emmissions on older cars

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

RE: emmissions on older cars

Bob T · BRANTFORD, ONT

Rusty Nuts Your close but not totally correct. I am interested in the enviroment, Thats why the 327 was removed and the Goodwrench longblock with a P CV was installed. Its the M.O.E.,s bull**** tactics that will force me to comply with the law buy reinstalling the 327. Of course to fully comply I will hav to remove the PCV I put on the 327 and reinstal the original "stink tube'

30AV8 · BURLINGTON, ONT

Just new to the site, a fellow member from the HAMB pointed me here. I read with interest all these 7 pages of this thread. I agree that the petition in its current form is going to be rejected, as its all in favour of us, there needs to be a middle point where both parties go away feeling they won something. So its too late to amend this thing?

Like was mentioned earlier, if we add the most efficent emission devices(cats) and a few others that will improve the enviornment, or meeting some e-test guideline, that would be a better proposition. The gov't can still reap in the cash by enforcing this e-test or the minimum requirements of emission devices required. Also, if not compliant then a set number of days until you are would be fair, as opposed to writing out fines right on the spot. This to me is clear instructions, as of right now I have added emissions on my truck, but am unsure if it is all that is required.

I did talk to a MOE person early in the spring and he said for example on a smog pump that is not possible to put on my engine in its current configuration, that if I buy a late model GM smog pump, it can be mounted anywhere, so I mounted it down along the frame rail, out of site, and its functional. For other components he mentioned if it is not possible to install, get a written letter from a mechanic stating so and keep in your vehicle, but that one seems unlikely to get rave reviews from those stopping you.

OldGuy 71Acadian · ONTARIO

OldGuy 71Acadian wrote:
To look at an engine stamp pad and look in a book for the info verifies their lack of knowledge on the subject. Being a "Hot Rodder" has and always will include original engine manufacturers modifications. That stamp tells absolutely nothing about what's inside that particular engine.
Has anyone done a study to see how a newer cars yearly emmission output compares to an older car, garage kept for 6 to 8 months a year and only driven occasionally.
Lastly, How come we can't have access on the web to their secret lists of what each vehicle or engine number needs to have to be legal. This is exactly why people are crying cash grab!!!
If the MOE is truly concerned about emmissions, they should provide as much info as possible, instead of keeping everything a secret and just handing out tickets at will.

I, like most of you, truly do care about our air quality. Those of us with a greater education and back ground in the operation of the combustion engine are just having trouble with the MOE's hap hazard decisions on their version of how to manage this program. The actual Minister has to rely heavily on his people to provide him with the proper information to make an informed decision. It is very obvious that the proper information is not getting through.

As an example, you can contact GM Canada Vintages Services and find out exactly all the options and powertrain that your Canadian vehicle was born with, BUT, only from when they started keeping these records. Our American friends can't even get this info, because the good ole USA didn't keep records. Now if I remember correctly, from the SVAO site, 1975 and earlier use USA listings confuse and 1975-1979 there is no data held by the federal goverment. So, I guess my question is, are they making stuff up as they go along or taking a wild stab at it.

As I posted above, What's with all the secrecy??? The information they provide is ambiguous at best. I've heard that"Crate Engines" are illegal and only for off road use, yet if you read my post on page 2 or 3 here, the MOE's responces to my questions are totally opposite.

I personaly hope that the MOE is monitoring this thread.

workin class · FINCH, ONT

flatblack55delivery wrote:
This is what rodders in other countries are going through . Ed

http://youtu.be/WbGSLFAwbig

-- Edited by poncho62 on Saturday 9th of June 2012 06:13:56 PM

yeap thats how my family sees us all modified car owners are bad people. We should be happy with what the factorys give us.

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

If you get "Old Autos" read the letters section, great letter there to a MPP regarding this subject, & the $$$ that our hobby brings into this Prov.& local "charities] Our cars represent 1/2 of 1% of all cars reg. in the Prov. & yet they "are" targeting" us & is seen as easy revenue [polite way of saying TAX GRAB] Letter, also states the limited use of our cars, & they make no impact on the enviroment. MOE admits to stopping over 60 special interest cars[so letter states] so far in a meeting between SVAO & PAVE!!! Also implys that the road inforcement div. is trying to prove their "worth" to the Minister that they are doing their Job, [ hitting on the 1/2 of 1%] & getting a "high' non compliance, on these few vehicles. Itis a long letter, too long to list everthing here!!!!! But this type of letter is what needs to be done, well thought out & lots of FACTS!!!!

69SS454 · MILTON, ONT

Perhaps we need a car show on the front lawn of Queens Park

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

69SS454 wrote:
Perhaps we need a car show on the front lawn of Queens Park

Goog Idea, everyone else "protests" by surounding Q/park [tow trucks,gravel trucks,taxi's etc] why not just park on the frt. lawn ,set up disc jockey,& sell 50/50 tickets for charity?? [Oh ya,DUH!!, they'd bust us for not havin a lic. to sell the tickets]Gov. wouldn't listen anyway & would "SIC" the MOE guys on us right then & there!!!! None of the other protests got anywhere, Mc GOOFY just doesn't listen & has his own agenda[getting elected again] GOD help us!!!!!!

