ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

The below adds abit of a kink but still not one that couldn't be overcome.

Emission Control Equipment for Kit Cars, Rebuilt Cars and Hot Rods

4. (1) A kit car or a rebuilt car that receives its first permit under the Highway Traffic Act on or after January 1, 1999, shall include, as part of a system to prevent or lessen the emission of contaminants, all of the original pollution control systems and components, or equivalent replacements, included or usually included with the motor of the rebuilt car or kit car by the manufacturer of the motor. O. Reg. 361/98, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 86/99, s. 3.

(2) A hot rod that receives a motor replacement on or after January 1, 1999, shall receive a motor designed to meet emission standards at least as stringent as those achieved by the original motor with all its original emission control equipment attached and functioning, and the replacement motor shall have the original catalytic converter and all the original emission control equipment, or equivalent replacements, included or usually included with the replacement motor by the manufacturer of the motor. O. Reg. 361/98, s. 4 (2); O. Reg. 86/99, s. 3.

theory

iTrader: (5)

If this does go through I don't know what I'll have to do. My car has ALL emissions removed before I bought it. I guess I was a bit naive and thought I could just get away with it. Looks like I might have to pay the 600$ in parts/repairs to get by for a year. Bah... I'm stressin'.

If we got an e-test now (this year) would that last for 2 years or would it change to one if the new regulations go through?

MyRxBad

Cash grab or no cash grab it doesn't matter.

You are all missing the fact that only cars in "certain area" of Ontario are tested. Diesel cars only go through a visual inspection in most places still. Huge Deisel trucks one of the major polluters don't have emission testing. So you should ask yourself, who the hell is the emission testing geared towards?
Seems to me that they are nabbing the middle class people who can afford to pay for the test, but not afford to fight the emissions testing in court.
I mean this is run by the province yet, the whole province doesn't have testing?
There are so many flaws in this program that it makes it useless in it's attempt to do what it was actually intended to do in the first place.

Morally it makes sense to e-test, but in reality "our" e-testing program is pure BS!

doridori-rx7

iTrader: (3)

I think it needs to be done like the Japanese do it, IF we ( Ontario ) are going to do it at all, have designated 'test' locations, run by MTO or ceritifed techs, test not only emissions but overall car road worthiness. Right now it's a way for the gov't to pacify the automakers when they come screaming that no one is buying cars.. ( if the new cars weren't crap, then maybe more people would be interested.. yah think! ). What bugs me is that your no longer allowed to do tuning runs on the Etest equipment during your 'test' so you CAN tune for it. That really shows me that it's not and never has been about passing, it's a 'old car deterrent'.

So, how do you fight a gov't who's backed by the largest single employer in Ontario ( auto manufacuters and thier teir suppliers ) on this issue?

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

Random thought: I think that individuals should be able to buy emission credits like the manufacturers can. Either through cold hard cash outlay, or by driving a cleaner car a certain percentage of time.

Crymson

You know, that is a beautiful point.

It's frustrating that you can put in a high efficiency furnace, low gallon/flush toilets, R rating through the roof insulation in your house -- but then get dinged for car emissions. Or worse, use public transit every day for work, but then have a car that may be an over polluter but isn't a commuter and you get no 'thanks' all. I do beleive you can get some kind of rebate for going with the expensive furnace though.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

random thought my ***!!!! you just want it that way cuz you'd be the ruler of all of us, illegally selling credits to those of us without hybrid cars - lol

eViLRotor

iTrader: (2)

Too much Rammstein has gotten to Aaron's brain!

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

Nah, that would be selfish. I mean, I already received a $1000 cheque from the government thanking me for buying the car, and this summer received refunds for the two emission tests I had to go through. So I think pollution credits would be asking too much.

Seriously, it's a fairly good idea. Auto manufacturers have had smog credits for years. They have to sell a certain number of clean cars, which allows them to produce a certain number of less clean cars. Industry can buy smog credits as well. So why can't I as an individual do the same? The Insight scored zeros accross the board on it's last emission test, so by driving the Insight for 5 days during the week should mean that I can drive the RX-7 on the weekend...

