Good morning! Yes I made it, but unfortunately I was late getting away from work. I arrived at 3:45pm.
There were about 60 people there, fortunately about 8 of my friends and associates were able to take in the entire meeting, hopefully able to bring me up to speed.
I was able to speak with Rick Lalonde MOE. He gave me copies of the handouts he had including an email address for hot rod specific questions. "REVIEWDIRECTORSCB@ontario.ca". Mr. Lalonde is open to another forum, obviously to reach as many people as possible.
Mr. Lalonde was able to speak to the legislation as it is now, and what he has to work with. CHANGES to legislation are not his area.
I also spoke with Chris Whillins of SVAO. renewed my membership and support of SVAO. He was pleased with turnout, but expected more in attendance, given the seriousness of the matter.
I am heading to coffee with the lads shortly, hopefully to get updated on what I missed.
Give me some time and I will post the MOE handouts on here.

By the way, I emailed more than 50 people info regarding the meeting. I handed out more than 20 personal invitations. Approx 60 people showed up. NOT 60 that I contacted, but some. Point here is IF this is as serious as the griping and bitching would indicate, WE should have had a better representation. I am hoping we are a site that is here to better the hobby, not a soapbox whining forum.
We need leaders! Everyday we hear how things can't be done, what does that get accomplished?
It is time for us to stand up and make our hobby better. J. Otoole's office said they would correct the wording on the petition. Give them a chance. He is not going to submit something that makes him look stupid.Print off more and get them signed.
Do your part. Join SVAO! Chris & company ARE trying to get the legislation changed.
Ever notice how the Americans can get legislation changed, initiated or stopped? They have the same blood in their veins, maybe with a little more Fire in it.
BUY any Ontario Rodders shirts, hats, pins and let's get going!

be back to you soon.
the Kid

hemi43 wrote:

---

Yesterday I had a spare $40, and heard that the Salvation Army were collecting for their Christmas fund in front of our local the beer store. I drove down with intentions of donating my $40 to them, but the beer store had a banner out front stating that there was a sale on Bud cans !! So I bought the beer!!
Does that mean Santa will be bringing a lump of coal for me ?
Just wondering !!!!

---

 

 

That was a bad move on your part .   What you need to do is dispose of the evidence as quickly as possible ... I'm a little busy today, but in the spirit of Christmas I could put that aside and help out a fellow in need .   (just kidding, enjoy the beer) 

hemi43 wrote:

---

Thanks guys !! This changes a lot of things for my future projects.

---

Allright!!! start planning that big block Chevy powered '69 Barracuda for that A student daughter of yours graduation.

Fuel injected, overdrive tranny, big ass sound system.....oh yeah, bluetooth....she's earning it.

-- Edited by DaveM on Sunday 25th of November 2012 06:27:01 PM

-- Edited by DaveM on Sunday 25th of November 2012 06:27:26 PM

Back on topic ... I believe the MOE website does a decent job of explaining what is required of me regarding the emission laws and how they pertain to older cars as the law is presently written.  I can also understand people having questions regarding specifics that the website does not address.  I only have one question for the MOE regarding emissions and old cars. I did not feel it necessary (just my personal opinion) for me to sit through a three hour AGM meeting where there might only be 1/2 hr concerning emission laws and the MOE, on what could very well be the last decent day of the year (weatherwise) when I could simply send them an email with that one single question.

dualquad ... I do not fault you for not going. You had other things to do, and I can accept that. However, I was not impressed with your "rant" about the people who didn't attend when you yourself were not there. The reality is you tore a strip off others who "couldn't be bothered" (for whatever reasons they may have had) yet it wasn't important enough for you to attend either. 

I will be posting the answer when I receive it.

 

 

 

Hemi said..

The way the law is written today, prevents us from using today's technology offered by the big 3. This really grinds my gears !!!

Not sure I understood that ..If your using a to-days fuel injected technology engine and your are running all the correct sensors and control module with converters from what I understand that would be in complaince with the current emission regulations ..you would not have to use "dinosaur tech engines from the 60s"  I think the way I understand it is they are trying to get us to comply with emission regulations whether we agree or or not with the law..but if your up to date and speed with using new technology you should not have any issue..I think the problem is more troublesome for rat rods and low budget builds and many of the muscle car guys..

