So everyone that doesn't like diesel trucks is ok with this because it only affects them?
Yeah, that's a good attitude.. surely they will never go after anything smaller than 3/4 ton pickups..
Life will be so much better when a visual and tailpipe emissions check is a part of the registration process for the fwd class at every circle track in the country..
There is a distinct difference between a diesel pickup and a bro-dozer. I think you can pick which ones we detest.
Appleseed wrote:
There is a distinct difference between a diesel pickup and a bro-dozer. I think you can pick which ones we detest.
Ok, so leave on the emissions equipment. Most stuff these days just have EGR and Cats, with the cats still in place may be able to get around the need for a muffler to hit most noise restrictions.
JS154 wrote:
foxtrapper wrote:
Found it, and SEMA is indeed lying.
This is the federal register notice:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-13/pdf/2015-15500.pdf
Page 40527
"As noted above, the exemption
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
C, already apply for heavy-duty
highway engines. EPA is proposing to
add a clarification that the exemption
from the tampering prohibition for
competition purposes does not apply to
heavy-duty highway vehicles. This
aligns with the statutory provisions for
the racing exemption."
So it's a proposed ban setting up heavy-duty highway vehicles for racing, while clarifying that other vehicles can indeed be modified for racing.
SEMA, always lying for drama and ratings.
Nope I don;t think so. What the actual text of the proposed regulation is saying is that a vehicle delivered from the manufacturer as a non-street legal competition (exempt) vehicle, such as a Porsche Cup car or a Ford Mustang Cobra Jet would be legal, but converting a Mustang GT into an A-Sedan or American Iron car would not be legal, since it was delivered for use on the street.
The existing prohibitions and
exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068 related
to competition engines and vehicles
need to be amended to account for
differing policies for nonroad and motor
vehicle applications. In particular, we
generally consider nonroad engines and
vehicles to be ‘‘used solely for
competition’’ based on usage
characteristics. This allows EPA to set
up an administrative process to approve
competition exemptions, and to create
an exemption from the tampering
prohibition for products that are
modified for competition purposes.
There is no comparable allowance for
motor vehicles. A motor vehicle
qualifies for a competition exclusion
based on the physical characteristics of
the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a
motor vehicle is covered by a certificate
of conformity at any point, there is no
exemption from the tampering and
defeat-device prohibitions that would
allow for converting the engine or
vehicle for competition use. There is no
prohibition against actual use of
certified motor vehicles or motor
vehicle engines for competition
purposes; however, it is not permissible
to remove a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine from its certified
configuration regardless of the purpose
for doing so.
It is relatively straightforward to
apply the provisions of 40 CFR part
1068 to all engines subject to the criteria
emission standards in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, and the associated vehicles.
At the same time, the likelihood of this going through is slim, becuase that would effectively shut down the racing hobby entirely, and that is a LOT of lost jobs, not to mention taxes.
Not saying you can't race the car. Just that it must meet emission standards. Many stock class rule sets require intact emission control devices anyway.
Ranger50 wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Save who's lives?
The people that would benefit don't even know what emissions are in their own life and they are full grown adults.
So you would be ok with other people dumping oil in your drinking water?
Being a full grown adult and all.
In reply to Carro Atrezzi:
In North Carolina, All He would need is a Cat. It don't have to work but it needs to be there.
You all are worried about the EPA when the NHTSA is always going to kill street cars being converted to race cars via collision avoidance and brake assistance becoming mandatory on vehicles.
You're up in arms with the wrong agency and picking the wrong battle.
What I read is that the "off road use only" thing will be much closer looked at.
Especially in a market where the actual amount of racing is quite small- not many over 8500 diesel trucks are going racing, relative to their sales.
The plot thickens. The EPA has acknowledged that they are going after road cars and manufacturers of performance parts, and says that this has always been the intent of the Clean Air Act, but they are clarifying the law to ensure its enforcement.
(I know everyone hates Jalopnik but they've done a good job of collecting all the info in one place)
http://jalopnik.com/the-epas-crackdown-on-race-cars-explained-1758111546?rev=1455053744356
Maybe they should just require states to sniffer test cars? If you can make it clean enough after modding, who gives a E36 M3 how you got it to that point?
In reply to rslifkin:
The point of OBD-II is that sniffer tests, by and large, are bunk and have little to do with anything. Pretty much anything that isn't a raging POS will pass a sniffer test.
Maybe I should pick up that EGR delete kit for my 3/4 ton sooner rather than later. Not so I can roll coal or make more power, but so my engine will live longer...
In reply to Keith Tanner:
And to think, we are just pissed about 90+% of all new tractors requiring DEF.....because "ZOMG, we don't have enough clean air in the middle of nowhere" SMDH.
WOW Really Paul? wrote:
In reply to Keith Tanner:
And to think, we are just pissed about 90+% of all new tractors requiring DEF.....because "ZOMG, we don't have enough clean air in the middle of nowhere" SMDH.
That starts getting to another "ZOMG" issue that gets raised out here in the middle of nowhere-- that the EPA is going to use the clean air act to regulate the particulates (dust) raised by ag operation.
Now I'm sure equivalent claims about industrial air pollution (soot, etc) were raised in the past, but it's pretty hard to till the ground, harvest, etc, without raising dust, sometimes a whole hell of a lot of it.
Heck, out here in the middle of nowhere, you can't drive down a gravel road without raising an immense amount of dust.
