Emissions news: Memo 1A finally got superseded!

In reply to thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) :

Look at his last bit of the original post.

This will affect all of the aftermarket hod rod world. You want a fast 1972 Nova for the street and wednesday nights at the drags with your friends. It had better pass all of the factory emissions that the truck you pulled the LS out of has to. Or you get no inspection sticker and potentially fined.

Gone* will be the weeks of Rocky Mountain Race Week and the Power Tour with unique and awesome builds. Gone* will be all the cool street builds at cars & coffee.

* gone or radically changed.

Guys....

I am acronym deficient....."EO"

Thanks,

Rog

In reply to CatDaddy :

There's a whole lot of wrong in your post.

The EPA did not force OEM's to put on DEF systems, they just set a requirement that so far, only DEF systems can pass.  And because of that, they are also far from blame of the "half baked" systems out there.  That's all on OEM's for not doing it as well as it needs to be.  At times, when a technology has matured enough to pretty much be the best choice- that will end up being required.  But there are not that man of them.

EGR systems *might* be capable enough, but for them to be good enough sucks the efficiency benefit of diesel so much that they are mostly useless.  BTW, while I don't work on diesel, last I heard, they still use EGR along with the DEF system.  Would your rather have massive steps??  The health data does suggest that what we think is clean isn't clean enough.  Besides, seeing particulates is not diesel's biggest problem- that would be NOx.  Which is why SRC catalyst exist.  DPF's are for a different reason, and don't need DEF to operate.

 This is one of those "want to make a billion" opportunities out there.  Come up with a cost effective and emissions effective alternative, and the world will be at your feet.

Then the idea that the EPA does not include old cars that they fully know are on the road is very false.  All of that data is put into their models.  Along with the economic impacts of the applied technology- I know people here don't actually believe that, but they REALLY do have economists on the staff to make sure the money dollars make sense.  Just like there are real car enthusiasts that work there.   They do know that there are '85 trucks on the road that have no emissions hardware on them- and that's factored into all of the models.

Not sure why you think incremental gains are so evil.  It's been mostly that way for the entire 50 years of the CAA, and with timelines and phase in plans, it allows a lot of flexibility for OEMs to do research and figure out what model to put the newest technology on.

In terms of the almost free ways- yea, not sure those actually exist anymore.  The one I want to see, which is a MUCH more limited fuel blend options across the whole country, is fought by the oil industry.  

As far as I know, which is quite a bit more than most people here would think, the EPA has a pretty good understanding of what is going on all across this country.   But if you feel otherwise, they very much encourage people to review what they are doing and provide input.  They constantly have open meetings where the public can provide input.

preach (fs) said:

In reply to thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) :

Look at his last bit of the original post.

This will affect all of the aftermarket hod rod world. You want a fast 1972 Nova for the street and wednesday nights at the drags with your friends. It had better pass all of the factory emissions that the truck you pulled the LS out of has to. Or you get no inspection sticker and potentially fined.

Gone* will be the weeks of Rocky Mountain Race Week and the Power Tour with unique and awesome builds. Gone* will be all the cool street builds at cars & coffee.

* gone or radically changed.

I meant actual "race car," as in no street use. EPA doesn't care about those. They DO car about the car you drive to the drag strip.

This feels like a first step to me. I know all the old stuff on the road pollutes way more than the new stuff, but we don't usually pass retroactive laws. They've gotta start somewhere right? Legally speaking, not in anyone's opinion 

In reply to thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) :

Retroactively changing the law is not legal.  Changing how you interpret the law is.  Or, in this case, if there's enough public demand, they can enforce the laws as written with no exceptions.  Everything in this new memo has been on the books for a very long time.  It's just been overlooked for car enthusiasts.  But the group as a whole was not able to behave, and people ruined the process for everyone.  

Between VW and coal rollers, enforcement of already written laws has changed a lot in the last handful of years.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

I see your viewpoint but I still don't agree completely. 
 

#1 Throw on DEF or abandon the worlds largest truck buying economy. 

