Another EPA fine, this time to edge

[exmod110]

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0f84561e0cf2ab7f85257af6006c4dbd?OpenDocument

 

 

$500000 fine

[Jim Warman]

Score one for the good guys. As a motorcycle rider and a convertible owner, I don't feel that I should "benefit" from the wieners that think "rolling coal" is a welcome past time.

 

As a grandfather (and someone that disbelieves all claims regarding the end times) I still think that each and every one of us should be doing our part.... and that those of us here on DTS are, indeed, keepers of the public trust when it comes to motor vehicles. Defeating an emission control should never be regarded as "fixing" it.

[Keith Browning]

It is about time we saw something significant being done to go after these companies. I don't think ANYONE should be exempt from adhering to emissions laws except for military vehicles and some emergency vehicles. (imagine a fire pumper shutting down and not restarting because an SCR sensor went off the charts) Getting around the laws by stating on the product that it is intended for off road use is unacceptable because we know damn well who is using these products and defeating the emissions devices on their trucks.

 

As for the pompous assholes that state "it's my truck I can do what ever I want with it!" I whole heartedly agree and you can jack it up inches galore and install all the do-dads you want or even run it into a utility pole for fun for all I care. When it comes to the AIR that your engine sucks in and the pollutants it dumps back out into the atmosphere then it becomes MY problem along with the other seven billion other human beings on this planet.

[Alex Bruene]

As for the pompous assholes that state "it's my truck I can do what ever I want with it!" I whole heartedly agree and you can jack it up inches galore and install all the do-dads you want or even run it into a utility pole for fun for all I care. When it comes to the AIR that your engine sucks in and the pollutants it dumps back out into the atmosphere then it becomes MY problem along with the other seven billion other human beings on this planet.

 

 

I wonder if one day we'll be reading about Bill Hewitt being fined for advertising and installing this shit...

[Keith Browning]

So I thought this was a perfect thing to post on the DTS Facebook page. Of course there is always some asshole that has to blow it out of proportion and deflect from the topic... "well what about NASA? What about Industry? Who will the government go after next?" and so on. I have attracted a guy named Danny who INSISTS on making this a broad topic. The link, the fine and the post I made on the topic is specifically about intentionally disabling and or removing emissions devices... I can't say I didn't see someone like this guy coming when I decided to post this.

[Jeff Clyde]

There is a local aftermarket shop where I live that installs all these products. They are even constantly fed this work by a local Ford store on new trucks as part of the new vehicle sale. Hard to educate the customer some times, when the dealer is encouraging it !

[Keith Browning]

Whatever happened to going after the people who OWN and operate these vehicles? I think they are more liable for for the modifications done to their trucks. I don't see why at this point light duty diesel equipped vehicles are exempt form emissions testing and inspection.

 

This morning I went to my local motor vehicle commission to get my 2001 Explorer inspected. Years ago in an effort to save the state money New Jersey modified it's vehicle inspection process to only checking emissions compliance and verifying the registration and proof of insurance. They completely eliminated all safety parts of the inspection. I kinda have an issue with that. Anyway, my point was, my Explorer gets a sniffer shoved into the tailpipe, a computer connected to the DLC looking for DTC's and system monitor readiness state and then it is rolled over a camera to inspect the under side of the vehicle... for what you ask? To determine id the exhaust catalysts have been removed.

 

So why, I ask why, with the additions of electronics, catalytic converters, particulate filters and Selective Catalyst Reduction catalysts are not subject to similar testing and inspection?

[Jim Warman]

I think the pols wont go after individuals directly because it could amount to "political suicide". Sure, lots of citizens support clean air and other environmental initiatives... at least in word. Ask these same people to sign a cheque, and you might see hordes of people claiming that they didn't want clean air "that bad". And that's a gamble that I don't think any politician is willing to take - even some of the batshit crazy ones you guys have.

