Neighbour got chased this week just outside of Port Perry. Moe was going opposite way when he passed him on 7A. Moe pulled a U turn & caught up to him in Manchester. Grant was in his 85 Vette. They told him to "pop" the hood, checked everything they could & let him go as "everything" was there!!!!!

I've had 2 experiences with the MOE down here. Both memorable.........but not fun  My impression?.......power tripping ssholes. Same with the MTO, Why?, because one of the vehicles at the time was a 2004 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad cab 4X4, completely stock, in perfect condition(still is @ 80,000 klm) I was hauling gravel for my own driveway in a legal dump trailer, made certain each load was under the trailers legal weight, all lights, tarps & chains connected. The fat female  that pulled me over wouldn't quit until she found something - an emergency brake that wasn't holding tight as she'd like. I fixed it, called her 3 times to make an appointment for her to see it, she never called me back.  F'em.

It's all about revenues in my opinion

-- Edited by Iwannagofast on Wednesday 6th of June 2012 08:20:04 AM

Pugsy...What were you driving?.. Year, make, model.

Breaking News.
One of the enthusiasts, Bob Purdy, has been speaking with his MPP John O'Toole, Durham about this situation. John has agreed to take a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario exempting cars over 20 years old from Drive clean testing and MOE enforcement.

You can expect to see copies of these at all cruise nights ASAP. It is important to get original signatures on the forms and when each is filled it is mailed to John O'Toole.

In the west end there will be copies available to sign at Hortons Hot Rod Parts in Milton, all Performance Improvements stores, Paul Spiers Automotive, Next Level Automotive,In the east end Dream Machines, with more to follow. Also Nate Salter will have copies at the Thornhill Cruisers Cruise, George Farrugia's Street Classics shows, Mississauga Classic Car Clubs cruise nights and their Classics in the Country event. If you know anyone who should be supporting this petition be sure to tell them about it, I am trying to get a downladable copy up on our website ASAP. Meanwhile if you contact me I can forward a copy that you can print.

John O'Toole was the MPP who stickhandled the year on manufacturer plate through the legislature.

Tip of the hat to both Bob Purdy and John O'Toole They need 10,000 original signatures to have any imoact. Now it is up to us!

My first post here !!
I've been pushing the emission issue we're having here in the Oshawa, Port Perry, Peterborough area on Canadian Rodder.com. It seems to be falling on deaf ears over there cause most posters are in Western Canada, and they really don't give a crap about our problems here in Ontario.

Anyways, here's what I've been doing for the past 1 1/2 years;

When I first heard about "Hot Rods" needing to meet the year of the engine emission controls I tried to get clarification.
The first thing I did was send an E-mail to my MP John O'Toole about this,(fall last year) and his office actually called me back the same day. I told the person that I wanted to know if "crate" engines were legal. She told me that the MOE, and the SVAO (Specialty Vehicle Association of Ontario) were going to have a meeting during the winter to try and clarify the problem. I also got a letter from John O'toole a few weeks later stating that he got a reply from the MOE. In the letter, the reply basically told me what I already knew. It was a word for word copy of Ontario regulation 361/98 section 4.1

I was not happy with this reply, so I actually contacted the supervisor that overlooks the MOE officers (Scarborough office)giving us all the grief. I posed the question to him about the compliance of crate engines, and his answer was so far off of what 361/98 stated, I just shook my head because HE didn't even know what the law was.

Not happy with his answer, I was able to contact 2 of the MOE officers that patrol the Oshawa-Peterborough corridor. I set up a meeting and met with them armed with questions.
Their answer was a bit better that their Bosse's answers, but still left me in the dark.
After our 1 hour meeting, what I got out of it is that any car with a "crate" engine is breaking the law. I had a GM performance book with me and showed them that some of these engines are specifically designed as a direct replacement for non-emission controlled vehicles. They told me that ALL "crate" engines are for off-road use only.