#2 we had blue, and by previous standards extremely clean skies in 2009. Nobody wants to go back to 1970 Los Angeles

#3 clean enough for who? Only very recently has life expectancy been declining and it's not very much due to air quality

"

According to the researchers, the increases in mortality rates largely stemmed from rising rates of deaths related to:

• Alcohol misuse;
• Drug overdoses;
• Obesity;
• Organ-system diseases—including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart and lung diseases, hypertension, and stroke—and injuries; and
• Suicides.

The researchers also found that all-cause mortality rates were higher among men than women, though the data shows more women are beginning to die from diseases that once were more common among men."

Perhaps a simple life where someone can work, save, spend and live relatively cleanly (compared to 1890), and not be stressed to the gills about restrictions and bills is what needs to be cleaned up.

Weed eaters are emissions restricted. Think about that.  
 

I know we all want the same thing:

Be able to afford to race. Retire in a good way. Be healthy. Be happy. 

I don't think the nox emissions are inhibiting any of that. I do think that car and commodity  prices due to regulations are negatively affecting that. 
 

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/global_warming_litigation/clean_air_act/pdfs/EPA_1997_Report_on_CAA.pdf

* it looks like we were 97%+ cleaner than 1970 by 1990. Saving over a trillion dollars in health costs. Seems like we should have stopped pushing the envelope somewhere between 1990 and now 

Pretty much everything has emission requirements on them now- so why should diesels get a mulligan?

-DEF is not required- it's just the current technology that meets the requirements- so by that measure, it makes it a virtual requirement.  Again, find a better solution, be set for life.

- air quality is not the color of the sky, nor should it be looked at as a local area is great that everyone is good.  Maybe the air in mountain and country areas is good enough, but it's not in many major cities around this country.

30 years ago, I was almost hired at the EPA, and from what I understand, it was to work on power equipment- mowers, trimmers, chippers, etc.  This stuff has been looked at and worked on for decades.  Just like there's a requirement for shipping on the opposite end of the engine size spectrum.

Again, if you really think that we should be scaling back emissions requirements, because of data, PLEASE present that to the EPA- they are required to take that as an input for future work.   Which is to say, there's a 100% chance that what you posted was considered, debated, and worked with.  Doing that is required by law for them.  Seeing how things have changed since the late 90's in terms of requirements should give you an idea the impact of that paper.

Heck, your ideal statement is actually part of the law that the EPA is required to follow for regulations- they have to measure the cost of the improvements to the amount of people it will help.   

For the other ways of dying- why do people thing this is an either/or question?  Do you really think that those other ways of dying are not being considered overall????  Just because it's not in the realm of the EPA (which none of them are) does not mean they are being ignored.

I appreciate that people are frustrated with the new laws and regulations- but instead of just bitching about it on a small internet message board- get involved.   I could have spend the last 30 years being part of the fight against new laws, but I chose to work within the system, so my paycheck is very much on how clean I can make a car for as little money as possible- emissions are my technical specialty.  25 years ago, the entire auto industry figured out that it was better to be part of the process than constantly fighting it- while we are still tasked with some very difficult challenges, they are not just random changes without input.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. For an individual with a modified car, I'm not sure what enforcement will look like. Emissions visual inspections and testing are governed by state laws, and some states don't have inspection requirements for older vehicles. So, for older vehicles with no inspection requirements, not clear how likely enforcement will occur. But it looks like there could be enforcement against repair shops that work on modified vehicles, so businesses may have to refuse to work on modified cars unless they are brought back into spec.

Also, looks like there is a path to test a setup to demonstrate compliance for modifications, but doesn't look like something an individual could feasibly do. Perhaps it is viable for a company to do for products with high enough volume. Alfadriver, sounds like a good consulting business opportunity for you!

I can see both sides of the issue. I want clean air (though my air smelling like fertilizer is a bigger issue personally). I don't necessarily like the "prove that it complies" instead of the "prove it doesn't" stance. Conceivably I can  design a system that can be installed to replicate all emissions functions (o2 feedback, egr, evap, etc) and the end user would need to verify that all those systems are working properly to meet the local codes, if and how they apply. With this type enforcement, as discussed, I would have to PROVE that case, at great expense. Alternatives are: just shut down, iterate business model, etc, likely for no appreciable change in total emissions. It will be interesting to see how much of it is totally prevented vs going underground.