Iwannagofast · ONTARIO

Bob T wrote:
A "secondary position" is one that compromises the original position of the petition. And a Forum is about opinions and the right to express them, I wasn't trying to undermine the thread.Whether you think the petition will be successful or not let the procedure work. No-where did I state the Petition wouldn't work, but in my experience sometimes "letting the procedure work" is akin to opening Pandora's Box - you just never know what's going to come up and bite you on the *ss. Read"speedwriters" post again. He has some heavy hitters in the "hot rod " industry involved. And no ,I don"t personally know him. I'm all for change - positive change - but finding that starting position that both parties can build on is generally the toughest part.
There seem to be a lot of well informed people on this site, hopefully a select few can represent the rest of us in an articulate and determined manner.

Sniper · WATFORD, ONT

30AV8 wrote:
I agree that the petition in its current form is going to be rejected, as its all in favour of us, there needs to be a middle point where both parties go away feeling they won something. So its too late to amend this thing?

All negotiations seem to start out like this with both sides way out on the fringes. The dance starts with a presentation view and then the counter view etc. Slowly chipping away at each other until the common sense middle is arrived at. Instead of presenting much of anything, the government just did what ever they pleased, (or sat by and allowed it to happen). So if the counter view looks lopsided, it's because it started out that way. The fast track to end all this is the politicians being threatened with a personal job loss by being voted out, that's what they will understand. They are there to govern for us, not govern over us. They are allowing this jackboot approach, they need to squash it. We need to let them know why. Write, call, visit or what ever, but let them know it's not right. It's their underlings that are making them look bad, but it's them that will have to answer for it. That's what needs to be impressed upon the politicians. Maybe then they will pull in the leash. Dose this sound a little hard? Not really when you think about it.

Adslow65 · LINDSAY, ONT

Sniper wrote:
So if the counter view looks lopsided, it's because it started out that way.

I agree with that statement!!

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

Hers a copy of letter written in Old autos I missed a 1/2 paragraph as it wouldn't fit, may have to blow it up a bit???

SPEEDWRITER · TORONTO, ONT

First, I must admit that I don't have a lot of faith that John O'Toole's petition will get thru as written. However he is the MPP who stickhandled the year of manufacturer deal thru, so he has some experience and is on our side. Hats off to him and to John Purdy who got this started.He probably knows far more about its potential success than I do.

I too belive that we should be working to present the best possible scenario and if that is a pcv, and cats so be it. Before the petition is presented it can certainly be modified however I think that will require a fresh signature.

If we all sign this one and he gets enough interest, I think 10,000 signatures will get every MPP's attention. When John is going to take this to the legislature we should be writing our own MPP's to explain the number of voter signatures that are supporting his petition and we will be monitoring their vote.

There are other MPP's on the sidelines who are looking for facts, when they have approached the Minister and the MOE the reply is "there is no real targeted enforcement"
This MPP need current facts, documentary evidence etc if he is to help us in this fight.The onus is on the hobbiest to to prove they are being targeted and maliciously prosecuted.

We also have an email from one of the MOE higher ups stating that they have never written up $4000. in fines to one person.

Bob T is correct about who I am but I don't want it to seem like this is a business fight, if it was we would be stocking up on cats, pcv's, air pumps etc. I belive we need a clear logical map telling us what is expected. Somehow we have to get the powers to be to realise that installing innefficient 70's devices is not the answer. Clean air should be the goal. Check out Eric Latinos GESI cats, they will support up to 800 horsepower and clean the air without losing one of those horses.

There are many good ideas on this subject in these seven pages, but the most important thing is to show our support as a group. Together we become a force, alone we are just another smuck with an old car.

By the way both of my cars have early 60's engines that don't require anything to be legal.

If anyone needs a copy of the current petition Performance Improvements has it on there website in a printable format. Simply click on petition and scroll down.

But and it is a big one, to date no one has come forward with information about their run in with the MOE that was malicious?

Thats all from me for awhile, I am going to LA to Alex Xydias 90th birthday party, beat that for a great deal for a Hot Rod guy!

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

rarechev wrote:
what amount of pollution do planes,trains,ships etc put out compaired to our 1% of old cars. how about they target the big offenders and make them compliant first.

It's "TOO HARD" for the MOE to do a road side "HASSLE" on a plane ,train, or ship!!!! Were "EASY PICKENS" & a sure thing on the ticket!!!! Even though were 1/2 of 1% Watched my neighbour cut his grass with a old "ford' garden tractor yesterday, couldn't see him for "blue" smoke!! Must have have used a qt. of oil on front grass alone, but thats OK??? Never seen one of our "oldies" pumpin out the oil like that on the road??? How much polution will there be from this up-coming Toronto "INDY" Will the MOE be there doing spot checks on the 2012 race cars to see if they have all the 012 emm. componants installed. or how about the "Drifters" that burn off 6 tires[up in smoke] in an afternoon competition??? Bet they won't "touch" these with a 10' pole!!!!

