"They can take my emulsion tubes when they pry them from my cold dead hands."
In all seriousness though, it seems to me the government isn't concerned about the right thing. If you alter the air/fuel ratios of a factory ecu vehicle you might be technically defeating an emissions device but you could make it run much cleaner. The factory tune on a 1G DSM goes to like 10:1 afr. So a stock Mitsubishi Eclipse might actually pollute more than the 400 hp Eclipse with a 50 trim, a high flow cat, and DSM link. "Nope don't care. You defeated the emissions." Then they don't care about the actual real pollution output at an individual level because if they did they would demand federal emissions testing on every vehicle cost be damned.
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
I'd be willing to bet that for every person like you, whose tune is cleaner than the OEM's was, there's dozens of dickheads rolling coal and/or yanking the cat because their grandpa told them they hurt horsepower.
Either way, you can still do all those things, you'd just need to prove your car is at least as clean as the stock model. Problem is, that's hella expensive and not easy. I'd like to think that a good solution would be to make it easy for enthusiasts to emission test their modified cars. But, we try to curb street racing with cheap drag nights and it doesn't work.
thatsnowinnebago said:
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
I'd be willing to bet that for every person like you, whose tune is cleaner than the OEM's was, there's dozens of dickheads rolling coal and/or yanking the cat because their grandpa told them they hurt horsepower.
Either way, you can still do all those things, you'd just need to prove your car is at least as clean as the stock model. Problem is, that's hella expensive and not easy. I'd like to think that a good solution would be to make it easy for enthusiasts to emission test their modified cars. But, we try to curb street racing with cheap drag nights and it doesn't work.
Oh I know the cleaner tunes are the exception to the rule but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and the government is not interested in being reasonable about that. It's just like every other extreme solution that alienates a ton of other people and is lazy in it's implementation because of the scale.
I had a catalytic converter on my FD RX7 and that car ran rough until I got a dyno tune with an AEM just to smooth things out. Still had a cat but even though I didn't defeat emissions equipment (hardware), I altered the air/fuel ratios of the factory ECU I'd be a criminal. The car still passed emissions with flying colors because it was just the sniffer test and not an OBD II car. Why then would it need to be so bureacratic of a process to show the aftermarket engine mangement is as clean or cleaner? Make that "proof" not come from paying thousands of dollars in certifications and engineering certs but at emissions testing stations IF that was their goal.
The government can control new software sales with all of these companies but doesn't have the bandwidth to police every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a 750 double pumper on a square body. I get it. There are less old cars to worry about but the only way to solve what they think the are trying to solve is testing individual vehicles and not saying "all aftermarket tuning is bad".
How many of those Hondatas went into a 91 Civic hatch with a turbo D16 that has long since paid for it's carbon footprint, may still pass an emissions sniffer test, is not in a junkyard, and is less of a current impact than stripmining lithium for a shiny new Tesla?
crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:
In all seriousness though, it seems to me the government isn't concerned about the right thing. If you alter the air/fuel ratios of a factory ecu vehicle you might be technically defeating an emissions device but you could make it run much cleaner. The factory tune on a 1G DSM goes to like 10:1 afr. So a stock Mitsubishi Eclipse might actually pollute more than the 400 hp Eclipse with a 50 trim, a high flow cat, and DSM link. "Nope don't care. You defeated the emissions." Then they don't care about the actual real pollution output at an individual level because if they did they would demand federal emissions testing on every vehicle cost be damned.
Having worked in the emissions world, I find it pretty unlikely that a backyard "tuner" would actually make a cleaner car. There may be a handful of them, but it's far from common. Had modifiers of their cars actually did better than they did before, we would not be in this situation.
Besides, the standard is to prove that you did it, not that you theoretically did it. That's what EO's do. Since it's about proof that the new system is cleaner, it is about air quality. The word "might" has the equal corollary of "might not".
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
FWIW, "sniffer tests" are largely useless. Not completely, but WRT real world driving, pretty useless. They prove very little other than a complete disaster problem.
If they were useful, and actually helped, they would be part of the EO process. Because science and engineering.
Plus, if you go and pass the test and the ECU and tables are still "unlocked" what's keeping you from cheating on the test? I know tons of people who have doped fuel and altered tables to pass a sniffer.
