emmissions on older cars

saefifty · PORT PERRY, ONT

RE: emmissions on older cars

51 Styline · NIAGARA FALLS, ONT

saefifty wrote:
I have a copy of the original mission statement somewhere and it states it should be of no impact on the antique car or aftermarket industry ?????????

The aim of the original statement is one thing but when you put a uniform on the people hired to implement it then it takes on a whole different meaning.

Power corrupts absolute power absolutely corrupts.

saefifty · PORT PERRY, ONT

The other thing is they are commercially liable if you incur loss and they are in the wrong...

saefifty · PORT PERRY, ONT

Styline you are absolutely right..This threatens everything we do and it has to stop..But now I have to and build another illegal motor..IF THEY OUTLAW HOTRODS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL DRIVE HOTRODS

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

saefifty wrote:
DB .I dont agree at all...And I may try it..although i find now they leave me alone for some reason.Burden legally is on them..And like I said they arent qualified to make these assumptions...I can put the full rotating assembly of a 283 in a 1988 350 four bolt block...So is it a 283 or a 350.? If court deems it a 283 they are left powerless. On a different level...I dont surrender my license to them anymore in the beginning till they give me a detailed reason for the stop..and cause...I really dont want to get into that on here..I'm thinking its to public and chances are the MOE could be lurking on here because of the situation with this petition you guys have...

My understanding is the MOE use the block casting numbers to determine what the engine is. They don't care what the cubic inch is, they care when the block was cast, so your 1988 350 block filled with 283 internals would still be viewed as a 1988 engine and would (in their eyes) require whatever emission controls that 1988 engine had when sold new. Top a 1969 350 block with center bolt Vortecs and a 1996 pickup truck fuel injection unit does change the appearance but doesn't change the fact that the casting numbers show it to be a 1969 350 block.

I see it like this, if I'm pulled over for anything (by a cop), I am first asked to show proof that I am a licenced driver and that I am insured. If I am unable to produce my licence and proof of insurance, I will be ticketed. Not because he proved that I wasn't legal, I would be ticketed because I can't prove I am legal. It is now on me to show up to court and prove I was legal at the time the ticket was issued (or just pay the fine). If I go to court and show the judge a blank licence (meaning all the important information has been removed or "ground off", like your (hypothetical) engine block, I don't think the judge is just going to take my word for what I say was on the licence before I removed it.

It is not (as far as I know) illegal to remove any or all casting numbers from an engine block, but I can't see how you will be able to prove what year that engine block really is IF a judge requires you to do so, if all the numbers have been removed.

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

saefifty wrote:
Styline you are absolutely right..This threatens everything we do and it has to stop..But now I have to and build another illegal motor..IF THEY OUTLAW HOTRODS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL DRIVE HOTRODS

Sorry but I don't see this stopping any time soon.

It is illegal to remove emission controls from a car or an engine. The gov't doesn't care whether it's Gramma Gertrudes 1985 Impala 4-door powered by a Qjetted 350, that is only driven to church on Sunday (and twice on Thanksgiving weekend), or the guy who removed the Qjetted 350 from Gramma Gertrudes Impala (when she passed) and stuffed it in his 1971 Monte Carlo that is only driven on Saturday nights to the local burger hangout, if it came with emission controls (either the car or the engine), they are still legally required to be there.

It would be great if they only used the year of the car to determine emission requirements, but unfortunately that isn't how it is.

I think the price just went up on the 1969 and 1971 engine blocks I have stashed away biggrin

hemi43 · ONTARIO

DB Cooper wrote:

I think the price just went up on the 1969 and 1971 engine blocks I have stashed away

It's not that difficult to be compliant with newer engines. Emission controls (other than being ugly) don't really affect engine performance.

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

DB Cooper wrote:

I think the price just went up on the 1969 and 1971 engine blocks I have stashed away

hemi43 wrote:

It's not that difficult to be compliant with newer engines. Emission controls (other than being ugly) don't really affect engine performance.

Your lasht posht is NOT helping me get the besht price for my pre-emishion blocksh biggrin biggrin wink biggrin biggrin

-- Edited by DB Cooper on Thursday 17th of April 2014 12:09:31 PM

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Sorry Man, I didn't know you were trying to sell one.

