I was out walking the dog at 7pm tonight and saw the MOE out cruising Liberty Street in Bowmanville in a white Impala. Just has Ontario on the doors, but driver window was all the way down and saw the uniform.
that wasnt the moe, may have been an moe guy but thats a province of ontario car that various govment workers drive. interesting though if you saw it today it means the govment worker is abusing taxpayer dollars, they not suppose to use them for personal driving, you should have confronted this person. they really hate being called out for abusing thier positions and normally run away. you should have gotten the plate number and called your mpp. its bad enough they blow billions of our tax dollars but cruise around on our dime as well? thats bs!
I was out walking the dog at 7pm tonight and saw the MOE out cruising Liberty Street in Bowmanville in a white Impala. Just has Ontario on the doors, but driver window was all the way down and saw the uniform.
PARANOID is when you worry too much or create almost ridiculous worries in your head. It can get extreme to the point where it can impact your life in a negative way and some even need to see doctors in order to treat it.
I was out walking the dog at 7pm tonight and saw the MOE out cruising Liberty Street in Bowmanville in a white Impala. Just has Ontario on the doors, but driver window was all the way down and saw the uniform.
PARANOID is when you worry too much or create almost ridiculous worries in your head. It can get extreme to the point where it can impact your life in a negative way and some even need to see doctors in order to treat it.
OH REALLY? SO YOU THINK I'M PARANOID? Thats class buddy, real class, makes me feel really good knowing i am wasting my time trying to help fellow hobbists with this MOE bull****. Reading your reply really pissed me off.
This could very well be, as i know from an informed source, that the cops at times doing surveilence work rent Bell Canada vans, and also Ont Hydro trucks.
I was out walking the dog at 7pm tonight and saw the MOE out cruising Liberty Street in Bowmanville in a white Impala. Just has Ontario on the doors, but driver window was all the way down and saw the uniform.
PARANOID is when you worry too much or create almost ridiculous worries in your head. It can get extreme to the point where it can impact your life in a negative way and some even need to see doctors in order to treat it.
OH REALLY? SO YOU THINK I'M PARANOID? Thats class buddy, real class, makes me feel really good knowing i am wasting my time trying to help fellow hobbists with this MOE bull****. Reading your reply really pissed me off.
Sorry if you're offended but if I become that concerned whenever I see an MOE or MTO car on the road, which is daily, I'll just get out of the hobby. People are getting themselves worked up over what has been virtually nothing, lots of hear say but few with actual first hand encounters. If your driving a 75 or later car that you've removed the emission equipment from then you deserve to be fined, no one else to blame than yourself.
Up in Barrie, the police were standing on street corners at major intersections all dressed up as construction workers complete with safety vests. They were targeting idiots still talking and texting while in control of their vehicles, I say good for them! I feel the same way about the MOE and the MOT as everyone else, but if "you do the crime, then you have to do the time" as they say! As Oldkoot said, let's not get paranoid to the point where we won't drive our vehicles. How many times have we all done something where we should have had the book thrown at us, but by sheer luck we got away with it.
I know on a couple sites there has been posts asking for proof of someone getting a fine or ticket but I'm sure there has been no posting of such infractions.I am wondering if the all the noise about what they are doing is causing them to back off ? I know that I am driving slightly illigal because of my hi-boy (no fenders) but I've been followed and pull up beside the opp and rcmp and both have give me the thumbs up.Now if they want they could throw the book at me.Maybe this is like apples and oranges because it's two different enforcement agencies.All I know is if I got a ticket it would be scan and post it as soon as I could.
When I worked at a chemical plant, MOE drove those unmarked looking cars when coming to do their assessments of our pollution abatement systems. That's probably what they guy was doing. MOE does a lot more than just look for cars missing smog pumps.
that makes more sense then, since those white ontario cars are used by various gov ment workers they wouldnt necessarily drive a marked enforcement vehicle if they didnt have to or whatever the reason.