The petition I read above is a great idea, but has a major flaw. Trying to exempt 20+ year old vehicles from emission equipment will never happen. Any vehicle that came with emission controls must and should retain them. It would make more sense to just go by the year of the vehicle, and NOT the engine, as long as the replacement engine is as clean or cleaner than the original.
Making guys put emission controls on vehicles older than 1969 is absurd.


I have since received another letter from John O'Toole, but it basically was the same as the first.
The only way we will resolve this problem is by fighting it. Get your MP involved !! If enough of us bitch about it, something will be done. If you get fined, TAKE IT TO COURT !!
Don't wait until you get stopped by these guys, do something now.

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 6th of June 2012 06:15:09 PM

dualquadpete wrote:

---

 I just sent him an e-mail "suggesting" that this should "go back to the yr. of vehicle"

---

  That's more in the right direction, but does'nt cover all enthusiasts angles. Let's say someone drops a smashed 2010 ZO6 Vette in my driveway and I want to drop the LS7 and 6 speed with all current emissions controls, computer, everything,  in say... a '94 Caprice Wagon. Would I then have to somehow fit an AIR pump and an EGR valve to an engine that never had them, but the car did?

EGR and AIR pumps started going away a long time ago.

 

Not so simple to write legislation to cover all the bases.

 

-- Edited by DaveM on Wednesday 6th of June 2012 07:02:12 PM

-- Edited by DaveM on Wednesday 6th of June 2012 07:23:19 PM

That is great news. Thanks to all who are responsible for setting up and promoting this petition. I will definitely pass the word around about this.

I've talked to MPP John Otoole [P/C] many times, reguarding this & other items. He said he's been flooded with calls from car people who have been stopped. I just sent him an e-mail "suggesting" that this should "go back to the yr. of vehicle" as the 20 yr. thing won't fly!! He trys hard & has responded every time but usually it's just a letter from one of Mc GOOFY'S Minister's patting themselves on the back & "expounding" on what a great job they are doing!! [gag me w/a spoon]

The current emmissions regulations in question are dated 1998 and have not been ammended since.

My question was supposition.

IF the regs are changed to the year of the vehicle only, do you have a solution for my LS7 Wagon project. It would need 1994 EGR and AIR systems added to current emmisions equipement. Current LS engines only have cats, and EVAP.

We need extended discussions to aquire all the info and opinions to form a viable case to present. 

Trying to exempt 20+ year old vehicles from emission equipment will never happen.

 

Dave,

I believe the original response was to exempt 20 year old vehicles from the bi-annual e testing,I don't see an issue with this as anything this old is not a daily driver year round. The other point was to go with the year of the vehicle, not the year of the engine for any inspections. The real point is why are they bothering with such a small percentage, I'm sure the boats on the rivers and lakes over a weekend polute more than all the old cars over a full season It's not an environmental issue but simply a money grap.

Don

123pugsy wrote:

---

Why are modified vehicles just not deemed acceptable if they can pass Drive Clean.

Simple, no?

 

---

  There are no Drive Clean specs for pre- emmission vehicles.

Prior to the introduction of this legislation in 1998, there was a minimum requirement spec for vehicles that had an engine swap of a type that was not available in that vehicle from the factory. The e-test at that time was only required if the vehicle changed ownership. I drove a V8 S-15 for 9 years as my daily driver. S trucks never came from the factory with a V8 so they had no specs for it and it was eligible for the Drive Clean "hot rod" status. The minimum was from some early '80s Ford truck IIRC. I sold the truck in '98 before I had to do the bi-annual roller test, but with the addition of only cats, it passed for the purpose of sale.

 Now at that time "hot rod" status did not mean a vehicle that was swapped from a 305 to a 350, or to a 454 for that matter. A Chevrolet designed V8 was a V8 period.  It needed to be an engine design that was not available in the car from the dealer. Like a twin turbo Nissan GTR engine in say... a '94 Caprice Wagon.

 So can we dig up in the legislation their current deffinition of a "hot rod" and make sure we understand it.

 We could present the idea of a one time voluntary test for modded '73-'88 "smog" vehicles not currently covered by the Drive Clean program. If it passed a minimum spec sniffer test without some of the emmission equipement in place you get an exemption. Or something along that line.