You have to look at the expense of policing. The likely scenario is a decertification scheme that federally pulls a car off the road (with God help you consiquences if you get caught on the road), OR something EPA does that is akin to CARB EO numbers for cars still on the road.
Regulated equipment is regulated equipment. NHTSA did stuff to the aftermarket in the past, where do you think all those APC headlights and taillights went?Here EPA has jurisdiction to regulate things that take roadgoing vehicles out of compliance. Feds don't tend to go after the consumer, they go after the producer or business doing installs. Much less lift and bigger results for time invested.
In reply to alfadriver :
Out of curiosity, what would you think about tuning with a 5-gas analyzer in the tailpipe?
It's not as accurate, of course, but I've done this on older vehicles to tweak the ignition timing and carburetor adjustments to get NOx down enough to pass an IM2525. (Aftermarket converters suuuuuuck compared to OE)
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
One more thing- given the overwhelming amount of modifiers makes things worse, how do you propose to enforce a law for people who think they are doing better? It's pretty impossible to partially enforce a law like no-tampering. It was tried for many decades, until the abuse just got too much.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Out of curiosity, what would you think about tuning with a 5-gas analyzer in the tailpipe?
It's not as accurate, of course, but I've done this on older vehicles to tweak the ignition timing and carburetor adjustments to get NOx down enough to pass an IM2525. (Aftermarket converters suuuuuuck compared to OE)
While I've never used one, it's more about how accurate and fast it is. If it's good at that, you can actually do a pretty good estimate of live mass emissions, by using the engine estimate for air flow. The one thing I would want to make sure is that there's almost no influence of air- so well upstream of the TP and with as few leaks. I did some dyno work for a friend where they used a sniffer for a/f- and it was way lean thanks to the air mixing in it.
I know FM uses a more sophisticated version of one of those in a modern PEMs device. The Portable Emissions Measurement devices are just better versions.
In reply to alfadriver :
The sniffer pokes over a foot into the tailpipe to minimize air influence, I'd imagine that under any kind of significant load there is no problem with air getting pulled in.
Lag would be the big problem. The ones I have used were standalone units with a long hose, so there was a several seconds lag between exhaust output and your readings. It was fine for steady state operation, but for "studying for the test" for an IM2525 this is no problem. I'd think something with a much shorter hose and a remote sensing package would be better at transients... but given that everything in the past 25 years has been OBD-II, 5 gas analyzers aren't really used in shops anymore, so I doubt there's been any new developments in the field.
alfadriver said:
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
One more thing- given the overwhelming amount of modifiers makes things worse, how do you propose to enforce a law for people who think they are doing better? It's pretty impossible to partially enforce a law like no-tampering. It was tried for many decades, until the abuse just got too much.
That is my point. You cannot enforce not modifying the millions of cars out there and you can't test all of them.
To the previous people who said sniffer tests are largely worthless....well no E36 M3. I Agree but if that's the standard for passing emissions in your area then it shouldn't matter what tuning you're running.
Using this logic, how has Holley not been shut down for 98% of their products? Nothing ever came with giant 1000cc dominator carbs with a plate nitrous system stock. When they sell that with an "off-road only" disclaimer, besides the added difficulty of enforcement, who is checking up on that to make sure it doesn't go on something with a tag? My god what if somebody replaced their smog intake and a thermoquad with that setup and went from 10mpg to 8mpg? Emissions defeating but nobody cares.
Should Speed parts only be sold at sanctioned racetracks so it can be verified they are only installed on tube frame chassis with no tag?
Im being facetious with my delivery but am I getting my point across? If the point is banning anything other than a part that pollutes identical to an oem then they are going to need to ban a lot more than these low hanging fruit software companies/dealers (all of which I oppose in this manner).
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
The fact that you can't enforce the law onto millions of cars is exactly why the law applies to sellers of the parts. While it's not technically allowed for a DIY'er to modify their car, I'm not aware of any federal penalties for doing that. I'm sure there are in California and other Green States, though.
As for the sniffer test- the law is a federal one, not a regional or state one- so regional or state rules/tests don't apply.
BTW, everything that modifies the emissions is not legal to change without approval- not just changing the calibration. Turbos, crappy PCV valves, headers, aftermarket catalysts, purge removal kits, etc. This isn't about selective enforcement of the law.