 

 

Alot of LS engines don't have EGR valves or AIR. What is you block ID #'s. 

The plot thickens.

fatchuk wrote:

---

Hemi said..

The way the law is written today, prevents us from using today's technology offered by the big 3. This really grinds my gears !!!

Not sure I understood that ..If your using a to-days fuel injected technology engine and your are running all the correct sensors and control module with converters from what I understand that would be in complaince with the current emission regulations ..you would not have to use "dinosaur tech engines from the 60s"  I think the way I understand it is they are trying to get us to comply with emission regulations whether we agree or or not with the law..but if your up to date and speed with using new technology you should not have any issue..I think the problem is more troublesome for rat rods and low budget builds and many of the muscle car guys..

 

 

---

 I don't know what's not to understand? If you go to GM looking to replace the engine in your 1968 Camaro, they will try and sell you their ZZ4 crate engine which is designed by GM to be a direct bolt in replacement for the old cars. These have a manifold designed for a carburetor and have no emission provisions. Here in Ontario we forbiden to use that engine unless it meets the emission specifications of the year it was built !!

This is not the way I perceive the law, this is what was told to me by the MOE officers that inforce the law. 

hemi43 wrote:

---

 

 

Take a look at the link below !! I should be able to go to GM and buy that engine and install it in any pre-emission vehicle. This is my problem with this law !!

http://store.chevroletperformance.com/store/SelectProd.do?prodId=7644&redir=true&manufacturer=GM&category=Crate%20Engines&name=ZZ502%20Deluxe%20&model=<!--19201332-->

-- Edited by hemi43 on Sunday 25th of November 2012 01:22:09 PM

---

 Really!!! A big block Chevy in a Hemi43 built machine? 

MOE Officer had no problem with Stevie's car. '70 Chevelle SS with ZZ454. PCV system with proper vent tubes.

The crate engine issue's are clarified somewhat in the new revisions that go on the book Jan1.

The over the counter crate engine must retain any emmissions equipement it came with.

DaveM wrote:

---

 

The over the counter crate engine must retain any emmissions equipement it came with.

---

 Meaning that if all the crate engine came with is a PCV system, it must retain the PCV system. That's it.

 

The engine for this Chevelle I did was bought and installed in 2006. ID tag glued to the block has a manufactered date of 2005, block casting numbers say '91 and up GenV 454. No sleep lost over this one.

I was told word for word by 2 MOE officers, quote;
If the crate engine does not meet the emission standards of the year that it manufactured, then it is classified as an "off-road" engine !!
Maybe the officers are interprting the law their own way, who knows !! This is the type of language that needs clarification.

DaveM wrote:

---

They also had a pretty goofy look on their faces when we showed them the engines that are available from GM, that were never available in any GM vehicle.

 

No emmissions equipement was removed from the ZZ454 engine that I installed. No emmissions parts or specs are available for that engine for 2005. However if you take an engine out of a '91 pick-up truck, that uses the same block, you need to retain all emmissions equipement. (goes for '98 GenVI 7.4L Vortec mentioned recently as well)

I can't find it right now but there was a post and maybe a link of the upcoming revisions. At the top there was a flow chart that addressed a bunch of senarios. Crate motors were addressed.

I agree that interpretation of the regs leads to alot of confusion. (but I'm right! )

 

 

-- Edited by DaveM on Sunday 25th of November 2012 03:24:05 PM

---

 

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

A:  This vehicle must:

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

 

 

I just read through my post and want to clarify ... in the eyes of the MOE, a 2011 engine that was removed from a donor car MUST have all its original emission components installed and functioning. However, an identical 2011 crate engine never had emission controls so it is not required to have them based on the year of the engine itself ... install a crate engine in any vehicle earlier than 2011 and you must also install the emission controls that the car itself originally came with.

Based on my interpretation of their wording ... crate engines are completely legal here in Ontario.

Here's another way to look at it ... a 2011 pick-up was "sold to the public WITH emissions controls", therefore you still need them. A 2011 crate motor was "sold to the public WITHOUT emission controls", therefore you DON'T need to install them based on the engine itself but by the year of the vehicle it is being installed in.

