DPF Delete Shop

[Keith Browning]

This stuff amuses me, not surprises, just amuses.

 

www.thedpfdeleteshop.com

 

"The DPF Delete Shop is your ultimate supplier for DPF Delete Pipes and Tuners. We ONLY offer DPF Delete parts to rid you of the issues your Duramax, Cummins or Powerstroke Diesel has been plagued with. That means better mileage and less down time due to plugged EGR's, Full Particulate Filters and Stuck Turbo Vanes."

 

 

Warranty

 

 

"Your Vehicles Warranty and the Installation of Aftermarket Products

 

The Federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act protects consumers of aftermarket products. From our understanding, the Act states that if something breaks on your vehicle and you take it in for warranty repair, the dealer must honor your warranty unless they can prove that whatever modifications you have added to your vehicle actually caused the problem.

 

Although consumers are legally protected as stated above, the practical reality is that automotive manufacturers and dealers may have different views in regards to the installation of aftermarket parts – especially those that produce horsepower, such as performance chips, modified intake manifolds and aftermarket exhaust systems.

 

Be aware that some dealers and manufacturers might attempt to void warranties -- regardless of whose products are installed or how they are used.

 

We strongly recommend that you always disconnect and remove any aftermarket part that might interfere with diagnostic equipment before you take your vehicle to the dealer for warranty work.

 

If you would like specific clarification on The Federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and your rights, please visit SEMA.org for more information on this issue."

[Jim Warman]

Now... this has to be quite the way to start a weekend. Too bad these types of companies aren't forced to deal with the issues that their products can spawn.

 

I find it hilarious that some Canadians will start quoting Magnusson/Moss...... oblivious to the idea that it is US legislation - not Canadian.

 

In November, I will be a real, honest-to-goodness Grampy - woe betide any sum-bitch that tries to befoul my grandsons lungs by "rolling coal".

 

Add that I am always grateful when a third party gives my customer the chance to say "But this other guy says that....".

 

Sidebar (and you thought we could get away without one) - I was doing an Out Of Province inspection for our new salesweasel the other evening and I was stopped - considering the condition of some item on his 78 Mustang 2 (not a quite junker but not a concours d'elegance car, either). When he saw me inspecting whatever it was more closely he said "The guys at the tire shop said.....". I cut him off saying "Mayhaps they should sign the certificate... Oh... Gee... they can't..."

 

FWIW, these are the trucks we should be using OASIS quick start on - let Ford decide what is what.

[LARRY BRUDZYNSKI]

I would hope that the Manufacturers would be contacting the EPA to investigate these companies. I found this search for the EPA guidelines for removal or tampering of emission control devices. It made for some interesting reading....

 

EPA420-B-00-003

May 2000

 

EPA Motor Vehicle

Aftermarket Retrofit

Device Evaluation

Program

 

Potential Tampering Liability Associated with Fuel Economy Retrofit Devices

The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42

U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or

rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in any motor vehicle in

compliance with regulations under Title II of the Act (i.e., regulations requiring certification that

vehicles meet federal emissions standards). The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this

section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500.

Section 203(a)(3)( of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling, or offering to

sell, or installing, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or

motor vehicle engine where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or

render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor

vehicle engine, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being

offered for sale or is being installed for such use. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of

this section is $2,500.

Installing any device, system or part(s) which affect the fuel delivery rate or the combustion

process would be expected to affect elements of design of the emissions control system.

Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle such as adding a

system or parts that affect the fuel delivery rate or the combustion process, or the manufacture,

sale of, or installation of, aftermarket parts or systems which are not equivalent to the original

equipment could be considered violations of section 203(a)(3) of the Act. However, EPA has

established an enforcement policy, Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A

(Memorandum 1A), to provide guidance to the public to reduce the uncertainty regarding

potential liability under section 203(a)(3) of the Act for using or selling aftermarket parts or

systems, or making adjustments or alterations to parts or system parameters.

