Expert prognosis for the planet

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think there is a big distinction between the two. A car can be exceeding the speed limit going 6mph in a 5mph zone. How slow would you require manufactures make cars? They could eventually create autonomous systems to prevent speeding when the technology catches up to all vehicles, but what you are describing isn't the same as creating a ECU tool to avoid detection during emissions testing. If manufactures produced a car that jammed radar detectors or had automatic strobe lights to block traffic cameras at intersections or went into stealth mode when a helicopter radar was on them then that would be different.

I think what you were thinking is that manufactures could, and thus should, prevent exceeding the highest top speed of a public road like 85mph. They could do this in the future, as mentioned, and only unlock the car if it is on a private road or track, but this isn't currently realistic. Were you against VW getting fined for their role in emissions cheat devices? If not then why defend these guys? Do you think the EPA should be softer on these guys? Whether we are talking about speeding or modifying a car illegally, it is a crime and part of the risk, so no one, including me, has a right to complain when it is their or my turn getting caught.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/topi...iesel-vehicles

Side note: The technology exists to quite easily monitor and limit speed by gps on most major roads and highways. Android Auto tells me my speed and the speed limit and is quite accurate. Nobody actually wants it so far so that's why it's not a thing. But that is another matter entirely.

Look, I am annoyed by coal rollers and pops/bangs as much as anyone else. The problem is that under the letter of the law there's no difference between making an inlet tube, your kswap kit, or tuning for coal rolling. The fact that you choose to drive on the street with your k swapped car means, according to the ruling, the EPA should go after k power (I think you used their kit iirc?) for developing the kit and selling it to you, regardless of their warnings about off road only use. I think that is wrong.

VW is different because they lied about it and defrauded their customers. There's a difference in developing something for motorsports and saying it outright vs developing something for consumers and straight up lying about it's compliance.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Side note: The technology exists to quite easily monitor and limit speed by gps on most major roads and highways. Android Auto tells me my speed and the speed limit and is quite accurate. Nobody actually wants it so far so that's why it's not a thing. But that is another matter entirely.

Look, I am annoyed by coal rollers and pops/bangs as much as anyone else. The problem is that under the letter of the law there's no difference between making an inlet tube, your kswap kit, or tuning for coal rolling. The fact that you choose to drive on the street with your k swapped car means, according to the ruling, the EPA should go after k power (I think you used their kit iirc?) for developing the kit and selling it to you, regardless of their warnings about off road only use. I think that is wrong.

VW is different because they lied about it and defrauded their customers. There's a difference in developing something for motorsports and saying it outright vs developing something for consumers and straight up lying about it's compliance.

Like I said, "when the technology catches up to all vehicles." That was me acknowledging how the technology exists (GPS, sign detection, some autonomous features), but how it is not ubiquitous or capable of being executed at this time for the DOT to fine manufactures for negligence. The second cars could prevent people from speeding, or getting into accidents, or anything similar, don't be surprised if a law comes.

You can think the EPA is wrong, but these guys violated the law, whether it is moral or not. They operated knowing this was possible, so it is on them. If I get pulled over and caught with an illegal swap, I will not be blaming the police for doing their job. I might get some kudos for installing the stock cat on the frontpipe.

But I think you are just confused because of my comments about coal rollers. The EPA, as I understand it, wasn't going after this company for selling off-road modifications that people use on-road like Kpower or Haltech. The EPA was going after them because they were selling tuning software that fooled emissions systems specifically for smog tests just like VW did. They were making products that were intended for on-road use. My Kpower kit and Haltech ECU does not fool emissions computers (see below). Yes, what VW did was worse because the customer was in the dark, but ultimately, what they did was produce cars that produced 40x the NOx emissions than what the computers reported during the smog assessment. Do you get the problem with selling on-road use emissions defeating software and having tutorials on how to remove emissions components, and then ignoring the EPA's requests, and then in spite of the investigation, selling as much inventory as possible? These guys are just idiots.

Jegs and others had the same issue with the EPA. They were all selling emissions defeat software and components. Jegs still sells headers and other off-road use products, so this isn't about modifications. This is about these companies selling components that fooled the smog system, which is in place to catch and limit modifications of emission components for on-road use. Ultimately, there are still ways around the testing system, but that really isn't the point. It may not feel much different to these suppliers to sell an off-road header to someone who is going to use it on-road versus selling emissions defeaters, but it is to the EPA, so we should all be happy that the EPA didn't completely shut Jegs and others down.

EPA Settlement with Jeg’s Automotive Inc. of Delaware, Ohio, Resolves Clean Air Act Violations for Sales of Motor Vehicle Emission Control Defeat Devices

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...act-violations

EPA penalizes Premier Performance $3 million for selling ‘defeat’ devices

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...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. EPA estimates this action will prevent the release of approximately 3.5 million pounds of air pollution per year.

EPA Fines Auto Repair Shops in Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska for ‘Defeat Device’ Violations

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...ice-violations

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

(Wall-O-Text)

I see. Yes that clears up my confusion and I understand the point now. Going after straight test defeat devices is fine by me.

