EPA Seeks to Prohibit Race Cars

[VintageMusclecar]

Had to alter the title because it wouldn't fit in the text box.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles into Racecars</span></span>

Don't take this one lightly, look at what they've recently done to the Diesel market.
================================================== ================================

https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/epa-seeks-to-prohibit-conversion-of-vehicles-into-racecars

EPA SEEKS TO PROHIBIT CONVERSION OF VEHICLES INTO RACECARS
-- SEMA to Oppose Action as Threat to Modified Racecars and Parts Suppliers --

Washington, DC (February 8, 2016) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.

“This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.”

SEMA submitted comments in opposition to the regulation and met with the EPA to confirm the agency’s intentions. The EPA indicated that the regulation would prohibit conversion of vehicles into racecars and make the sale of certain emissions-related parts for use on converted vehicles illegal. Working with other affected organizations, including those representing legions of professional and hobbyist racers and fans, SEMA will continue to oppose the regulation through the administrative process and will seek congressional support and judicial intervention as necessary.

The EPA has indicated it expects to publish final regulations by July 2016.

About SEMA
SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association founded in 1963, represents the $36 billion specialty automotive industry of 6,633 member-companies. It is the authoritative source for research, data, trends and market growth information for the specialty auto parts industry. The industry provides appearance, performance, comfort, convenience and technology products for passenger and recreational vehicles. For more information, contact SEMA at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765, tel: 909-610-2030, or visit www.sema.org. (http://www.sema.org)

[70 copo]

The #1 target of the EPA has always been cars. Once conversion is prohibited they will next target and regulate existing race cars and &quot;pre emission street vehicles&quot;.

That's our muscle cars folks.

[bbbentley]

Let's see, picture a balance scale with, on one side, Motorsports and the $ revenue made in all forms including money spent on the cars, crews, etc... On the other side of the scale put the EPA. Now, if the hobby and sport could just band together and have a one year moratorium stopping all $ generated by Motorsports as a whole, then let's see who would win, 'cause in this country, $ talks and B.S., well you know? The EPA would be shut down so fast 'cause it is our money (taxes) that keeps this leviathan running. Hit 'em in the pocketbook, something to consider. It is the only thing these folks understand.

[HawkX66]

This coming from an agency that produced John Beale, Sr. Policy Advisor. Oh, and claimed to be a CIA operator while bilking the EPA for nearly $1m that they actually could prove.
http://www.washingtonian.com/2014/03/04/the-suit-who-spooked-the-epa/

For many years the EPA has been an agency that keeps just trying to make itself relevant by creating insane policies like the ones concerning ethanol fuel.

[bilede]

Changes to their policies have continued to occur as companies that produce products labeled as &quot;race or offroad only&quot; have been fined huge amounts and gone bankrupt already for producing these because vehicle owners installed on a street vehicle. Holding a company liable for how a product is used by a future owner has interesting consequences in many other areas. No good in my opinion.

[old5.0]

So you mean the &quot;slippery slope&quot; is a real thing? Who'd a thunk it...

[427TJ]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The #1 target of the EPA has always been cars. Once conversion is prohibited they will next target and regulate existing race cars and &quot;pre emission street vehicles&quot;.

That's our muscle cars folks. </div></div>

They choose the easiest targets they can win against. They don't dare go after industrial polluters (with powerful legal teams and political allies) so they come after the little guy who cannot defend against this.

Having said that, there's this: http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/...actually-means/ (http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a28135/heres-what-the-epas-track-car-proposal-actually-means/)

[70 copo]

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/02/09/epa-proposal-would-restrict-road-to-racecar-conversions/

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/epa-road-car-racecar-conversions-020916

Looks like they are walking it back a bit.,.

[70 copo]

And it does not take long to connect the dots on new production of old cars with EPA approved drivetrains. The timing here is conveinant.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/new-law-vintage-cars/

[70 copo]

From 2009 speculation:

https://www.motorists.org/blog/will-old-cars-eventually-be-banned/


There is also an EPA position paper that I have read that sets fourth as early as 1990-ways to regulate old cars off the road and ways to nudge the population into compliance.

[Lynn]

Plenty of double talk from the EPA going on: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/...ans/?refer=news (http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/02/11/epa-race-cars-have-always-required-factory-emissions-equipment-sema-shenanigans/?refer=news)

I will be the first to admit I was wrong about the EPA back in the 70's. Without the EPA mandates on car emissions, the automakers would have kept making cars the cheapest way possible. We might still have carbs on new cars. The EPA made the automakers find a way to build cars that pollute less. The automakers said it couldn't be done each time. Face it, because of the EPA we drive amazing computer controlled, more powerful, more fuel efficient, cleaner cars. That is the way it should be for mass produced vehicles for the masses.
HOWEVER, the race car world and the pre-emission vehicles is such minuscule part of the big picture. The current approach simply makes no sense. Cars modified for off road use (and taken off the road) need to be left alone.

[427TJ]

And thanks to Ralph Nader being such a PITA in the 1960s we have seat belts, safety glass, air bags, collapsing steering columns, crumple zones, etc. Not only are cars more efficient and much cleaner, they are far safer than in the old days.

