ThePass

iTrader: (3)

This.

The change would mean that you no longer see any those "off road use only" parts for anything related to engine or emissions.

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

Jalopnik did a much better job of getting clarification from primary sources than R&T did.

See that article below...

The EPA's Crackdown On Race Cars, Explained

MartinezA92

iTrader: (4)

Yup, signed it as soon as I saw it

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

I'm completely baffled how a government agency saying "we're changing the wording to close a loophole so that what you've been doing for years will now be explicitly illegal, but don't worry we won't come after you... (for now)" is supposed to put anybody at ease.

Ziggo

I want some data on how big of an effect track only and modified street cars has on overall fleet emissions anyway. This just feels like the EPA over reaching again to solve a problem that isn't really there.

If there needs to be a standard for tailpipe emissions on road going cars, fine, set it. Had to pass this test here in TX anyway. I had the same complaint with CARB in CA, if my car meets the emissions standards, who cares what parts I use.

OGRacing

iTrader: (1)

BTW all the companies that you support and love. We will shut them down first.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's correct, you can race any car you want, so long as the emissions control devices haven't been tampered with.

And you can also build new cars specifically for the purpose of racing as well, so long as they're not titled / registered for street use. So real* racing series won't be affected.

* = I'm speaking from the point of view of an American, where "big money" motorsports is mostly NASCAR, IRL, F1, NHRA, and so forth. All scratch-built tube frame vehicles which never had a title. This would obviously have an effect on Baja, the various rally-type series, things like Spec Miata, the various "24 hours of..." series, and so forth.



They don't have to target manufacturers who sell devices for cars used on public roads, since usage isn't a criteria. They only have to target manufacturers who sell devices intended for cars which were built in a factory, sold at a dealership, have a title, and originally came with emissions-control devices, whether it's the 2014 Corvette you drive to work every day, or the 1992 Miata getting flogged around a racetrack on Sunday.

So, in a worst-case scenario, this would affect all plug-n-play type ECUs, but not necessarily "universal" ECUs.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

So I guess this would benefit the OEMs like GM, Ford etc who sell crate engines for the purposes of "competition".

And if buying a used engine through a yard maybe a background check will be in order to ensure intended use. I mean we don't want a used engine to fall into the wrong hands now do we....

Dunning Kruger Affect

I think it's the same deal as the rolling coal bros and the Cobb Accessport guys. There's already a big ol' fine associated, ~$25k iirc, with tampering with a federally controlled emissions device (i.e. - an ECU) that is found being used on public highways. It doesn't stop anyone currently outside of some people in California with the literal CARB police (lol carb police /!\ pizza alert /!\).

People have been installing parts that have been specified with the CYA "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" on road cars for ages, and it's now that it's being seen a prevalent problem. It's the same deal with Mustang owners at Cars & Coffee events; there's a reason why we can't have nice things. I mean, keep in mind, I also contributed to the problem, as well; however, I'm pulling the plate on my 94 this year because I really don't feel like doing the song and dance to pass a visual inspection.

You're incredibly obnoxious and have only contributed white noise pearl clutching.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Seems doubtful.

It's already been illegal for decades to install an older engine into a newer car, or an engine originally certified for one type of use (truck, marine, etc) into a different vehicle type (passenger car.)

Nothing changes with regard to the sale or use of used / aftermarket engines relative to the situation as it exists now.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

If your car *looked* like it had been modified, then they might just decide to call your car an "emissions equipment", specifically calling out that your turbocharger or exhaust or track tuned suspension allowed the car to burn more fuel and therefore produce more emissions on the race track than it would have compared to the same car without a track-tuned suspension...

You can follow up with them in court later in order to try to get your crushed car back.

Dunning Kruger Affect

Oh look, I, too, can move the goal posts and invoke ~scary imagery~ about **** that isn't going to happen.

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

You appear to be missing the part where that's exactly what they're trying to change. Pulling your plate and never letting the car touch a public road would no longer afford you any exemption, the car would still be held to the same emissions standards and regulations that cars on the highway are. That's a dramatic change from current. How this would be enforced and to what extent is mostly speculation at this point.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Where has it ever been illegal to install whatever into whatever so long as it's not for use on a public road? Isn't this thread about "competition use only" or converting something into "competition use only"?

Dunning Kruger Affect

The EPA has issued a clarification in the wake of the SEMA call to arms specifying that they recognize competition uses of motor vehicles and that they're trying to make sure that heavy-duty vehicles aren't falling into a competition loophole. Savington posted an article about it.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Does a spokesperson's clarification made to Road & Track magazine carry the force of law?

Dunning Kruger Affect

Well seeing how the laws have been on the books for 40+ years and drag racing has been met by regular car crushing for the past 30...

How is it that the EPA is simultaneously bumbling idiots who never did nothin' good while being cunning saboteurs who are going to steal and crush all of our Miatas? I'm a bit stuck on that part.

ThePass

iTrader: (3)

Clarification about "intent" means very little, and they can flip flop on that any time they want. What matters is the actual words in the regulation, and as those currently sit they do not only target heavy duty vehicles. The EPA isn't stupid, they know that. They also have a bad reputation for trying to pull things like this, it's far from unprecedented behavior.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Nobody is saying this. What are you even arguing about?

Dunning Kruger Affect

Yeah, but why aren't they crushing cars left and right now? The law's on the books. We're all outlaws.

I'm not the one questioning the authenticity of a PR person.