2 now... both cars passed the sniffer test...

"Grunt", our All-Trac sedan, still runs stock cams, and stock efi, with all the emissions in place.

"Surreptitious" passed her emissions test in Feb

alfadriver wrote:

chiodos wrote: Being a Mississippian, any car I've ever had that was emissions compliant was quickly decatted. But currently I drive a 1.6 miata and b230 volvo. Only the miata has a muffler much less a cat haha

Really? GRM did a dyno study showing that it does not help power by taking it out.

What car did they dyno? Of course, not all cars (or converters) are alike, so results will vary. I don't currently have before/after dyno results on any of my cars, but will on the k1300s soon enough. I expect 5-6 RWHP gain by replacing the factory muffler/converter combo on my bike. I've already dynoed it stock, so will dyno it after as well to verify. On a bike that is a noticeable gain. Also, the factory exhaust sounds like ass (imho), so it had to go.