As for the latest flare-up over off-road cars, we must assume that SEMA (and other vehicular industry interest groups) will weigh-in and hammer-out a compromise that we probably won't notice. There's a lot of money in the aftermarket and if the EPA seriously tried to impinge on those profits there would be hell to pay.

[70 copo]

The EPA simply rigged the game in the 70's against the domestic automakers and then in the 80's against domestic manufacturing. The outcome was regulated globalization sending millions of US jobs to other countries.

The 2V and 4V Carb was finished as a design by the late 80's with the advent of Throttle body Injection as phased in during the early 1980's with Crossfire injection.

The existence of the EPA does have a critical upside since we had to adapt to regulation 30 years ago to survive-and using computers finally perfect the fuel and emission standards to keep our V-8's alive and fast.

An alternate future for others without an aggressive EPA:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2015/...ting-next-year/ (http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2015/02/12/paris-to-ban-all-old-cars-from-city-limits-starting-next-year/)

The Race car thing is a simple trial balloon.

Beware.

[old5.0]

Not sure I buy into the &quot;no progress without the EPA&quot; narrative. Go drive a stock 50 Chevy and a stock COPO Camaro back to back and try telling me that the Camaro isn't a vastly superior car in practically every objective measure (short of maybe high speed impact protection).

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear from anyone on either side that has a handle on the CAA as well as any subsequent, relevant legislation or court rulings. Could be SEMA crying wolf, or it could be the EPA re-interpreting existing law in order to help themselves to authority they never had to begin with. Either is entirely within the bounds of possibility.

[70 copo]

Performance for the Small Block Camaro had statistically matched the late 1960's stock acceleration performance levels by 1987 with the 350 TPI in conjunction with top speeds-- the old cars could simply never hope to match. The Ford Roller motors were great for the time as well.

Super fast on board computers in conjunction with the LS redesign in the late 90's changed the rules permanently as to performance and emissions. Not at all uncommon to see a modified LS in a 4th gen hitting a 9 in the quarter. This is a burr in the EPA's saddle for sure.

[Chevyfever]

I personally do not like government intrusion,the free market would take care of most thru competition.
The EPA has cost jobs and drove up prices,in most of their rules,part of the reason we have 70000 dollar pickup trucks!

[old5.0]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Performance for the Small Block Camaro had statistically matched the late 1960's stock acceleration performance levels by 1987 with the 350 TPI in conjunction with top speeds-- the old cars could simply never hope to match. The Ford Roller motors were great for the time as well.

Super fast on board computers in conjunction with the LS redesign in the late 90's changed the rules permanently as to performance and emissions. Not at all uncommon to see a modified LS in a 4th gen hitting a 9 in the quarter. This is a burr in the EPA's saddle for sure. </div></div>

Agree completely. After the Dark Ages between 75-82, by 1987-90 we had largely gained back most of the performance lost after 71 (or 74. Looking at you, 455 SD Pontiac). People don't realize how many cubic inches EFI and an aggressive roller cam can add to a little motor.

To be clear, I was referring to a 69 COPO Camaro in my previous post. It's absolutely true that we've come miles in terms of technology over the past 50 years, but we came miles between 1945 and 1971, as well. There is no comparison between a flathead 6 and an LS-6 454; the latter is, technologically speaking, so far advanced from the former that there is no effective basis for comparison. So have we gotten where we are because of the EPA, or in spite of them? There's an argument to be made either way, but I know which side I'm on.

[Lynn]

All good points. No doubt the breed would have continued to improve. However, most improvements were to ride, handling and power. If car A handles and performs just as well as car B, but car B costs more ONLY because it burns cleaner, not very many of your average consumers are going to pay extra for car B. Just saying without some mandates, we wouldn't be nearly as clean as we are, because there is no &quot;supply and demand&quot; incentive. The comment on the carbs was simply hyperbole.

[JRC99]

The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to get me to give up cars for the sake of emissions is to shoot me. No way in hell am I going to take this lying down.

[70 copo]

Update:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/04/1...ng/?intcmp=hpff (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/04/14/republicans-warn-proposed-epa-rule-could-wreck-auto-racing/?intcmp=hpff)

[WILMASBOYL78]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRC99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The <span style="font-style: italic">only</span> way to get me to give up cars for the sake of emissions is to shoot me. No way in hell am I going to take this lying down. </div></div>

&quot;out of my cold...dead...hands&quot;

[70 copo]

It's over for now. The EPA has agreed to redact the rule making.

We win....for now.

[70 copo]

Paris just instituted a ban on old cars... Goes into effect July 1, 2016


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/0...intcmp=features (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/03/sacre-vroom-paris-bans-cars-in-city-center/?intcmp=features)

[scuncio]

To be fair this is a weekday ban. Not at all surprising to see in European city centers...they have been contemplating banning internal combustion vehicles entirely in certain high density urban areas over there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paris just instituted a ban on old cars... Goes into effect July 1, 2016


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/0...intcmp=features (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/06/03/sacre-vroom-paris-bans-cars-in-city-center/?intcmp=features) </div></div>

[427TJ]

There's always more to the story.

[70 copo]

Any ban is unacceptable.

If we accept anything like that here the operable part of the our hobby is placed at risk unless you like garage art.