Basically, Memorandum 1A states that EPA will not consider any modification to a certified

emissions control configuration to be a violation of the tampering prohibition if there is a

reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected. In many cases, durability

aging and emissions testing according to the FTP would be necessary to make this determination.

There are two different methods for establishing a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions

are not adversely affected by the installation of a retrofit device: 1) the installer knows of, or the

12

manufacturer of the device represents in writing, that FTP emission tests have been performed as

prescribed in 40 CFR 86 showing that the device does not cause similar vehicles to fail to meet

applicable emission standards for their useful life; or 2) a federal, state or local environmental

control agency expressly represents that a reasonable basis exists. Such an agency determination

is limited to the geographic area over which that agency has jurisdiction. Some states, such as

California, have additional requirements.

If the results of EPA emission testing of a retrofit device show that any of the regulated

emissions increase (even though other regulated emissions may have decreased), EPA will

publish a Federal Register Notice (Notice) explaining the legal implications of those findings on

persons engaged in the business of servicing, repairing, selling, leasing, or trading motor

vehicles, fleet operators, new car dealers and individuals. The Notice will alert the regulated

parties that the installation of such a device by them may be deemed to be a violation of section

203(a)(3) of the Act.

EPA does not have a mandatory, formal program to evaluate and make determinations of

compliance of aftermarket parts with Memorandum 1A. Although EPA has informally evaluated

compliance information in the past, because of current budget cuts and resource constraints we

are not routinely reviewing information showing compliance with Memorandum 1A .While

compliance with Memorandum 1A is required, submission of the information to us is not

required unless we request the information to verify compliance. We emphasize, however, that

our lack of review of the information does not relieve any one from responsibility to comply with

Memorandum 1A or liability for violations of section 203(a)(3) and Memorandum 1A.

The results of an FTP test are valid only for similar vehicles. Therefore, the test fleet should be

diverse and large enough to provide an adequate data base from which conclusions can be drawn

with reasonable confidence. When appropriate, however, analyses based upon engineering

judgment can be used to determine the applicability of FTP test results to other vehicles and the

devices’ effect on the durability of the emission control systems.

The EPA’s NVFEL does not make decisions as to whether the installation of a particular retrofit

device constitutes tampering with the emission control system of a vehicle. Questions regarding

tampering or requests for copies of Memorandum 1A are handled by Steve Albrink in

Washington, DC, at 202-564-8997.

Miscellaneous

Evaluations conducted in the EPA test program are for the purpose of demonstrating the

effectiveness of developed devices and are not to be construed as development testing. All

development work must precede EPA evaluation. The applicant will not be permitted to make

adjustments to the test vehicle or to the device except to repair malfunctions. Such repairs will be

permitted at the discretion of the EPA test engineer.

13

EPA engineering staff will prepare a draft report on the evaluation of the device for applicant

review to ensure accuracy of the information describing the device. The developer should

transmit comments to EPA promptly. Final test reports are distributed upon request to technical

personnel in federal and state governments, private industry, universities and are also available to

the general public from the NVFEL Library at:

U.S. EPA

NVFEL Library

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

(734) 214-4311

Applicants may cite final EPA reports (but not draft reports) to indicate the exhaust emission and

fuel economy levels attained with the device, but the developer may not claim that the EPA

report constitutes approval, certification, endorsement or registration. Cases of misrepresentation

of EPA evaluation reports will be referred to the Department of Justice and/or the Federal Trade

Commission, as appropriate

[Jim Warman]

Mmmmmm - Montreal smoked meat on medium rye with Keens hot and peppery mustard... you can't beat that for a Saturday snack....

 

Aaron... have you heard? The bird is the word....

 

Sorry Larry... thtere was just a couple of things I needed to get off my chest - which is actually not so much a chest as it is that area above my beer gut.

 

I admire the spirit and intent of the EPA legislation that you have posted. But do we ever see anyone prosecuted under it's provisions? Since I live <here> and you live <there>. There is always the chance that it wouldn't be newsworthy in my area (especially since Alberta lacks any enforcable anti-tampering laws).