-- Edited by dualquadpete on Tuesday 12th of June 2012 09:16:49 AM

hemi43 · ONTARIO

I heard that there are "certain" people in the Jane and Finch community that shoot, and get shot on a daily basis. Now, I have never been shot, or know of anyone ever being shot by one of "these" people, so maybe It's just unjustified hype. biggrin

Sorry for the sarcasm, but "our" comunity is in fact being targeted and hassled because it's an easy Buck for the Government. Unless you live in the 401 corridor, specifically the Oshawa area, Don't worry about it. smile

-- Edited by hemi43 on Tuesday 12th of June 2012 01:07:12 PM

rarechev · BRIGHTON, ONT

what amount of pollution do planes,trains,ships etc put out compaired to our 1% of old cars. how about they target the big offenders and make them compliant first.

SPEEDWRITER · TORONTO, ONT

OOPS! I credited John Purdy with starting the petition, that should have been Bob Purdy, sorry.

Modfather · VICTORIA HARBOUR, ONT

I have done a lot of lurking on this thread and have asked alot of questions to fellow car owners. I know of no one that has been fined or there ride pulled off the road. I am thinking there is a lot of unjustified hype happening here. Not to say it wont happen but I think we would like to speak to someone that has actually gone to court on this. Stop the story telling unless it can be backed up. Enough already

69SS454 · MILTON, ONT

dualquadpete wrote:
Had a phone call from J Otoole's office today. They want me to elaborate on whats wrong with the petetion, & what it should read?? I'm going to do my best!! Also relayed to hie secretary about my friends son get hood winked into opening his hood at Mc Donalds then getting charged, not the 1st. time she's heard about this either!! Petetion was written in haste, as to get as many signatures quickly, & she said they can re-write without a problem??? As to 'modfathers remarks, you may think your safe up there BUT it's still Ontario & it will "bite you in the A$$" sooner or later!!! It's happening, believe me, & won't be too long before they start up there as well!!!! Some car owners are "afraid" to take their cars out for a show or cruise in, down here in the Durham Region [just east of Toronto] & further east as well, because of the road side "harrassment we are getting" + multiple fines on the MOE 'free for all" down here!!!

If a re-write is done then any signatures that have (assuming) already been obtained will have to be gotten again. 10,000 sigs is going to take time and we can't afford to lose any. Currently IMO other than hearsay there is little documentation supporting the theory that the MOE is targeting so I'm not sure that it should really be a big part of the argument as long as it is without overwhelming documentation and may offend the MOE into a hard line stance doing more harm than good. The petition as it is written is the nearest to perfect end result we could hope for so IMO lets get it supported. It provides a clear set of rules that use common sense and are easy to follow for both hobbyist and enforcement.

-- Edited by 69SS454 on Tuesday 12th of June 2012 09:05:47 PM

oldkoot · BROCKVILLE, ONT

There are many good ideas on this subject in these seven pages, but the most important thing is to show our support as a group. Together we become a force, alone we are just another smuck with an old car.

IMHO it's time to stop the debating and get our butts into gear getting the current petition signed

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

Had a phone call from J Otoole's office today. They want me to elaborate on whats wrong with the petetion, & what it should read?? I'm going to do my best!! Also relayed to hie secretary about my friends son get hood winked into opening his hood at Mc Donalds then getting charged, not the 1st. time she's heard about this either!! Petetion was written in haste, as to get as many signatures quickly, & she said they can re-write without a problem??? As to 'modfathers remarks, you may think your safe up there BUT it's still Ontario & it will "bite you in the A$$" sooner or later!!! It's happening, believe me, & won't be too long before they start up there as well!!!! Some car owners are "afraid" to take their cars out for a show or cruise in, down here in the Durham Region [just east of Toronto] & further east as well, because of the road side "harrassment we are getting" + multiple fines on the MOE 'free for all" down here!!!

2inchestoolow · CLARINGTON, ONTARIO

Oshawa..."The city that motovatED"

Nothing like hitting a car town when it's down.

Gwillyville Kid · BRADFORD, ONT

Remember Brian Mulroney? At the end of his term as PM he flew around the world looking for a job, seeing all his aquaintances that he met while on the public dollar. During his term leaded fuel was banned in Canada, which lead to the NHRA pulling out of Sanair with the only Canadian NHRA major event. The then Minister of the Environment stated that HE was confident that NHRA's decision would not be permanent because the Gov't was doing the right thing. How did that work out? ONE Take-off of Mulroney's jet on his world tour emitted more pollutants than ALL the leading burning race cars in Canada, Drag, Oval, 4x4, ALL the lead burning race cars in Canada.
To win this WE are going to have to be organized and play on their field. COMMON SENSE does not work in dealing with Government or court.
By the way, I have the same regard for Mulroney as I do for Trudeau(s). The Canadian political arena is NOT about what is best for Canada, it's about getting elected, or re-elected. Careful Bob Rae is attempting saddle Canada with the same legacy he left in Ontario. The HIGHEST increases in taxes in history.

