RPM Act coming back in 2021?

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to OldGray320i :

That's not a confession, that's an understanding that there's no performance benefit and that it's a foolish modification. Heck, some Toyota and Honda owners take preventative measures in the attempt to prevent meth heads fr stealing their cats. 

Horsecorn (finding ways to imply swearing on here is super fun) 

On a stock NA FRZ or whatever that makes about the same power as my riding mower yes there's very little to be gained from removing cats, much like I imagine the intake/cat back gains are minimal. The oems have sorted out the whole getting as much of the low hanging fruit as possible thing. 

That said if you're agressively tuning a turbo car you will melt even the best high flow cats in short order. If you tune to take care of a cat you can quickly give up 5-10% of peak power. Wanna go a little rich with some timing retard to light that turbo up? Forget it cat creme brulee 

All my road going cars have cats, all NA cars should have cats, on the public road in a 2500lb car there's precisely no difference between 500 and 550hp so all street cars should have cats. 

Here is where things to me get interesting... There are certain modifications that improve performance and emissions, I'm looking at you alcohol, Brent (pfispeed) made an excellent point in his video many "tuner" cars are using at least 50% ethanol fuel blends. It's been a long time since I've had a functional gas analyzer but even before we had the tuning figured out pump E85 would slash HC, CO, and CO2 emissions with a slight NOx penalty. Why not push in this direction? Perhaps someone with access to a boat load of money and a big national forum should press this issue because Lord knows they're gonna be disappointed in the RPM act if that becomes the rules we're playing by. 

The automobile aftermarket has gotten away with a lot of nonsense for a long time. Every single supplier has sold a part that violates the CAA knowingly or not, every end user has installed a part that violates the CAA. We do have a responsibility if we get another shot at this (via the RPM act) to police ourselves because I'm certain we're not going to get another fifty years of tongue in cheek "off road use only" disclaimers and "but it passed X state's emissions test" 

While we're on this topic... Why don't we require all the boomer rods to have emissions equipment? I'm a firm believer in everybody playing by the same rules... If my road registered toy is required to have emissions equipment regardless of the pollutants it actually produces why shouldn't the guy down the road's 57 Chevy? He drives it more than I drive my EF, I promise you it's dirtier, and it's already modified.

Cats for everybody! Except real racecars. 

In reply to Byrneon27 :

I've driven 1000hp turbo cars with converters, it's no big deal until you get into engines (naturally aspirated or turbo) with camshafts harsh enough to have misfires (rough/choppy idle), which is what melts converters down.  In that sense turbo engines are more cat friendly than naturally aspirated, because with a turbo you can just add more boost, with a naturally aspirated car you need to get into camshafts that throw a lot of unburned air and fuel right through the engine at low load.

Putting converters on a car doesn't just magically make the emissions better, though.  Cats only work at stoich, richer or leaner than that and the cat "goes to sleep", it can't combine HC/CO with O2 if there isn't both present in the right quantities in the first place.  (And if there is too much of both in the right quantities, the converter overheats from the load, which is how choppy camshafts slag cats.  I still remember a certain Mustang that had glowing red converters at idle)  You need feedback fuel control to really effectively use a converter, otherwise you're mostly just making yourself feel better.

A lot of the push to UEGOs (wideband sensors) is that they are a lot more precise, so engines can be held AT stoich instead of dithering richer and leaner, so the converters can be a lot smaller.

On the fuel mixture vs converter thing, I thought it was mostly a NOx concern?  Even when running rich, a converter will cut down greatly on the smell of unburned hydrocarbons (not sure what it does for CO), but I know once you get away from stoich it doesn't convert NOx very well. 

Once you get richer from stoich, the engine isn't making very much in the way of NOx, so it's not a problem.   That was how thermal reactors worked so well once lit off: run the engine rich, burn it off with an air pump.  The lower temperatures and pressures in the thermal reactor would not be as conducive to making NOx with a "lean mixture" so they could pump in an excess of air to ensure all the HC/CO were burned without the risk of making NOx in the process.

Horrible for fuel economy, though.

When running rich, a converter doesn't really do anything.  Gotta have free oxygen to reduce the HC, which doesn't exist in a rich engine's exhaust in any great quantity.  If it did, the engine wasn't running rich   This is WHY they run rich under heavy load, partly to keep the exhaust valves cool and partly to make the converters go to sleep so they don't melt down.

This is where the "stoich all the time" 7.3 Ford truck engine is so interesting.  It was designed to live at heavy load all the time with the converters active.

In reply to Byrneon27 :

Cars older than ~1966 are not included in this so they can do whatever they want, but parts to modify anything newer than that in a way that isn't compliant will be gone too.

In no particular order:

- air and water pollution are a real problem that affects everyone. 

