Excellent. Diesel brothers fined $850K plus $1.2m in fees.

alfadriver said:

Knurled. said:

In reply to Rufledt :

"Modern cats" are actually a lot smaller than the 70s and 80s converters.   One funny side effect of having faster computers, and wideband oxygen sensors, is there is no longer a big swing across stoich.  The computers are fast enough and the sensors accurate enough that they can control to precisely stoich, cylinder by cylinder with only one sensor in some cases.  What this means is the converter no longer has to be an enormous brick to handle being loaded up with hydrocarbons and CO2, and then flush it all out with oxygen when it swings lean, and so on.

 

If you want to update the emissions controls on an older engine, start with the engine management.

 

Yea, big yea.  Add an accepted universal catalyst with a WB controlled MS to your classic car, and you will be doing a LOT of good.  I'd add making sure the PCV system is working and sealed, and that the fuel system has some kid of vapor control that the engine gets to burn.  None of that is overly complex, but it will be SO much more effective.

Bonus is that you will enjoy the car better, since you won't be fighting a CO headache and your clothing won't smell like unburt gas.

Most people see my engine bay on my integra and wonder why I have all the emissions components still on it and working, as much as I enjoy a fun to drive car that makes cool noises, going the extra effort to have a cat, functioning EVAP system and the creature comforts make the experience even better for me.

It seems explaining to them, "I hate the associated smells and makes me nauseous" gets people understanding why it isn't a bad thing to keep those components in at the expense of total peak power. 

wheels777 said:

alfadriver said:

Curtis73 said:

Disagree.  The hydrocarbon chains in diesel contain more carbon atoms per molecule, but there is no more carbon in a gallon of diesel than there is in gasoline... in fact, potentially less since diesel is less dense than gasoline.

It's the ratio that's the problem,

Gas is generally C8H18 (4:9), diesel is C10H20 (1:2)- C15-H28.  So for the energy output, there will be more CO2 vs. water for diesel than gas.  So on an energy basis, the gained mileages is offset by the increased carbon.

Please say more. 

My fuel consumption rate reduction is high enough with the diesel to offset the purchase costs in a measurable amount of time.  The gas burners in our area are burning a lot more fuel when they are pulling the same load.  For the record we leave them stock and I HATE COAL ROLLING.  But there are many benefits to towing with a diesel in this area and with the weight we are pulling.

I'm more focusing on the net CO2 benefit of diesel vs. gas.  When we (OEM's) do the calculations, the CO2 drop is less than the gas mileage improvement.  So the huge benefit consumers see is not fully reflected in the CO2 reduction they think it is.

It's better than gas, for sure.  Just not as good as everyone thinks. 

In reply to TurboFocus :

If you were the only one breathing the result of your emissions modifications, you would have a point.

But personal freedom has a limit when that harms other people.  You've noted that, and because of that, I really don't see a lot of people here agreeing with the diesel bo's.  

BTW, one reason you see the EU states going overboard is that they went underboard for many, many years. The US started emissions regulations 50 years ago, and it took many years for that to catch on in Europe- IIRC, leaded fuel was not banned until into the 80s.  Then when you see the actual result of the diesel bias that the EU mandated in the 90's, where the air quality has gotten significantly worse, well....  that's really why the EU states (when they can) got so draconian.

Also, for old cars, the EPA actually has no power over them- they can only cover cars that have actual regulations on them.  

Finally, you may be willing to have bad lungs, but I'm not.  And I'm not the only one.  Especially when you look at the performance of modern cars- and they meet very stringent emissions requirements.  So the "logic" of sacrificing your lungs for fun does not really fit.  You can have fun and not harm your lungs. Why does that have to be a binary choice?

In reply to aw614 :

Evap systems cost zero horsepower.  EGR systems cost zero horsepower, and usually net better part throttle fuel economy.  Catalysts, you can't prove to me that they hurt power on any vehicle you have to drive on the street.

Mostly people are afraid of vacuum hoses, I think.

Knurled. said:

In reply to aw614 :

Evap systems cost zero horsepower.  EGR systems cost zero horsepower, and usually net better part throttle fuel economy.  Catalysts, you can't prove to me that they hurt power on any vehicle you have to drive on the street.