I don't see any other way to read what they are saying. My interpretation of their use of the word "normally" is this ... if an engine is removed from a 2011 donor vehicle, "normally" it would still be equipped with the required emission control components ... if they have been removed, or are not included in the sale (you bought it at a flea market), because the engine was "sold to the public with emission controls" you are required to replace any missing components.

This IS somewhat confusing, and I totally understand that it is possible the MOE "guys on the street" might not fully understand exactly what they are dealing with. For example the cops in Port Perry ticketing for trailer hitches when many other cops have never even heard of such a "law" ... just because the MOE "guys on the street" have voiced their understanding of the legality of crate engine, does not mean they are correct based on the actual wording of the law.

I really wish this event would have been more publicized. I did not find out about this meeting until 11am on Sat. I drive a t-bucket with a 70's engine that is right on the edge of all the emissions changes, I would have liked to attend this one.

Granted I have not been very active on the forums lately it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

DaveM wrote:

---

Yes!!! That's it!!! You and I are now on the same page.

---

You are 100% correct guys . That is from the moe guys yesterday . So a crate motor in a 30's something car won't be much of a discussion on the side of the road . Just be pro active and have all your paper work in the glove box . ( if the car came with one lol

Pint and a Pound wrote:

---

Same old BS ... quietly pass a law, then when "we" complain we never even heard of that law, they use the old "ignorance is no excuse" line.

---

 At the time (1998) I'm not so sure it was passed quietly but definately quickly and misleadingly. Street racing was all a-buzz in the mid 90's and thats what they used to pass the legislation. The reason we are ignorant of it is because the legislation was not meant for us law abiding types. We (assuming..lol) are not criminals why would we pay attention to the fine print of proposed legislation designed to curb street racing. The part I don't like is that we got grouped in with the street racing criminals. I liken it to the long gun registry. If we keep making noise then perhaps in the end they will see the light on this issue as well.

-- Edited by 69SS454 on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 05:34:01 PM

I was going to scan the hand out, but that would be of considerable size, so, I am going to type it in and try to limit the size of each page. You won't see the Ontario Government logo, etc, This will be word for word.

This is one of the 2 handouts given out November 24th, 2012 in Claremont at SVAO Meeting with M.O.E. representatives.

P1 ONTARIO EMISSION Requirements for Hot Rods and Classic Cars November 24th, 2012

P2 INTRODUCTION We are here today to talk to you about Emission Requirements as they relate to Hot Rods and Classic Cars. Specifically we want to talk about: Who We Are, Ontario Regulation 361/98, Why Did We Come out with the Guide, Myths and Facts, Real Statistics, The Requirements.

P3 WHO WE ARE. The Vehicle Emissions & Enforcement Program (VEEP) is undertaken by the Ministry of the Environment's Sector Compliance Branch (SCB) located at 305 Milner Avenue in the City of Toronto. SCB Provincial Officers (inspectors) cover the entire province; they are trained to conduct inspections under all provincial environmental legislation.
VEEP compliments the Drive Clean program and works to ensure that vehicles on Ontario's roadways are properly tuned and operating with the required emission controls to reduce smog causing pollutants.
VEEP officers also conduct inspections on waste carriers to ensure compliance with the province's waste regulations. This is known as the Vehicle Inspection Program (VIP). Approximately 4000 inspections are conducted each year under the VEEP.

P4 WHAT WE LOOK LIKE (Image of M.O.E. Crown Victoria Patrol car) Please note: Local Police and OPP can also issue fines under the Environmental Protection Act and regulation 361/98.

P5 ONTARIO REGULATION 361/98 It came into force in 1998 and has always included emission requirements for all vehicles regardless of age. Specifically it states the requirements for both emission tests under the Drive Clean program, and the pollution control equipment that is required for specific motor vehicles.