- emissions modified vehicles often emit hundreds of times more pollution than unmodified cars.

- catalytic converters work, and generally cost little to nothing from a power/performance standpoint. 

- we all know that 98% of all the aftermarket parts sold as "off road use only" go onto street cars, and that people have been cheating and breaking the law for years.

- it's neither practical nor desirable to live in a country without laws and regulations.  We can debate where the lines should be drawn, but I don't think there's any real debate over whether there should be a line.   Since guns were mentioned on the first page, I'll say that they fall into the same category.  

- Lots of other industries are regulated too. I work in the medical sector, it makes anything automotive look like the wild west.  There are always companies in my sector that play fast and loose with the FDA, all it does is enrich those that cheat and harm the companies that play by the rules. Yes, making products in a highly regulated field is expensive and time consuming.  The rules are the rules. 

Tk8398 said:

In reply to Byrneon27 :

Cars older than ~1966 are not included in this so they can do whatever they want, but parts to modify anything newer than that in a way that isn't compliant will be gone too.

My point exactly why are they excluded? If this is an air quality goes above and beyond anything position why is it that any vehicle is excluded. Pete actually points out that it's more or less useless but it's the week after the York street rod nationals and Im still annoyed with/in the mood to punish the damn things. 

Pete it seems as though you're in the biz' air quality or go fast I can't exactly tell? I welcome all the information I can gather I have my what I'm just sorting out the why... You're saying that egts don't damage cats? Prolonged excess rich mixtures followed by what I have to imagine are violent combustion events inside the cat when it finally does light off aren't harmful? 

To be clear I'm not saying you can't make power through a cat just that given the not perfectly scientific testing I've done you in some cases will make less/damage the cat in the process. 

In reply to Byrneon27 :

It is because they didn't have any emissions requirements when they were new, but anything after that did and it has never been legal to remove the emissions equipment.  The "I said it's for off road use only so not my problem if people do something else with it" only went so far, but that shop has sailed now and that part of the car hobby is done.  I don't necessarily think it makes sense either but there are still plenty of ways to have fun with cars without being able to do that part of it anymore.

rslifkin said:

On the fuel mixture vs converter thing, I thought it was mostly a NOx concern?  Even when running rich, a converter will cut down greatly on the smell of unburned hydrocarbons (not sure what it does for CO), but I know once you get away from stoich it doesn't convert NOx very well. 

To follow up on Pete's post- going rich, the biggest drop off in catalyst performance is actually CO- HC does reasonably well.  Not good enough, but it does not drop off like CO conversion.  

Going pretty far off with the tangent- running stoich does require some variation, as the catalyst state needs to be managed- which is done by forced switching on the front UEGO and then feedback from the second a/f sensor.  The balance is pretty tight, but it's not super hard to set it up and get amazing conversion efficiency.

As for the 7.3 staying stoich all the time- IMHO, that's going to eventually get to every car sold in the US, and for sure in the EU.  There are tons of indicators that enrichment will not be allowed sometime in the future.

And all of these additional requirements are why OEMs will probably lobby for a pretty tight definition for "race car" is the RPM act goes forward.   Making every car SULEV30 is pretty hard, and we don't want to have every car be SULEV20....

In reply to Byrneon27 :

EGT's do damage catalyst- but they have become pretty darned robust to temps.  Enrichment to keep them cool does happen, still- but more and more, there's a different component that needs cooled down before the catalyst.

Richness does not kill cats, they cool things down.  Misfires or partial burns are killers.  If you go so rich to get partial combustion- that will destroy a catalyst really fast.  But that point is really, really rich compared to how much fuel is used to cool things down.

In reply to alfadriver :

At the last rallycross I attended, there was a stage rally RX-7 with a heavily ported engine. Stage rally in the US requires a catalyst on cars originally equipped with one, so the general thing done is to use a short, low cell count, metal-substrate converter, mounted at the very end of the exhaust system.  This minimizes how much heat they see and makes them easy to change if they fail.

Car go brap brap brap at idle. 50% misfire rate, plus the typical rotary inefficiency.  Converter shell was dull red and the brick was bright orange.  He was told it was because it was rich, I was like no, it's because of the misfiring due to porting.

Apis Mellifera said:

OldGray320i said:

And please avoid the "well you can't choose to poison the air and water we all breathe and drink!" because that's just a red herring argument.

Uh...no it isn't.  It's the sole reason to pursue this type of regulation.  I have been in a lot of meetings, conferences, and steering committees on the subject for many years and not one time has anyone, anywhere, from any SLT or EPA said or hinted at, publicly or privately, that the development and/or enforcement of regulations like these serve to accomplish anything other than to achieve the mandates in the CAA and CWA, which is to (paraphrased) promote and preserve a healthy environment.  No one has the right to poison me or you.  Hence, the mechina tyrannus that is the EPA.  Of course, I've been in air quality for the last ~20 years so I don't know what they do over in water.  It could actually be nefarious.  Those guys wear shorts and sandals to work, so they're capable of all sorts of devious behaviors, I'm sure.