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

hemi43 wrote:
Sorry Man, I didn't know you were trying to sell one.

I'm not really, was just goofing around smile

saefifty · PORT PERRY, ONT

Well the days of driving around with oil puffing out the back are gone.And they should be.And peeling off emission stuff is a bad idea anyway...But what I seem to have a problem with is the older cars where a newer motor or even just the block is used and what they expect you to do...I use quite a few Mercruiser blocks in rods because they have a mount for a mechanical fuel pump..That motor in a boat has no emission stuff and should dodge the problem as well.Maybe all my engines will become mercruiser blocks?My point about the 283 thing is once you start mixing and matching a jumble of blocks cranks heads etc. The number on the block is sort of immaterial ..The casting number on the block doesnt decide what the motor is..If they were to freak over a 1969 350 internals and top end you built around a 1990s one piece rear seal block...and you brought it somewhere to have blocks switched to avoid the problem or satisfy the ministry...Thats all it is !.... switching blocks.! The emissions is the same...Its Stupid..and poinless if its suposed to be about clean air ..Because it accomplishes nothing at all.Its the same motor its just a number on the block!

hemi43 · ONTARIO

The problem is that you think logically. The pen pushers in the Government that come up with these stupid laws don't !!

johnod · SOUTHERN ONTARIO

saefifty wrote:
Well the days of driving around with oil puffing out the back are gone.And they should be.And peeling off emission stuff is a bad idea anyway...But what I seem to have a problem with is the older cars where a newer motor or even just the block is used and what they expect you to do...I use quite a few Mercruiser blocks in rods because they have a mount for a mechanical fuel pump..That motor in a boat has no emission stuff and should dodge the problem as well.Maybe all my engines will become mercruiser blocks?My point about the 283 thing is once you start mixing and matching a jumble of blocks cranks heads etc. The number on the block is sort of immaterial ..The casting number on the block doesnt decide what the motor is..If they were to freak over a 1969 350 internals and top end you built around a 1990s one piece rear seal block...and you brought it somewhere to have blocks switched to avoid the problem or satisfy the ministry...Thats all it is !.... switching blocks.! The emissions is the same...Its Stupid..and poinless if its suposed to be about clean air ..Because it accomplishes nothing at all.Its the same motor its just a number on the block!

"if it's supposed to be about clean air"

That first word, there's the problem.

123pugsy · MARKHAM, ONT

saefifty wrote:
Well the days of driving around with oil puffing out the back are gone.And they should be.And peeling off emission stuff is a bad idea anyway...But what I seem to have a problem with is the older cars where a newer motor or even just the block is used and what they expect you to do...I use quite a few Mercruiser blocks in rods because they have a mount for a mechanical fuel pump..That motor in a boat has no emission stuff and should dodge the problem as well.Maybe all my engines will become mercruiser blocks?My point about the 283 thing is once you start mixing and matching a jumble of blocks cranks heads etc. The number on the block is sort of immaterial ..The casting number on the block doesnt decide what the motor is..If they were to freak over a 1969 350 internals and top end you built around a 1990s one piece rear seal block...and you brought it somewhere to have blocks switched to avoid the problem or satisfy the ministry...Thats all it is !.... switching blocks.! The emissions is the same...Its Stupid..and poinless if its suposed to be about clean air ..Because it accomplishes nothing at all.Its the same motor its just a number on the block!

When I got stopped, they couldn't care less about the block. They saw a small block Chevy and knew it was correct for the truck.

They concentrated on the smog stuff as they should have and weren't too concerned about the block.

Maybe they're not as bad as we think.

Did I say that??

-- Edited by 123pugsy on Thursday 17th of April 2014 06:30:56 PM

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

saefifty wrote:

My point about the 283 thing is once you start mixing and matching a jumble of blocks cranks heads etc. The number on the block is sort of immaterial ..The casting number on the block doesnt decide what the motor is.