And if Holly is making and marketing parts for old cars, well... Maybe someone should tun them in if most of their products are ending up on modern cars.
The main thing I am gathering from this is maybe my next project should be something that predates the clean air act.
A 5 gas analyser is a good tool for preparing for an EO test session. You do your own A/B tests, test the car stock and then after the modifications. If you can get similar results, you're in decent shape. You may still have to do some tweaking but you'll be in the ballpark.
If you think you can do better than stock emissions with your DIY tune, you just have to prove it. The difficulty of the proof depends on what standards the car has to meet. And you don't realize just how hard it is to get good emissions on a modern car until you've tried to do it.
"How do you tell if the tune has been modified beyond what was tested?" was one of the big questions being asked at the SEMA seminars a couple of years ago. Someone like Edelbrock who has put a bunch of money and time into their ECU program to get their Miata supercharger through emissions testing does not want to be collateral damage if a bunch of random people doing tuning on the side go in and change things. Sometimes, that means you have to lock down the programming of the devices involved - we were doing that back in the early 2000s with our legal turbo kits, the pre-programmed piggyback came without the tools needed to alter it. This is actually viewed as a plus by a large number of buyers, plug and play is a good thing.
As for Holley, I suspect they're trying to work something out with the EPA. They'd be a major beneficiary of the RPM Act, because this piece of writing on their website is worth what you paid for it and you bet they know it. But the part can legitimately be sold and installed on older vehicles, so it's a different beast than a reflash box that turns off the EGR via an OBD-II interface. The next step would be some sort of gatekeeping program to only sell the parts to people who have those older vehicles.
This part is legal for sale and use on Uncontrolled (Non-Emissions Controlled) Vehicles and Racing Use Only Vehicles.
The following vehicles are considered Uncontrolled (Non-Emissions Controlled) Vehicles:
- 1965 and older U.S. manufactured California Certified vehicles
- 1967 and older U.S. manufactured Federally Certified vehicles
- 1967 and older Foreign manufactured vehicle
The following vehicles are considered Racing Use Only Vehicles:
- Racing Use Only Vehicles are vehicles that are used exclusively for competition and that are not registered and that may never be used on the street
WARNING: It is against the law to install this part on an Emissions Controlled Vehicle
The following vehicles are considered Emissions Controlled Vehicles:
- 1966 and newer U.S. manufactured California Certified vehicles
- 1968 and newer U.S. manufactured Federally Certified vehicles
- 1968 and newer Foreign manufactured vehicle
Keith Tanner said:
This part is legal for sale and use on Uncontrolled (Non-Emissions Controlled) Vehicles and Racing Use Only Vehicles.
The following vehicles are considered Uncontrolled (Non-Emissions Controlled) Vehicles:
- 1965 and older U.S. manufactured California Certified vehicles
- 1967 and older U.S. manufactured Federally Certified vehicles
- 1967 and older Foreign manufactured vehicle
The following vehicles are considered Racing Use Only Vehicles:
- Racing Use Only Vehicles are vehicles that are used exclusively for competition and that are not registered and that may never be used on the street
WARNING: It is against the law to install this part on an Emissions Controlled Vehicle
The following vehicles are considered Emissions Controlled Vehicles:
- 1966 and newer U.S. manufactured California Certified vehicles
- 1968 and newer U.S. manufactured Federally Certified vehicles
- 1968 and newer Foreign manufactured vehicle
I look at that list today and can only thing how illogical that looks to a hardline EPA policy advocate and not a car enthusiast.
Disabling things like EGR through a OBDII interface is the low hanging fruit they are going after today. I understand that BUT the EPA's job larger goal is cleaner air so...while we are regulating the sale of new parts, we can clean up more air by banning carburetors bigger than stock, camshafts, etc. etc. under the larger mantra of "we all breathe the same air."
Things that increase emissions on any vehicle regardless of age or intended use will be scrutinized and they may ban future sale of those products eventually.
Analogy of current US policy is basically "Smoking is banned in restaurants because we all breathe the same air.....unless you have cigarettes from 1970 or before." Now that's not fair or makes any sense right? Even though they are relatively a tiny amount of people that would fit that bill what gives them the right to smoke in here because "we all breathe the same air."
So eventually, the question becomes what gives you the right to buy an 850 cfm carburetor and big camshaft on your street car from 1965 regardless of use?