[earntaz]

I wonder who in Paris was waving the white flag -- seems to be a pattern here ... TAZ

[scuncio]

It's PARIS for God's sake...but I'm sure SF is thinking about it too. I think the upper midwest is safe....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any ban is unacceptable.

If we accept anything like that here the operable part of the our hobby is placed at risk unless you like garage art. </div></div>

[70 copo]

Keep a sharp eye out this coming November for more on this topic. This excerpt comes directly from the UN agenda 2030 language on &quot;Sustainable Transport&quot;.

<span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;To develop concrete recommendations for more sustainable transport systems that can address rising congestion and pollution worldwide, particularly in urban areas, and are actionable at global, national, local and sector levels. The policy recommendations, to be developed by the HLAG-ST, are expected to be reflected in a global sustainable transport outlook report that will be released in a first international conference on sustainable transport in November 2016.&quot;</span>

[70 copo]

Update-Agenda 2030 is going effective now with a 10 year delay.

England is instituting its ban on Gas vehicles effective 2040.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/britain-to-ban-sale-of-all-diesel-and-petrol-cars-and-vans-from-2040

France also has set 2040 as its date:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-vehicles-2040/

[Lee Stewart]

The above stores are NOT correct! Both France and the UK plan to ban CONVENTIONAL Gas & Diesel cars. What they want is HYBRID cars only:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a10362988/uk-gas-diesel-cars-2040/

[70 copo]

Lee,

If they are not planning to do this why do these stories keep on appearing?


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608347/britain-is-getting-rid-of-the-internal-combustion-engine/



Also Germany voted last October to maintain track to meet the 2030 agenda mandate with no delay:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a31097/german-government-votes-to-ban-internal-combustion-engines-by-2030/

[70 copo]

The risk here is that performance cars as we know them will soon be regulated and thus banned.

And no I do not think an emasculated hybrid is a performance car on par with internal combustion technology stock or modified. I think we all want to hand this hobby down to the kids right?:)

[Lee Stewart]

Lee,

If they are not planning to do this why do these stories keep on appearing?


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608347/britain-is-getting-rid-of-the-internal-combustion-engine/



Also Germany voted last October to maintain track to meet the 2030 agenda mandate with no delay:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a31097/german-government-votes-to-ban-internal-combustion-engines-by-2030/

The stories keep appearing because it is "high drama" but they are not factual. Typical of the media to get it wrong.

[Lee Stewart]

The risk here is that performance cars as we know them will soon be regulated and thus banned.

And no I do not think an emasculated hybrid is a performance car on par with internal combustion technology stock or modified. I think we all want to hand this hobby down to the kids right?:)

Do not confuse what is going on in Europe with the USA. France is almost the same size as Texas with a population of 67 million people - almost 3X that of Texas. And of those 67M almost 65M live in metropolitan areas. Air pollution is definitely a problem.

Here in the USA, we have a much greater tolerance for air pollution from cars. Plus only about 25% of the USA has access to mass transit.

And what are you worried about? AFAIK one of the Tesla electric cars can kick the crap out of any of the 1960/1970s muscle cars hands down. BTW - spare me the argument concerning exhaust noise . . . Muscle cars are all about 1/4 mile ETs.

[70 copo]

Lee,

I am worried about this, and I think you should be too:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/08/california-air-resources-board-automakers/

In working with Hemmings, The HVA, and our partner groups that are all interested in the preservation of our automotive heritage - these developments are alarming.

Oh by the way lets look at some Tesla facts:


Trips take dramatically longer

You are continually stopping to find a super charger so that means you have to plan your route around the infrastructure on an approved Tesla route which is sketchy.

Right now an 8 hour trip in a Gasoline car on a Tesla approved route that has superchargers - installed takes 12 hours to complete in a Tesla.


Finally that world beating performance that will "Kick the crap out of our cars" drops off as the battery discharges. You hit it once there is your best run. You hit it multiple times your ET drops quickly.


Now just where did I get this info? Directly from a GM engineer up at the tech center in May. They had one plugged in and were studying it so I asked him about it.

Back to topic, from the link above we should be concerned now here in the USA about California and their intentions concerning the Internal Combustion Engine.:)

[Lee Stewart]

I am not worried at all. I am 66 years old. I will be dead before any of what you are linking to actually happens.

There are a few things to consider though. Current battery technology is not enough. There has to be a revolutionary, not evolutionary breakthrough. Plus you have the increased strain on electric grids which will have to be upgraded to handle the additional needs of electric cars. And BTW there are two parts to these bans: first is all new cars can't have an ICE. Then you have to deal with all the existing ICE equipped cars. It will take decades before they are traded in for a new model.

And then you have Big Oil. You really think they will sit by and do nothing?

California has always "lead the charge" when it comes to auto emissions. They had the A.I.R. system two years before it became mandatory. Yet CA is still today referred to as the "Smog State."

Politicians can make great speeches but the voters control what happens. And if there is one state in the USA that is dependent on the car for transportation it's CA.

Everyone likes "going green" until their life is disrupted by it. Then they holler and scream at the top of their lungs.

[70 copo]

I want to keep politics out of the thread, I simply want to keep you informed.