We all in this together, let's do it right.

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Here's some interesting reading I got today;

It's a break down of this damn law that threatens ALL of our cars. If you're reading this, for Christ sake call your MP and complain. The only way we're going to win this is by flooding the desks of our MPs with angry calls and letters.

Ask him/her why is the Government attacking our cars when we only account for 1/2 % of vehicles, and are only driven on weekends usually going to some charity event.

Even if they pull you over and you're driving a non-emission controlled vehicle (1969 and older) and have the original engine, it will be at the discretion of the MOE officer whether you're emitting too much pollution, and they will make you go to get your vehicle tested ( even though there are no numbers to go by for the old cars).

This is pure harassment !!

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 10:59:03 AM

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 10:59:34 AM

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Take a look at the second page ( A 2a)

This states that a non-emission car that received a non-emmision replacement engine BEFORE 1999 does NOT need emission control equipment or cats , UNLESS DIRECTED BY AN MOE TO GET IT TESTED AT A DRIVE CLEAN FACILITY !!
This means that now you will need to pass 1980 specs, which means Cats,EGR,EVAP.........
This includes all cars!!

The last line on page 4 states that ALL "crate" engines are NOT Roadworthy !!
Are you getting nervous now ??Are you getting mad??

Make the God damn call NOW !!!!!!!!!!

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 11:12:21 AM

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 11:14:18 AM

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 11:30:05 AM

hemi43 · ONTARIO

oldkoot wrote:
Make the God damn call NOW !!!!!!!!!!
The current petition is already out there and being signed, in our small part of the province we've already turned in a hundred signatures from one cruise night, it will be available again for signatures at the fathers day car show in Kemptville this weekend thanks to Rod and his crew at the Hwy43 club, The petition has been emailed to every club in Eastern Ontario asking them to have it available at every function for signatures,now how many others on this board have taken any initiative to get it out there and signed beyond Speedwriter? Your either on the train as it leaves the station or standing there watching it go, GET ON BOARD.

I'll apologize now to all those I might have offended but am tired of the critics/would be lawyers on this site who will pick apart the current wording but don't get off their a** and make anything happen, those who do nothing are the loudest complainers.

I hope you're not pertaining to me !!

While I don't agree with the way your petition is worded, I am not picking it appart !

On the contrary!! At least something in your area of Ontario is being done to help.

I still think those that sign your petition should also give their MP a call. It can't hurt, can it? Even if you got 100000 signatures in a phone book sized petition, what's to say the one person that looks at it just tosses it on a pile of other petitions.

Each call made will, or should be answered. Do you see where I'm going with this ??

I will in fact sign your petition when given the chance, but in the mean time I choose to board my own train because I feel it will be faster with less stops.

Sorry for being so harsh in my last post, but I pretty pissed off when posting it.

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 01:27:45 PM

-- Edited by hemi43 on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 01:30:25 PM

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

Sumpin ain't quite right with these examples.

"in 1995 installed a 63 Chevy V8 in a 35 Ford would need to meet 1980 requirements" yet .... "in 2001 installed a 63 Chevy V8 in a 35 Ford would need to meet the emissions standards of the original motor with all its original emissions control equipment attached and functioning".

According to their examples the 1995 needs to meet 1980 standards yet the 2001 install appears to NOT be required to meet any 1980 specs. The 2001 install is simply required to have all of it's "original emissions control equipment attached and functioning" which means it is NOT required to have ANY emission controls because the 35 Ford and the 63 Chevy V8 never had any emissions controls.

Based on how I read their examples, a 2001 install of a 63 Chevy V8 in a 35 Ford (both obviously pre-emissions) are NOT required to meet any standards and are NOT required to have cats, PCV, EGR because neither the car nor the engine ever had them and are NOT original to the car or the engine.

They state that the car must meet the emission requirements of the original engine ... that can't be hard, the requirements for an original 35 Ford engine can't be hard to meet.

As for the 1995 install being required to meet 1980 specs yet the 2001 install isn't, just tell them it was installed AFTER 1999.

I'm willing to bet the got the examples mixed up and the 2001 install IS required to meet the 1980 specs whereas the 1995 install shouldn't be.

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 02:47:18 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 02:48:33 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 02:49:38 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Wednesday 13th of June 2012 02:54:58 PM

oldkoot · BROCKVILLE, ONT

Make the God damn call NOW !!!!!!!!!!

