Long Tubes and Emissions
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 16,477
Likes: 26
From: Gone
CI 6-7-8-9-10 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '03
The problem is, the treehugger engineers (better known as CARB) know that catalytic converters work best when hot. The most heat available is exiting the exhaust ports of the engine...hence, the closer the cats are to the engine, the better they function, and the quicker they begin to function after startup..
Now, take that logic one step further, and create a "law", deeming any modification that relocates the cats further away from the engine heat as not allowed, because it makes them less effective and allows more pollutants into the air.
It's kind of impossible to use longer tube pipes without pushing the cats further downstream of the engine, so that there is why they are not and will never be , CARB-approved.
However, few if any other states (as of now) have such strict inspection and testing criteria, looking for that sort of thing. They might check fr the mere presence of cats, but aren't going to stress over their location, and/or being of an aftermarket (hi flow) variety.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
Not necessarily. It strictly depends on the .gov in your state as to what THEY think you should/should not be able to do to modify your car.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
In most states, no problem at all. Even states that still sniff test, not a problem.
The problem is, the treehugger engineers (better known as CARB) know that catalytic converters work best when hot. The most heat available is exiting the exhaust ports of the engine...hence, the closer the cats are to the engine, the better they function, and the quicker they begin to function after startup..
Now, take that logic one step further, and create a "law", deeming any modification that relocates the cats further away from the engine heat as not allowed, because it makes them less effective and allows more pollutants into the air.
It's kind of impossible to use longer tube pipes without pushing the cats further downstream of the engine, so that there is why they are not and will never be , CARB-approved.
However, few if any other states (as of now) have such strict inspection and testing criteria, looking for that sort of thing. They might check fr the mere presence of cats, but aren't going to stress over their location, and/or being of an aftermarket (hi flow) variety.
The problem is, the treehugger engineers (better known as CARB) know that catalytic converters work best when hot. The most heat available is exiting the exhaust ports of the engine...hence, the closer the cats are to the engine, the better they function, and the quicker they begin to function after startup..
Now, take that logic one step further, and create a "law", deeming any modification that relocates the cats further away from the engine heat as not allowed, because it makes them less effective and allows more pollutants into the air.
It's kind of impossible to use longer tube pipes without pushing the cats further downstream of the engine, so that there is why they are not and will never be , CARB-approved.
However, few if any other states (as of now) have such strict inspection and testing criteria, looking for that sort of thing. They might check fr the mere presence of cats, but aren't going to stress over their location, and/or being of an aftermarket (hi flow) variety.
HTH
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 16,477
Likes: 26
From: Gone
CI 6-7-8-9-10 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '03
Just because your state doesn't care or inspect for it, makes it no less illegal.
To put it in simpler terms, Long tube headers of any variety ARE federally prohibited, simply because CARB said so.
But realistically (and how most rationalize this), the chances of getting caught in the other 49 states is extremely slim. EPA has no real street-level enforcement presence, because the "laws" they strive to uphold aren't criminal, they're civil. They can't arrest you, they can only sue you for damages.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
Not really. Every single requirement CARB has come up with is federally adopted by the EPA.
Just because your state doesn't care or inspect for it, makes it no less illegal.
To put it in simpler terms, Long tube headers of any variety ARE federally prohibited, simply because CARB said so.
But realistically (and how most rationalize this), the chances of getting caught in the other 49 states is extremely slim. EPA has no real street-level enforcement presence, because the "laws" they strive to uphold aren't criminal, they're civil. They can't arrest you, they can only sue you for damages.
Just because your state doesn't care or inspect for it, makes it no less illegal.
To put it in simpler terms, Long tube headers of any variety ARE federally prohibited, simply because CARB said so.
But realistically (and how most rationalize this), the chances of getting caught in the other 49 states is extremely slim. EPA has no real street-level enforcement presence, because the "laws" they strive to uphold aren't criminal, they're civil. They can't arrest you, they can only sue you for damages.