If you live in the states of:

California
Oregon
Washington
Colorado
Arizona
New Mexico
Minnesota
Illinois
Michigan
Vermont
New Hampshire
Rhode Island

You live in a state that has decided to follow UN Agenda 2030 on a Voluntary basis.

Keep a sharp eye on evolving legislation in these states concerning our cars.

Within the country as a whole there are roughly 115 cities that are "Paris in waiting" meaning they are well along the path of placing plans that will attempt to ban or tax or place limits on when such a vehicle can be operated.

For those wondering Agenda 2030 is the so called "Paris Accord". :)

[RichSchmidt]

They are outlawing the sale of any NEW fossil fueled vehicles in 2040. It isn't much different than when the banned leaded gas and made new cars have catalytic converters. or how withing the next 6 years all cars will be required to get 50mpg. They told us that we couldn't buy a new car with a 12:1 compression big block that made 450hp and burned leaded gas. We conformed,and they even went so far as to remove the leaded gas that we needed to run our existing cars on. In 5 years you will be reading on Camaro forums about how to work on your electric hybrid supplimental motor on your 4 cylinder Z/28. Somehow or another we always end up conforming to their rules. No doubt that if by 2050 someone owns a petrol burning vehicle they won't be able to find fuel for it and will be mixing concoctions in their garages to keep them running.

[Vern B]

They are outlawing the sale of any NEW fossil fueled vehicles in 2040. It isn't much different than when the banned leaded gas and made new cars have catalytic converters. or how withing the next 6 years all cars will be required to get 50mpg. They told us that we couldn't buy a new car with a 12:1 compression big block that made 450hp and burned leaded gas. We conformed,and they even went so far as to remove the leaded gas that we needed to run our existing cars on. In 5 years you will be reading on Camaro forums about how to work on your electric hybrid supplimental motor on your 4 cylinder Z/28. Somehow or another we always end up conforming to their rules. No doubt that if by 2050 someone owns a petrol burning vehicle they won't be able to find fuel for it and will be mixing concoctions in their garages to keep them running.

You think they'll be making hybrid, or electrical, conversion kits for 69 COPO Camaro's, or will everything before agiven date be grandfathered?

[427TJ]

They are outlawing the sale of any NEW fossil fueled vehicles in 2040. It isn't much different than when the banned leaded gas and made new cars have catalytic converters. or how withing the next 6 years all cars will be required to get 50mpg. They told us that we couldn't buy a new car with a 12:1 compression big block that made 450hp and burned leaded gas. We conformed,and they even went so far as to remove the leaded gas that we needed to run our existing cars on. In 5 years you will be reading on Camaro forums about how to work on your electric hybrid supplimental motor on your 4 cylinder Z/28. Somehow or another we always end up conforming to their rules. No doubt that if by 2050 someone owns a petrol burning vehicle they won't be able to find fuel for it and will be mixing concoctions in their garages to keep them running.

Who would have thought in 1971 that in 2017 you could buy brand-new 450-500+hp Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs that got good gas mileage on pump gas? I wouldn't be so gloomy just yet. A LOT can happen between now and 2020, 2030, 2040.

[Lee Stewart]

Who would have thought in 1971 that in 2017 you could buy brand-new 450-500+hp Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs that got good gas mileage on pump gas? I wouldn't be so gloomy just yet. A LOT can happen between now and 2020, 2030, 2040.

Sure - like elections!

[70 copo]

California looks to be going first.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article175740811.html

[Vern B]

250 plus million vehicles plugged into the electric grid every night, that should be interesting.

[Tommy]

250 plus million vehicles plugged into the electric grid every night, that should be interesting.

In April of 2011, multiple Tornadoes hit Alabama and most of North Alabama was without power for over a week. Imagine that in a world full of cars/trucks that need to be plugged in every night. I doubt the internal combustion engine will disappear any time soon. I do think our hobby will continue to change but it will be slow.


Tommy

[Lee Stewart]

In all of these bans the one car that isn't banned is the hybrid. Just cars that use the ICE for 100% power all the time.

And it will take decades for people to replace their current cars with electric/hybrid/fuel cell after the ban is put into place. So who today will be alive 50 to 60 years from now?

[70 copo]

our kids and grandkids.

[70 copo]

Framed another way: If I remain in good health I expect to keep the bulk of my collection for at least 30 more years.

A ban could cut either way as to the value at sale. Stuff that you cannot legally drive typically is hit hard on valuation at sale.

Not an outcome I want to see, nor an outcome anyone else wants - especially if handing a car down within an estate... just saying.:)

[Lee Stewart]

Framed another way: If I remain in good health I expect to keep the bulk of my collection for at least 30 more years.

A ban could cut either way as to the value at sale. Stuff that you cannot legally drive typically is hit hard on valuation at sale.

Not an outcome I want to see, nor an outcome anyone else wants - especially if handing a car down within an estate... just saying.:)

The bans only deal with new cars sold. No one is stupid enough to outlaw ALL existing ICE cars. That just won't happen. You think Big Oil would let that happen? Plus the USA is a lot different in sheer size from France or England. The only USA wide transportation system we have are the Interstates.