So I was out walking my dog last night and thought I saw a U.F.O I didnt see any aliens but thought you guys should know just incase. Really if I freaked every time I saw the M.T.O I would be on nerve pills or locked up. These guys are out doing their jobs keeping the highways safe for us. I have passed many M.T.O roadside inspections and have never been waved in for inspection when in one of my old rides. If it was to happen and maybe one day it will, I certainly wouldnt freak out or treat them with attitude. Although there are some concerns in the hobby I still dont think they are targeting our hobby specifically. It is amazing what a little bit of propaganda will start with a couple of people and their rides being checked. I think it is time for every one to chill a bit and see what this cruzing season brings. And if you or someone you know gets charged with an infraction by all means post it in a thread and share. Just make sure you have all of the facts and be able to back them up before you do. And Jeep4752 this is just my opinion and not meaning to trash you or anyone else in anyway. Everyone is entitled to their own.
i gots an opinion about that modfather, its not about safety at all! they are revenue collectors for the government, nothing more. hot rods and the such are easy targets since the majority of these people working for the mto dont know their own rules. a friend i have carries the mto book with him, the one the public is not suppose to have and has had an mto officer disagree with thier own governments rules that are on paper! if thats not insane i dont know what is. i will agree some of them are decent but most are not. as i have said before beat them at thier own game and outsmart them, keeping vehicles legal and safe is not hard, its preventing these agencys from unfairly targeting a certain group of people is the challenge.
I was talking to a guy from work today that was pulled over in his classic Mustang last summer and the MOE Officer took down his serial number from his motor. He tried to check his specs but his computer kept coming up with an error. Problem was he wrote down the firing order cast into the intake manifold! I don't think we have anything to worrry about!
Just to ad to the paranoia, he was pulled over going to Hagens just outside Manchester (Port Perry)!!!
-- Edited by Atomsplitter on Wednesday 17th of April 2013 03:12:57 PM
Thanks for you opinion fatstax that is another way of looking at it. Perhaps it is just because I have never had to deal with them is the reason for mine. Now if I ever have to deal with them perhaps I will have another one at that time and it may not be the same...lol But in the mean time I am going to keep rolling hard and not sweat it.
keeping vehicles legal is not hard, its preventing these agencys from unfairly targeting a certain group of people is the challenge.
This is where I have a problem with the MOE ... they won't tell me what they use to determine what a vehicle is required to have installed. I am not against being legal but it actually IS hard to do when the governing body won't give to regular schmoe (that would be me) access to the same books or database they get their info from.
My thought is that if I have access to what the MOE requires of me, I will know for a fact exactly what I need to install. Unfortunately their own attitude seems to suggest that they will fail to benefit from giving me access to their source of info due to their inability to ticket a car that conforms. I have personally asked the MOE for their source TWICE and have yet to receive an definitive answer. I can promise you I will be showing up in court with my emails and their one unsatisfactory reply if/when I am ticketed. My defense being that I have tried to install everything that is required of me by the MOE, but have come up short (the ticket will be proof of that) due to the undeniable fact (and I have the paper trail to prove it) that they refuse to allow me access to the information that would allow me to be legal. At least I can rest easy at night knowing that all this is about a cleaner environment (cough, cough, bull****, cough).
keeping vehicles legal is not hard, its preventing these agencys from unfairly targeting a certain group of people is the challenge.
This is where I have a problem with the MOE ... they won't tell me what they use to determine what a vehicle is required to have installed. I am not against being legal but it actually IS hard to do when the governing body won't give to regular schmoe (that would be me) access to the same books or database they get their info from.
