Originally Posted by Jordanwolf (Post 3237906)

Idunno, I got eyeballed pretty hard while driving normally in traffic yesterday. Maybe the cop had no idea what my car was, but he did full head turn watching me drive by.

Originally Posted by SLVRSRFR (Post 3237940)

I just know that they will be unnecessarily targeting cars that "look" modified, just like every time they do this, and I'm sure they will nail quite a few of the idiots highlighted above (the people who deserve it). I'm also 100% confident that lots of us "normal" car enthusiasts who happen to have a louder-than-stock car will inevitably get caught in the cross-fire.

Look, in the grand scheme of things, I'm old. I'm 33, which is probably higher than the average age for 86 owners in the GTA. My car is louder than stock, yes, but not wildly so, and I try to be responsible about it (shift low after 11pm, no unnecessary revving etc.). But now I'm worried shitless while driving because it's yet another thing that I have to worry about, and why? Simply because I'm an enthusiast who enjoys the sound of my car?

What about all these fucking Harleys that rip around with straight-pipes so loud that you literally have to pause your conversation until they pass by? What about the exotic cars that are loud AF from the factory and pop/burble/spittle with every slight touch of the throttle? What about the bro-dozers that sound like chewbacca screaming as they roll coal down the 401? I doubt any of these will be targeted as much as the tuner community, even though they are some of the worst offenders.

No doubt there are lots of people who deserve this. But also no doubt, lots of people who DON'T deserve it will get caught up in this BS, all said and done.

It's a sad time to be a car enthusiast in Ontario.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3237941)

If you remove the original and replace it with an aftermarket you have modified the muffler. Any change from the stock version is a modification. A play on words will not change a cop nor a judges mind.


As far of the rest of the exhaust goes the laws covering the cats cover headers and pipes. It is illegal to do ANY modifications to the emissions system so this leaves very little that can be changed in an exhaust system that you could not get dinged for.


Noises that come from a stock car can be proven to be "normal". If they are not part of the stock setup they are indeed unusual and subject to the law. Saying that other cars do it does not make it usual for all.


You can try to twist things around all you want but they have heard all of that rationalization before and will hear it again. Everybody just needs to ride this blitz out and things will go back to "normal" soon. I went through this sort of crackdown in the at least twice in the 70s, once in the 80s and several times in the 90s and they always eventually just said "screw it it ain't worth the hassle".

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf (Post 3237906)

Idunno, I got eyeballed pretty hard while driving normally in traffic yesterday. Maybe the cop had no idea what my car was, but he did full head turn watching me drive by.

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh (Post 3237985)

maybe that's cause youse a fine young man :drool:

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh (Post 3237985)

maybe that's cause youse a fine young man :drool:

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf (Post 3238010)

This is a very real possibility. I have on many occasion gathered lots of positive attention from the gay community.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3237941)

If you remove the original and replace it with an aftermarket you have modified the muffler. Any change from the stock version is a modification. A play on words will not change a cop nor a judges mind.

Originally Posted by Turbo (Post 3238611)

But it's not a play on words. REPLACING a muffler is not MODIFYING it. It's replacing it. 2 different verbs with 2 different meanings.


The backup argument I would make is that any other interpretation of this law is effectively making it illegal to manufacture aftermarket exhaust parts - whether OEM replacement or performance. No way that would EVER fly in a court of law, and there is no way industry would let it.

To do otherwise would single handedly put all Meineke & Midas franchises out of business.

Originally Posted by Turbo (Post 3238611)

But it's not a play on words. REPLACING a muffler is not MODIFYING it. It's replacing it. 2 different verbs with 2 different meanings.


The backup argument I would make is that any other interpretation of this law is effectively making it illegal to manufacture aftermarket exhaust parts - whether OEM replacement or performance. No way that would EVER fly in a court of law, and there is no way industry would let it.

To do otherwise would single handedly put all Meineke & Midas franchises out of business.

Originally Posted by James H (Post 3238674)

They are not stopping anyone from manufacturing aftermarket parts but you just have to manufacture parts that are road legal? Its never ok to make parts that are not road legal as defined in the HTA. You will be humiliated in court by the district attorney and get a good lecture from the JP:bonk: And manufacturers are not going to get entangled in lawsuits, they just want to make money and this is not the way to go. They will simply manufacture parts that are within the regulations or slap a "for off road use only" disclaimer on it.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3238646)

Yes two different verbs. If you remove the muffler and put the same thing back you have replaced it. If you remove it and put something different in it's place you have modified it.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3238685)

The law doesn't even want to go down the manufacturing road. That is why it is written as to "modify" or "operate" but not to supply or manufacture performance equipment.
I would love to see the judge's reaction to somebody walking in court and saying "but I didn't modify the muffler I just changed it to something else so it is a replacement". Like going in and saying "I didn't steal that candy bar I just moved it from the store's possession to mine without paying" They have heard all the "interpretation" and attempted wording rationalizations before and will not fall for it.

Originally Posted by Turbo (Post 3238702)

Sounds like you know zero lawyers and have never been involved in a legal dispute in your life.


I deal with legislation every day at work. Your take on this is not correct.