The current petition is already out there and being signed, in our small part of the province we've already turned in a hundred signatures from one cruise night, it will be available again for signatures at the fathers day car show in Kemptville this weekend thanks to Rod and his crew at the Hwy43 club, The petition has been emailed to every club in Eastern Ontario asking them to have it available at every function for signatures,now how many others on this board have taken any initiative to get it out there and signed beyond Speedwriter? Your either on the train as it leaves the station or standing there watching it go, GET ON BOARD.

I'll apologize now to all those I might have offended but am tired of the critics/would be lawyers on this site who will pick apart the current wording but don't get off their a** and make anything happen, those who do nothing are the loudest complainers.

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

Look at Q 2b and A 2b ... nothing about meeting 1980 requirements at all. If you can't prove the engine was installed before 1999 they will assume it was installed after 1999. Works for me in this case.

30AV8 · BURLINGTON, ONT

I've printed off several of the petitions and am going to a cruise this week and will get signatures. I remember talking to a couple of performance shops mentioned in this thread earler in the year about some emission components for my truck and they responded by saying you don't need it for an 82 year old truck, so they are in dark about this, maybe now they are aware of it, so my point is, the word really needs to spread, too many are in a false sense of security. Also mentioned here was the fact that there should be more involvement by companies who sell aftermarket parts, because without us, there are gone also.

hemi43 · ONTARIO

30AV8 wrote:
I've printed off several of the petitions and am going to a cruise this week and will get signatures. I remember talking to a couple of performance shops mentioned in this thread earler in the year about some emission components for my truck and they responded by saying you don't need it for an 82 year old truck, so they are in dark about this, maybe now they are aware of it, so my point is, the word really needs to spread, too many are in a false sense of security. Also mentioned here was the fact that there should be more involvement by companies who sell aftermarket parts, because without us, there are gone also.

I agree !!

little peons like myself will never bring change. What needs to happen is corporations like the big 3 need to sit down with this Government and come to a compromise.

They (the big 3) engineer, and market some amazing aftermarket engines for the masses, so you would think they would challenge our Government's comment that they are not "roadworthy".

I also noticed the discrepency of the 35 Ford example. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

oldkoot · BROCKVILLE, ONT

I hope you're not pertaining to me !!

I am not trying to single anyone out, just used your quote to open the thread. Sorry if you thought otherwise

While I don't agree with the way your petition is worded

I can't take credit for writing the petition, never saw it before I got a copy from Steve Clark's office(local MPP) to post on the site, BUT I DO SUPPORT whoever took the time and initiative to put it together for US.

I will in fact sign your petition when given the chance

Anyone can print out the petition, it's posted on the site already, you don't need to be an old car owner to sign it, have your neighbors, church group, fellow employees, anyone who is a legal age voter sign it and mail it back to the MPP's address on the bottom. Everyone can and should do their part even if you never go to a car show or cruise night.

I still think those that sign your petition should also give their MP a call

Agree 110% but remember it's OUR petition, we need to function as a group in order for this to succeed.

Seeker1056 · DOURO, ONT

As an enforcement officer myself - never mind the branch - keep this in mind.

It doesnt matter if it is Criminal Code, Building, MOE, the Highway Traffic Act etc etc etc etc, the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, says - If you ask/request a copy of the regulation, the standard, and the particular section(s), including the specifications - they are required by law to provide them to you in a timely manner. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The transparancy laws in the Province did away with secrecy, and hidden agendas.

You are also entitled to know the inspectors first name, ID number, and who thier superior is, without repercussion.

Also keep in mind - if there is in fact written regulations and specifications, they meaning the officers, may not "interpret" them to fit anything. Either the offence meaning the car with its equipment or lack thereof, fits the criteria or it doesnt. If the offence/ticket doesnt fit the regulations, you have a Get out of Jail Free card as soon as your case comes up, or you go to the JP
Also keep in mind that no one may make "policies" in this regard - either it is in the regs and specifications or it isnt. The only policies they may have is in how they choose to enforce them. Meaning they may or may not actively look, or they may do random, they may give warnings, or they may just write tickets - and keep in mind the officer didnt make the policies - his superiors or higher up did.

Just ask politely for the information, now, not before you get pulled over.

One last point - I am not getting from the examples posted here, that the emissions requirements are that hard to understand or abide by. It also clearly says, that a crate motor "may" be used, but must meet the emmisions standard for the car.

I will also be checking into the statement that it is expected that all crate motors will fail - the law is not allowed to have an "opinion", and that is something we can have removed very easily from the legislation or the examples

Can someone PDF me the posted example copies please to ckr5610@hotmail.com so I can pursue this a little more form the enforcement requirements side?

thanks

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Thanks for your input! Much appreciated

I have sent you the above in PDF format.

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

Jeeze, started typing, erased, started again, erased once again, typed some more and erased yet again .... can't really seem to figure out how to say what I am thinking regarding this issue.

One last attempt.