 

And this is where the Catch 22 comes in... All of these companies hide behind "When purchasing from The DPF Delete Shop, please understand that this is a race-only and/or off-road use specific performance product and is "use at your own risk". It may be necessary to remove the unit before taking your vehicle to the dealer for service as it may interfere with diagnostic equipment and/or violate EPA regulations if used on vehicles other than for off-road/race use" statements knowing full well that the majority of their customers are going to do exactly what they shouldn't.

 

The hypocracy we are faced with every day is astounding.

[Aaron]

That damn song.... again....

 

On topic:

 

I was told by Simon Gour (FSE SW Ontario) in the USA, EPA is going around to these shops, if they find shit with plates on it, bang instant fine.

 

If they run a vin on a vehicle and it comes back as registered/plated, bang. Instant fine.

 

He told me the Emissions warranty is cancelled by removing DPF/DOC, Powertrain warranty cancelled by modifying PCM programming.

[Aaron]

Fine is $10,000 if I recall rightly.

[Jim Warman]

Yowzers.... gogo gadget brain....

 

The penny finally dropped.

 

P167F.... remember that. I think it will become important.

 

Removing a DPF isn't going to kill a motor... however - UNINTENDED ACTUATOR ACTIVITY could.

 

Fords response is going to become "we cannot predict the affects that an aftermarket program will have on the powertrain.... therefore we will quietly deny warranty payment of any and all invoices and throw the dealer and it's agents under the bus by making them tell you that warranty has been denied.... at least until the boat starts rocking too hard in which case Ford will step in, pay for the fucking repair and make the dealer look like a shit heal.

 

FWIW... if you don't sell <that> truck, a different dealer will so fuck you... fuck you very much.

 

Politics... gotta love em.

[Brad Clayton]

Quote:

Fine is $10,000 if I recall rightly.

You are correct in that, sir. If a mechanic at a shop removes or does the tampering he or she is the one that will get the punishment.

[Bruce Amacker]

$10K per vehicle, IIRC.

 

[Aaron]

Coorrect.

[Jim Warman]

Here, in the Republic of Alberta we are told "You cannot remove/alter/defeat that".

 

"But what if I do....?"

 

"You are not allowed to do that".

 

"Let's say I did..."

 

"It's not allowed"

 

Thus far nobody can indicate any specified penalty for emissions tampering.

 

However, do any of you ever see any cases being pursued and, if so, are they pursued to conclusion?

[Keith Browning]

Same here in the states Jim. There may be states where they talk tougher and inspect vehicles more rigidly but in general it's a lot talk and not much action in my opinion. As far as the legality of it all it is pretty well defined. The morality end, as you stated, is in large, ignored.

[Aaron]

There are guys getting ticketed for it here in Ontario, I think the fine is around $300 or so.

[Keith Browning]

Ticketed for WHAT? How are they getting caught?

[Brad Clayton]

The headlights of the police cars are actually tailpipe sniffers. Little buzzers go off on the dash and wont go out til the offending vehicle is dealt with.

[batmantech]

has anyone ever know or heard of anyone being fined??

[Keith Browning]

I have never heard of a case personally. Thats why I think it's all a bunch of hot air and bullshit.

[Aaron]

Ticketed for WHAT? How are they getting caught?

 

Caught on roadside visual inspections. (Delete pipe, etc.)

[joshbuys]

I'm in California...."LAND OF THE FRUITS AND NUTS", and I've never heard of anyone being fined for this....

[Aaron]

Ontario, Canada here. They have the odd roadside inspection station but it's pretty infrequent.

 

I used to see them more often when I lived towards London, but now it is to my understanding that a police officer can write a tamper ticket if he notices it during any kind of traffic stop or what have you. Also been told as of late that officers are being trained to perform roadside vehicle safety compliancer inspections, also.

[nelsona19]

the only thing i've ever seen is diesels getting ticketed for running "offroad" or untaxed fuel on streets and highways.