It makes good press to say you will ban all new ICE cars sold . . . then you have to deal with the BILLIONS needed to create an infrastructure that can deal with electric/fuel cell cars. So how is the financial health of CA?

[Lee Stewart]

our kids and grandkids.

So let them deal with the issue, just like we have had to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons after we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan to end WWII.

[JRC99]

So let them deal with the issue, just like we have had to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons after we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan to end WWII.

Gee thanks. I didn't ask for this.

(I'm 18.)

[Lee Stewart]

Gee thanks. I didn't ask for this.

(I'm 18.)

Neither did we! Decisions are made today that solve one problem but have far reaching consequences into the future.

[70 copo]

Gee thanks. I didn't ask for this.

(I'm 18.)

Exactly.

While we can make comparisons that distract from the discussion however a simple review of the thread will reflect that the material posted warning of what some segments of society have planned for the incremental phase out of the internal combustion engine is very real.

As an example the catoylitic converter is front and center here as in 1970 the big three were laughing at the prospect. By 1972 the automotive press was openly calling the new car offerings "Lemons" and the converter was the law soon after. What caused this was regulation backed by the junk science of period this was the so called "hole in the Ozone".

The domestic Auto industry was damaged severely during this period some will say it has still not recovered.

We would be well advised to heed the warnings provided by history.

[Lee Stewart]

That's all well and good but the issue at hand is that it far easier to say you are going to phase out the ICE versus actually doing it. Not one of the countries that has talked up the ban has said how they will deal with the massive investment to their infrastructure to support the ban.

Let's take a look at California for a moment. What happens when CA gets hit with another large earthquake which will surely disrupt the electric grids. What happens when people lose their power for a week or two?

[Mr70]

Ask Puerto Rico.

[Lee Stewart]

Ask Puerto Rico.

I can't. They don't have either land line or cell phone service for the most part.

[70 copo]

Yep, I had to blink twice...no this is not the onion: :)

Paris has banned all cars for a day.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/paris-bans-cars-city-day-50208953

[Lee Stewart]

Study recommends European countries exempt historic vehicles from car bans

As more cities across Europe take action to address their congested or polluted urban centers by restricting or outright banning vehicles from those areas, a study recently released by the European Commission suggests making a number of exemptions, including one for historic vehicles.

“Historic vehicles could be exempted from low-emission zones because of their minimal use in the regulated areas combined with their contribution to the preservation of motoring heritage,” the authors of the study wrote. “LEZs would thus disproportionately penalise particularly urban-based owners and businesses servicing historic vehicles since practically no retrofitting possibilities exist.”

The EU defines vehicles of historic interest as those 30 years or older, of a type no longer manufactured, and “historically preserved and maintained in its original state.” It generally accepts that historic vehicles are not frequently used on public roads.

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/?p=912736

[70 copo]

Stay alert folks. :)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/california-bill-to-banish-gasoline-cars-by-2040-is-in-the-works

There are less and less ways to apply lipstick to this pig.

[mssl72]

Reasons to leave the "burning" state keep coming up, besides high cost of living. :no:

[Charley Lillard]

At my age I won't care by the time they implement that.

[70 copo]

Well with no illness my family on both sides is living into the early 90's with today's medical care.

With advanced medical care yet to be developed who knows....so it is conceivable I could be looking at perhaps 40 more years of tinkering with old cars - so yes I do care about my cars and the future of our Fossil fueled automobiles in general.:)

[70 copo]

Well here we go- Europe has banned the sale of the GM 6.2 engine in Camaro and Corvette.

Unless this is fake news - this is exactly our worst fear:

https://driving.ca/chevrolet/auto-news/news/europe-to-outlaw-c7-corvette-and-camaro-ss-sales

https://carbuzz.com/news/new-chevy-camaro-and-corvette-sales-banned-in-europe

[John Brown]

Europe has banned the sale of the GM 6.2 engine in Camaro and Corvette.

Sounds like an opportunity to do a reverse Yenko deal. Smaller engine instead of larger.

[earntaz]

Well here we go- Europe has banned the sale of the GM 6.2 engine in Camaro and Corvette.

Unless this is fake news - this is exactly our worst fear:

https://driving.ca/chevrolet/auto-news/news/europe-to-outlaw-c7-corvette-and-camaro-ss-sales

https://carbuzz.com/news/new-chevy-camaro-and-corvette-sales-banned-in-europe

Yup -- the real reason is the Chevy's are spoiling the rule of the European cars ... just sayin' ... BMW, Mercs etc. are applauding this ...

[70 copo]

6.2 today in a new car.. 426 HEMI in a collector car tomorrow...

"Just Sayin"

[Lynn]

Unless I have grossly misunderstood this, there is no bulls eye on the 6.2. The 6.2 simply does not burn clean enough in its present iteration to pass next year's emissions standards.

That doesn't mean that Chevy can't produce a cleaner version.

I will be the first to admit that in the early 70's I hated the EPA and blamed that agency for all the crappy cars we ended up driving. However, I will also be the first to admit that I was wrong. There is no way car makers would EVER have pursued and achieved the amazing (relatively) clean burning engines we have today. With the advances in technology, they even figured out how to build them with huge power numbers AND still make them clean burning.