P6 WHY DID WE COME OUT WITH THE GUIDE? In 2011, the Ministry's Sector Compliance Branch received numerous calls and questions from car enthusiasts about the emission requirements for Hot Rods. To assist stakeholders in understanding the requirements, the Ministry, working with classic car enthusiast associations (SVAO and P.A.V.E.), prepared a guide explaining the existing rules. This guide is available on the Ministry's website. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/category/drive_clean/STDPROD_098041.html .
The guide is also accessible through the SVAO's website "www.iwebhosting.ca/svao/index.html"

P7 MYTHS AND FACTS

MYTH: The Ministry of the Environment has issued fines in excess of $4000.
FACT: We have never issued such a fine. A ticket issued under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Regulation 361/98 for missing emission control equipment carries a total fine of $365. A summons to court can have a maximum fine of up to $1000.

MYTH: The Ministry of the Environment created new legislation to attack the rights of classic car enthusiasts.
FACT: Regulation 361/98 under the Environmental Protection Act has been in place and enforced since 1998. We recently prepared the plain language guide to explain the existing rules.

MYTH: The Ministry of the Environment is targeting Hot Rods and Classic Cars.
FACT: In the last 5 & 1/2 years vehicles 1970 and older accounted for less than 0.6% of the vehicles that we inspected.

P8 SOME STATS
The following are the statistics that we provided to the associations that clearly indicate that specialty vehicles are not being targeted:
Between April 1st, 2007 and September 30th, 2012; The total # of LD inspections was 16,711.
In this 5 & 1/2 year period:
The total # of ALL light duty vehicle inspections 1980 or Older was 1299. Of these 475 passed the inspection and 824 failed the inspection.
The total # of ALL light duty vehicle inspections 1970 or Older was 98. Of these 39 passed the inspection and 59 failed the inspection.
The total # of ALL light duty vehicle inspections 1960 or Older was 15. Of these 7 passed the inspection and 8 failed the inspection.
note: The model year is the year that original vehicle was manufactured.

Of the 59 fails for vehicles 1970 or older only 9 Provincial Offence Notices (tickets) and one Part 1 summons were issued.
Of the 8 fails for vehicles 1960 and older only 1 Provincial Offence Notice (ticket) was issued.
All other issues were resolved using voluntary means.

P9 ORIGINAL CAR, 1999 MODEL YEAR OR OLDER.

MOTOR REPLACED Pre-1999. Requirements;
1) Vehicle cannot 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 (if applicable), the vehicle is deemed to be a 1980 model year and must meet or exceed the standards set for "1980 and earlier" model year vehicles (s.1(2)).
3) Catalytic converter and emission control equipment requirements do not apply to hot rods altered prior to January 1, 1999 (s.4(2)). However, be mindful that without emission control equipment functioning, the vehicle could fail the Drive Clean test.

MOTOR REPLACED POST January 1, 1999 Requirements
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 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 emission 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))

P10) ORIGINAL CAR, 2000 MODEL YEAR OR NEWER.
Motor replaced anytime Requirements
1) Vehicle cannot legally operate if there are visible emissions for more than 15 seconds in any fiveminute period (s.3(1) and s.6)
2) For Drive Clean testing, the vehicle model year is the model year as designated by the manufacturer (s.1(2)).
3) Vehicle must meet or exceed what were the emissions standards for the ORIGINAL MOTOR when all original emission control equipment was functioning (s.4(2))
4) All emission 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))

P11) Q & A's Any questions?

P12) Contact Information

Rick Lalonde
Sector Compliance Branch
Ministry of the Environment
305 Milner Avenue, Suite 1000
Scarborough, On.
M1B 3V4
Tel. 416-314-4804
EMAIL: REVIEWDIRECTORSCB@ontario.ca

This is everything typed on the handout. Obviously the logos are missing. I do not believe there are any spelling errors.
My suggestion BEFORE you argue at the side of the road, read the referred to sections (listed in brackets) maybe carry the appicable sections with you.
The "Big Book" often referred to is a "MOTOR" Emission Components Manual. They are availale on ebay. I would imagine MOTOR Manuals would have new ones $$$.
the Kid

MYTH: The Ministry of the Environment created new legislation to attack the rights of classic car enthusiasts.
FACT: Regulation 361/98 under the Environmental Protection Act has been in place and enforced since 1998. We recently prepared the plain language guide to explain the existing rules.

