Nothing is getting killed, give time a chance. We have heard 'since', it was said that O'Toole can rework this petition to make things happen. Give it a chance, he's on our side afterall and so are alot of other polititions now after this petition made the rounds. I have heard numerous times that there are alot of McGuinty's own people within his own gov't that didn't even know about this stuff and were against what was happening to us.

Well talking to people out in public can cause one to gain knowledge on how people feel about certain topics you know. I talked to alot of people this summer about this topic. There is a Liberal in the Ajax/Pickering area who is a special interest vehicle owner and he is very concerned about this and he had no clue until it was brought to his attention. He was all for the petition. I believe he signed it too, i would hope so! We need people like him on our side, so think about this before pi$$ing off these guys, every vote counts with our battle too. No point in continuously calling them names, are we in kindergarden again? Sometimes i think so on this board.

It is about older vehicles with newer engines, vehicles missing required emissions parts and newer vehicles with older engines.

The way the law says: if you have a vehicle that has an engine that doesn't have it's proper emissions parts on it you cannot sell it, in a round about way. Don't quote me on that word for word. Theres more detail to that i'm sure hidden in their mass of written 'rules'.

This is only dealing with Ontario, the MOE. This whole Drive Clean issue began in BC, Ontario copied it basically. I don't know what their rules are out there, but they are scrapping their Drive Clean program, but that doesn't mean they will also scrap spot checks on emission controlled engines...

We should try to keep this on the MOE petiton issue and not DC...yes they complained that not enough vehicles failed before although you would never know it by the number of pretty decent looking vehicles scrapped. I have heard about the aftermarket programming being an issue, some poeple say no, but DC will be the deciding factor. I am encouraging people i know that if they are going to buy a used vehicle now, make sure it has been tested with the new system and is not a vehicle that still has a 'valid' e-test, meaning it was done with the old system. Making the light go out is an instant fail from what i've heard. The new system sucks, what else is new??

Here is an example taken directly from the MOE website.

"Q: In 2001, the owner of a 1935 Ford (no original emission components) installed a 1986 Chevy V8 motor (originally required multiple 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 (1935). As there were none, the car must meet the emissions standards for 1980 and earlier model year vehicles if a provincial officer asks for a Drive Clean test
•have all emissions control equipment normally included with the replacement motor (1986), or its equivalent, attached and functioning."


Let me try to explain how this pertains to your car (although keep in mind my opinion does not affect how the MOE views it if their opinion differs from mine). The reason they state "in 2001" is they made changes to the laws in 1999. If you engine was installed prior to 1999, different rules apply. They are simply using "2001" as an example that is obviously later than 1999.

The next part of this example also pertains to your situation being that your 1963 is similar to their "1935 Ford" in that both  cars had "no original emission components".

Now, in their example they use a 1986 Chevy motor which is similar to your 1969 motor in that they both did come with emission controls from the factory (obviously the 1986 came with a lot more). Using their example, and I quote "this vehicle must have all emission control equipment normally included with the replacement motor (they give 1986 but you can simply substitute 1969 in your case), or its equivalent, attached and functioning". I believe this means that you are required to have all the emission controls that your replacement engine left the factory with, if it came with A.I.R. then it needs to be installed and functioning ... however, if your particular engine did not leave the factory with A.I.R., it should not need it to be legal being that your particular engine was sold to the public (and therefore legal at the time it was sold) without A.I.R. Keep in mind, not all 1969 GM engines left the factory with A.I.R.

-- Edited by Pint and a Pound on Thursday 24th of January 2013 01:44:53 PM

hennys63 wrote:

---

Hello

I did some phone calls and I just got off the phone with the MTO.

Once I finally got to talk to a fellow, he said over and over that my car which is a 63 and has a 69 motor in it, does not need a test since it is pre 87.

 

---

 The person you spoke to is obviously just going by the DriveClean requirements.  You need to speak to the MOE (ministry of the environment) NOT the MTO.  Beware though, I emailed a question to the MOE and got an answer that I was not happy with.  I emailed them once again for a more specific answer and it has now been over and month and I have yet to hear back.