 

Recently (remember that the Republic of Alberta has no real auto emissions legislation) a largish fleet had one of our techs bop the guts out of a 6.0 cat that was plugged. My, what a fine corporate citizen this company is. I made my feelings known to the powers that be with the result being the one I expected. "If we don't do it, the guy down the street will".

 

And, quite sadly, the guy down the street would....

[Keith Browning]

Here is some more evidence of human stupidity ---> http://www.thedieselstop.com/forums/f45/doc-delete-312546/#post2262056 and where the problem lies. With the vehicle owners.

 

I am the first to reply. Let us just see where my comments take this one and you know it's going to irritate more than one person.

[Aaron]

I'm worried about what light this might bring to the automotive aftermarket.

 

My hot rod sees use on public roads in the course of a year that is probably only measurable in HOURS, and it has quite a few components on it that fall into the same category as the DPF delete stuff.

 

The automotive aftermarket is rife with warnings on boxes and packaging that clearly states "NOT FOR USE ON POLLUTION CONTROLLED MOTOR VEHICLES". The way the diesel stuff looks is they're outlawing the manufacture/sale of it regardless of the usage.

 

I'd hate to not be able to buy a carb kit for my Holley, or an upgraded intake manifold to allow my engine to breathe better, because it doesn't have provisions for an EGR valve. Keep in mind this is a competition engine, used for street driving for the Woodward Dream Cruise in Michigan every year. I street drive the car at Woodward so because it is a conglomeration of horsepower from across both countries and the sounds, smells, and feeling of camaraderie is astounding. Also, I keep the car plated and insured because I can run it in our local "street ET" class at the dragstrip, and not a lot of folks can say they have a "street car" that runs high 10's low 11's.

 

I agree. I am using the engine in an on-road situation with products that clearly state for off road use only. I am guilty of that. However, there are guys that DO use these products solely for off road use (keep in mind I'm still talking about gas burners - nobody buys a 8000lb 60k 1 ton pickup truck to race.) - what happens when THOSE products are outlawed and crushed? It's going to hurt the racing associations big time.

 

This may not mean a lot to some of you, but to some folks, myself included, I don't have a whole lot of hobbies or interests aside from drag racing, hot rods, etc. So to some folks this would be the equivalent to saying "hockey pucks aren't environmentally friendly, they're being outlawed". I don't agree with the guys that drive around and blow black soot all over everything and kill the environment, but I truly hope that it doesn't affect the automotive performance parts industry as I've stated in my post.

[Keith Browning]

Good point Aaron. As you mentioned most of these parts for hot-rods are going into cars that are not daily drivers. When it comes to trucks I see the need to make a similar distinction provided it is for "racing" so to speak. It is the vehicles that are used every day that are being modified that is the issue and it seems as though the number of vehicles is not insignificant. You are not the first person I have heard with your concerns. If the laws and more importantly the enforcement of such laws becomes stronger then perhaps there should be some kind of an exemption in place with specific qualifications. Such vehicles registered for street use could be identified with a special inspection sticker on the window for example... It can be done.

[Jim Warman]

I think the user "hiram walker" is going to get punted....

[Aaron]

^^ LOL What makes you say that KODAMANN er..Jim?

 

I just hope they don't start eyeballing the hot rods/street machines.

 

My car is exempt from tailpipe testing to renew the license plate validation sticker, however it is still subject to on-road enforcement, and can be subject to being forced to test - based on a driveclean cop's say-so.

 

That being said, I am quite confident my car would pass the emissions testing standards for a 1980 vehicle. Test performed on my car would be a two speed idle, which measures HC and CO at idle and at 2500RPM.

[Jim Warman]

I work on several toy cars... I do it for free - I think most of you have seen pics of the man cave.

 

In the last three years, the 69 Charger has been driven less than 10 hours. I don't feel bad about what we have done to the planet because each and every one of us has spent the rest of our time minimizing our footprint. The 68 Chevelle has seen less than 15 hours on the road in the last two years.