I have no doubt that Chevy (and every other manufacturer) can make them even cleaner.

While I agree, we (collectors of old vehicles) need to stay vigilant to insure no governing agency in the U.S. passes laws that make our vehicles illegal, I have not seen any such proposed legislation that would do that. If they want to ban manufacture of of everything but electric cars in another 20 years, that doesn't mean every non-electric car on the road is suddenly gone. Just like cats in 1973. Didn't have any affect on the pre cat cars that were already on the road.

[70 copo]

Lynn,

As I pointed out in post #38 of this thread the issue in play is the global implementation of UN agenda 2030, and I want to reiterate that I want to keep politics out of this thread.

However for those of you that need to better understand the UN Agenda 2030 mindset simply have a look at this recent France 24 show and pay specific attention to the guest's stated position during the 3.50-5.30 mark.

https://www.watch-latest-news.com/car-trouble-can-manufacturers-meet-new-eu-emission-standards/

On the specifics with the 6.2 on the way out, the C-8 will be mid engine smaller and will likely be simply be re certified for Europe in the near term.

Now please understand that our own version of Europe and Agenda 2030 is proposed right here in the US:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Pay special attention to the language at Subpart H.

Our cars have been coded as "ICE vehicles" for the purpose of compliance targets with agenda 2030.

[70 copo]

Carlton Reed has an excellent Piece in FORBES illustrating where NYC wants to go in its war on the car.

Yes Forbes not the onion or the babylon bee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/01/23/new-york-state-governor-mulls-car-helmet-compulsion-to-discourage-motoring/#2bdcd8bef4ed

[scuncio]

I love how the backdrop on the caption photo is "Making Progress Happen"

[70 copo]

The latest from the UK NO more ICE vehicles in only 15 years.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/32084/united-kingdom-government-moves-up-ban-on-internal-combustion-engines-to-2035

[Burd]

So you mean the &quot;slippery slope&quot; is a real thing? Who'd a thunk it.

What?

[70 copo]

Well it is a bit more complex than "water is wet"

If you say "we are going to ban your antique or classic cars" Ban your tow vehicle, ban your race car, ban parts for your engine, and so on - then that has an immediate polarizing effect and removes any room you have to shape opinion or perceptions because you are immediately messing with private property use and ownership.

So the tactic of late is to nudge and cloak the real objective while wrapping the entire issue in layers of media and social distraction while you employ generational shift as a tactic. This is the "we have the save the environment movement" which targets our kids and ironically only attacks the rights of free countries while developing countries and the authoritarian mega polluters (china) are selectively 100% ignored. The absence of any concentrated focus on the real modern day source of pollution will indicate to open minded people what the real intent behind this "movement" really is, and by the way this is not at all new - the very same fear mongering was employed 45 years ago about the dangers of Tetraethyl lead (TEL) and we all know how that worked out for the domestic auto industry in the 1970's.

This thread originally started as educational commentary on potential rule making by the EPA with the potential to negatively impact our hobby. I have chosen to continue to update it to report on the progress being made world wide in what at this point is undeniably a blatant effort to restrict the future ability for anyone to enjoy, restore and keep any internal combustion automobile.

It is clear now what the end game is so I will operate within the rules set by the forum and simply continue to update this information as changes are announced.

Take a Kid to a car show, a race, take them for a ride in your muscle car, Your hobby and our automotive heritage depends on it.

[Lynn]

I have still not seen ONE proposal by any Country, State, Province or municipality that makes OWNING an internal combustion engine (ICE) car illegal, OR occasionally driving an ICE car illegal, even after 2035 or 2040 (or 2050 for that matter…. in which case, like Charley says, I don’t know that it matters to me). The only ban involving a collector car was driving downtown Paris, not something I am planning to do any time soon.

However, soon after its initial implementation, banning cars manufactured prior to 1997, an exception was made (June 2016) for classic cars. What they are targeting are cars that are old (but not REALLY old like our collector cars) and dirty and driven daily.

Norway has maybe the most progressive policy towards all electric vehicles. Even in Norway, the collector cars will be exempt.

You can’t just read the headline that says: “All ICE Cars Banned by 2025 (or 2030, 2035 or 2040) and ignore the actual article, which obviously contains much more detail than the headline.

All of the proposals purport to bans the sale of a NEW car with ICE. While many also aim to speed up the switch to all electric vehicles by various means; however, not one actual proposal suggests taking all the Duesenbergs or muscle cars away. They are not banning cars already on the road. Do you seriously believe a consumer could purchase an ICE car in 2029, and then be forced to send it to the crusher in 2030? He or she will just not be able to buy another ICE in 2030.

Is the internal combustion engine on the way out? Absolutely; although, IF (a big “if” I know) someone develops an engine control system that is virtually emission free, there would be no more argument against the ICE. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you had told me in 1974 that cars in 2020 burn as clean as they do now AND that those cars would incredibly more efficient and powerful, I would have laughed. Of course, I was wrong.