So you're saying that the Feds (EPA) will (and HAVE) gone after someone like Casper's electronics for manufacturing and selling O2 simulators and yet leave all the long tube header manufacturers (which you say are also illegal in all 50 states) alone? Please explain.
Drifting
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 30
And yet they (long tube headers) are openly advertised and sold across the nation, yes?
So you're saying that the Feds (EPA) will (and HAVE) gone after someone like Casper's electronics for manufacturing and selling O2 simulators and yet leave all the long tube header manufacturers (which you say are also illegal in all 50 states) alone? Please explain.
So you're saying that the Feds (EPA) will (and HAVE) gone after someone like Casper's electronics for manufacturing and selling O2 simulators and yet leave all the long tube header manufacturers (which you say are also illegal in all 50 states) alone? Please explain.
"These devices were advertised for “off road use only” or “non-road use only.” However, the O2 Sims were designed and marketed to be used in regular production vehicles (“on road” or “on highway” vehicles), which is illegal under the Clean Air Act. In addition, while there are different control standards for “off road” vehicles (e.g., construction equipment) because of differences in the types of engines and applications, there is no general “off road” use exemption from the pollution control requirements of the Clean Air Act."
It's selective enforcement, the US Justice system is not fair nor will it be any time soon. Rather than just go after the people actually committing the crime (installing o2 sims on non-race cars) they just go after the maker knowing they won't be able to mount a good legal defense (takes $$$). Long tube headers could easily fit the description above.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resour...per-fcsht.html
"These devices were advertised for “off road use only” or “non-road use only.” However, the O2 Sims were designed and marketed to be used in regular production vehicles (“on road” or “on highway” vehicles), which is illegal under the Clean Air Act. In addition, while there are different control standards for “off road” vehicles (e.g., construction equipment) because of differences in the types of engines and applications, there is no general “off road” use exemption from the pollution control requirements of the Clean Air Act."
It's selective enforcement, the US Justice system is not fair nor will it be any time soon. Rather than just go after the people actually committing the crime (installing o2 sims on non-race cars) they just go after the maker knowing they won't be able to mount a good legal defense (takes $$$). Long tube headers could easily fit the description above.
"These devices were advertised for “off road use only” or “non-road use only.” However, the O2 Sims were designed and marketed to be used in regular production vehicles (“on road” or “on highway” vehicles), which is illegal under the Clean Air Act. In addition, while there are different control standards for “off road” vehicles (e.g., construction equipment) because of differences in the types of engines and applications, there is no general “off road” use exemption from the pollution control requirements of the Clean Air Act."
It's selective enforcement, the US Justice system is not fair nor will it be any time soon. Rather than just go after the people actually committing the crime (installing o2 sims on non-race cars) they just go after the maker knowing they won't be able to mount a good legal defense (takes $$$). Long tube headers could easily fit the description above.
I fully understand the nature of selective enforcement (time, resources, etc), but to simply ignore what (if true) is a LARGE scale and wide-spread violation of EPA laws across the country is not.
I have a strong suspicion that there may be more to this than just a case of C.A.R.B rule(s) being adopted by the EPA and therefore is the law in ALL 49 OTHER states.
If anyone has a specific link in the EPA rules/regs regarding their adoption (automatic or otherwise) of C.A.R.B. rules/regs, I would appreciate it.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
I'm just intrigued by this notion that because LT's are illegal in CA that they are also illegal in the remaining 49 OTHER states.
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 16,477
Likes: 26
From: Gone
CI 6-7-8-9-10 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '03
In the EPA's eves, any non-stock cat, no cats, relocated cats....it's all the same difference to them, a violation.
I think you'lll agree running no cats whatsoever is considered illegal, but what you're not getting is that the very same law is also broken when replacing stock functioning cats, and/or moving them. Both of which is usually done with most LT systems.