 

Mostly people are afraid of vacuum hoses, I think.

I think you are right they are afraid of the vacuum hoses or just lazy and why I don't see the point in deleting those systems. I was initially worried about reconfiguring mine, but taking a step back reviewing all the diagrams and comparing it to the engine bay, the stock honda system was rather simple and easy to retain with a motor swap. Now on an FD RX7, I'd probably go crazy going over those.

In reply to alfadriver :

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on ethanol blends.  We have been converting everything over to Flex Fuels for a host of reasons.  We are making a ton more power with Flex Fuel and it costs a whole lot less.  Unfortunately I have an infinite capacity to be self delusional and have been thinking it produces less negative emissions. 

In reply to wheels777 :

I'm not an expert like some here but what I've heard is that the carbon emissions at least from burning ethanol was taken from the air when the plants were growing.  So accounting for inefficiencies and manufacturing and transport etc.. it's still closer to carbon neutral than fossil fuel.  

Of course I have no idea, but I choose to believe it's better because you can crank the boost much higher.

In reply to aw614 :

I've found removing the EVAP systems to be common with classic cars.  My Spitfire has its system removed and I've been collecting the parts to put it back it.  I'll probably do it when I swap the engine.  The Volvo 1800ES also has a fairly complex EVAP system that owners like to remove.

Rufledt said:

In reply to wheels777 :

I'm not an expert like some here but what I've heard is that the carbon emissions at least from burning ethanol was taken from the air when the plants were growing.  So accounting for inefficiencies and manufacturing and transport etc.. it's still closer to carbon neutral than fossil fuel.  

Of course I have no idea, but I choose to believe it's better because you can crank the boost much higher.

It also smells much better in the dyno room :)

Ian F said:

In reply to aw614 :

I've found removing the EVAP systems to be common with classic cars.  My Spitfire has its system removed and I've been collecting the parts to put it back it.  I'll probably do it when I swap the engine.  The Volvo 1800ES also has a fairly complex EVAP system that owners like to remove.

I have been doing the same for the black RX-7, but finding things that people just throw away is hard.

I lose a lot of fuel just from the car being parked.  I try to park it on a near empty tank because of this.

For the "I don't like the government telling me what to do!" crowd, I'm with you. I'm generally one of you.

The flip side of the argument is that if you're doing harm to others, your right to do as you wish has ended. It's proven that emissions are bad for the planet and people with respiratory issues. Unless you deny science (which is a different discussion) you should really voluntarily be in compliance with emission standards.

I'm not a big fan of diesels or the culture or diesels blowing tons of black smoke from every stoplight and believe me when I say there are a lot of them. That is a huge segment of the performance market. You don't have to look far to find trucks/cars with modified computers for performance, towing, fuel mileage, etc.

However, I think we are all naive if we believe that this will only involve diesels. There have already been attempts to make it against the law to modify any vehicle from how it was delivered from the factory. SEMA has attempted to stop some of this legislature ( not sure of exact item) by requesting signatures and sending letters/emails to your government representative. 
 

The car hobby is not near as strong as it once was nor is there as much interest in cars in general other then an appliance to get from point A to B. For that matter there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't own cars at all and we should only use vehicles in some form of ride sharing.

i have a couple modified cars and would hate to think about the time they would be illegal to own or use. But I also think that time is coming. No more engine swaps, performance modifications, possibly racing or performance contests such as autocross, cruise ins, etc.

We all have to be responsible. Criticism of one form of our hobby is not the answer.

Read the link in my first post in this thread, pirate.

CARB is a pain in the ass, but doesn't look like it's killed car culture in CA..  nor racing.. etc..

Rufledt said:

In reply to wheels777 :

I'm not an expert like some here but what I've heard is that the carbon emissions at least from burning ethanol was taken from the air when the plants were growing.  So accounting for inefficiencies and manufacturing and transport etc.. it's still closer to carbon neutral than fossil fuel.  

Of course I have no idea, but I choose to believe it's better because you can crank the boost much higher.

This times a thousand.  It's not perfect, but at least ethanol sources carbon from the biosphere.  In order for you to pump carbon out the tailpipe, a plant first had to remove it from the atmosphere... not dig it up from black gold a mile below the surface.

