matguy

Please be coherent with your comments. Comments like "Dis F'n sux" aren't helpful.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Matguy,

I'm genuinely confused. If I said something offensive I apologize-- but what did I say that resembled "Dis F'n sux"??

Edit: I had to realize that you were referring in general to any of us making comments on these two registers

Yes-- I completely agree. Coherent, concise comments through both links are best. And they cannot be something such as what you mentioned above as an example. They've been pretty clear about not caring all that much about the dedicated track cars the measure is supposedly written for (although you never know once something becomes law).

I don't have a problem with keeping emissions gear on street cars. I even wanted to throw an aftermarket cat on my old classic V8 Ford years ago for my personal peace of mind. It was always not legal to change your emissions gear on the street but many states understood that classic cars beyond 25-30 years aren't driven daily and put a minimal impact on overall emissions compared to the masses of other cars, SUVs, and commercial diesel trucks.

I do take issue only when it becomes ludicrously expensive to piece together emissions components that have been discontinued by the manufacturer while no aftermarket new alternative part exists to replace them and functionally equivalent alternative solutions that still allow the car to pass the required tailpipe standards (and possibly improve upon the reliability and performance of inferior original emissions hardware) are not legally allowed. 70's and 80's cars definitely fall into that category.

On a racetrack... this makes no sense whatsoever given the limited use of highly modified cars like these. It affects the ability of an owner or team to change their engine within the class rules to be more competitive. And many less well off people who build weekend "fun" cars that aren't used as daily drivers but really are taken to track events. Where do seldom driven trailered 1000whp drag cars tuned on E85 fall within these guidelines?

The future availability of aftermarket parts that allow people to creatively resurrect older cars as weekend track toys is where this will also hurt. The CARB approval process is extremely expensive, especially for niche models (such as but not limited to ours by a long shot). In some cases the process is held up for some applications for odd reasons. This is why there are so many "off-road use only" parts. It's also why an aftermarket CARB approved mild horsepower single turbo kit for Supras has yet to exist. It's also why a CARB legal turbo kit is approved for two model years of a vehicle with a five to ten year production run with near identical engines. Legal for those two model years but not for the SAME engine one model year before or after.

For 1000whp weekend track toys that are meant for events... this measure does not make sense at all.

Further, it generally might have the long term effect of de-democratizing horsepower unless you are lucky enough to have CARB approved parts or ECU tunes available for your year, make and model... or if you have the cash to swap in a powerful stock engine with ALL the controlled equipment intact. It would shoot up the prices of many common swap engines. In our case I'm not quite sure what it would do to the 2JZ parts support market long term. Innovation and creativity are what built the community. It directly affects the 2JZ community.

The stance on engine swaps are somewhat murky as written in the proposal as I understand them. It's not just the retention of catalytic convertors or EGR that they're talking about. It could be complex electrical fixes in a swap car to eliminate OBD2 codes when swapping an LS1, LS2 or LS3 or other engine into an older car that gets very complex with newer CanBus systems.

Most people are not using old modified cars in such a way as to significantly contribute to the overall problem of smog and CO2. Dedicated racecars both old AND new... those should be allowed modification within their respective class rules for competition purposes. It's what motorsports is about.

....

The only category of classic car powerplant modification that won't be affected by this is EV conversions. But it's ludicrously expensive right now for respectable results with so many caveats attached. Aside from how different it is compared to the performance gas engines we love, most people do not have $35K-$50K+ to drop into making a reliable 400whp electrically. Not to mention the weight penalty and that they can't be driven very far at this time even with lithium cells, nor can you recharge quickly-- especially important if you ARE out on the track. Or even just a road trip.

I looked up an MKIII Supra Turbo 5-speed EV conversion yesterday. I wanted to see how the electric motor mated up to the R154. I was not that impressed with the performance the guy got from spending $20,000 after taking out the stock 7MGTE. It more or less matched the stock engine power but curiously only made it up to 80mph max even with five forward gears and a stock rear end. I know that more is possible but if it cost him that much to only get 80mph and almost stock horsepower...

This might be a horsepower transition point such as what we experienced in the early 1970's through early 80's if you factor in actual performance EV conversions. Only the cost of entry in that arena is far higher.

matguy

No, not you. I mean people making comments to the EPA on their official comments page.

matguy

I should have been more clear. I'm sure there's a joke about posting at 3am while up with baby that's similar to drunk posting, but maybe I'll figure it out when I've had more sleep and can type with both hands. Sorry about that.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Matguy, it's all good. My apologies-- I realized what you meant shortly after posting my reply but I took forever to write down those thoughts on the overall matter

And no worries about being distracted by dad duties at 3am. That's what happens

SaintLexus

iTrader: (4)

If the EPA (US Gov't) is doing this for someone's health due to pollution.
Imagine a cigarette free world!
They'll never ban it and I don't think they ever will!

1A1

No more cows as they emit more co2 then a car does, no more pigs, no more chickens, no more farm equipment. Give me a break.

Steve

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Update to this. There's now a bill being lobbied to clarify the EPA clarifications:

http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/bill-i...rom-1763624347

https://www.sema.org/rpm-bill-summar...__utmk=1963129

Called "Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2016" (RPM 2016).

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Here is a very easy to use link to generate emails to send to your applicable representatives and senators to voice support for the 2016 RPM ACT which seeks to preserve the ability to turn any old car into a track-only car without having to retain all of the original (and often discontinued) emissions equipment.

This is not supposed to affect street cars. The EPA has asserted that the minimal amount of operating hours track cars have generate exactly the same impact as cars that are driven every single day.

https://www.votervoice.net/SEMA/campaigns/45394/respond

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

News in the last couple of days.

The EPA has reversed its position on requiring all dedicated/trailered track cars to keep their original emission systems (even if some of those emission parts are long discontinued).

However they may still be interested in aftermarket parts manufacturers-- unknown at this point. But this is a positive development nonetheless.

http://jalopnik.com/the-epa-will-not...all-1771338067

http://www.leftlanenews.com/epa-drop...ars-91531.html