My thought is that if I have access to what the MOE requires of me, I will know for a fact exactly what I need to install. Unfortunately their own attitude seems to suggest that they will fail to benefit from giving me access to their source of info due to their inability to ticket a car that conforms. I have personally asked the MOE for their source TWICE and have yet to receive an definitive answer. I can promise you I will be showing up in court with my emails and their one unsatisfactory reply if/when I am ticketed. My defense being that I have tried to install everything that is required of me by the MOE, but have come up short (the ticket will be proof of that) due to the undeniable fact (and I have the paper trail to prove it) that they refuse to allow me access to the information that would allow me to be legal. At least I can rest easy at night knowing that all this is about a cleaner environment (cough, cough, bull****, cough).
exactley one of my arguments, even if we get information and we think our rides are up to standards and then they tell us they are not because the info they use is wrong or different how are we the public suppose to know whats required of us if we cant access thier database?
I was talking to a guy from work today that was pulled over in his classic Mustang last summer and the MOE Officer took down his serial number from his motor. He tried to check his specs but his computer kept coming up with an error. Problem was he wrote down the firing order cast into the intake manifold! I don't think we have anything to worrry about!
Just to ad to the paranoia, he was pulled over going to Hagens just outside Manchester (Port Perry)!!!
-- Edited by Atomsplitter on Wednesday 17th of April 2013 03:12:57 PM
Going from memory here but the casting number for a ford is behind the starter, need to drop it for access. The only serial number visible would be the last 5 digits of the vehicle serial number from the original car. The first digit of this serial number gives you the year, lets say it's an 8, but doesn't tell you the decade, you need the first digit of the casting number b=50's, c=60's.d=70's etc. So the MOE would be SOL on a roadside inspection.
Ford cylinder heads, block, intake, and exhaust manifolds have the identification cast into them that indicates the time period they were used from. If a cylinder head has it cast into it that reads D7TE, it means the head was used in a 1977 Truck cylinder head. A C9ZZ casting would mean it was from a 1969 Mustang. The only problem with this system is a part could be used for a few years and it would seem as if an older part was on a newer vehicle.
This whole issue of having to conform to the year the engine was manufactured is just a bunch of crap. You could buy a brand new crate engine from General Motors and replace all the internal parts with parts from a 1969 Chev engine and the new regulation would require you to conform to 2013 specifications. You could also go and get a 1969 Chev block and replace all the internal components with 2013 manufactured parts and it would have to conform to 1969 specifications. Where is the logic in these regulations?
__________________
What's the point of writing a response if its only going to get deleted.
You could buy a brand new crate engine from General Motors and replace all the internal parts with parts from a 1969 Chev engine and the new regulation would require you to conform to 2013 specifications. You could also go and get a 1969 Chev block and replace all the internal components with 2013 manufactured parts and it would have to conform to 1969 specifications. Where is the logic in these regulations?
Actually the regulations state that a crate engine is not required to have emission controls on it due to the fact that no emission controls were ever factory installed on that engine when it was sold to the public.
Basically this ... if the car or the engine was sold to the public with emission controls, those emission controls must be installed and operating. If you have a 1963 Impala (for example) and install a 2013 (just picking the year out of my head) crate engine ... no emission controls are needed due to the fact that the car itself was never sold to the public with emission controls and the fact that the 2013 crate engine was never sold to the public with emission controls. It is a crime to remove emission controls but you can't remove what was never there. Put a 2013 crate engine in a 1981 Camaro, all you need are the emission controls that the 1981 Camaro originally had when it was sold to the public.
Now, because (and I looked into this myself) some of the GM crate engines are based off of regular production engine blocks (meaning a 1995 engine removed from a GM vehicle could potentially have the same casting numbers as a 2013 crate engine), the MOE is requiring/requesting that the buyer of a crate engine keep the receipt/documentation of the purchase so the owner can easily prove that the engine is actually a crate engine.
I do not know how they would react if a person just purchased a brand new bare block from GM and filled it with used crank/rods/pistons/cam etc. I would assume that since they use the block casting numbers and proof of purchase directly from GM to decide what the engine is, that the bare block would be treated the same as a complete crate engine since there would be no way for the MOE to determine what years of manufacture the crank/rods etc are ... but I don't know for sure.