The engine in my '38 is now a 1985 305. In order for that engine (and the car it originally came in) to be allowed to be sold in North America, it had to meet certain tailpipe emissions requirements. If the engine was still in the original car, it would STILL be required to meet those same levels IF it got tested (and still be required to have the emissions controls it was equipped with on the engine/car). Just because it isn't required to be tested every two years (because of its age) does not mean the MOE can't send me for a test IF they feel I am polluting. Installing that engine in an earlier car does NOT give me the right to pollute the atmosphere by removing the emission controls the engine was originally equipped with.

The argument that old cars aren't driven enough to pollute doesn't sit well with me ... I drive mine a LOT. I do not want to end up with some legislation that limits the amount I drive my car and I can totally see that happening based on "you car enthusiasts don't drive enough to be an environmental issue, so you claim ... fine, emission controls won't be required on your pre 1969 cars because we are limiting your driving to 125 miles per year".

The solution (in my eyes) is simple, if you don't want to install cats, egr etc on your car (and still be legal), then don't install an engine that was originally equipped with those components. If you install a 1985 305 (as I did), then you must install the emission controls too. As mentioned, I drive mine, and I don't want tickets from the MOE ... I always assumed they went by the year of the car but have since been enlightened to the fact that the law states "whichever is newer" ... I have gone and installed cats, PCV, EGR, and sealed tank/charcoal can. I am now legal and it wasn't really a huge deal to do the install.

If I was absolutely against installing the emissions stuff, I would have simply rebuilt one of the early blocks I have stored in my shed.

There is no way in hell the "tree huggers" are going to allow the removal of emission controls no matter how few miles a vehicle is driven on public roads, so I don't really understand where this petition is supposed to get us ....

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Good post !!

I guess the reason there's so many opinions on this subject is because we are looking at it from our own individual situation.

My point about crate engines is that the owner, of lets say, a 1969 camaro, wants to replace his tired 350. He should have the option of going to GM and purchase a new 350 which was specifically engineered to fit his vehicle. That's why GM built these engines. The owner of this car should not be forced to install cats egr etc..

Your car is a 38, so it's a fairly large car, and you wont have too much trouble fitting all that stuff in.

What about the guy building a '29? I sure as heck would not want 2 red hot cats under my feet !!

What about the classic T bucket with side exaust and open engine? how would you even consider putting cats on a side exhaust? That EGR would look great on an open engine too !!(sarcasm)

My argument is that any crate engine installed in an older vehicle will be leaps and bounds cleaner than the original engine even without cats etc..

Emission controls should be based on the year of the vehicle, not the engine !! period!! Then there's no confusion

dualquadpete · BLACKSTOCK, ONT

Chalk up another one in my area!!! 36 Dodge or Fargo?? P/up sitting on S10 chassis V6 "appartently" got NAILED just outside of Port Perry!!last week. No Cats, EGR, charcoal can etc.[ on & on] Now tell me they aren't "TARGETTING" the specialty vehicles???? Waiting to hear back from MPP John Otoole's office to set up a meeting, "face to face" with myself & another member here!!!!!

BARRIE, ONTARIO

" This is just great as I've got myself a nice aftermarket Edelbrock EFI manifold. Of coarse it has no provisions for an EGR valve. I'm sure I can get a pair of cats installed on my rod but jeez."
I have a semi hi rise eddy intake that has an aluminum boss welded an blended on to it , that mounts an egr valve to the intake . But there is no port under the egr valve . The manifold actually has a oem style part number on it as it was availible thru dealers back in the 70,s early 80,s . An mto guy looked at it and said nothing , during a road side check , maybe 8 - 10 yrs ago . On a 1977 model car .
My 50 chebby truck has a 68 sbc in it . ..77.

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Wow !! Look at all the parts !! LOL
This is why we need specific definitions of what's needed.
Right now guys are getting busted for no cats, EGR, canisters and vented breathers. The law states (IMHO) that all emission controls must still be intact. What about in 2 years from now, when we're all running cats, EGRs and canisters? Are they going to start coming after us for not having some of the smaller components listed above?
Rusty Nuts' mentioned that we should just use older blocks,which is an option, but they are getting very rare now, and really, the 60's engines were crap compared to todays "crate" engines.
If this is truly about making the environmrnt a better place, then we MUST be allowed to use new (crate)engines to replace the old worn junk.
It's a win-win situation !!

Here's a link of the e-law we're familliar with. This has been updated to show some of the changes starting Jan1 2013.
The section that concerns us is 4.1 , but I don't see any changes to it.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_980361_e.htm

-- Edited by hemi43 on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:12:05 PM

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

30AV8 ... the car I removed the engine from was a 1985 Cutlass Supreme. It was carbed, I think the Camaros at that point were fuel injected. I know for a fact the 1985-86 Canadian Cutlass Supreme was never equipped with a smog pump/air injection pipes or a mass air sensor/knock sensor etc ... I still drive a stock 1986 Supreme (winter car) so I know this to be true. I have not been pulled over (yet) and I do live in Durham region, just east of Toronto and purportedly the "hot spot" for being pulled over and checked.