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

To the 7 enthusiasts of the Golden Triangle: Welcome to Alberta! Land where emission laws mean nothing, and you can drive a car laying down a smoke screen that could cover Rommel's retreat from Egypt without being cited. I know this from personal experience - a winter beater I was driving a few years ago threw a rod on the way to work; I was tailgated for several km's on the freeway by a cop through the thick oil haze I was laying down, who eventually pulled me over and gave me a $270 citation – for a bent corner on the licence plate. So the law can still be an ***, but emissions don't seem to matter. (got the ticket reduced to $57 in court, too)
In all seriousness, I applaud the desire of those who wish to make their voices heard by their government. I would, however, suggest careful thought in how you present your case, lest you become your own worst enemies. Whining about how this is going to burn you as enthusiasts who have heavily modded your cars and removed all emissions equipment might just draw attention to this sort of activity – and the varied and sundry ways posted on sites such as this to cheat the e-tests – and that will send some bureaucrat and environmentalists searching for ways to detect the byproducts of alcohol and acetone in the exhaust stream. Might also inspire the enviro-brown shirts to push for more roadside sniffers that you can't fool as readily too...

Complaining from a group of auto enthusiasts with shiny, fancy rides, which many have dropped a lot of coin into, while removing the existing factory emissions equipment, hence making their cars exactly the sort of car e-testing was supposed to identify and “fix”, won’t play well with the public. As Aaron points out, most of the cars short of bridge/peripheral ports and could be made emissions legal – it comes down to choosing to remove cats in favour of RB exhausts and the like. Low restriction, high flow aftermarket cats are available for late model ‘Vettes and and Mustangs – I’m pretty sure they could handle the breathing needs of most 7’s – but would require dropping $700 plus on a non-glamourous piece.

As far as older muscle cars and hot rods go, don’t expect them to make a lot of noise for your cause, they're probably just thanking their lucky stars their cars still get the ongoing 20+ year exemption. Your best tack politically might be to play up the burden that annual testing and higher repair amounts would be on single mom's and young families and university students and the like that are most likely to be driving older cars regularly. Or perhaps you could campaign for an exemption for low mileage/pleasure driven cars - I know I don't put more than 5000kms on my 7 most years, and probably a 1/4 of that is on the track.

Just means that if you see a 86 or 87 heading to the wrecker, better harvest the VIN tags - could be a booming business in recycling older VINs to newer chassis. The FD's are probably SOL however...

The emissions trading idea is kind of cool too, and might have some merit - I drove Fireflys and a 40mpg Jetta GLI for years as my own sort of personal penance for driving the relatively thirsty 7 - not that that means much in a city where literally 1/2 the vehicles on the road are full size trucks and SUVs with one person in them, and mileage that makes my 7 look like a Prius.

theory

iTrader: (5)

This is just my rough draft so far, if you have anything toimprove it let me know:

To whom it may concern,

This letter is a response the new proposal regarding the emissions regulations in Ontario for 2006. Although I do support standards involved with the environment this new proposal simply will not do.

The burden of annual testing and higher repair amounts affect this provinces tax payers such as single moms, young families, low income families, elderly population, high school/college/university students.
I am a college student with ownership of a vehicle that falls in the age bracket between 12-20 years old. Barely being able to provide sufficient funds for tuition, books, rent, insurance premiums, and many other expenses I’m sure your well aware of, this is just another burden to have annual test and higher repairs costs. One of these expenses is the vehicle in which I use for transportation to and from school. Right now I already have to have it e-tested every 2 years, which is already a burden for my low income.
Changing this to every year for vehicles 12 years old and older is just one more expense I cannot afford. I can’t afford to purchase a new vehicle. So to keep this vehicle in good condition is stressful enough, and if it doesn’t pass I have to at least spend 450$ towards emissions related repairs for a conditional pass. Raising that to $600 although more environmentally friendly is just too much.

These emissions regulations do not make sense even in theory. You can purchase all environmentally friendly appliances for your home, energy star appliances, a new improved furnaces and spend a fair amount of money doing that. You could only drive your 15 year old vehicle once a year and if it wasn’t in the greatest shape the Ontario government is going to make you spend more money on that ( e-test fees + repairs + another test every year as long as the vehicle is in service) even though you have contributed a substantial contribution to the environment by replacing appliances and equipment at home. How does this make sense? It just doesn’t.