It's my understanding that the MOE has required some people who have been stopped to have a pre-emission built engine in their car and any car that has a later model engine will need to have upgraded emissions installed. If this is the case, then all crate engines would need to meet current emission standards.
The next wrinkle would be if they do allow a later built engine to be used without upgrading the emissions, how do they determine that the engine is a street purchased replacement engine or an engine sold for off road purposes only. The cylinder block in each of the engines examples carry the same part number.
My recommendation to fix this whole emission issue is the leave hot rodders and all other hobby related off road automotive participants alone because there are not enough of us driving around the streets to have any sort of impact on the environment. We are being over regulated and it's costing us all a fortune to support every little issue some bleeding heart comes up with.
__________________
What's the point of writing a response if its only going to get deleted.
Q:The owner of a 2005 Chevrolet vehicle installed a 2011 crate motor. (The 2011 crate motor was not designed or equipped with any emission components). What are the emission requirements?
A: This vehicle must:
meet the visible emission standards
meet the emission standards set for the original motor (2005).
have all emissions control equipment normally included with the replacement motor (2011), or its equivalent, attached and functioning. Since the crate motor did not come with any emission components, none are required.
meet or exceed the 2005 standards for that original motor if a provincial officer asks for a Drive Clean test. Although emissions control equipment is not required, without it, the car would likely fail the Drive Clean test
__________________
There is a very fine line between “hobby” and “mental illness.”
The engine in my 57 Belair started life as a 330 horse Crusader Marine boat engine. The casting numbers however show it as a mid 70's truck block. What then? Obviously very little emission standards for a boat.... I,m guessing that the PCV valve is all I need to pass.
The engine in my 57 Belair started life as a 330 horse Crusader Marine boat engine. The casting numbers however show it as a mid 70's truck block. What then? Obviously very little emission standards for a boat.... I,m guessing that the PCV valve is all I need to pass.
Are you positive it was originally installed in a boat and not simply an engine taken from a mid 70's truck to replace the original boat engine? Not sure how you would prove that though. I'm guessing the MOE will go by the numbers on the block, if they come back stating the engine came from a truck, I'd bet they will require the emission controls from a mid 70's truck on your engine.
As for what a mid 70's truck had as far as emission controls ... I have no idea. The MOE will know but they won't tell you what you need or what their source is so you can look it up yourself. Ain't the MOE just great ....
I have a big block chev marine engine. probably the only way i could prove its a marine block is there are no numbers punched where the car/engine serial is usually punched. mind you these numbers are usually cut off if the block is decked.
__________________
There are 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.
Dave correct me if I'm wrong but the way I read that is a crate engine was offered by the big three for off road use only or as a replacement engine [long block] [like the old targetmaters]to install in a pollution controled vehicle. Say I wanted to install a 502 in a 95 Chev pu that was originally equiped with a 454 f.i. I would have to run the air pump,cats,etc and maybe the f.i. to meet the "visual inspection" and it would also have to meet the tailpipe limits of a 95 to get a drive clean cert.before I could plate it because it don't matter how you look at it that truck, to the local test facility, it's still a mid 90's truck and needs to conform to those limits.If I had a 1980 Chev pu original 454 and installed a 502 I would still have to have cats,air pump,etc but tailpipe emissions could be higher because it falls under the 1980 and older specs.[same as our hotrods] Now put that same 502 in a 38 Chev pu just as you bought it from the GM store [carb to pan] and it would still need to meet 1980 and older specks but it don't need any emission equipment not even a pcv because the orignal sixes only had a road draft tube [stink tube]. I can't see the drive clean boys letting this get by them.