That all being said I should just buy an alignment rack and make money that way, it seems easier!

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

If we could actuall, honestly, and realsitically work on the "prove that it doesn't" theory, we would be able to eliminate pretty much every regulation out there.

Human nature, though....  It's taken one company (VW) that was very dishonest to screw over the rest of the industry.  Badtly.

I have a question somewhat related.  If you bring in a car under the 25 year rule does it have to meet the US standards of the year it was built?

Personally I would be fine with all vehicles get emission tested say every 2 years.  They must meet the emissions of the year the car was built.  If there were no emission standards the year it was built then anything goes.  No OBD II check light or anything but emissions because that's what matters.

In reply to Stampie (FS) :

It'd be about as expensive as buying a new car every two years.

Stampie (FS) said:

I have a question somewhat related.  If you bring in a car under the 25 year rule does it have to meet the US standards of the year it was built?

Personally I would be fine with all vehicles get emission tested say every 2 years.  They must meet the emissions of the year the car was built.  If there were no emission standards the year it was built then anything goes.  No OBD II check light or anything but emissions because that's what matters.

If you want to REALLY test emissions, you need to put the car on a dyno for a very specific test. On newer cars, more tests. And on newer cars, you'll have to cold-soak it overnight first. Sticking a probe up the tailpipe of a hot car at idle is basically worthless from a testing standpoint, you can get almost anything to pass that.

Want to know what it costs to do the tests for a full EO? Five digits in a million dollar lab. You don't want to do that. 

Which is why there is OBD-II. It monitors the emissions components full time. It wakes up in the middle of the night to do checks. It is literally On-Board Diagnostics. Far better to have the car monitoring everything than to check it externally once in a while. And this is why the EPA is primarily focusing on devices that circumvent that. Because it's the best way to make the biggest change. Now that OBD-II has been on every new car for a quarter century, the vast majority of the US fleet is equipped with it.

The CA EO program takes it one step further. You take a part and put it on a car. Then you run the car through a full set of tests to prove that this part does not negatively affect emissions. If it passes, you get a piece of paper that basically says "this car with this part does not increase emissions" and this is extrapolated to any similar car with the same part. Voila, no need to prove every individual car is unaffected.

I am still confused as to what this actually means and doesn't mean. So does that mean that a car must meet emissions of the year it was built or the year of the engine? Or you can't modify the ECU or just can't modify OBDII ECUs? I am not following. Also since enforcement is done at the state level does it actually matter? 

I am also curious as to how the 25 year import rule plays into this. 

It means that the EPA has clarified the rules they use for cracking down on alterations that affect emissions. You cannot legally make any changes to your vehicle that increase emissions unless it is no longer a road vehicle. Now, that's not really enforcable. So instead, they're focusing on shops that sell and install parts designed specifically to circumvent emissions controls.

ie, while you cannot modify an ECU in a way that affects emissions (and it is possible to do it without affecting emissions), the EPA is going to focus on the source of the parts and tools you will use to do so. OBD-II vs non-OBD-II is not a factor.

In theory, engine swaps need to bring all of the emissions components from the donor car.

The 25 year import rule is such a tiny percentage of the market that the EPA is probably not terribly concerned. However, individual states may have registration laws that require the car to meet the same regulations as any other car of that age, including emissions. Since the OBD-II cars have now crossed the 25 year threshold, that might get interesting if some of the imported cars do not return anything. I honestly don't remember if the 25 year rule is EPA or NHTSA. I think it's the latter, it's basically safety related and not directly tied to emissions at all.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Got it. I guess i just do the suspension and weight loss on the civic first then see how things are shaking out as to where I go from there. 