"We all breathe the same air." These parts will be banned from future sale.
What gives you the right to race engines that aren't emissions complaint even at race tracks in small numbers?
"We all breathe the same air." Banned.
I know a lot of you see these as two completely separate issues but I don't. It's things like Hondata and dirty diesel tunes and their resellers today and you're not affected so you don't care. "Yeah screw those guys anyway. We all breathe same air."
Tomorrow when it's any part deemed to increase pollution is banned regardless of year or use and it impacts your 1960s Alfa or '55 Chevy under the policy of "We all breathe the same air"...THAT is what concerns me.
That policy might not be able to test or confiscate every car currently on the road but you better believe if modifying software is banned, I don't think banning other hard parts is out of the question. There is no need for 850 + CFM carbs on anything. They aren't going to pry them them off your 73 Camaro and they probably wont be able to test it but Summit /JEGS might just stop being able to sell them and that's my fear of how these changes will come in to play.
Where does it stop?
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
It stops where the law stops. There are no emissions laws pre 1968, so any car made prior to that have no applicable laws to be worried about tampering. The CAA can't back date prior to it's own inception. Levels of the CAA can't be applied to previous dates, too- so a 2020 SULEV30 standard can't apply to a 2001 LEVII car.
And since cars that are 25 years old (or whatever it is for the EPA) can be imported without emissions standards to meet- the real effective date is that. That law may be changed, though....
The point is- legal cars can't be changed to become illegal right now- that would take a pretty significant act of congress to make old cars illegal w/o some emissions hardware.
Again, the "racecar" exception has been applied for 50 years, even though it technically broke the law the whole time. Now that the exception has gotten out of hand, the law will be applied. Also, one can't clamp down on one sector only- the EGR delete crowd would easily sue for unequal treatment under the law. Once applied hard to one group, it has to be applied evenly to all groups.
alfadriver said:
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
It stops where the law stops. There are no emissions laws pre 1968, so any car made prior to that have no applicable laws to be worried about tampering. The CAA can't back date prior to it's own inception. Levels of the CAA can't be applied to previous dates, too- so a 2020 SULEV30 standard can't apply to a 2001 LEVII car.
And since cars that are 25 years old (or whatever it is for the EPA) can be imported without emissions standards to meet- the real effective date is that. That law may be changed, though....
The point is- legal cars can't be changed to become illegal right now- that would take a pretty significant act of congress to make old cars illegal w/o some emissions hardware.
Again, the "racecar" exception has been applied for 50 years, even though it technically broke the law the whole time. Now that the exception has gotten out of hand, the law will be applied. Also, one can't clamp down on one sector only- the EGR delete crowd would easily sue for unequal treatment under the law. Once applied hard to one group, it has to be applied evenly to all groups.
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.
Have a 66 Mustang? Cool never banned. Not going to make you add a catalytic converter. Not going to get confiscated or crushed.
Want to buy a new giant carb and cam?
Those can't be sold anymore because that's like Hondata for old cars and it's not fair to pollute more regardless of age or use and a new law could be introduced to do that very thing. See the difference? I don't think that's a stretch in the mind of somebody whose goal is reducing emissions on anything because we all breathe the same air.
I think the restaurant analogy would be better if it were applied to the restaurant. Say new ventilation requirements were set to allow for indoor smoking. But they would only apply to new restaurants, so you could still smoke in restaurants opened before that time. It's not the cigarettes. It's what's done with the air.
Your scenario is certainly possible - the CA emissions regulations are a big part of why cars of a certain era are still the mainstay of the hotrodding scene, because all the magazines based in CA find it easier to play with cars that pre-date the emissions regs.
The thing about not allowing old Mustangs to run giant carbs is that you can't say how clean/dirty those cars were to start with. They weren't regulated, there are no standards. So you have a very hard time showing if something really affects the emissions. You can do a before/after test (which is legit for an EO already, especially on cars that were maybe not completely compliant when new, MAZDA I'M LOOKING AT YOU) but by this time you can't really find a stock one anyhow. So now it's back to that AZ classic car scenario, where the number of 50 year old cars is miniscule and those that survive are probably only being driven 1000 miles/year at most. It's simply not enough to bother generating a bunch of new legislation for.
And, uhh, we do all breathe the same air. That's hard to dispute.