Dave correct me if I'm wrong but the way I read that is a crate engine was offered by the big three for off road use only or as a replacement engine [long block] [like the old targetmaters]to install in a pollution controled vehicle. Say I wanted to install a 502 in a 95 Chev pu that was originally equiped with a 454 f.i. I would have to run the air pump,cats,etc and maybe the f.i. to meet the "visual inspection" and it would also have to meet the tailpipe limits of a 95 to get a drive clean cert.before I could plate it because it don't matter how you look at it that truck, to the local test facility, it's still a mid 90's truck and needs to conform to those limits.If I had a 1980 Chev pu original 454 and installed a 502 I would still have to have cats,air pump,etc but tailpipe emissions could be higher because it falls under the 1980 and older specs.[same as our hotrods] Now put that same 502 in a 38 Chev pu just as you bought it from the GM store [carb to pan] and it would still need to meet 1980 and older specks but it don't need any emission equipment not even a pcv because the orignal sixes only had a road draft tube [stink tube]. I can't see the drive clean boys letting this get by them.
Randy
This is a good example of the same engine being used in 3 different vehicles but with 3 different emission regulations and outcomes.
__________________
What's the point of writing a response if its only going to get deleted.
V8deuce, I'll correct one thing. My interpretation of their definition of a crate motor.
MOE "(The 2011 crate motor was not designed or equipped with any emission components)".
To me, an over the counter replacement longblock, such as the Targetmaster stuff was designed to work with the emissions equipement on the vehicle it was intended for as a replacement, so does not fit their crate motor definition.
The good that I get out of the above MOE scenario is that if you buy a new big 3 crate engine (that was not designed or equipped with any emission components), you do not have to make it comply to current 2013 emmision standards to put it in a current build or retrofit of a pre-emission vehicle. Put a ZZ454 in a '70 Chevelle, with a proper PCV system, you're good
The bad I get out of it is more confusion. Any emission era,'73 or newer for sake of discussion, vehicle on our roads must retain it's factory components, that's a given right? But right there in print on the MOE website it says that if you have a 2005 vehicle with a say.. a ZZ502 crate motor in it, no emissions equipement is required. That's misleading. Clearly, even if you could get it to pass a Drive Clean test, if you are stopped by the MOE roadside enforcement gentlemen, and show them that scenario in print,and your drive clean pass certificate, they are still going to be hanging your plates on their wall of shame.
anyway, this thread started with a guy walking his dog and went downhill fast. Perhaps another thread for more discussion.
__________________
There is a very fine line between “hobby” and “mental illness.”
Most of the above contributions reflect the need for another meeting with the folks from the M.O.E.. This time we need more people out and fewer excuses for not attending. The one fellow I spoke with after the last meeting was receptive to more public meetings to discuss Drive Clean and inspections.
But, Nothing kills a good argument like Facts, so why get educated? Then there would be nothing to complain about.
If No-one votes for the Liberals how do they get elected?
the Kid
__________________
In the words of Red Green "Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together".
Most of the above contributions reflect the need for another meeting with the folks from the M.O.E.. This time we need more people out and fewer excuses for not attending. The one fellow I spoke with after the last meeting was receptive to more public meetings to discuss Drive Clean and inspections.
I "skipped the meeting", (I just want to be clear, I am not taking offense to your comment as it is fact .... I really did "skip the meeting"). I was interested in attending the Claremont meeting (which was held not very far from where I live) and had actually intended to volunteer to have the MOE inspect my car at the meeting so I could learn whether or not I was legal and also to allow other attendees the chance to see exactly what an MOE inspection involves. I was warned off doing just that because apparently an MOE inspector had bragged about a Corvette owner (at some Corvette club meeting that the MOE was invited to) who had the same idea and the MOE decided to ticket the volunteer Corvette owner. Handing out tickets to people actually interested in being legal, and volunteering for an inspection (rather than just being pulled over on the road) is nothing short of pathetic. I then decided that my best avenue of attack would be to simply ask the MOE (through an email) what they use to determine emissions legality ... meaning, what is their source for what a vehicle requires. The reasoning behind that question being that if I (and everyone else) have access to whatever source the MOE uses, then I will know for sure whether or not I am legal in the MOE's eyes. I sent the MOE an email and was not satisfied with their reply. I asked them a second time and have not heard back from them and don't expect to at this point ... the second email was sent several MONTHS ago. Once again, pathetic.