There is a small percentage of vehicles 20 years old and older. Why eliminate the exemption to these vehicles? They are such a small percentage of the population that they do not cause as much harm as those vehicles newer then them. For those who rely on this form of transportation unable to afford a new vehicle these new regulations will enforce upon them annual testing for vehicles 1988 and newer? This is just unfair.


Through all these points I cannot see how these new regulations actually make any sense. People are contributing to environment friendly appliances, equipment and many more types of media and these new regulations will just cause more stress and cost to the tax payers.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

What should be of a larger concern to the government - IF THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE TRULY IN THE INTREST OF THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT - is the amount of gas that cars actually use over their emissions.

This was taken from a AOL article on hybrid suv's and the actual gas savings involved:

Upping an SUV's performance from 10 mpg to 11 mpg will save 110 gallons of gas every 12,000 miles, points out GM engineer Tim Grewe. That's more than the 100 gallons saved by increasing a sedan's fuel economy from 30 to 40 mpg and driving it the same distance.

Grewe's formula works only because SUVs use so much more gas. The 11-mpg SUV needs 1,090 gallons to go 12,000 miles; the 40-mpg sedan needs only 300 gallons.

I mean seriously look at those numbers there - over three times the amount of fuel was used by the suz to travel the same distance, and somehow they manage to focus on having a car that can get 3 times further than an suv tighten up its emissions by whatever fraction of a percent they decide?

I would be totally for this thing if they said something along the lines of "revenue generated by the new emissions laws is going to go canadian research institues to develop diesel hybrids that can get 80mpg with next to no emissions" but they somehow seem to be ignoring that the two issues are directly related.

Also read this from that same AOL article:

Some cutting-edge hybrid researchers believe consumers shouldn't have to choose between performance and efficiency. At San Diego State University, engineering professor Jim Burns led a student team that built the Enigma - a diesel hybrid convertible that goes from zero to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds while getting 80 mpg.

A close performance equivalent is a Dodge Viper, which gets about 12 mpg city and 20 mpg highway.

****** NUTS EH???? and they think that removing rolling exemptions and increasing the amount you must spend on your p.o.s. straight up gas engine will save the enviroment?? ooops my mistake, I thought I was talking about people with a loose sense of logic I forgot I was talking about government

eViLRotor

iTrader: (2)

Let's see the automakers actually produce some decent low emissions/hybrid/hydrogen whatever cars that a greater percentage of the public wants to buy.

The gov't itself doesn't have too many options.

It can either 1) eliminate the Driveclean altogether, basically admitting that it doesn't work, while pissing off businesses that have invested big money in testing facilties, and also reducing provincial income from the DC program.

2) Keep it the same.

3) 'Refine' the requirements a little, thus making it seem like this is the next step in a well designed program that will even better the environment, and makes even more money.

#3 just makes the most sense

Whanrow

I'm going to adrees the issue somewhere around these lines:

essentially an additional tax (ie. antying the govt mandates that removes moeny I've already paid income tax on is a type of tax)

our cars have intricate emission systems that can cause significant driveability problems

linked to the one above (before somebody flames me) will be the point that I have to send to California for a door handle, so how am I theoretically supposed to obtain a worn our emission component? (e.g. solenoid).

the original driveclean stopped at 20 yrs because it was determined that only 2% of the vehicles were still on the road after 20 yrs

you are forcing me to live beyond my means by potentially forcing me to remove a car from service (potentially) and buying another one (which will obviously cost more) [remember a car will be tested until it is removed from service or converted toa "historic" parade vehicle]

most of our groups cars are driven summer only, and even then in good weather so the impact is even less

The RX is a unique car and and you are forcing young people (as many members fall into that category) to abandon the restoration, preservation and enjoyment of a unique automobile.


These are the first few details that come to mind. I intend on making no mention of modifying vehicles for performance, etc. I'm aiming at our group in particular as oppsed to the law in general.
all this cost to people for a anticipated return of 1.1% pollution reduction.

If you want to do something for the health of Ontarions, improve the medical system. I work with a guy just diagnosed with his second bout of cancer. It took 3 months for a CT scan, and another 3 months for a dr appointed. My father lives in Alberta, and has cancer. He gets a CT scan in 3 days, and could have one within a day. What do they drill into your head about cancer - EARLY DETECTION!!! Well when you can't even get a test to confirm it, in a reasonable time, the cancer advances, and the health costs soar.