I always got ticked that a Prius could use the HOV lane in Los Angeles because it was considered less a polluter than my biodiesel mercedes.  I don't care how much my W124 LOOKED like it was polluting, I was polluting less than the prius burning 87 octane whizzing past me.

I'm a tree hugger, but I was so disappointed by the lack of knowledge from my tree hugger compatriots as they threw sodas at me on the highway, chastised me at the biodiesel pump, and keyed the paint.  And it's not like they didn't know it was biodiesel, unless they couldn't read the 7 biodiesel bumper stickers I had plastered on the trunk and window.

Henry Ford originally engineered his cars to run on ethanol, and Rudolph Diesel engineered the first diesel engines to run on peanut oil.  But of course there's no money in that.  Why plant something when we can have 120 years of war over dead carbon that we spend billions digging up from underground?  I just wonder where we would be today if Rockefeller and Prohibition hadn't been around.

Statistically, a bio-fuel vehicle is light years ahead of even a hybrid or an electric.  As of 2017 (latest numbers I found) we're still around 70% fossil-fuel on electric production in the US, and those lovely batteries that have to be produced in a third world country without air quality controls also go somewhere to die when they're spent.

Not to mention the new-car machine that convinces us to buy a new car all the time means we're supporting the carbon production of millions of new plastics and caustic materials every year.  If you do the math, the greenest car you can buy is an old gross polluter.  More carbon probably gets produced building a new car than you would produce driving a 65 Mustang.

I'm also told that the greenest way to buy a house is not to build a new, green house.  It's buying an old house and making it greener.  No reason for all the new deforestation and concrete and drywall.

It's easy to forget (as evidenced by all the Hybrids on the road), what comes out the tailpipe is only a miniscule fraction of the total carbon it takes to manufacture, maintain, and dispose of a vehicle over its lifetime.  People feel comfy and fuzzy about driving their new Prius because they're burning less fuel, but they still have contributed greatly to pollution.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

CARB is a pain in the ass, but doesn't look like it's killed car culture in CA..  nor racing.. etc..

I actually found CARB to be very low-impact.  Emissions testing every two years.  I find that in rural PA I run into more problems with emissions than in CA.  My Impala failed last year because there was a hole in the tailpipe.

And you're right... car culture is booming in CA.

Wow, so much to sift through....but lots of it is important.

Yes. Coal rollers make us (car guys) look bad in many cases. I'm not a fan but still want to show some support as someone who enjoys the auto hobby too. I agree that good diesel performance can be had without the smoke screen and do wish they would self police to avoid what has happened.

Emmission standards have long since passed the point of diminishing returns. Cars produce so little in the way of pollution since OBD 2 that the tighten standards only drive up cost and complexity. Sure a new car may produce 1/2 of one from 15 years ago but your going from 10ppm HC to 5. Back on the 80's when multiport fuel injection was coming out vs a carb I would see 35ppm HC vs 200 for a carb. (These numbers are meant as a concept, not perfect data)

There was a GRM magazine article some years back testing cats on Miata. I think it showed the car running so clean WITHOUT a cat that you really didn't need one. Can someone find that?

Cars with huge power can be bought at the dealer, clean burning crate motors are just a catalog page away, but they cost so much that they are far, far out of reach for most people. I fear a regulation gets tougher and tougher, most of us will be pushed out of the hobby due to the rising cost.

Curtis73 said:

Rufledt said:

In reply to wheels777 :

I'm not an expert like some here but what I've heard is that the carbon emissions at least from burning ethanol was taken from the air when the plants were growing.  So accounting for inefficiencies and manufacturing and transport etc.. it's still closer to carbon neutral than fossil fuel.  

Of course I have no idea, but I choose to believe it's better because you can crank the boost much higher.

This times a thousand.  It's not perfect, but at least ethanol sources carbon from the biosphere.  In order for you to pump carbon out the tailpipe, a plant first had to remove it from the atmosphere... not dig it up from black gold a mile below the surface.

I always got ticked that a Prius could use the HOV lane in Los Angeles because it was considered less a polluter than my biodiesel mercedes.  I don't care how much my W124 LOOKED like it was polluting, I was polluting less than the prius burning 87 octane whizzing past me.