If the "one fellow I spoke with after that last meeting" actually IS receptive to "more public meetings to discuss Drive Clean and inspections", why is it the MOE can't or won't answer my one simple question?
My request/suggestion is simple ... allow us (the general public) access to the same source of info the MOE uses and there won't be any excuse for anyone being illegal. I am not interested in wasting several hours of my life attending a meeting just to find out what I already know ... the MOE is NOT interested in answering my question.
If the MOE uses books (as has been rumoured) then tell us what books (I will be honest, the MOE did mention two books in their answer to me, but they did NOT verify that these books actually ARE their source, they suggested these books could be used as a "rough guide" ... what the hell is a "rough guide"? ... I want a definitive answer not an answer from a "rough guide") and if the MOE uses a website database as their source ... why not allow public access to that site? I was told by the MOE to use GM Vintage Services (in my particular case) at a cost between $90 and $135 per search, to find out what my engine requires ... I commented to the MOE that I doubted very much that the MOE spends between $90 and $135 for information on every car they tested and that using the original manufacturer of the engine as a source would not work with an AMC engine for example ... as mentioned earlier, they weren't interested/couldn't be bothered to reply.
I give up, I'll take my chances on the road, and I'll fight them in court if I have to. I will also be recording any roadside MOE experience I have using my dash camera.
I am presently running a carbed 305 with lots of emission control components on it (but still not sure if I have everything needed). If I am ticketed, I have options ... I can legally install an early 350 block (I have several) and legally remove the emission controls I have installed on the 305 with the end result being increased tailpipe emissions while being completely legal, with increased fuel consumption due to the larger engine ... both detrimental to the environment and both completely legal. How can the MOE claim they are here to help the environment when they just might be forcing me to give up trying to "do the right thing" and force me to do more harm than good in order to be legal due completely to their lack of interest in allowing us, the tax paying general public access to their source of info.
As mentioned earlier in my novel, I for one will NOT be wasting my time attending a meeting with people NOT interested in helping the situation ...
If you are interested in a second opinion, I will be more than happy to copy/paste this and repost it
Most of the above contributions reflect the need for another meeting with the folks from the M.O.E.. This time we need more people out and fewer excuses for not attending. The one fellow I spoke with after the last meeting was receptive to more public meetings to discuss Drive Clean and inspections.
I "skipped the meeting", (I just want to be clear, I am not taking offense to your comment as it is fact .... I really did "skip the meeting"). I was interested in attending the Claremont meeting (which was held not very far from where I live) and had actually intended to volunteer to have the MOE inspect my car at the meeting so I could learn whether or not I was legal and also to allow other attendees the chance to see exactly what an MOE inspection involves. I was warned off doing just that because apparently an MOE inspector had bragged about a Corvette owner (at some Corvette club meeting that the MOE was invited to) who had the same idea and the MOE decided to ticket the volunteer Corvette owner. Handing out tickets to people actually interested in being legal, and volunteering for an inspection (rather than just being pulled over on the road) is nothing short of pathetic. I then decided that my best avenue of attack would be to simply ask the MOE (through an email) what they use to determine emissions legality ... meaning, what is their source for what a vehicle requires. The reasoning behind that question being that if I (and everyone else) have access to whatever source the MOE uses, then I will know for sure whether or not I am legal in the MOE's eyes. I sent the MOE an email and was not satisfied with their reply. I asked them a second time and have not heard back from them and don't expect to at this point ... the second email was sent several MONTHS ago. Once again, pathetic.