IMO...This is how it all started and how Classic vehicles got grouped in with street racers. Again IMO... The MOE's part in this "Project" and why we have portions of emissions legislation we have today was to reduce the things that street racers could do to their vehicles to make them go quicker...like removing emission equipment. Tying emissions to YOM of engine and not YOM of vehicle was also part of it.      

• Project E.R.A.S.E. (Eliminate Racing Activities on Streets Everywhere) is an awareness and enforcement campaign administered jointly by 21 police services across Ontario, which aims to combat street racing and high risk driving behaviour. Other participants include enforcement officers from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of the Environment.

Below is Clipped from: http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=168

History

Street racing has been occurring since the automobile was created. In the 1990's, illegal street racing reached epidemic proportions. Streets in the Greater Toronto Area were overrun with late night street racing. In 1996, three officers from Ontario Provincial Police, Peel Regional Police and the York Regional Police created 'Operation Dragnet'. The officers pooled their resources and dedicated themselves to develop an innovative enforcement and awareness strategy to reduce illegal street racing.

For the last nine years, the program has expanded and evolved into what is now called Project E.R.A.S.E. (Eliminate Racing Activity on Streets Everywhere). Officers from 12 different police agencies, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Environment continue to work collaboratively targeting illegal street racing.

So is it really a Myth?
The "new"(1998) legislation was to "attack" street racing and not the rights of classic car enthusiasts and yet here we are.

A lot of classic vehicles were built between 1998 and when the plain language "Guide" came out in late Sept 2012. Vehicles built after Sept 2012 could be held to engine YOM emission compliance if that is the way it must be. Not on vehicles built before that date because it is very clear by the MOE having to write the plain language guide that only the MOE understood the legislation as it was written in 1998. IMO This would be fair (dreaming) now that the legislaton and the MOE's interpitation of the legislation has been made understandable to the common man.

Just Say'n  

 

Harold, have another one too!! I think I wrote about this earler & said that is "Their OUT" Ministry knows [or maybe they don't] that people don't keep bills that long, if they have them at all!!! Nor do we have a garage install "said" engine, so "screwed" again!! I know my 52 was Swapped in the mid to late 90's but can't get any of the "undocumented" owners to come forward??? So you tell me, How to I prove that, to a judge??? Pete

I guess I should mention this ... my name isn't really Harold. That was just a joke ... Harry Quach/Hairy Crotch ...

Yeah I know, small things make me laugh ..

A little question..I have been on rodding forums for 15 to 20 years and I'm sure many of you have too, in one way or another we have been involved in the evolution of old school traditional rods to all the high tech world has to offer as well.. We are only restricted in our imagination by the number of dollars we have to spend..If your say any baseball star and you want a rod you can get about whatever you can dream read $$$$$..There is no way to stop the rest of societys rules and laws to also change according to different generations and liberal political ass kissers, (does McGlitchy come to mind) tree huggers and those who subscribe to the global warming crap, little old bleeding hearts  have and push their agenda..Most of us are just average working guys, raising a family aflickted with old car disease, we are all different in our family life in ages, occupations, other hobbies, other directions our life are. Our struggle to police ourselves and be able to have a real voice has been a struggle. Every forum I have been on has at one time or another had this conversation about one rule or regulation or something that messed with our hobby, whether it was exhaust noise, big and little tires, raised up rears, what ever modifications we made to our cars and we get all bent out of shape and have a few long running rants..I am just as guilty as the next guy ..But we just never seem to be able for one reason or another to effect a change by having some power when we speak..I am thinking our best help might be getting behind the SVAO and being more active and by constantly e-mailing and bringing it to the attention of our local MPP often..every event should or could be having lots of awareness little meets , local news paper articles of charitable events should be collected and documented to and sent to our MPP .. Elections are coming up ,aren't they always .. I know it's a slow process but we will have to start some time ..anyway it's some thoughts ..we can hardly at times get 8 guys to agree to anything..I really don't know a lot or anything really about the mandate of the SVAO but with all the new politics,lawyers, insurance, emissions , where will end ? even be a hobby for our kids? at least the SVAO seem to have some organization ..so It could be the best we got if we felt they represented our hobby to-day and for the future ..just thought I might toss it out for some debate... I would like a conversation on just what is the SVAO about and what could they do, to make a difference with our support..