Google "Ministry of the Environment of Ontario". Scroll down to near the bottom and look at the "popular topics" section. Now click on "Hot Rods".

One other thing to keep in mind ... the MOE sector compliance dudes don't give a crap whether or not your engine runs clean and is capable of passing an emission test, they are interested in emission control compliance NOT actual emission compliance. There IS a difference. Emission compliance means the stuff spewing out of your tailpipe ... emission control compliance only pertains to the required emission controls. You could have the cleanest running car on earth but if you are missing a required emission control component, they can ticket you.

Thanks again for your reply. I don't want to call back again right now since my luck will have me talking to the same guy again.
I have a good friend in mngt at GM, I will ask him if he can find anything out
My friend with the tilt/n/load told me before, that they get the serial numbers off the truck,(MTO) then go back and call it in to see what exactly is supposed to be on it for emission equipment. So the info is available, I just have to find it
Even if I need a AIR pump, I can get one for free and fab up nice brkts. I am a toolmaker with my own custom machine business, so it won't be hard or expensive for me to do/ I have a roll of #12 braided line, lots of fittings and even have reed valves from a Moroso pan evacuation kit from years gone by
I also think the carb base needs to be connected to the valve cover, but that an open air filter element is ok.

I have learned a lot this week after seeing this post, so in another week I wil know all what I need or don't need to do
thanks again
Tom

I stopped in at John O'Tooles office on my way home from work today to inquire on the status of the petiton. I am happy to say that it is still alive and well, it is being worked on very hard by John, meetings have been taking place on the subject and there are more plans in the works just before it gets presented to the Legislature. The petitons are still rolling in which is a great thing, the lady behind the counter is quite amazed at the mass of petitions that they have collected thus far and still there are piles coming in every week.
So hang tight is all i can say for now, it's turn is coming soon, watch in the media about it too.

I got a letter from MPP John O Toole today & have tried to copy it here. May have to zoom or ? to make it bigger!!  He has read the petition, Air Quality  in Queens park so we will see but I'm dissapointed in the use of "OLD CARS & vehicles" & only uses the Vintage at the end. this may lead to the assumption of OLD CARS & CLUNKERS in the same thought?? Also was surprised to see my name listed at the end!!! It's a start, but wording should be changed???   Pete

1. Vehicle cannot legally operate if there are visible emissions for more than 15 seconds in any five-minute period (s. 3(1) and s.6)
2. For Drive Clean testing, the vehicle must meet or exceed what were the emissions standards of the original motor when all original emission control equipment was functioning (s. 4(2)). If there weren’t any standards established for the original motor, the vehicle is deemed to be a 1980 model. The standards listed for “1980 and earlier” model-year vehicles apply.
3. All emissions control equipment must be attached and functioning. Equipment refers to what came with the replacement motor or be equivalent to what would have come with that motor. (s. 4(2))                             

 

 

      We need to keep the emissions to a minimum and I think everyone will agree to that so 1 and 2 are fine but number 3 sucks because in the end it's what comes out the tailpipe that matters not weather or not you have a "mr fusion" (from back to the future) type of engine with all the gadgets under the hood and this is what is upsetting things.Thanks duelquadpete for the update I'm not coming close to trying to translate from political mumbo jumbo to plane english but it's good to see some progress is being made.

 

  Randy

In what vehicle?

fatstax wrote:

---

  what we also have to keep in mind is the moe guys will tell you incorrect things in order to secure a conviction.  for example my buddy has a motor in his truck which is a non smog heavy truck engine, he has the documents to prove it, he got stopped and told by the moe that it had to have a litany of emmision stuff.  they handed him a few fines of which he went to court, he showed the judge the papers and it was case dismissed, as well the judge gave the moe inspector a reaming for wasting the courts time, these guys dont know alot about alot.

---

 

 

THIS (above) is exactly why I want to know what the MOE uses as their guide or source for emission requirements (and so far they have refused to give me an answer).  I want a "hard copy" of the requirements, I am not interested in hearing what a roadside inspector has to say or what an MOE representative at a meeting has to say.