Due to the lack of actual info regarding what really is required in the eyes of our MOE, I am hoping I have done enough (cats, PCV, EGR and sealed tank/charcoal can) ... I am also hoping that when I do get pulled over, the MOE person will see that it is clear that I am trying to comply and let me off with a warning (if I don't presently meet their requirements with the components I have installed) AND give me an explanation as to what it is I need to comply.

I can promise you all this though, if I get pulled over and fined I will definitely be visiting the MOE offices on Milner in Scarborough and show them what I have done to my car (in my attempt to comply/be legal) and will then explain that my solution will be to remove everything but the PCV and install one of my engine blocks dated 1969. I would be changing from a rather fuel efficient 305 with plenty of emission controls to a thirsty 350 with only a PCV ... which is the better engine as far as the environment goes?

I did mention earlier that it would be best (in my opinion) if they would make this easier for us and simply require certain components (such as cats, PCV and sealed tank/charcoal can) when a newer engine is installed in an older car. Basic guidelines so it would be easy for someone to comply and end up with a cleaner running engine.

I took pictures of the "mini" cats this morning and will get my wife to load them when she gets home tonight.

As for the Fargo owner getting "nailed" ... he would have been fined only because he got caught breaking the law (as the law is written today). If you were an "officer of the law" and were assigned to the Guns & Gang unit in the Jane/Finch area, chances are you would tend to "focus" on a certain group based on their age, their clothing style, and "other" elements ... why? Because they are "likely offenders". When it comes to emission control infractions, an MOE inspector is probably going to focus on "likely offenders" too. That means 91 year old "gramps" in the 81 Cutlass 4-door with the faded paint, sagging rear springs and wire wheel hubcaps won't be "likely offender" even though the car does not fall within the current rules of an emission test every two years. Like it or not, the reality is that "hotrods" (with loud exhaust, flashy paint, shiny wheels etc) are VERY likely to have nonconforming engine installations and therefore become "likely offenders" or "targets" in the eyes of the MOE. If you were hired as an MOE inspector, who would you focus on.

I agree totally that more information needs to be put out there so people understand what is required in order to conform. I also would love to see simple equipement guidlines that would allow relatively easy compliance but as it stands right now, the law is the law. The MOE (in my opinion) should be setting up booths at car shows and local cruises to get the word out but the bottom line is (the old cliche) ignorance of the law is no excuse. The sad fact is this ... if the MOE gets the word out and we all start to comply, there goes their revenue source and probably some jobs, it's actually in their best interest to NOT inform us.

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:46:14 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:59:34 PM

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

I am going to take a shot at uploading the pics of the cats I used.

Wooo HOOOOOOOo .... I figured it out (dang, this guys good!!!)

These are what I installed in my car. I really think (based on their tiny size) that they would be a relatively easy install in many "hotrods" and quite possibly not end up looking horrible. Possibly the addition of a heat shield would help those installed close to floor pans. The one in the pic has 2 1/2" inlet and outlet. These shots were taken at Karbelt Pickering this morning (thanks guys) due to the fact that I have already installed my cats and tossed the boxes. I am not a sales person for Karbelt and I am not affiliated with Magnaflow in any way, I just want people to be aware that not all cats are large and ugly.

Will they survive behind a blown bigblock? I really don't know as I am running mine behind a stock 305.

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:57:02 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:58:51 PM

-- Edited by Rusty Nuts on Thursday 14th of June 2012 01:03:01 PM

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Here's a site that you can enter the VIN of your car, and it will show what emission components it needs. I think this is what the MOE is using also.

http://www.ergweb2.com/vindecoder/index.cfm?fuseaction=vinform

-- Edited by hemi43 on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:59:18 PM

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

I do agree that a crate engine should be able to be used in a '69 Camaro without emission controls. I see a crate engine as being a replacement engine, with the engine never having been released in a specific year of car and never having been equipped with emission controls, a crate engine should not be subjected to any requirements other than whatever the car it is going into was equipped with when new. Unfortunately that is only my (and others) opinion, GM doesn't even view them that way based on their disclaimer "for off-road use only".

I hear you regarding the odd look a t-bucket would have running cats and the minimal space a Model A has for cats but there is a way around running cats on those and that is to install an early engine block. Yeah, it sucks if you already have a newer engine in your bucket or A (or whatever) but you have been breaking the law by running that combo without emission controls anyway ... it is just that they are now enforcing that law.

I said "I hear you" regarding the bucket and A, but I am not totally convinced that they couldn't be installed and not look too bad. When I asked about cats at Karbelt Pickering (before buying them), I was shown a Magnaflow "spun" cat (I bought 2 1/4 in and out) that I actually had a hard time believing WAS a cat based on its tiny size and smooth outer body. I will try to take some pics of one of these units (along with a tape measure to show their actual size) ... I honestly think they could quite easily be incorporated into an exhaust and not look hideous.