I also said I understand regulation and that we all benefit.

The point I'm driving at is akin to doing good work that may not contribute in a meaningful way. 

I had occasion to talk to the scientist that reviewed the data for the state of Arizona's classic car law.   The reason it was allowed to go in to effect was that the impact on emissions was statistically  insignificant. 

I'd argue the same rationale should be used with aftermarket parts improving the performance of "modern" street cars.  Car modifiers are not a large portion of the population.

How much of an impact do we make, the tiny slice that modify,  on the entirety of air pollutants?

When can adjustments or exceptions be made?  Never?

The way I see it, the EPA is running the CAA by focusing on the equivalent of "5500 pedestrians a year are killed by vehicles.  That's 1 every 88 seconds! We're all going to die of this keeps up!"  In a nation of 330 million, a gazillion miles driven, etc.  

There need to be some limits,   but they're ever tighter, and getting more so.    Won't no codes or a surprise tail pipe test if the official thinks you're cheating the codes keep the impact of pollution of the population of modified vehicles as statistically insignificant?

What is wrong with that approach?

In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

that's a bunch of BS.
if you race it, its a race car.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Back to this.  You have to make your voice heard for anyone to listen.  Otherwise it's the same as getting mad that your spouse didn't magically read your thoughts.

I signed it to make my voice heard. If you want to modify cars with the same freedom that's currently enjoyed, it is most likely in your best interest to sign it too. No, its not gonna allow catless daily drivers and such but it is easier to keep what we have than it is to get back what we lost.

In reply to OldGray320i :

The disconnect is that you think the effects of modified vehicles are insignificant, the EPA's stats disagree strongly. There's a big difference between a small number of old cars that do a few hundred miles every year on pretty days and a bunch of daily drivers.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/epaaedletterreportontampereddieselpickups.pdf

These tampered trucks constitute approximately 15 percent of the national population of diesel trucks that were originally certified with emissions controls. But, due to their severe excess NOx emissions, these trucks have an air quality impact equivalent to adding more than 9 million additional (compliant, non-tampered) diesel pickup trucks to our roads

From https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-penalizes-premier-performance-3-million-selling-defeat-devices

EPA estimates that -- in terms of oxides of nitrogen (or NOx) -- the emissions impact of removing emission controls from just one pickup truck is equivalent to putting about 300 new pickup trucks on the road. 

And yes, pickups get the most attention because 1) they really piss people off and 2) there really is a large percentage of diesel pickups with tunes and EGR/DPF deletes out there. I don't know if I know anyone who doesn't have one on their truck. If you've done any emissions work, you know just how narrow a range is clean. It doesn't take much to go from pristine to nasty.

No codes? Perfect, that means the onboard controls are doing their jobs. Deliberately bypassing those onboard controls? That's a problem. And that's one of the best ways to get the EPA's attention, mess with the OBD-II system. Surprise test? That's pretty much what California has had in place for years with the visual inspection, which can be done roadside.

Here's a summation of their position on the matter, including "we used to be okay with the competition car thing but it's pretty clearly just horseE36 M3" : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/tamperinganddefeatdevices-enfalert.pdf

In reply to BoxheadTim :

youre in too many toyobaru discussions. most of those kids in real life dont have the cash to actually buy an over priced piece of pipe. at least in my experience
source: i still go to those stupid 'pop up' meets with a bunch of clapped out VW's everywhere

In reply to Keith Tanner :

And there's the argument I made in a nutshell. 

Let's compare diesel, because the NOx is worse than cars, then let's throw out these big numbers to scare people, when the total effect is a 3% increase in the number of cars.

Lets not talk about the fact that every year older more polluting cars are being replaced by newer cleaner burning cars, so what really is the total net effect on ALL emissions, not just what nasty diesels put out?

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Further, I have a seriously hard time believing that car modifiers represent 15% of anything,  so the diesel truck thing is further still off base. 

And while diesels get better mileage than gas, 2b and 3 diesels I'm sure positively suck at mileage,  and any gain is a huge savings in fuel cost. 

You'll note the EPA did not publish any data on class 1 and 4, and I'm willing to bet it's becuase the results wouldn't be nearly as sexy. 

This is my entire berkleying problem with these debates.   It's the whole GD'd "5500 people a year are dying in pedestrian crashes, that's 1 every 88 seconds, and we'll all be dead soon if we don't fix it!" style of argument.