 

 We need clarification writen that the over the counter crate engine as an acceptable replacement for pre-emmission vehicles on the grounds that it was not taken out of an emmissions legal vehicle. And the crate engine should have the equipement of the year of the car in place.

 And somehow clarify that a pre emmissions vehicle can have a rebuilt engine block of the same design and displacement it came with, but not casting number date correct.

 

In the mean time we can't feed the beast. If they keep pulling people over and finding non-compliance, they will keep going.  '70's and '80 vehicles with loud/modded exhaust seems to be the current fodder.  Spread the word.

Quote: "John has agreed to take a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario exempting cars over 20 years old from Drive clean testing and MOE enforcement."


People on this forum bring up a lot of interesting points regarding this issue and I tend (now, after reading their opinions) to agree that chances of the gov't exempting cars over 20 is highly unlikely (or basically an impossibility).


My opinion is this ... the emission requirements should be based on the year of the car NOT the engine PERIOD. That's all there is to it. Obviously it really isn't (or won't be) that simple.

One other possible solution is this ... if an older car is equipped with an emission era engine block, then the gov't could madate that it must be equipped with a PCV, catalytic convertor (one for each exhaust pipe if dual exhaust), and a charcoal can/sealed tank (keep in mind, I am just giving an example here). That's it, doesn't matter what the engine originally came with (think smog pump etc) as long as it has cats,pcv, and charcoal can. This way it won't matter whether the engine was fuel injected and now converted to carb etc. The idea would be to mandate emission control components that are relatively easily added to any gas fueled engine. I think the chances of the gov't accepting this as a solution has a better chance of survival than a blanket exemption of all cars over 20 years from either testing or MOE visual enforcement.

Keep in mind, this is just my opinion at the moment ... tomorrows opinion could be completely different :)

What this post does suggest to me is this ... more thought should maybe be going into this petition before it gets filled out and handed in (hoping I'm not offending here) but the way I see it the "exemption of all cars 20 years from either testing or MOE visual enforcement" doesn't show the gov't that we are even trying to "clean up our act" and help the environment.

The people in gov't need to see we are willing to work with them.  Complete removal of all requirements/inspections won't appease the tree huggers ... compromising with the "all emission era engine blocks shall be equipped with catalytic convertors, a PCV valve and a sealed tank/charcoal cannister" would probably go a LONG way to getting the tree huggers on our side too.

 

This would not eliminate the roadside visual test at all, it would simply give us some very easy guidelines to meet in order to be legal.  You get pulled over and you have cats, PCV, charcoal can you pass ... no need for the MOE to run your numbers to determine whether or not the engine came with a ______ (fill in the blank) as long as you have the three items mandated for installation on older car/new engine.

 

I'm sorry but I am not seeing anything in this petition (not having seen the petition itself) that suggests we are willing to help lower emission levels.  Simply asking for exemption from their rules/the law is not going to pass any level of gov't as far as I see it.  The people (in gov't) that are opposed to this will see absolutely no benefit to the environment and will simple vote no to this petition.  Convince me otherwise.

 

One final edit ... these rules (the suggestion I mentioned above) could either apply to pre-emission cars (like 69's and older) or to cars '86 and older.  1986 and prior being the cars that are not presently required to have emission tests every two years. 

I think we need to compromise here, the gov't gets cleaner air and we get a simple set of rules in order to comply.  win win

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 09:51:52 AM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 09:56:19 AM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 10:06:44 AM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 10:14:41 AM

Quote from Hemi43: "but if I could just add a couple of things".

Absolutely add anything ... this is an open discussion for any and all opinions/thoughts/suggestions.

Here is how I see my suggestion working ...

If you have a vehicle that is 1987 and newer you are required to have your car sniffed once every two years (that doesn't change).

If you have a pre 1987 vehicle that was originally equipped with emission control devices (say from 74-86 or whenever cats came out), you are required to have cats/PCV/charcoal can (this allows the general public to have a simple set of rules in order to comply ... doesn't matter what the car did or did not come with or what the donor engine did or did not come with, as long as you have cats/PCV/charcoal can you pass).