As for the EGR ... they aren't that big (although I did have some valve cover clearance issues with my install due to tall valve covers, and I'm positive someone could (if there isn't one already out on the market) machine up an aluminum or chrome cover that clips over the unit and improves the appearance.

If EGRs and cats become "the norm" on rods, then they might not end up looking out of place.

I will take picks of the cats and get my wife to post them later today, I am a do-it-yourselfer of the highest degree yet I can't load pics on this site :)

oldkoot · BROCKVILLE, ONT

Something that would fit between a carb and manifold

In the later 70's when EGR's first came out, Fords ran a carb spacer that had the EGR provisions, fit between the carb and manifold just like a regular carb spacer BUT the intake manifold must have an EGR port built into it to work, you could put it on any manifold, would look the part but wouldn't function. Try Ford part # D7PZ-9A589-C, Motorcraft # CM 2643, Fits standard square bore carbs. Mustang's ran them in 83-85 also.

Mac's have them also.

http://macsautoparts.com/carburetor-spacer-plate-machined-billet-aluminum-for-cars-with-egr-351c-v-8-with-4-bbl-carburetor-d3zz-9a589-a/camid/MUS/cp/JS0R3CHL1114698/

-- Edited by oldkoot on Thursday 14th of June 2012 03:58:11 PM

-- Edited by oldkoot on Thursday 14th of June 2012 04:09:08 PM

Sniper · WATFORD, ONT

Lots of different opinions and ideas, and I'm no different. The petition put forward won't be the last word on this, but it is a start. It will change and morph as the discussions go on hopefully taking on the wishes of those that are involved. My hat is off to the guys that are spearheading this endeavorer, it is going to be a tough job. The rest of us need to support them. It's a good thing that a site like this is available to put out our ideas and wants. And the people that are going to compose the follow up document can 'cherry pick' those wants and needs that we have posted, so that it can be part of the next round of negotiations. I posted earlier, and when I reread it, it came across a bit heavy, mainly because I was a bit 'hot' at the time. Regardless, I still stand by my statements. This isn't just an 'East of Toronto' problem, it just happens to be where it started. I talked to a couple of guys last night that knew nothing about this, or what was going on. So how many more are in the dark as well? Spread the word with the facts as we know them, and not just gossip. We need a larger voice, and the politicians need to hear from us too, to know how to vote on this topic.

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Here's a bit of good news !!

http://www.sema.org/?q=node/3504

-- Edited by hemi43 on Thursday 14th of June 2012 06:38:59 PM

30AV8 · BURLINGTON, ONT

Rusty Nuts, you are doing the right thing to be compliant, I think we have all stated we want to help the enviornment, but are you compliant? You mentioned you added cats, pcv, egr, charcoal canister and sealed tank. I went onto rockauto.com and entered your 85 305, you didnt mention the vehicle it came out of so I used a Camaro. Below are what is required for that engine, and maybe there is more, this is all that site showed. So say the going rate of $500 a pop for each emission component you dont have, and you are looking at 1000's of hard earned dollars disappearing.

The point that is being made is with technology changing in emission components and the likelihood of findings all that is required for your engine back in the day, one idea tossed around by Hemi43 I think was to say ok, we are here to help out the environment, lets put on specific parts that are readily available and will make low emissions. I mean the E in MOE is for enviornment isnt it, so they should welcome this or are they in it for some other reason.

1985 : CHEVROLET : CAMARO : 5.0L 305 cubic inch V8 : Emission

hemi43 · ONTARIO

Those are small !! I wonder if they would still work at the end of long tube headers? Might be too far way?
There needs to be a company out there that should make a universal EGR. Something that would fit between a carb and manifold. If this was available, then running a crate motor might be feasable and still use the intake that comes with it.
Just a thought!! The charcoal canister is an easy one to install.
Hmmmm !!

Sacotu · COBOURG, ONT

hemi43 wrote:
Here's a site that you can enter the VIN of your car, and it will show what emission components it needs. I think this is what the MOE is using also.

http://www.ergweb2.com/vindecoder/index.cfm?fuseaction=vinform

-- Edited by hemi43 on Thursday 14th of June 2012 12:59:18 PM

tried it for my 78 jeep. it was good. my 70 pontiac rag came up as a 73 volvo and my 63 acadian is a 74 vw. besides that i'm impressed

Rusty Nuts · ONTARIO

Hemi43 ... I still have the factory single exhaust on my 86 Cutlass Supreme. The cat in mounted at the end of the Y-pipe and there is a support bracket (for the cat) that mounts to the rubber transmission mount. Basically the cat is quite far back from the engine, possibly slightly farther back than if they were mounted to long tube headers.

Interestingly, I am not aware of a required distance for the cats to be from the engine. I think mounting them out behind the rear end might raise some eyebrows but I (just my opinion) don't see how mounting them behind long tube headers could be an issue at all.