However I hope we can also agree that it would be concerning if the EPA took the same action against actual performance/race parts suppliers after years of standing policy saying they aren't going to enforce the law against racecar suppliers.

There is a bill to clarify the clean air act as only applying to street-legal vehicles in progress iirc, so that would alleviate my concerns.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I see. Yes that clears up my confusion and I understand the point now. Going after straight test defeat devices is fine by me.

However I hope we can also agree that it would be concerning if the EPA took the same action against actual performance/race parts suppliers after years of standing policy saying they aren't going to enforce the law against racecar suppliers.

There is a bill to clarify the clean air act as only applying to street-legal vehicles in progress iirc, so that would alleviate my concerns.

I agree about that. There should always be a market for off-road use for enthusiasts. I also think California and other areas have grown more reasonable with the average user by not requiring smog until eight years on new cars and then only requiring a readiness check. That, and I think they have done a lot to open up a path for legal modifications with their CARB program. A lot of that has to do with ECUTEK making it possible to create CARB tunes. I think they could do more to allow for more legal modifications by making the process cheaper and faster, but it is what it is.

Manufacturers should do some flex-fuel fuel tunes/kits. I also think it would be nice if manufacturers produced cars with flex fuel and D4S as standard. Audi TTRS and the Mustang has dual injection. I don’t know who else, but flex fuel and D4S should be standard on sports cars, so it would be easier to pass FI kits through CARB with larger port injectors and having a legal flex fuel option. The EPA and CARB doesn’t have a problem with 707hp Hellcats when it comes from the factory, so all they need are products that have been properly certified.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree about that. There should always be a market for off-road use for enthusiasts. I also think California and other areas have grown more reasonable with the average user by not requiring smog until eight years on new cars and then only requiring a readiness check. That, and I think they have done a lot to open up a path for legal modifications with their CARB program. A lot of that has to do with ECUTEK making it possible to create CARB tunes. I think they could do more to allow for more legal modifications by making the process cheaper and faster, but it is what it is.

Manufacturers should do some flex-fuel fuel tunes/kits. I also think it would be nice if manufacturers produced cars with flex fuel and D4S as standard. Audi TTRS and the Mustang has dual injection. I don’t know who else, but flex fuel and D4S should be standard on sports cars, so it would be easier to pass FI kits through CARB with larger port injectors and having a legal flex fuel option. The EPA and CARB doesn’t have a problem with 707hp Hellcats when it comes from the factory, so all they need are products that have been properly certified.

The problem with this is the system is setup for manufacturers and not for small shops to build, certify and sell something like a flex fuel kit. You would need to provide test data for every model and every model year you intend to sell the kit for regardless if there were actually any changes to the base car from year to year. So for someone like Ptuning certifying a flex fuel kit for carb, they would have to provide emission test data for 8 years the car was run even though there were basically no changes to the engines from 13-16’ and 17-20’. It’s just not financially feasible.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

The problem with this is the system is setup for manufacturers and not for small shops to build, certify and sell something like a flex fuel kit. You would need to provide test data for every model and every model year you intend to sell the kit for regardless if there were actually any changes to the base car from year to year. So for someone like Ptuning certifying a flex fuel kit for carb, they would have to provide emission test data for 8 years the car was run even though there were basically no changes to the engines from 13-16’ and 17-20’. It’s just not financially feasible.

Plus, you can't get ethanol-majority fuel everywhere...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

The problem with this is the system is setup for manufacturers and not for small shops to build, certify and sell something like a flex fuel kit. You would need to provide test data for every model and every model year you intend to sell the kit for regardless if there were actually any changes to the base car from year to year. So for someone like Ptuning certifying a flex fuel kit for carb, they would have to provide emission test data for 8 years the car was run even though there were basically no changes to the engines from 13-16’ and 17-20’. It’s just not financially feasible.

Well remember that they are selling a flex fuel kit, a CARB/legal tune, an ECUTEK, and a license for ECUTEK. It adds up, but I’m also talking about something for like FI kits. If a company like Edelbrock is selling a SC with everything except the FF kit and injectors then just add in the FF kit and injectors as standard and that gives the community the overhead to run dual tunes for the track and all someone’s need to do is add a smaller pulley and flash to a track tune, and then when they leave the track they swap to the CARB tune and associated pulley, which takes 30 minutes total. Completely legal versus having to pull injectors and flex fuel kit on and off the car to be legal. A legal path is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Spuds

Plus, you can't get ethanol-majority fuel everywhere...

Even if someone didn’t have regular access to E85, it would be an option for the track or when out of the area. Manufacturers obviously sell FF vehicles to areas without E85. Same thing.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well remember that they are selling a flex fuel kit, a CARB/legal tune, an ECUTEK, and a license for ECUTEK. It adds up, but I’m also talking about something for like FI kits. If a company like Edelbrock is selling a SC with everything except the FF kit and injectors then just add in the FF kit and injectors as standard and that gives the community the overhead to run dual tunes for the track and all someone’s need to do is add a smaller pulley and flash to a track tune, and then when they leave the track they swap to the CARB tune and associated pulley, which takes 30 minutes total. Completely legal versus having to pull injectors and flex fuel kit on and off the car to be legal. A legal path is the way to go.