If that doesn't make sense, then I could be equally as blind to say my huge-cammed catless car running zero 02 sensors and a splash of leaded race gas is also legal...because my car in fact does pass WI emissions testing like that with no problem.
Not getting caught, and being fully legal can be two very different things.
Last edited by Y2Kvert4me; Dec 11, 2008 at 04:14 PM.
Drifting
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 30
I don't think the EPA automatically adopts California rules. I *BELIEVE* they may adopt the CARB rules after looking at them and agreeing they should apply to the US in whole. You'd basically have one state setting federal law like you said which as far as I know doesn't happen.
California also has it's own local state EPA that is the parent org for CARB that's not the same as Federal EPA.
BTW In Austin I've never noticed them putting any of my vehicles on the lift nor checking underneath for exhaust issues. They do however pull computer codes but only certain codes with fail you. I had a truck throw a transmission temp code and the inspector said it was passable. Just the same I got cats on my ARH x-pipe.
Anyone know if Illinois is big on EPA enforcement? Noticed Casper's was there. Maybe a state official was looking for bribe
California also has it's own local state EPA that is the parent org for CARB that's not the same as Federal EPA.
BTW In Austin I've never noticed them putting any of my vehicles on the lift nor checking underneath for exhaust issues. They do however pull computer codes but only certain codes with fail you. I had a truck throw a transmission temp code and the inspector said it was passable. Just the same I got cats on my ARH x-pipe.
Anyone know if Illinois is big on EPA enforcement? Noticed Casper's was there. Maybe a state official was looking for bribe
I understand why Casper's position may have been untenable, but what I don't understand is that according to Y2K, the EPA has adopted a rule or regulation making anything C.A.R.B. requires an EPA requirement, which of course would mean the the State of California is the determiner of motor vehicle emission standards in this country, not any other state (unless it too adopts the C.A.R.B. standard). Further, according to what I have observed over the years, there are few, if any, disclaimers regarding long-tube headers being sold to or installed by, people in states OTHER than California.
I fully understand the nature of selective enforcement (time, resources, etc), but to simply ignore what (if true) is a LARGE scale and wide-spread violation of EPA laws across the country is not.
I have a strong suspicion that there may be more to this than just a case of C.A.R.B rule(s) being adopted by the EPA and therefore is the law in ALL 49 OTHER states.
If anyone has a specific link in the EPA rules/regs regarding their adoption (automatic or otherwise) of C.A.R.B. rules/regs, I would appreciate it.
I fully understand the nature of selective enforcement (time, resources, etc), but to simply ignore what (if true) is a LARGE scale and wide-spread violation of EPA laws across the country is not.
I have a strong suspicion that there may be more to this than just a case of C.A.R.B rule(s) being adopted by the EPA and therefore is the law in ALL 49 OTHER states.
If anyone has a specific link in the EPA rules/regs regarding their adoption (automatic or otherwise) of C.A.R.B. rules/regs, I would appreciate it.
Last edited by ysb02; Dec 11, 2008 at 04:25 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
Like I said, it's rarely enforced outside of CA, and because the other states don't care about them, everyone thinks it's legal.
In the EPA's eves, any non-stock cat, no cats, relocated cats....it's all the same difference to them, a violation.
I think you'lll agree running no cats whatsoever is considered illegal, but what you're not getting is that the very same law is also broken when replacing stock functioning cats, and/or moving them. Both of which is usually done with most LT systems.
So you're saying that if someone has damaged cats and replaces them and also installs a LT system that does NOT change the specific mounting location then it's "legal"? And of course, to me at least, that begs the question what is "functioning"? What's the standard? Eye-of-the-beholder or driven by empirical data? Does that also mean that ANY cat other than an OEM unit is "illegal"? Does this mean that in addition to all LTs being illegal, that all non-OEM cats currently being manufactured and sold are also illegal?
If that doesn't make sense, then I could be equally as blind to say my huge-cammed catless car running zero 02 sensors and a splash of leaded race gas is also legal...because my car in fact does pass WI emissions testing like that with no problem.