 

Shelby #1 had 675 kilometers on it when it stopped being a car (soon to become part of an AC Cobra kit car) and Shelby #2 was trailered from Edmonton to Slave Lake in November - and driven once to the car wash and back.

 

The Viper and the 'Vette are both bone stock.

 

My 2003 Sporster has less than 6000 kms on it - I still haven't gotten around to paying the harley tax and still hope to put big jugs on it some day.

 

My lawn mower, weed whacker and chain saw (two of them are two stroke) see more use than any of the toy cars. I've only used my backyard fire pit once since we were evacuated.

 

Rest assured, that if it were left to people like the owners of "my" fleet and Aaron, we wouldn't amount to even a blip on the radar.

 

It is the daily driver abusers that will draw the wrath of the politicos and will, mark my words, result in draconian measures that will kill it for the hobbyists.

 

Pretty soon, you might see emissions controls on model planes.

 

[Aaron]

I work on several toy cars... I do it for free - I think most of you have seen pics of the man cave.

 

In the last three years, the 69 Charger has been driven less than 10 hours. I don't feel bad about what we have done to the planet because each and every one of us has spent the rest of our time minimizing our footprint. The 68 Chevelle has seen less than 15 hours on the road in the last two years.

 

Shelby #1 had 675 kilometers on it when it stopped being a car (soon to become part of an AC Cobra kit car) and Shelby #2 was trailered from Edmonton to Slave Lake in November - and driven once to the car wash and back.

 

The Viper and the 'Vette are both bone stock.

 

My 2003 Sporster has less than 6000 kms on it - I still haven't gotten around to paying the harley tax and still hope to put big jugs on it some day.

 

My lawn mower, weed whacker and chain saw (two of them are two stroke) see more use than any of the toy cars. I've only used my backyard fire pit once since we were evacuated.

 

Rest assured, that if it were left to people like the owners of "my" fleet and Aaron, we wouldn't amount to even a blip on the radar.

 

It is the daily driver abusers that will draw the wrath of the politicos and will, mark my words, result in draconian measures that will kill it for the hobbyists.

 

Pretty soon, you might see emissions controls on model planes.

 

 

Pics do it no justice.

[Keith Browning]

I think the user "hiram walker" is going to get punted....

Punted for what Mr. Walker? That was pretty tame. Grampy Jim would have stoked the flames much hotter. Now that dudde had a pair. Did you see that you were thanked for the "sermon?"

 

There. I just threw some fuel on the fire.

[Aaron]

His replies are WAY more grown up than most seen on the aftermarket Powerstroke boards.

 

I'm surprised you haven't been called any names yet, or better yet, told to fuck off.

 

Happens to me on a pretty regular basis. I've been put on permanent vacation on more of those boards than I am still a member of. LOL.

[Jim Warman]

Betcha didn't get punted from inford

[DieselD]

I keep warning customers this was coming down the pipeline sooner or later. Too many tards out there smoking like a freight train thinking it was cool for EPA not to notice.

 

I do believe this really needs to fall on the end user of the "offroad only products" and not the company building the product. If the product is properly marked not emissions compliant and offroad racing use only then why should they be stopped from selling such a device? I can see alot of uses for DPF delete such as vehicles used by the military, emergency vehicles, airports, farming use, etc. Not too mention racing applications. Instead of forcing the company from designing the product go after the idiots using it incorrectly on the road.

[Aaron]

I keep warning customers this was coming down the pipeline sooner or later. Too many tards out there smoking like a freight train thinking it was cool for EPA not to notice.

 

I do believe this really needs to fall on the end user of the "offroad only products" and not the company building the product. If the product is properly marked not emissions compliant and offroad racing use only then why should they be stopped from selling such a device? I can see alot of uses for DPF delete such as vehicles used by the military, emergency vehicles, airports, farming use, etc. Not too mention racing applications. Instead of forcing the company from designing the product go after the idiots using it incorrectly on the road.