Even if someone didn’t have regular access to E85, it would be an option for the track or when out of the area. Manufacturers obviously sell FF vehicles to areas without E85. Same thing.

Who’s they? The only carb legal kits I have seen for this platform were FI kits. Every FF kit on this platform either highjacks the rear o2 or the evap tables. That’s an instant readiness fail. There is no just flashing from FF to standard tune without ending up with codes for those unless you disconnect it and plug the rear o2 back in. I dunno how you would do it on a car that has it wired into the evap.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well remember that they are selling a flex fuel kit, a CARB/legal tune, an ECUTEK, and a license for ECUTEK. It adds up, but I’m also talking about something for like FI kits....

it doesn't add up enough though is the real problem.

for headlights, just a single certification cycle, for a single light can run at least $10k to verify it passes all federal standards in light output, and environmental effects.

screw up just once, and that's a second round of tests for that single light, adding up to $20k.

emissions testing is going to have somewhat similar testing costs/certification processes.

extrapolate the costs again per test, per model year, per expected sale, and then compare how many of each vehicle was produced vs how many would be anticipated to buy the product-- i would venture a guess that vehicle tunes account for less than 30% of any vehicle model.


dodge can justify getting their hellcat certified because they're not selling just hellcats. they're probably losing money on that overall, but the other models within the brand are paying the way to allow the marketing of the hellcat. plenty of soccer dad's going to the dodge dealer to drool over the hellcat only to buy another rational suv... the 'boring' is paying for the 'exciting' there.

for a company that only sells tuning and tuning accessories, the typical 10-20% markup on everything isn't enough to cover all these extra tests. they'd have to increase pricing even further, which would price more people out, and make it less popular, and lower profits even more.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Who’s they? The only carb legal kits I have seen for this platform were FI kits. Every FF kit on this platform either highjacks the rear o2 or the evap tables. That’s an instant readiness fail. There is no just flashing from FF to standard tune without ending up with codes for those unless you disconnect it and plug the rear o2 back in. I dunno how you would do it on a car that has it wired into the evap.

That makes sense. I kind of forgot we needed to steel a sensor input wire, and it isn’t like we could use the dummy oil sensor wire or something without an OBD2 code. Good point. I guess that gives more credence to the idea that it has to come from the manufacturer. How hard would it be for Ford or Toyota to include FF on their sport cars like they do SUVs? Seems like someone would have done it by now. I wonder if there is a reason.

[Spuds]

Epa supposedly has a process by which you can prove that the conversion does not pollute more. There are apparently lists of what conversions have been approved.

I don't have MS excel on my phone and don't want to fire up my pc to look at them.

https://www.epa.gov/ve-certification...ersion-systems

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That makes sense. I kind of forgot we needed to steel a sensor input wire, and it isn’t like we could use the dummy oil sensor wire or something without an OBD2 code. Good point. I guess that gives more credence to the idea that it has to come from the manufacturer. How hard would it be for Ford or Toyota to include FF on their sport cars like they do SUVs? Seems like someone would have done it by now. I wonder if there is a reason.

I don’t know why they don’t. My 08’ truck has FF, a lot of FF kits use GM ethanol content sensors.

I don’t know a ton on the automotive side of the emission testing. Everything I work with falls under small non road equipment. It’s still pretty intense testing. Just a fuel tank is a 45 day test under accelerated conditions in a very controlled environment, but as long as the data meets the current regs it is legal. The base material we use is 9 years old but still meets 22’ standards. So the tens of thousands they spent for the initial test was absorbed through the years. They just have to pay for the recert every year and as long as my tanks are within dimensional tolerance of the sample test tanks they used I can use their data to do my certs. Actual complete equipment like cars are tested by model and model year. I believe they can certify an engine family and as long as that is unaltered when it’s installed they can use the engine family emission certificate then evaporative component emission certification to certify the model. But you have to do this for every model year even if it is unchanged.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I don’t know why they don’t. My 08’ truck has FF, a lot of FF kits use GM ethanol content sensors.

I never read into it, but GM was really big into flex fuel for some time. Around the same time Toyota started doing hybrids and Ford started developing the Ecoboost concept.

I suspect there's all sorts of theories that all have a little truth to them. But by and large, I've always associated e85 as a GM product. At the time, I understood it to be an attempt to save people money at the pump without GM needing to significantly alter their drivetrain packaging.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree about that. There should always be a market for off-road use for enthusiasts. ....

To some extent I disagree. You can't be all "we need to save the planet" and also "well, except over here where it's OK for me to do what I want".

Bottom line is a low percentage of "off road only" equipment is used off road exclusively.