Now to offset the negative, you need to offer better solutions, so here we go:
annual vehicle licensing costs are based on Transport Canada fuel economy
New fuel INefficient vehicles should be subjected to a much higher gas guzzler tax to discourage their purchase, and hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles should get a much higher rebate
Police should be tasked with pulling over obvious polluting vehicles. I'm behind at least a couple of cars a day spewing out smoke, and/or noxious fumes that your nose tells you clearly the engine in in dire trouble. This alone should acquire the 1.1% or more.

Emission credit for other fuel efficient items (Like daily driver and other things as mentioned above.

That's the first few things that come to mind.

Wankels-Revenge

Engineers are idiots :P
I say this strictly out of experience as an engineering student with a 14 month stint in the autmotive industry....

Edit: I have no idea wat this has to do with emission testing

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

True engineers might be idiots........maybe but I don't care if its and engineer or a garbage collector - if you design a vehicle that gets 80mpg and could stack up performance wise on the same level as a viper your a ****** genius....

and what does this have to do with emission testing? re read that post.

If the government, since they spent a bunch implementing this DC program in the first place, was truly interested in the enviroment, they would be investing in programs that make vehicles like the one mentioned above instead of wasting time modifying the DC program to recoop their investment.

Thats what that has to do with driveclean.

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

Toyota's Prius seems to be doing very well. While it seems to get poor mileage compared to my hybrid of choice, I see on average 10-40 Prius'es a day depending on how much driving I do. There are even two Prius owners on my street.

If you want mileage, you can't beat the Insight. Of course not everyone is keen on it as it can be easily described as the "FD of hybrids". It goes to the extremes in every direction to obtain it's goal.

The Hybrid Civic...Well, it's a Civic. Anything more to say? Other then the fact that it's just soooooo boring. It's not a bad car, but you can get similar mileage in a normal Civic if you drive it carefully. I was able to pull 50 MPG consistently out the one I had for two weeks, and that was using every trick in the book. Average drivers seem to get around 35 MPG.

The Accord hybrid is cool, but it is designed for performance and not mileage. Gets mileage typical to the 4 cylinder Accord, but with performance above the V6.

For an SUV, the Escape Hybrid seems to do well at around 30 MPG.

I've heard reports of the Toyota Highlander hybrid running down the highway at 60 MPG, which is very impressive considering that the drivetrain is basically pushing a brick down the road.

Interestingly, the 5 speed Insight is actually the "dirtiest" of all those hybrids as it sacrifices emissions (it has a slightly higher NOX output) for high mileage. Still scores zeros on an e-test though. Hybrids are exempt from emissions testing, so just find a wrecked Insight and swap in a 13BT. Instant 11 second car.

Anyway, in context with the discussion I have been trying to draft a letter to the government in my head. But I have a problem in that I can't seem to get any real justification against the changes they are making. The only one I can think of is that there are so few 20+ year old vehicles on the road that the reduction in pollution is not going to be worth the money spent. Flushing out one idea into a one page letter is fairly difficult. I personally find the "financial burden" idea hard to believe since so much money is put into other areas of the car, so a few hundred can't go to a new cat, O2 sensor and a tuneup?

Not quite Viper level, and still a prototype, but fairly close:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

Very true. They could also do things like eliminate the long idle periods I often see in their vehicles. There were 6 (yes, 6) sewer cleaning trucks outside of my house this morning. They were either city owned or contracted by the city. All 6 of them were idling away for at least 30 minutes, leaving the air thick and heavy with diesel stink. My clothes still reek of it. Just imagine how much fuel and pollution would be saved if the government implemented a province wide idle limit of 3-5 minutes.

As a side note, I hope no one mentions RX-7s specifically in their letters. All we need is the regulations to be specifically amended to include more in-depth testing for rotary vehicles.

theory

iTrader: (5)

[QUOTE=Aaron Cake]

I personally find the "financial burden" idea hard to believe since so much money is put into other areas of the car, so a few hundred can't go to a new cat, O2 sensor and a tuneup?

QUOTE]


Well in my personal case I haven't invested much money in any other areas yet. The burden will be having to have to take/pass the test every year as oppose to every other one, and rasing the $450 to $600. Every dollar is counting for me in my situation. I personally want a complete emissions compliant car as I do wish to have an improved environment for the future. However right now I need every dollar I have and by changing the regulations, it's possible I'll have that much less than what I require.