Potsie wrote:

---

I was thinking a Dart Block in a pre emissions year vehicle. Lets say something from the 30`s.  Most aftermarket blocks just have a casting number that has nothing to do with the year of manufacture and were not manufactured with provisions for emissions equipment.  The vehicle had no emissions equipment, so what could they say...

 

---

 What can they say ?? They will say that it's a block designed for racing and is intended for "off-road use only" !!

Doubt if a 1962 283 had any smog equipment. It may not of had a PCV valve, can't remember now for sure.

62 had the vent tube down the back of engine with 'flame arrestor" under the intake!! Thats all folks!!!

I will once again bring this topic back up to the top of the list of threads here...I stopped in John O'Tooles office again on my way home today to ask what is up with the petition these days. I was informed that yes it had been introduced into the Legislature as noted above and that John is still having talks/meetings with different officials on this subject. The Legislature is going on recess next week so the petition will likely not make any headway by then. BUT wait!! This does not mean that it is dead. They encourage us to keep getting petitions signed and send them into John's office! They are still coming in every week the lady said and this is good! The Legislature goes back in September and the petition will likely have it's go then.

So, we have all summer to get more signatures for this, so lets keep it up and hopefully make a difference!

slim wrote:

---

Was in the sun again today . Calling it tax grab bla bla bla....in the legislature. between this and the freaking metrostinks pipe dream maybe something will happen . no mater anyway they are all pigs at the same trough claiming their slop is better

---

 I think you have this confused with the Drive Clean issue. This is the petition for old cars vs the MOE.

Hello iam new here I own a 1994 Ford Ranger which most of you would say it's not a hot rod, but iam running a 1986 GMC S-15 2.5L aka Iron Duke in it which was converted from the not so great TBI to a 4 bbl. 390cfm Holley with a Edlebrock Victor SD-4 intake manifold which deletes the EGR valve, the little engine runs great with that set up, with the new Etest I had to have the truck tested xnd meet the stock 94 3.0L standards , the truck was tested 2 years ago under the hot rod etest which it pass, so I installed a high flow cat and a MSD 6al ignition box and it still has the PCV just no EGR ended up having it tested and it passed the Etest no problem it actually beat some of the factory 3.0L tests the truck had in the past got my stickers and this is where the fun starts I was on my way to a show sunday ended driving into a OPP/MTO/MOE road block looked like some thing you would see on tv, the MOE officer asks for me to pop the hood as I sat in the truck waiting to see what he says. He comes over to Ask if my block was the stock block even know I have the Edlebrock intake which has Pontiac casted in it from the factory and I have a 2 piece Pontiac SD-4 valve cover with Pontiac in big letters on it. I told him no it was not he goes well iam going to have to give you a ticket for not having a EGR valve you have a few choices you can pay the ticket ($365 of my hard earned money) and continue driving it but if we stop you again ur plates will be pulled and you will be looking at a bigger fine or you can add a EGR and go to court to have fine reduced. As of right now iam machining parts to add a EGR valve and hoping I can get it reduced or hopefully droped. My truck turns 20 next year, as the petition goes is it just 20 years old and older with newer engines or would it also apply to my truck? Cuz my 86 4 bbl. Carbed 4 banger is cleaner then a computer controlled v6 that's 8 years newer. I have printed off a bunch of petitions and will be having people sign them I grew up going to classic car shows with my parents and would no like to see a great hobby to be killed off.

Interesting post Ironduke.

This whole thing is not about clean air it is about money...

Will said!!

Iron Duke, It's the yr. of the engine & the yr. of the Ranger for your situation, your engine must meet all the 94 Emm. equipment specs.You have to meet 94 regulations on your 86 engine as they go by whichever is the "newer' As said before, it doesn't matter how clean your running, your illegal, as to equipment violation, & you can 'read' that as a MONEY GRAB. I had hoped they'd "backed off" on this grab as this is the 1st. I've heard of anyone getting stopped this "season". Where was this??? Pete

They were in Oshawa 2 weeks ago. White, unmarked 4 door Silverado with "dark" tint. Uniformed officers.

The '88 Monte passed a roadside inspection again after I explained (over the phone) how the electric AIR pump works.