If you have ANY pre 74 vehicle and install any engine block with a build date from 1974 to the present (and this includes crate motors) you are required to install cats/PCV/charcoal can.

Got a mint, stock 67 Camaro (using your example) and you don't want to retrofit anything ... find a pre 74 block. Install an engine block from 74 on up (right up to the current date, including crate engines) and you know you will need cats/PCV/charcoal can.

Got an 81 Monte Carlo and just installed a 350 from a 96 P-up truck (that was originally fuel injected but is now carbed) ... you need cats/PCV/charcoal can and you're good to go.

Got a 70 SuperBird with an original Hemi ... you're good. Install ANY engine with a block date that is post 74 (including a new crate Hemi) in your SuperBird and you need cats/PCV/charcoal can.


As far as retrofitting the components, it isn't really a huge deal, I have a '38 Olds coupe and am running a 1985 305, I have installed dual cats, an EGR, and a sealed filler neck/charcoal can to go along with the PCV. I must admit, I just installed this stuff this spring after reading about the laws on this site, I always thought they went by the year of the car. I figured it would be cheaper for me to install this stuff before I get fined, rather than after I get fined. The problem I am having is I really don't know if what I installed is enough to pacify the MOE inspectors ... guess I'll find out if/when I get pulled over.

I am just using the cats/PCV/charcoal can as an example ... maybe just cats and a PCV is good enough.


Please keep in mind, my suggestions are being made before I have read the petition, I see the petition has been posted so I will be reading it now.

 

As for a ZZ4 killing cats without a smog pump ... there are cats out on the market that will apparently survive behind real performance engines (look at GESI in Whitby although I hear they are $$$).  Not sure if they will live without the use of a smog pump though, I am not informed enough in regards to emissions equipment and how they all work together.

 

Wow, I just read the petition and I don't see how it has even a slim chance of passing ... there is nothing in the petition that shows we are even trying to limit our emissions and help the environment.  Sure hope I'm wrong. 

 

Ooops, forgot to address the EGR issue ... newer engines (as I understand it) don't have EGR valves and they burn cleanly.  What I am suggesting is the only thing we would be required to install would be cats/PCV/charcoal can ... no EGR needed.  It would be interesting to see how cleanly a car would be with just cats, PCV ... realizing the charcoal can is really just to prevent fuel tank vapours from entering the atmostphere and not really affecting the tailpipe emissions (if I understand this emission stuff correctly).

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 04:53:25 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 05:20:34 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 05:24:18 PM

I totally believe that emission control equipment should go by the year of the car. That is what makes sense. That's what I would like to see happen, but unfortunately the present laws ain't likely to change.

As for the 74-86 needing cats/PCV/charcoal can ... I was just assuming that charcoal cans were factory installed from 74 on so no retrofitting would be needed (in all honesty I have no idea when charcoal cans were introduced).

I also agree with your take on the SuperBird not needing cats etc if the car itself never came with them and if the crate engine is designed after the original (meaning not one of the "new" Hemi's) BUT unfortunately the gov't doesn't agree with us so, hoping to appease the gov't, I am suggesting some basic components that can be retrofitted in order to allow the gov't to let us run crate engines on the street.

As for the 95 fuelie engine converted to carb and installed in Monte Carlo, at the present time we don't even know what is required emissions wise, being that the engine was originally fuel injected and possibly didn't even have an EGR yet the car did come with one.

Regarding the pre 74 car with post 74 engine ... as it stands now, we are required to install who knows what? EGR,PCV, cats, charcoal can, closed element air cleaner, heat riser valve, hot air stove for closed element filter etc etc etc. My suggestion is to simplify the requirements (cats, PCV, charcoal can) so the general public will know what is required rather than requirements based on case by case as they seem to be now.

I totally agree with you, we really shouldn't HAVE to retrofit convertors (or whatever to our cars if the car itself never came with the stuff) BUT if it allows us to run newer engines/crate engine as opposed to sourcing early blocks for our cars ... and shows the gov't that we are willing to compromise (IF we are), then I am all for it.