What are "visible emissions standards" ?

Pint and a Pound wrote:

---

---

Pint and a Pound wrote:

---

Haven't had that drink yet so I guess I'll vent a little more ...

When you take your car into a drive clean test center (I'm talking 1988 and later), you are allowed a conditional pass (if you qualify and it IS easy to qualify) they allow your car to be DRIVEN FOR TWO YEARS even though it failed. I also know that when I used to take my car to a regular drive clean center (not an auto repair), they checked the vin, checked the gas cap and put it on the rollers. What that means to me is ... they don't give a rats a$$ whether or not the car is "legal" as far as equipment, all that matters (and all that damn well should matter) is whether or not the car blows clean !!!!!

---

DaveM wrote:

 The $450 dollars spent for repairs to get a conditional pass does not cover the replacement of missing emmissions equipement.

---

 

Yeah, I guess I didn't state that as well as I could have.  This is what I "think" I meant  ...

 

Several years ago I had a car fail the DriveClean sniff.  I think the maximum $$ needed to spend in order to hopefully fix the issue was $450.  I was quoted a repair cost of $600 ... so, with $600 being over the $450 cap, I declined the repair and was given the conditional pass which was good for two more years of driving.  No, that car was not missing any emissions equipment, BUT the gov't knew it was a polluter (they gave me the conditional pass), knew I declined to fix it (so they know it still pollutes) and yet they still allowed me to drive the vehicle for two more years. 

So here is my question ... Why is a car that the gov't knows has failed the DriveClean sniff allowed on the road for TWO MORE years ... Yet, (hypothetically speaking) a car that PASSES the DriveClean sniff, yet may be missing an emission control component ISN'T allowed on the road?  I personally do not see the reasoning behind "every original emission control component MUST still be installed and functioning" when the only thing that really matters (as far as the environment is concerned and what the MOE claims they are all about ... the Environment) are the actual results of the tailpipe sniff.   Who knows, maybe there will be a new type of catalytic converter that makes every other component obsolete ... install this one item and you will blow as clean as a car fully equipped with every emission control known to man ... yet that still wouldn't be good enough for the gov't.

I had another vehicle go through the DriveClean test several years ago ... the "check engine" light was on and I couldn't figure out why.  I knew the DriveClean people would fail me instantly upon seeing the "check engine" light so I removed the "check engine" light bulb, PASSED the test and never gave the "check engine" light another thought (car ran fine for years and passed the next emission test two years later).  There was "something" wrong with the car (hence the ON "check engine" light) ... but it did not affect the results of the sniff test ... why should I instantly fail for a check engine light if the car is proven to be clean?... along those same lines, why should a car fail due to a missing component when that missing component might not have any affect on the cars ability to pass?  For example, apparently Pugsy has or had a pickup truck pass an emission test without an EGR valve installed (but an EGR valve IS required on his truck in the eyes of the MOE), why should he be subjected to a fine for a missing EGR, or receive an instant "visual fail" when the truck has been proven to be clean as far as actual tailpipe emissions.

Basically this ... if the car sniffs clean ... it sniffs clean.  Sniffing "clean" means the car is not polluting.  If a person can prove the car passed a DriveClean test (by keeping the DriveClean document showing "passed" in their glovebox), why should they be subjected to a fine for a missing component when it has been proven that the missing component was not necessary in order for that car to pass the sniff test?  If the car passed it passed, how it passed is irrelevant.

With the new method of testing coming out soon that (apparently) does not require the dyno/rollers equipment ... the roadside inspection could be changing soon too.  If they decide to sniff cars at the side of the road I think it only fair that the cars that fail should be given a set amount of time to get repaired and not be subjected to towing/impoundment or fines.  If the car blows clean, yet IS missing a part (or parts) that was installed by the factory over 25 years ago ... WHO CARES ... it passed your damn test and that should be good enough. 

Is it too early for another double shot ?????

 

 

---

 

You're trying to apply logic to government rulings, why do you think that will work?

-- Edited by johnod on Thursday 29th of November 2012 09:25:46 AM

johnod wrote:

---

---

 

 

 

---

 

You're trying to apply logic to government rulings, why do you think that will work?

---

         x2    lol lol lol lol