Keith Tanner said:
And, uhh, we do all breathe the same air. That's hard to dispute.
Not arguing that. I agree. What don't agree with is how far our non-auto enthusiast legislators overreach because of that fact in the future.
This current action doesn't impact me with my current fleet (it would have in the past) but where it's all going may in the future. We are viewed with contempt by some. Frivilously wasting a natural resource while at the same time polluting the air for everybody with our unnecessary racing and modifications.
What we really need is for Elon Musk to make this a reality so we can do what we want and just suck our emissions off the planet.
If I were world dictator, I would just work it like classic car insurance/registration is already done (at least around me) to keep it simple. Older than 25 years? Cool, keep cats on it, dont grossly belch raw fuel into the atmosphere (lets say a certified dyno test as validation), and keep it under 5k miles a year. Here are your new plates and registration sir/ma'am, have a nice day.
I think where your vision and the current regulations disagree is the definition of "keep cats on it". Right now, that definition of "cats" includes "all emissions components" where you're viewing it as "the things I think are important but not all that other crap". The certified dyno test already exists but again, I think there's a disconnect on what that test entails.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Of course there is a disconnect, thats where I perceive a lot of the unhappiness stems from, the disconnect between what an individual can reasonably accomplish and what the EPA expects. The "idea" (lets be honest, its more of a joke than an idea that will go anywhere) was just to simplify things as more reasonable compromise; allowing modifications on personal cars rarely driven while maintaining an effective level of pollutant reduction. Earlier Alfa, or someone in the know, pointed out that the inclusion of a catalytic converter reduced pollutants by orders of magnitude. So, yes, I thought that was important. And fair enough, modify the car but keep the cats on it, keep a functional PCV valve of some sort, keep the low hanging fruit that leads to a large reduction in pollutants that can be reasonably implemented. Pay a couple hundred and test it at a certified dyno shop, get a sticker or something, thats reasonable. Dont modify cars that are under 25 years old, as they are likely daily drivers and/or make up the bulk of road users that should remain in compliance for clean air standards. What is not reasonable is booking the car for an overnight stay in a closed room to test for volatiles, or contracting out a lab to perform the equivalent tests the OEMs are required to do. If I put a lift kit on a car, the law states I need to make sure headlights are between X and Y height, and fenders that cover the tire. That is a reasonable allowance for modification while considering the safety of others. I dont have to prove that those lights illuminate objects with the exact same patterns and intesity that they did at the factory, or that the tires only throw debris in the same arch under 100 different conditions as stock. The idea that "anyone" can get an EO to modify their car is in reality an insurmountable hurdle to most people.
Keith, not sure you can answer this, either because company secrets or too many variables, but what does an EO certification actually cost? It's been said its expensive, but that can mean vastly different things to different people.
docwyte
PowerDork
6/18/21 3:34 p.m.
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 know what you're saying, TR7. Defining what can be reasonably accomplished is the tricky part - and justifying why it there should be special legislation to allow it is another problem. That "couple of hundred to test at a certified dyno shop" is not plausible, though. You'd have to come up with a new accepted test which would be a challenge in itself (partly because the targets would be a moving target, and what do you do when the 2004 cars get to 25 years old and you have to do an US06 equivalent as well as an FTP), but the actual test equipment is pretty spendy.
And there are more laws governing lift kits than you might think :)
But remember, the EPA focus is not on removing your ability to modify a car. It's on making sure that parts that enable you to defeat emissions controls are not making it to the market, and that also means products that increase emissions because there's no distinction from a legal standpoint. You can slippery slope that down to The Man Coming For Your Cars but that's more of a thought exercise than something realistic as the EPA isn't involved in individual vehicle registration.
Cost: It depends on the tests that need to be done - newer cars have more tests they have to pass, which of course means more time in the lab. I use $10k as a general rule. It would be less expensive if we were based in SoCal or Michigan where the labs are.
It's worth noting that the ARB is totally jacked up when it comes to getting paperwork through, so having the SEMA emissions lab working on your behalf helps a lot when it comes to actually getting the paperwork pushed through. They're talking about increasing the fees (from $0) to get an EO to reflect the cost of that paperwork and evaluation, and also talking about a different set of tests for different types of products. It will likely get more expensive to obtain an EO in the near future - I've posted about that before. But the cost of the tests will likely remain fairly consistent.