 

 

THIS is the kind of conversation that should have been going on BEFORE the petition was tabled. 

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 7th of June 2012 05:56:35 PM

flatblack55delivery wrote:

 why are you trying to fu-k this up for me and all the other old car owners that don't have mods and don't have to pass the Etest at this time.Maybe you should go for yearly safety checks as well.I personally think this issue has been blowen way out of proportian.Think about what you are doing and remember not everyone agrees with what you are doing for many different reasons.I understand what you are trying to do and why ,but do you understand where it could endup, just askin you to think about it and make shure you are ready befor you do any persentations . Ed

---

 Yeah.. screw it!! lets the feds decide what's best with no further input, that's alot easier!!!

 I don't care... I don't even have an old car. I should spend my time looking for a job or something.

 

I'm out.

-- Edited by DaveM on Thursday 7th of June 2012 09:22:52 PM

As far as all this "save the environment" stuff goes ... I am about to do my part ... I will toss the cap in with my scrap metal and return the bottle of the beer(s) I am about to have. Bottoms up. :)

Rusty Nuts wrote:

---

As far as all this "save the environment" stuff goes ... I am about to do my part ... I will toss the cap in with my scrap metal and return the bottle of the beer(s) I am about to have. Bottoms up. :)

---

 MMMM.. Beer !! Now we're talking !! If you're not too far we should get together for a couple and figure out what we can write to John O'Toole.

Hell, with a last name like O'Toole, he may want to join us !! LOL

I'll be driving the rod up to Barrie in the morning, and hopefully wont run into the emission Nazis on the way up.

I have had a lot of dealings with politicians in the last little while.What you need to remember is there job is to get reelected period.They don't want any part of any controversy period.They are there to serve the public if it serves there purposes.They will gladly pass on your petition to the next free lackey in some office someware whos job it is to shut up the complainers.If I were the politician or burocrate that gets your petition, this is the way I would read it,"We the undersigned are unwilling to comply with current environmental laws,we cannot get our sh-t together enough to help draft new laws because we are unwilling to compromise in any way.Quit bugging us cause we are special". Guys all you are going to do is escolate a problem that may not even be a problem for hotrodders in general.How many hot rods have been stopped ,not rumours but actual stops.When I talked to the supervisor in the Scarborough office his data at th time was ,since 2008 when this started MOE has stopped just over 14,000 vehicles of that total only 90 were 1970 or older,If you belive his numbers and I guess you do because you are trusting a politicianwith your petition,anyway do these numbers show this to be a problem for rodders that works out to less than 25 per year and we don't know the full story on them.Right now I don't have to go through an Etest with my car Its easy to compy a set of cats pcv egr and a can ,to most rodders this is not a big deal,I have a cam ,intake and headders still , and I get to drive my car when I want with realisticly no noticeable loss of street performance, why are you trying to fu-k this up for me and all the other old car owners that don't have mods and don't have to pass the Etest at this time.Maybe you should go for yearly safety checks as well.I personally think this issue has been blowen way out of proportian.Think about what you are doing and remember not everyone agrees with what you are doing for many different reasons.I understand what you are trying to do and why ,but do you understand where it could endup, just askin you to think about it and make shure you are ready befor you do any persentations . Ed

Maybe you could just Nuke it,that would make her haul . Ed

If what I say can make you quit than you haven't got a chance against the MOE.Not sayin don't fight just sayin be ready and be prepared for a lot of misunderstandings if not properly worded and orginized.In my town I and other business owners have been fighting the town and council on many things for years and the one thing I have found is you have to have lots of facts avd examples and they better be proveable and absoutely correct.This is not some bull session at some club meeting you need to have a reasonable goal that lets the gov save face it has to look like there idea and that they won the issue and you will need to make it look like we are all tree huggers cause there are more of them than us and that means votes to the politicos,and that is there only real concern getting three terms and a pension for life. Ed

Alrighty then ... these are my "todays thoughts" (in a rush though, off to Toronto in a couple mins in the old car).