If the "one fellow I spoke with after that last meeting" actually IS receptive to "more public meetings to discuss Drive Clean and inspections", why is it the MOE can't or won't answer my one simple question?
My request/suggestion is simple ... allow us (the general public) access to the same source of info the MOE uses and there won't be any excuse for anyone being illegal. I am not interested in wasting several hours of my life attending a meeting just to find out what I already know ... the MOE is NOT interested in answering my question.
If the MOE uses books (as has been rumoured) then tell us what books (I will be honest, the MOE did mention two books in their answer to me, but they did NOT verify that these books actually ARE their source, they suggested these books could be used as a "rough guide" ... what the hell is a "rough guide"? ... I want a definitive answer not an answer from a "rough guide") and if the MOE uses a website database as their source ... why not allow public access to that site? I was told by the MOE to use GM Vintage Services (in my particular case) at a cost between $90 and $135 per search, to find out what my engine requires ... I commented to the MOE that I doubted very much that the MOE spends between $90 and $135 for information on every car they tested and that using the original manufacturer of the engine as a source would not work with an AMC engine for example ... as mentioned earlier, they weren't interested/couldn't be bothered to reply.
I give up, I'll take my chances on the road, and I'll fight them in court if I have to. I will also be recording any roadside MOE experience I have using my dash camera.
I am presently running a carbed 305 with lots of emission control components on it (but still not sure if I have everything needed). If I am ticketed, I have options ... I can legally install an early 350 block (I have several) and legally remove the emission controls I have installed on the 305 with the end result being increased tailpipe emissions while being completely legal, with increased fuel consumption due to the larger engine ... both detrimental to the environment and both completely legal. How can the MOE claim they are here to help the environment when they just might be forcing me to give up trying to "do the right thing" and force me to do more harm than good in order to be legal due completely to their lack of interest in allowing us, the tax paying general public access to their source of info.
As mentioned earlier in my novel, I for one will NOT be wasting my time attending a meeting with people NOT interested in helping the situation ...
If you are interested in a second opinion, I will be more than happy to copy/paste this and repost it
What are you driving, year, model?? You never mentioned it in your rant
Sorry, mid-late thirties GM car with a 1983-84-85 (forget which) 305 from an Olds Cutlass (carbed).
Here are some examples of the types of questions I would like answered (and accessing the MOE source should allow me to answer these questions) ... is a heat riser valve considered by the MOE to be an emission control component? Is the little flap in the air filter housing snorkel considered by the MOE to be an emission control component or can I run an open element filter housing? Is a knock sensor (generally used with electronic fuel injection) considered by the MOE to be an emission control component or can I swap a fuel injected engine to carb, eliminate the knock sensor and still be legal? I don't want these questions answered at the side of the road (or in a meeting) by an MOE inspector just giving me his opinion (read that "making up the rules as he goes along") ... I want to SEE the document that states what it is I am required to have.
EGR, PCV, catalytic converters, sealed tanks/charcoal cans, hose from non-EGR valve cover to airfilter housing are the most commonly known emission components that are (or can be, depending on the year of vehicle/engine) required, but what about the lesser known items that may or may not actually be emission related and may or may not be required by the MOE?
I stand by my belief that if the MOE is really interested in the environment, they would help us become legal (or at least verify our legality) by allowing us access to their source of info ... sure, the bottom line is it is up to us to be legal but it would a lot easier to comply if we knew EXACTLY what it is they require of us.
I have attempted to get answers from the MOE ... they are clearly NOT interested enough to answer my questions ... I am not going continue to beat my head against a wall looking to them for answers when it appears the only thing that will change will be the shape of my head.
I've bowed out of this discussion because someone earlier had said this was highjacking the original thread and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. It is, in my opinion a very valid discussion topic that could benefit all of us. Being the new kid on the block, I'll sit back and see what happens.
__________________
What's the point of writing a response if its only going to get deleted.