Post #68 implies that the State of NY wants to go to war against the car. Clearly they are trying to figure out ways to reduce the number of cars on the road on a daily basis. Again, I have seen nothing to indicate the State wants to go after collector cars. The implication is that the Gov is considering compulsory helmet laws for auto drivers. First, if it is applied across the board (and no reason to believe it won’t be) then it would ALSO apply to EVs. Second, it isn’t like there is an actual movement for compulsory helmet laws for automobiles. The ENTIRE part of the story that suggest so is as follows:

Streetsblog NYC’s Gersh Kuntzman then asked Cuomo if he might consider helmet compulsion for car drivers, given that vast numbers of car drivers involved in fatal crashes die as a result of head trauma.
After a long pause, the governor said: “I’m thinking.”
He then followed up with: “I don’t know enough. I’d like to see the data.”

That’s it.

While the ICE cars in their current iterations clearly have a bulls eye on them; muscle cars do not.

This thread started with an article about the EPA wanting to ban any race car that started life as a street car. That proposal was made in Feb. 2016. While someone may have posted the UPDATE on this thread, I did not see it. Five and one half months later, the proposal was withdrawn, as cooler heads prevailed.

“Update 7/28/16: While the EPA has withdrawn the proposal, the agency continues to assert authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the modification of vehicles used for competition. As a result, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act was created, a bipartisan bill in Congress that will guarantee that street vehicles can continue to be modified into race cars used exclusively for the track.”

Maybe the sky will start falling in on our hobby at some point. For now, it is not. This is just my opinion. You are free to read the same stories and draw different conclusions. I don’t have a crystal ball.

[70 copo]

Ok Lynn,

I get what you are saying.

Tell you what lets just take what is being proposed literally world wide at face value and then hindsight will be 20-20 within this thread.

You obviously have an opinion that you have voiced here very clearly within this thread previously, so debating you on the merits will get us exactly no place fast and since I do not want this thread to go the way of the collector car fraud thread, lets keep it nice shall we?:beers:

[Lynn]

I agree. You know, I remember watching an interview of Ruth Graham (wife of Billy Graham) back in the 70's.
The interviewer was obviously trying to stir some controversy (which I do NOT believe either of us are trying to do) and asked her if she agreed with everything her husband said.

Her response was perfect: "I learned a long time ago, if two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary."

I can appreciate different points of view. No need to be anything other than nice.

[70 copo]

This was an OP-Ed across the pond just two years ago:

"As the Judges force the Government to ban the sale of even new petrol cars, classic car auction price falls of unknown depths are very likely in the short term."

"As local authorities ban old cars from even urban areas, fossil fuels are in very real danger of disappearing from what will be a dwindling number of forecourts."

"If the politicians prevent you from driving your classic car where you want to go and you are unable to refuel it when you get there, unless you have a motor museum, then there would appear to be little point in ownership."

Here: https://drivetribe.com/p/the-2040-petrol-ban-for-classic-NoWb33iNRj-k2yKBjfDJoA?iid=Kbz5bqPURNevyo7JUlWBww

[70 copo]

The EPA is back at it again:

EPA Declares War Against Makers of Emissions Defeat Devices

This spells trouble for the aftermarket industry and tuning community alike.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/31848/epa-declares-war-against-makers-of-emissions-defeat-devices

[70 copo]

And the Diesel Bros got the winning ticket.... Joel Rosen has the original T-Shirt from way back in 1975.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/32533/diesel-brothers-hit-with-850000-fine-for-tampering-with-truck-emissions

[70 copo]

Sorry I cannot resist.

[70 copo]

At some point in time you have to take these radicals at their word...

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada wants deeper environmental ties with the United States and one result could be a North American ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks, a senior cabinet member said on Thursday.

Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Ottawa and the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden both agreed zero emissions vehicles needed to be deployed faster.

Canada will discuss with the United States how to achieve this and also improve the overall performance of the transport sector, which accounts for 26% of Canadian emissions..... .


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-canada-usa/canada-floats-idea-of-north-american-ban-on-new-gasoline-powered-cars-idUSKBN28R31V

[70 copo]

New Administration= same old moves now afoot again within the EPA....

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is embroiled in a lawsuit with Gear Box Z, Inc., contending that the Clean Air Act (CAA), doesn’t allow you to convert your street car into a competition-only race vehicle"

"Once certified as a street vehicle, your car or truck can never be converted into a race vehicle even if it’s trailered and never driven on public roads again, argues the EPA".

Link:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/03/sema-vs-the-epas-attempt-to-outlaw-race-cars/

[70 copo]

SEMA: https://www.sema.org/news-media/press-release/sema-challenges-epas-motorsports-regulations-court?__utma=95790915.2025966350.1616007071.161600 7162.1616007162.1&__utmb=95790915.0.10.1616007162&__utmc=95790915&__utmx=-&__utmz=95790915.1616007162.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utm ccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=60126437

https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2021/09/sema-challenges-epas-motorsports-regulations-court?__utma=95790915.2025966350.1616007071.161600 7223.1616007223.1&__utmb=95790915.0.10.1616007223&__utmc=95790915&__utmx=-&__utmz=95790915.1616007223.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utm ccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=33821545

[70 copo]

G1VMx6NHKto

[HawkX66]

Do not comply. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

[JRC99]

It might sound melodramatic, but if they took my cars, it would kill me.