I understand every situation is different, and I put myself in this one, so if it comes down to it I'll have to compensate and compromise. However any bit of leeway I can obtain will be benefitial.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

This really gets to the heart of the matter on emissions - that a lot of the problem is not that we have a pile of vehicles on the road that are grossly polluting, but rather we have boatloads of vehicles on the road that swill fuel like it was water.
I seem to recall reading an article in Road and Track in the very early 90's, already noting that at that point, the average mass of a vehicle on the road had exceeded that of the 50's, 60's, and 70's, after 15 or so years of heading down. Consumer Reports noted in a recent issue that real world fuel mileage of vehicles they test (as opposed to the increasingly meaningless EPA or Transport Canada fuel economy #'s) has declined steadily for 20 years - a product of bigger, heavier vehicles (especially trucks and suv's) with bigger, more powerful engines. Yes, todays engines are producing more horsepower per litre of displacement as well as per litre of fuel than ever before - but they're moving around more mass than ever before too. So a new LEV or SLEV truck or SUV may produce low densities of HC's, NOx, and so on, but it is still a bigger polluter because of the shear volume of fuel it burns in a year.
This is the "Emperor With No Clothes" that the government doesn't want to get tough with - middle class Moms and Dads driving huge, thirsty vehicles that carry around little in the way of people or cargo the vast majority of the time. Far better than cracking the whip harder on small #'s of older vehicles (though they are often heavy polluters), would be a graduated registration program that had steeply increasing costs to register larger, thirstier vehicles. Europe has done this for decades - annual licencing fees based on displacement, such that small engine vehicles are rewarded with dramatically lower fees, while large displacement vehicles pay vastly more - providing a strong incentive for people to not buy larger, less efficient vehicles than they really need. Plus, fuel is taxed much heavier there, again pushing people away from needlessly large vehicles. Eg, 2.5L or under might register for $100, <3.0 $200, <4.0, $400, <5.0 $800, 5.0+, $1600. It could probably be steeper, actually, and perhaps add a cheaper under 2.0 category also. Or even better might be to base the fees on vehicle mass. It wouldn't remove the choice to buy big, thirsty vehicles - but might make people think twice about how much vehicle they need. This would likely make a far bigger impact on pollution than repairing a small number of older vehicles.

TYSON

I'd like to see an exemption for vehicles driven less than 5000 kms per year, and/or safety inspections instead of emission tests. Most vehicles that pollute excessively (other than enthusiast vehicles) also are rolling deathtraps. A safety inspection that included a simple visual inspection of the exhaust would cut into the polluters in a big way while making the roads much safer.

Nd4SpdSe

Sure, the government is going this to better our air quality, but why is it only Ontario? If they want to make a significant difference, why is it only one province that needs to be regulated this strictly? It's a cash grab for the Ontario gov't, if they really want to make a significant different and obide to the Kyoto protocol, these rules need to apply to Canada as a whole, not just a single province, it doesn't make sence.

TYSON

Because the other provinces don't live under a brown cloud of pollution day in and day out?

MyRxBad

True, but what's that got to do with it being fair and just?

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

This is an interesting concept - could perhaps be combined with Cake's idea about emssion credits.....

Say for example we said under 5,000kms/year = no e-test required, kms verifed at time of purchasing your sticker....

Now if you also have in your name a vehicle that requires an etest, the one that travels less kms can say knock percentages off of the actual test.....or decrease the amount of money req'd to spend.....I dunno just throwing out some ideas

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

What it's got to do with is whether it is necessary. It is an initiative of the Ontario government, because with 11 million+ people mostly living in a small triangle of the province, vehicle and industrial pollution are a huge issue. Whereas in Saskatchewan, with not even 1 million people spread over 10x the area, they could burn tires for heat and coal fired cars, and the pollution would be hard to notice. BC has a similar emissions testing program in the Lower Mainland only - with well over half of the province's 4 million people living in a few thousand square km's, that's the only part of the province where man-made pollution is concentrated enough to be an issue. Kyoto compliance is just some bull thrown in to make it easier to sell - sort of like car adds that list Macpherson struts as a feature - its a description, but just because its there doesn't exactly make it a feature.