Agreed.

 

I equate this to the sale of a gun.

 

If I sell you a gun, all on the up and up, legally - and you hold up a store or shoot some people with it, is that MY fault?

 

I'm sure there's SOME assumption by the manufacturer that this is going to be used on public roads, but at the same time, if a waiver is signed stating that it won't be, I believe the onus falls upon the person signing the waiver, not the manufacturer.

[Keith Browning]

I don't think the fact that these parts are "intended" for off road use is acceptable nor a valid exemption for removing or disabling emissions devices. The fact is that these vehicles, when they are designed and put into production they are certified for things like emissions compliance, safety and so on. Military vehicles, certain emergency vehicles and vehicles produced for export out of North America are certified for those specific uses. To the best of my knowledge, Ford or any other automotive manufacturer does not offer a "farm use" or "racing" vehicle that you can buy. Just because a car is driven rarely or to and from the race track for example is also not a good excuse in the eyes of the EPA. If it can and does go on the road it is subject to the laws. I think we are trying too hard to make up reasons to get around the law. We human beings need to accept the fact that none of us is more important than anyone else in this situation.

[Aaron]

I don't disagree with you Keith, but as I said - the usage falls on the end user, not the manufacturer, in my opinion.

 

Ford DOES offer a 'racing vehicle' (

http://www.fordracingparts.com/cobrajet/ -- sexxxyy... And no, it does not come with an on-road title.) however, but at the current price point it's largely unattainable, so turning a factory vehicle into a racing vehicle is sometimes the racer's only option. (I'm talking dedicated race car, trailered to and from the track, etc.). Which, in the spirit of the "not for sale on pollution controlled motor vehicles" statement comes into play. Are people using these products on road? Of course they are. But they are DESIGNED for off road use...as I said before with the handgun analogy - it's usage is determined by the end user, not the manufacturer.

 

Should there be more stringent controls to purchase a product for "off road" usage? Yes, definitely. I don't necessarily feel that the company producing the products should be SOLELY responsible for the product's use. Partially, yes - for having a less than adequate plan to insure the product is used in the manner for which it was intended or marketed, but not solely.

 

That being said, Edge is a subsidiary of MSD products, so a $500,000 fine isn't really going to make a whole lot of an impact.

[DieselD]

Valid points Keith however I disagree with being subject to vehicle "certified use" Just as Aaron pointed out ford does offer the race ready cobra jet. I have even seen the shebly gt500s have a special title and vin that made it except from registration for road use. It was a track only. If we stand by the certified vehicle use then what about NHRA? NASCAR? BITD?,SCORE etc etc etc. We would never have any type of motorsport worth a damn if they all had to follow the EPA rules or only using a certified manufactured race car.

 

Mining also comes to mind. I remember a particular 6.4 from a mining outfit in NM that had a broom handled rammed up the DPF. Long story short after talking with several people at the mine I found out they purposely hog out the DPF because they plug up in a day and can never perform a regen cycle. What they didnt realize is the amount of fuel that accumulated from the vehicle attempting to perform regens which ended up killing the engines. In this case it would have been logical for them to do a DPF delete with a calibration to stop the regen cycles thus allowing them to use the vehicle as they wish in the mine.

 

Point is I believe their are exceptions to every rule not necessary a "work around" just because the average joe blow thinks he is better then anyone else

[mchan68]

Aaron, do you still have pics of those airplane puller 6.4L trucks?

[Alex Bruene]

I do believe this really needs to fall on the end user of the "offroad only products" and not the company building the product.

Yes... And no...

 

It should fall on both. The companies that build and sell the product have for far too long been hiding behind the "offroad use only" clause. They know the products are being used on road, and they are doing little (if anything) to ensure the product is being used "offroad".

 

The onus should fall on the supplier AND end user. JHMO.