Knurled wrote:
In reply to rslifkin:
The point of OBD-II is that sniffer tests, by and large, are bunk and have little to do with anything. Pretty much anything that isn't a raging POS will pass a sniffer test.
I've always thought the OBDII tests were more BS than the sniffer. If I take a car and de-cat it, it's gonna have a hard time passing the sniffer. But a few minutes with a laptop and it'll pass the OBDII test just fine. Mind you, I'm talking about the dyno type of sniffer, not the "we checked it just at idle" type.
It seems to me that this is largely aimed at rural folk. In places like California, stringent rules already make it very difficult to modify post 1975 engines in a meaningful way. But in those places where very few care how much polutants cars emit, the only way to slow bubba from stripping out his emissions gear is to make the replacement parts hard to get.
Anybody else take note of the fact that this shows up not long after the new regs allowing limited production reproduction cars to be made as long as they meet modern emissions requirements? Kinda looks like a bone got thrown out (to the better-heeled enthusiasts) right before the dog catcher showed up with the nets.
rslifkin wrote:
Knurled wrote:
In reply to rslifkin:
The point of OBD-II is that sniffer tests, by and large, are bunk and have little to do with anything. Pretty much anything that isn't a raging POS will pass a sniffer test.
I've always thought the OBDII tests were more BS than the sniffer. If I take a car and de-cat it, it's gonna have a hard time passing the sniffer. But a few minutes with a laptop and it'll pass the OBDII test just fine. Mind you, I'm talking about the dyno type of sniffer, not the "we checked it just at idle" type.
Nope, you won't really pass. You might not throw a code, you'll just get a N/A on cat function. And that can fail you just as easily. Seen it happen with some V8 conversions that didn't have rear O2 sensors in the first place.
My wife works in heavy highway construction. Dust management is a real thing.
Question-- They've probably already addressed this in California (rightly or wrongly), but if you can't get replacement OEM emissions equipment anymore, how do you maintain the "certified" configuration of the engine? Is it scrap?
My reference point for "certified" is the aviation end of things-- replacement parts have to be OEM approved, Parts Manufacture Approval (PMA), etc to maintain "conformity to the type design approval."
WOW Really Paul? wrote:
In reply to Keith Tanner:
And to think, we are just pissed about 90+% of all new tractors requiring DEF.....because "ZOMG, we don't have enough clean air in the middle of nowhere" SMDH.
Yeah, because "ZOMG" the dust just falls right back down where it is, its not like air moves around the planet at all.
berkeleying short-sighted NIMBY people get tiresome after a while.
pointofdeparture wrote:
SEMA just posted a press release about this as well. It's the real deal, folks.
https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/epa-seeks-to-prohibit-conversion-of-vehicles-into-racecars
SEMA is the automotive equivalent of the NRA. Every time a gun law is proposed, NRA (lobbyist for the gun industry, not most gun owners) screams "Obama is going to take all your guns, so go buy more!!!!" Likewise, SEMA is a lobbyist for the automotive industry hyping up things to make sure its industry supporters throw lots of money towards it. People think SEMA is here to protect the driving enthusiast. It isn't. It's here to protect the aftermarket parts industry that pays for it.
The SEMA headline was a gross distortion of what the proposed law is, in my reading. The law is only about emissions, for one (not other modifications, which EPA has no power over). Second, looks like that law already exists and is simply not enforced, and that this "change" is to specifically exempt things like snowmobiles and ATVs and stuff - probably at the request of some OTHER lobbying group that represents non-automotive vehicles like that.
Could be wrong about that though....I don't have the patience to read 600 pages...
AutoBlog received information from the EPA:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/epa-racecar-emissions-illegal-update-official/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016
We've spent much of the morning reading through the 629-page document from the EPA that brought on this anti-modification revelation in the first place, and we've found several inconsistencies that we hope to get further clarification of. As things stand at present, though, it sounds to us like anyone currently using a vehicle solely for competition (say, a Miata in LeMons or a Mustang at the drag strip) who has removed a catalytic converter or reflashed an ECU could be facing "a civil penalty up to $37,500 for each engine or piece of equipment in violation." Yikes
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:
AutoBlog received information from the EPA:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/09/epa-racecar-emissions-illegal-update-official/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016
Yup. The EPA is saying "don't be silly, we're not making your race car illegal. It was always illegal." Uh, no, it wasn't, that's just their creative retroactive reasoning.
Oh, and this means you can forget about anything being grandfathered -- if it was always illegal then you should never have had it in the first place, so there's nothing wrong with forcing you to get rid of it now, right?
Keith Tanner wrote:
Nope, you won't really pass. You might not throw a code, you'll just get a N/A on cat function.
That's... not entirely accurate.
It's possible to have the monitor run and pass with some computers. Probably all, but it would all be up to how thoroughly hacked a computer is. Certainly at the OE level of programming, the monitor tolerances could be opened up big enough to fly a plane through. This is known because it's not unheard of to see a car with a cat that broke up and blew its innards out still pass the catalyst monitor.
Stefan (Not Bruce) wrote:
WOW Really Paul? wrote:
In reply to Keith Tanner:
And to think, we are just pissed about 90+% of all new tractors requiring DEF.....because "ZOMG, we don't have enough clean air in the middle of nowhere" SMDH.
Yeah, because "ZOMG" the dust just falls right back down where it is, its not like air moves around the planet at all.
berkeleying short-sighted NIMBY people get tiresome after a while.
So dust storms are not real?
Many people have died miserable and painful deaths due to dust.