Not getting caught, and being fully legal can be two very different things.
Even I can figure that one out. Thanks.
In the EPA's eves, any non-stock cat, no cats, relocated cats....it's all the same difference to them, a violation.
I think you'lll agree running no cats whatsoever is considered illegal, but what you're not getting is that the very same law is also broken when replacing stock functioning cats, and/or moving them. Both of which is usually done with most LT systems.
So you're saying that if someone has damaged cats and replaces them and also installs a LT system that does NOT change the specific mounting location then it's "legal"? And of course, to me at least, that begs the question what is "functioning"? What's the standard? Eye-of-the-beholder or driven by empirical data? Does that also mean that ANY cat other than an OEM unit is "illegal"? Does this mean that in addition to all LTs being illegal, that all non-OEM cats currently being manufactured and sold are also illegal?
If that doesn't make sense, then I could be equally as blind to say my huge-cammed catless car running zero 02 sensors and a splash of leaded race gas is also legal...because my car in fact does pass WI emissions testing like that with no problem.
Not getting caught, and being fully legal can be two very different things.
Even I can figure that one out. Thanks.
Racer
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 287
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area California
Long Tubes and Emissions
States must submit emissions control strategies to meet Federal air quality standards for failure to attain/comply with the standards (existing or future) which are then approved/disapproved by the Feds. Control stategies including emissions control technologies and more restrictive tailpipe emissions limits are approved for that State however, they are not adopted as a Federal standard. That would be the tail wagging the dog and that isn't going to happen.
Other vehicle emissions requirements specific to hardware are shared by all and specifically are included in control equipment tampering laws. States other than Kali seem to take a more hands-off approach to enforcing a Federal law thus ECU codes and/or meeting tailpipe emission limits suffice. Obviously a bit more common sense based which counts Kali out! Would be willing to bet those days however will be over soon after January. Off-topic but just wanted to clarify...
A1
Other vehicle emissions requirements specific to hardware are shared by all and specifically are included in control equipment tampering laws. States other than Kali seem to take a more hands-off approach to enforcing a Federal law thus ECU codes and/or meeting tailpipe emission limits suffice. Obviously a bit more common sense based which counts Kali out! Would be willing to bet those days however will be over soon after January. Off-topic but just wanted to clarify...
A1
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,836
Likes: 244
From: Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed.
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
States must submit emissions control strategies to meet Federal air quality standards for failure to attain/comply with the standards (existing or future) which are then approved/disapproved by the Feds. Control stategies including emissions control technologies and more restrictive tailpipe emissions limits are approved for that State however, they are not adopted as a Federal standard. That would be the tail wagging the dog and that isn't going to happen.
Other vehicle emissions requirements specific to hardware are shared by all and specifically are included in control equipment tampering laws. States other than Kali seem to take a more hands-off approach to enforcing a Federal law thus ECU codes and/or meeting tailpipe emission limits suffice. Obviously a bit more common sense based which counts Kali out! Would be willing to bet those days however will be over soon after January. Off-topic but just wanted to clarify...
A1
Other vehicle emissions requirements specific to hardware are shared by all and specifically are included in control equipment tampering laws. States other than Kali seem to take a more hands-off approach to enforcing a Federal law thus ECU codes and/or meeting tailpipe emission limits suffice. Obviously a bit more common sense based which counts Kali out! Would be willing to bet those days however will be over soon after January. Off-topic but just wanted to clarify...
A1
Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 607
Likes: 29
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
I want to preface this statement by saying I have no factual evidence to back up any of this. However, I thought that C.A.R.B had a lawsuit pending against someone, maybe EPA, to try and gain control over air quality and stuff. Maybe that is what has already been said. Again, I am not stating fact. Until I can confirm this is just something I thought I had read.
Instructor
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
You can pass emissions in WI with no Cats??