I really want to get a kei car so I will just aim for pre OBDII and hope the rest is ok

In reply to Keith Tanner :

EPA is 25, DOT is 15.  NHTSA, iirc, is not a government agency, unless I have them cross-remembered with a different TLA.

EPA is 25 years, but in certain states (like CA), there is still the requirement to meet local emissions. I think in some other states one might be able to get away with collector car plates if those don't require emissions testing.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

They got themselves a .gov domain, so I think they're gubbmint.  Part of the DOT, I think.

What about regular folk who put an aftermarket catalyst on a 20 year old vehicle because it was economically reasonable and completely legal? Or replacement O2 sensors? These are typical wear items that the OEMs are not supporting more that 10 years out from the end of production.  
 

Think about keeping a vehicle on the road for reasonable cost and effort. I see this potentially effecting a lot more than the hotrod and drivetrain swap market.

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

What about regular folk who put an aftermarket catalyst on a 20 year old vehicle because it was economically reasonable and completely legal? Or replacement O2 sensors? These are typical wear items that the OEMs are not supporting more that 10 years out from the end of production.  
 

Think about keeping a vehicle on the road for reasonable cost and effort. I see this potentially effecting a lot more than the hotrod and drivetrain swap market.

What about them? That's not an area of concern. The aftermarket has to meet standards on their replacement parts. This is not overbearing.

People removing the cat because they don't want to pay for it and then installing something to fool the OBD-II, that's more of a problem. 

My build is back on track. I forgot about the predecessors to the engine I was going to use and remembered I can get a slightly less displacement pre-OBD engine that will fit my needs just fine.

Off to the pick-n-pulls!!!

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

EPA is 25, DOT is 15.  NHTSA, iirc, is not a government agency, unless I have them cross-remembered with a different TLA.

I remembered right. NHTSA is basically DOT, and it's 25. They are not concerned with emissions, but it's the DOT that keeps you from importing in the first place. 
https://www.nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle/importation-and-certification-faqs

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

What about regular folk who put an aftermarket catalyst on a 20 year old vehicle because it was economically reasonable and completely legal? Or replacement O2 sensors? These are typical wear items that the OEMs are not supporting more that 10 years out from the end of production.  
 

Think about keeping a vehicle on the road for reasonable cost and effort. I see this potentially effecting a lot more than the hotrod and drivetrain swap market.

The only way you can sell replacement items like that is that they are either exactly the same as the OEM part, or that they have an EO for them.  And both of those methods are prefectly legal.

Which is to say, if you buy parts to keep it stock, you will be fine.

Keith Tanner said:

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

What about regular folk who put an aftermarket catalyst on a 20 year old vehicle because it was economically reasonable and completely legal? Or replacement O2 sensors? These are typical wear items that the OEMs are not supporting more that 10 years out from the end of production.  
 

Think about keeping a vehicle on the road for reasonable cost and effort. I see this potentially effecting a lot more than the hotrod and drivetrain swap market.

What about them? That's not an area of concern. The aftermarket has to meet standards on their replacement parts. This is not overbearing.

People removing the cat because they don't want to pay for it and then installing something to fool the OBD-II, that's more of a problem. 

And this is where the California law/mandate/whatever you want to call it that catalysts must meet certain standards is relevant, because a lot of aftermarket cats are basically test pipes with a substrate of "something" in it that is catalyst-like but doesn't actually clean the exhaust to a sufficient degree.

Yeah, you can't get $69 Catco converters anymore, but then those weren't much better than a $7.49 pipe.

Where this law is relevant to my concerns is I continually have this weird idea to put an Ecoboost in my RX-7, but FRPP no longer sells the (emissions legal) swap kit.  They sell one for the 2.3 but not for the 2.0, which has more hood clearance and is less likely to explode an NC transmission.  What I'd LIKE to try to do is either see if the computer hardware is shared with an OEM application, junkyard the parts, and flash the junkyard computer with the FRPP operating system/tune using HPTuners, or worst case, buy the 2.3 kit and flash it with the 2.0 tune.  Either way, HPT is required.  (I am uncertain if anybody has ever got the OE computers to run standalone)