I don't think anyone is actually trying to "F" things up. I do however feel that the chances of the petition being taken seriously are virtually nonexistant. Basically requesting the laws being dropped completely (and ignore the environmental issues) rather than working to come up with a compromise just does not appear to me to be the correct way to handle things.

I also completely agree that this petition could backfire and bite us in the a$$. I can see it now, the petition is tabled and this issue is brought to the attention of the tree huggers who were unaware of the emission laws as they pertain to vintage cars/old engines in the first place. After the tree huggers read the petition, do their homework as to the laws as they exist today, they could very easily decide "abolish these laws? ... NO WAY ... as they are written today, they aren't even stringent enough". At which point the laws get rewritten and NOT in our favour.

Abolishing the emission laws .. not happening. Working with the gov't to make it easier for us to comply (and allow the use of crate engines) could be a good thing. I say "could" because we would still be bringing this to the attention of the gov't and it isn't always a good thing to be brought to the attention of the law makers (for obvious reasons).

Complaining to the MOE that old cars are being targeted is actually bringing us to their attention ... if we were all legal we wouldn't be complaining ... they now know that and we could very well NOW have a large target on our backs.

My earlier post (well, ONE of my earlier posts) was simply suggesting that we/they simplify what emission controls are needed in order to visually comply IF (and only IF) we really think this needs to be brought to the attention of the gov't (basically requesting that the addition of cats, a PCV, and a charcoal can installation would be enough to make an older car/newer engine legal in their eyes). I am not suggesting my suggestion IS the solution, it is just a suggestion at this point as a means of compromise between the laws as they stand today and our ability to easily comply.

As stated, I believe my old car/newer engine IS legal at this point, I have installed everything I "think" I need, I'm just wishing/hoping the requirements were easier to understand being that as it is now, no one (other than the MOE themselves) really knows what it takes to be legal.

Bringing our "plight" to the attention of the gov't could very easily turn against us as far as the results we were hoping for. Requesting that the present laws not pertain to older cars just couldn't possibly get the results people are hoping for. Leaving well enough alone? ... well at least we know what the laws are now, just not sure exactly what it takes to comply. Wanting change and being willing to compromise as far as the laws are written "could" help the situation ... unfortunately, not knowing what the reaction of gov't will be ... it could very easily make things a lot worse too.

No one wants a "gleaming alloy air car" chasing them back to their uncles barn because of emissions issues do they? ;)

I.m going to suggest that we don"t post secondary positions on this thread.I'm sure the M.O.E. is monitoring this site. Speedwriter [bob mcjannett] ownes Performance Improvments and has a lot of credibility. Sign the petition and if you can document a actual incident post the details and\or contact 'Speedwriter' The actions of the M.O.E. is a tax grab and is harassment when they pull you over without 'cause'. I will never put 'cats',egr,or other crap on my 40 ford. I will take out my Mexican Goodwrench long block and install my 62 327 thats on the engine stand [stink tube not even a PCV valve] Don't let them intimidate you- i carry a tape recorder and will go to court.

The MOE is probably monitoring the site for sure. Why don't they come on and tell me why, even though my truck was running nice and clean, they promised to get me next time they seen me driving on the street.

Are they in the clean air business or not?

This is what busts my chops about this whole situation.

They DON'T CARE if your exhaust is clean or not. If I had malfunctioning equipment on when I got pulled over, that would have been OK with them.

It appears to me that they are in the ticket writing business before they are in the business of what they are supposed to be in. Did that make sense?

Iwannagofast wrote:

---

And there we have it. Big Brother is everywhere. What is a "secondary position"? I had a thought yesterday while listening to the radio. A commercial came on for one of the "lubricant" companies and their grabline was something about helping us keep our okd car on the road. Interesting that so many Manufacturers need our business to keep their Companies afloat but where are they when this sh*t comes down the pipe. Here's how it's handled in the States:

http://www.sema.org/black-book

---

 The problem is that we're Canadian, and I'm becoming less and less patriotic as days go by..