If you want more studies, feel free to dig around. They're public and the actual numbers are in there. Part of the disconnect is that you're not willing to believe information that comes from the government because you fundamentally don't trust it.

If you don't believe that 15% of diesel trucks are modified, you don't know many diesel truck owners. I'm not talking about brodozers, but working trucks. 

3% of all the cars in the US is a pretty big number. Ever go backpacking? The best way to save a pound is to find 16 places to save an ounce. Same thing applies here. If you can improve the efficiency of the fleet by 3% (I don't know where this came from, but you quoted it), that's a pretty significant improvement. 

Keeping cars clean benefits us all. It's the eternal American problem, the self versus the society. If we can keep the emissions controls - that are placed on cars for very good reasons! - on cars, we have a better society. Im good with that, I like my clean air. 

TurboFocus said:

In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

that's a bunch of BS.
if you race it, its a race car.

Currently, legally, if it was a production vehicle, it is still a production vehicle.

"Race car" does not exist as a legal term.  If it did, it would/will be/may be something that may not be registered on the street.  (thinking here of open wheel cars, dedicated chassis cars, etc)

TurboFocus said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Back to this.  You have to make your voice heard for anyone to listen.  Otherwise it's the same as getting mad that your spouse didn't magically read your thoughts.

I signed it to make my voice heard. If you want to modify cars with the same freedom that's currently enjoyed, it is most likely in your best interest to sign it too. No, its not gonna allow catless daily drivers and such but it is easier to keep what we have than it is to get back what we lost.

The current level of freedom is you are not allowed.  It has merely been overlooked the same way people distilling spirits for themselves in their basement is overlooked until they get into mass production for sale.

OldGray320i said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

And there's the argument I made in a nutshell. 

Let's compare diesel, because the NOx is worse than cars, then let's throw out these big numbers to scare people, when the total effect is a 3% increase in the number of cars.

Lets not talk about the fact that every year older more polluting cars are being replaced by newer cleaner burning cars, so what really is the total net effect on ALL emissions, not just what nasty diesels put out?

 

So how do you fairly crack down on diesels and not on gas engines?  In the eyes of law, the code is fuel independent.  Again, up until recently, the gas laws that have been on the books for 50 years have not been enforced due to the small number as you are correct about.  Then the brodozers came along, taking away a good thing that we have all had.

And I'm quite sure that the diesel trucks had the EPA look at the numbers again, seeing if the gas modified cars have become significant or not.  As of 2025 (I think- I thought it was 2023), the fleet average for all new cars is SULEV30- which is 30mg/mi NMOG+NOx over a specific cycle.  For pretty much every engine I've tested, the engine out emissions has been 3-6 grams/mile THC + NOx which is 100-200x dirtier than a new car.  The older the car, the worse the emissions.  ONE person doing a cat delete is now 100-200x a new car.  

So between the diesels trucks, VW, and the fleet average trend, I fully expect that the models have been updated, and the wink, wink look at the rules has been re-evaluated.

Suck, sure.  

In reply to Keith Tanner :

If "statistica" is accurate, there are 275M cars registered in the US.  3% would be 8.25M cars.  A lot of cars. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

TurboFocus said:

In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

that's a bunch of BS.
if you race it, its a race car.

Currently, legally, if it was a production vehicle, it is still a production vehicle.

"Race car" does not exist as a legal term.  If it did, it would/will be/may be something that may not be registered on the street.  (thinking here of open wheel cars, dedicated chassis cars, etc)

Actually, cars built from the start as competition cars are already exempt AFAIK. There are no emissions requirements for pure competition cars like open wheelers from what I understand.

It's the street cars that get turned into race cars that don't currently exist as a legal thing. That's what the RPM Act is intended to do.

The suggestion for another hybrid category - ultra low mileage street cars that are allowed to modify emissions - is an interesting one. Open for all sorts of abuse, of course, but I think it's what would make the greatest number of GRM types happy. The question is why we should be allowed to do that from the point of view of those who are outside our hobby. Can we modify our cars without affecting emissions? Yes. So why don't we just do that instead?

The EPA already has the "Show or Display" exemption, but it's for importation and definitely not for people who want to put a Megasquirt on their Miata.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

TurboFocus said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Back to this.  You have to make your voice heard for anyone to listen.  Otherwise it's the same as getting mad that your spouse didn't magically read your thoughts.

I signed it to make my voice heard. If you want to modify cars with the same freedom that's currently enjoyed, it is most likely in your best interest to sign it too. No, its not gonna allow catless daily drivers and such but it is easier to keep what we have than it is to get back what we lost.

The current level of freedom is you are not allowed.  It has merely been overlooked the same way people distilling spirits for themselves in their basement is overlooked until they get into mass production for sale.

So we should change it, the RPM act looks like a good first start.