I'm a tree hugger, but I was so disappointed by the lack of knowledge from my tree hugger compatriots as they threw sodas at me on the highway, chastised me at the biodiesel pump, and keyed the paint.  And it's not like they didn't know it was biodiesel, unless they couldn't read the 7 biodiesel bumper stickers I had plastered on the trunk and window.

Henry Ford originally engineered his cars to run on ethanol, and Rudolph Diesel engineered the first diesel engines to run on peanut oil.  But of course there's no money in that.  Why plant something when we can have 120 years of war over dead carbon that we spend billions digging up from underground?  I just wonder where we would be today if Rockefeller and Prohibition hadn't been around.

Statistically, a bio-fuel vehicle is light years ahead of even a hybrid or an electric.  As of 2017 (latest numbers I found) we're still around 70% fossil-fuel on electric production in the US, and those lovely batteries that have to be produced in a third world country without air quality controls also go somewhere to die when they're spent.

Not to mention the new-car machine that convinces us to buy a new car all the time means we're supporting the carbon production of millions of new plastics and caustic materials every year.  If you do the math, the greenest car you can buy is an old gross polluter.  More carbon probably gets produced building a new car than you would produce driving a 65 Mustang.

I'm also told that the greenest way to buy a house is not to build a new, green house.  It's buying an old house and making it greener.  No reason for all the new deforestation and concrete and drywall.

It's easy to forget (as evidenced by all the Hybrids on the road), what comes out the tailpipe is only a miniscule fraction of the total carbon it takes to manufacture, maintain, and dispose of a vehicle over its lifetime.  People feel comfy and fuzzy about driving their new Prius because they're burning less fuel, but they still have contributed greatly to pollution.

You're not wrong about CO2 production and consumerism. But as has been discussed already, there's more to emissions than CO2. NOx, HCs and PM are human health hazards, which is why they were prioritized over CO2 production when emissions regulations were crafted in the US. Now that the human health hazards are largely controlled, they can address CO2 more aggressively.

The EU took the opposite approach and chased lower CO2 numbers with their regulations. That lead to widescale adoption of diesel. That also lead to terrible air quality and many of the largest cities now restrict ICEs of all types (while some plan outright bans) to try and clean up for their people.

There is no perfect option of course. All we can do is try to make informed, educated choices based on available options.

Keith Tanner said:

Read the link in my first post in this thread, pirate.

Had not read your link initially but did so now. Thank you very informative and well written. Even though the high performance market is relatively small and modified vehicles represent a very small portion of emissions, it is highly visible. Being proactive is the answer but there will probably come a time when the performance car hobby as we know it now will not be recognizable or affordable.

Gearheadotaku said:

Wow, so much to sift through....but lots of it is important.

Yes. Coal rollers make us (car guys) look bad in many cases. I'm not a fan but still want to show some support as someone who enjoys the auto hobby too. I agree that good diesel performance can be had without the smoke screen and do wish they would self police to avoid what has happened.

Emmission standards have long since passed the point of diminishing returns. Cars produce so little in the way of pollution since OBD 2 that the tighten standards only drive up cost and complexity. Sure a new car may produce 1/2 of one from 15 years ago but your going from 10ppm HC to 5. Back on the 80's when multiport fuel injection was coming out vs a carb I would see 35ppm HC vs 200 for a carb. (These numbers are meant as a concept, not perfect data)

There was a GRM magazine article some years back testing cats on Miata. I think it showed the car running so clean WITHOUT a cat that you really didn't need one. Can someone find that?

Cars with huge power can be bought at the dealer, clean burning crate motors are just a catalog page away, but they cost so much that they are far, far out of reach for most people. I fear a regulation gets tougher and tougher, most of us will be pushed out of the hobby due to the rising cost.

GRM's determination of how clean a car was running without a cat would only be legitimate if they did a full standard test, not just sticking a probe up the tailpipe of a hot car at idle. That's a best-case scenario. Given how many cats are sold because of failed emissions tests, it's pretty clear that Miatas do indeed need them.

Pushed out of the hobby due to rising cost? Myin Fleata's turbo kits are legal in all 50 states, are easier to install and more durable and reliable than ever. And looking at a 2001 catalog I have on my desk here, an equivalent kit is also 25% less expensive than they were back then - without going to overseas production. That doesn't look like the hobby is getting more expensive, it looks like the exact opposite.