In the eyes of the MOE, the block casting number is not immaterial as it's what they use to determine an engines age IF they feel the need to determine an engines age. What I mean by that is, if the MOE pulls over a 1982 Camaro for an inspection and instantly notice that it has no EGR or Cats, they don't need to bother running the casting numbers as they already know the car requires this stuff by the year of the car itself (regardless of the year of the block) so they can go straight to writing a ticket. The block is not only the largest component of an engine, it is also the easiest to date on the side of the road or in a shop because of the casting numbers. The MOE aren't going to try to determine the year each component of the engine was made and average it all out.

The key here is this, it is illegal to remove or disable emission control components or to drive a vehicle with missing emission control components (regardless of who removed them). If the car came with them, it is still required to have them. If the engine came with them, it is still required to have them. That right there is the key. So, does a 2003 Mercruiser engine or a 2011 crate engine need emission controls if installed in a 1955 Chevy? The answer is "No", because no laws were broken (removing emission components) since none of the above (55 Chevy, 2003 Mercruiser, 2011 crate engine) were sold to the public with emission controls on them, therefore nothing was removed from them, meaning no laws were broken. This may not be the same view taken by the MOE inspector at the side of the road, but this is totally arguable and winnable in a court of law.

hemi43 · ONTARIO

DB Cooper wrote:

So, does a 2003 Mercruiser engine or a 2011 crate engine need emission controls if installed in a 1955 Chevy? The answer is "No", because no laws were broken (removing emission components) since none of the above (55 Chevy, 2003 Mercruiser, 2011 crate engine) were sold to the public with emission controls on them, therefore nothing was removed from them, meaning no laws were broken. This may not be the same view taken by the MOE inspector at the side of the road, but this is totally arguable and winnable in a court of law.

If you recall, I have asked this question directly to a couple of MOE officers, and those 2 engine examples you gave us are viewed as "off-road" only engines in their eyes.

DB Cooper · ONTARIO

DB Cooper wrote:

So, does a 2003 Mercruiser engine or a 2011 crate engine need emission controls if installed in a 1955 Chevy? The answer is "No", because no laws were broken (removing emission components) since none of the above (55 Chevy, 2003 Mercruiser, 2011 crate engine) were sold to the public with emission controls on them, therefore nothing was removed from them, meaning no laws were broken. This may not be the same view taken by the MOE inspector at the side of the road, but this is totally arguable and winnable in a court of law.

hemi43 wrote:
If you recall, I have asked this question directly to a couple of MOE officers, and those 2 engine examples you gave us are viewed as "off-road" only engines in their eyes.

Here is the copy/paste directly from the MOE site regarding installation of a crate motor ...

Start of quote:

"Q: The owner of a 2005 Chevrolet vehicle installed a 2011 crate motor. (The 2011 crate motor was not designed or equipped with any emission components). What are the emission requirements?

A: This vehicle must:
•meet the visible emission standards
•meet the emission standards set for the original motor (2005).
•have all emissions control equipment normally included with the replacement motor (2011), or its equivalent, attached and functioning. Since the crate motor did not come with any emission components, none are required.
•meet or exceed the 2005 standards for that original motor if a provincial officer asks for a Drive Clean test. Although emissions control equipment is not required, without it, the car would likely fail the Drive Clean test."

End of quote:

The key is right here:

"•have all emissions control equipment normally included with the replacement motor (2011), or its equivalent, attached and functioning. SINCE THE CRATE MOTOR DID NOT COME WITH ANY EMISSION COMPONENTS, NONE ARE REQUIRED."

As far as Mercruiser engines go, they drink the same fuel (unlike some farm vehicles, airplanes or racecars) and pollute the same air whether they are in a car or a boat. Although the MOE may argue that they are off-road only, I would take this to court and fight it to the bloody end, using the "no emission controls have been removed so no laws have been broken" argument. I would fully expect to win that argument smile

Put a Mercruiser in a 1983 Camaro, it needs the emission components from a 1983 Camaro (otherwise you have broken the law by removing the controls from the Camaro). Put the Mercruiser in a '55 Chevy, since nothing has been removed, no laws were broken. I fully expect the MOE boys would love to argue this one but, like I said, I'd fully expect a judge to rule in my favour.

-- Edited by DB Cooper on Friday 18th of April 2014 10:34:07 AM

-- Edited by DB Cooper on Friday 18th of April 2014 10:37:28 AM