I'm glad these diesel idiots got shut down because they were making us all look bad and celebrating pollution for the sake of pollution is stupid. They're the reason the EPA is focusing on "mobile sources" right now. I don't even have a problem with the EPA's choice. It's not the end of the world. An emissions crackdown will weed out the hacks and the incompetent and the willfully ignorant, but it won't prevent smart shops from producing quality parts that increase performance without adverse effects. Is it more difficult? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

CARB is a pain in the ass, but doesn't look like it's killed car culture in CA..  nor racing.. etc..

Where I live in Hermosa Beach, the car culture is pretty rad, even if the fastest you can possibly go is 35mph around here. There's also more money here than I could ever imagine. 

Keith you should put some foliage in your dyno room. https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wellbeing/a668/houseplants-to-purify-house-air/

wheels777 said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on ethanol blends.  We have been converting everything over to Flex Fuels for a host of reasons.  We are making a ton more power with Flex Fuel and it costs a whole lot less.  Unfortunately I have an infinite capacity to be self delusional and have been thinking it produces less negative emissions. 

Pretty much everyone hit the nail on the head WRT ethanol being net better for CO2.

The one issue I am aware of is that the US has a legal preference for corn based ethanol.  Even in the face of other plants that take less effort to make ethanol- sugar beets for those of us up north, sugar cane for those in the south.  Both of them can be fermented straight from the plant, and their energy density per acre of land is higher because of that.  They are not perfect, either, but if we wanted to exceed E20 as our base fuel blend, we would require more than corn, as it's not even capable of supporting E15 nationwide.  Add in the waste stream of fruit, and there are many sources of fermentable sugars out there.

WRT emissions, ethanol has it's issues- it introduces formaldehyde and other aldehydes that gas does not, it's cold start emissions tend to be worse- since it's evaporation temp is relatively high.  But direct injection has done a real number helping that.  

The final issue is- is it really energy positive or not?  But I with crop densities improving constantly, I think we are at the positive end of that these days (was not true 20 years ago).  Still, if we took a systems approach to making enthanol, and include the usable waste steam of fermentable goods- IMHO, we would be in a good palce overall.

Gearheadotaku said:

There was a GRM magazine article some years back testing cats on Miata. I think it showed the car running so clean WITHOUT a cat that you really didn't need one. Can someone find that?

 

I don't remember that article calling out the emissions, I recall it pointing out that the power without a catalyst was not better than with a catalyst.  they were not testing emissions.

But, having done thousands and thousands of tests, I also know that the idea of a car being so clean it doesn't need a catalyst is very wrong.  The last gas engine that it was true was the Honda CVCC engine, back when emissions standards were REALLY easy (relative to now).  Pretty much every test I run now, the engine on it's own is between 50-100x worse than what is coming from the tailpipe (depending on the standart the car is trying to meet).  When 2022 rolls around, that will be 100x, as the US fleet average will be SULEV30.  

Also, your concentration example is probably a single spot, wheras the tests that we do actually simulate realtiy a lot better- start from cold, drive it, and include all time.  Some test with AC, some tests with higher speeds, some at colder etc.  The testing isn't perfect, but it's pretty solid.

Gearheadotaku said:

Cars with huge power can be bought at the dealer, clean burning crate motors are just a catalog page away, but they cost so much that they are far, far out of reach for most people. I fear a regulation gets tougher and tougher, most of us will be pushed out of the hobby due to the rising cost.

You can buy a car at a dealer with tons of horsepower and torques that runs extremely efficient and clean these days; but, what is better for the environment as a whole? Buying a car second hand that's been on the road for years or purchasing a brand new car that required a ton of resources to build? This is a genuine question alfadriver and _, I just don't want you guys getting your panties in a wad and taking things personal again. 

In reply to alfadriver :

The thermal reactor system on my first RX-7 would baseline the test equipment when it was time for my biannual smog test.  Mazda's emissions strategy was to make the engine run rich all the time and pump a fancy exhaust manifold full of extra air.

And it WAS fancy.  There was a downstream heat exchanger to preheat the air going in, which then went through a coaxial downpipe, and the thermal reactor had its own cooling jacket that recieved air pump air.