Cars are the only hobby I've ever had in my 21 years on this Earth. I think about them all day long- dreaming, scheming, planning on things to do with them. They're why I get out of bed in the morning. They're why I work (well, that and living is expensive in general lol). Hell, I've even used them to help me with anxiety attacks.

So if they were gone, what would I have to occupy all of my time? Nothing.

I will fight this my entire life if I have to.

[70 copo]

Agreed. Here is where they are going: Even if you do not have a competition only car lets say for example you have a stock restored 1969 Camaro SS 350 and you rebuild the original engine using 30 over pistons. By the specific wording of the EPA's proposed rulemaking it would be illegal and you are very likely a criminal. You MIGHT be able to sleeve the block and petition the EPA in writing for a technical determination and this could be allowed?

Who Knows. Can you sell your modified car? WHO KNOWS. Can you be held liable after the sale WHO KNOWS.

Bigger Valves, any non GM specification parts=ILLEGAL
Cams, Crank, Rods, intakes, carburetors, the same.

NOW here is the comparison that matters: Gun ownership.

In this comparison

The equivalent of the ATF is the EPA
The equivalent of the NRA is SEMA
GUN Owners=Collector/Modified car owners

Guns and rulemaking- an example to consider:

Currently lets say I have an imported AK-47, and a part breaks internally. To fix the gun to meet the myriad of rules (922-R as one example) I can only use certain parts and often these parts were are not reproduced or even available. When they became available, often both the manufacturer and the installer had to ask the ATF for an interpretative determination prior to use. If the installer uses the wrong part and then lets say the gun is sold and the violation of discovered. All parties in the transaction are initially charged with firearms code violations, and ATF has a history of simply changing its rules on a dime with little to no notice. Look up bump stock for example. ATF originally determined to be legal and did so multiple times. Then acted to make it illegal. It is that easy all the while the ATF ignores the simple fact that a simple rubber band - Yes ONE rubber band can be used to cause the gun to function in the same manner as the bump stock did.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right and YET look at the legislative and social pressure used against gun owners aver the past 20 years to get a reasonable glimpse of our likely future as car owners.

The demonization of SEMA is underway right now. I believe we are next.

Another great video explores this issue from all sides:

DH5HjH-ZTtg

[x33rs]

I've seen a little bit of this already. I didn't think too much of it at the time.

Rob at ATP tuned my Duramax many years ago, and I bought quite a few parts from him as well to supplement the tune. Rob has been in business for years and at the time had the quickest Duramax in the country, and tuned/sold parts for everyone around the country. Great guy to deal with, excellent service, and a top notch tuner.

So last year late summer I get a message from him letting me know if I need any more tuning I need to get with him asap because the EPA had come in and was shutting him down. Making it too difficult for him to sustain his business. Sure enough not long after he closed his doors for good.

Getting closer to Christmas time my son asked for a set of long tube headers for his 89 Mustang. He already had an off road X on the car with the factory shorty headers that he installed a few years ago. Knowing I'd need another X I tried to order another off road X with the long tube headers, only to find out that all the big companies like BBK, Pypes etc... completely stopped manufacturing the off road X and H pipes. They were simply no longer available unless I bought a catted version for triple the price.
I said screw it, and shortened the X on the car and rewelded it to fit the new long tube headers.

So apparently this has been going on now for a while, and they have already either shut down business or affected sales in the auto industry.

How far it will go is hard to say. All the more reason I'm glad we sold all our new cars and just drive 50+ year old stuff that was made long before all this strict emissions stuff you see on new cars today.

[markinnaples]

Please sign the SEMA petition and send your representative a note regarding this latest legislation attempt. The link above is the easiest thing to do, and I know it works as I got a note back from my representative stating that he received my message.
Our hobby depends on it.

[BonzoHansen]

This is what one if my lovely senators replied to my inquiry from the SEMA Action Network. At least replied to the topic. Corey Booker just sent an unrelated canned email. And no reply from congressman Chris Smith.

[70 copo]

First avgas then next will be leaded racing fuel. This regulation will effectively scrap most affordable aircraft and many vintage designs. In summary ground them permanently.

This would be like forcing you to LS your 1969 Z/28 in order to just continue to operate it on the street.

This is a slippery slope we are on when a regulatory agency has this much power.

Please do not make this thread political. Increasingly it appears we are having trouble discussing anything serious on the forum without forum rules getting looked at and entire threads deleted as a result

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/epa-launches-formal-strategy-to-eliminate-leaded-aviation-fuel/

[x33rs]

It's why I've built all my engines to run fine on the pump gas we have available.
Did that decades ago. Didn't even have to neuter the engine to do it. My wife daily drives our 69Z as a result, still with 11:1 compression. No need for modern engine swaps.

[70 copo]

It's why I've built all my engines to run fine on the pump gas we have available.
Did that decades ago. Didn't even have to neuter the engine to do it. My wife daily drives our 69Z as a result, still with 11:1 compression. No need for modern engine swaps.

Understood. Hardened Valve seats etc... but it is not just that, it is how does the EPA know your engine has been fixed/compliant?, these are the questions. As for aviation there is Lots of 70+ year old airplanes (and engines) out there flying around.

New certificated engines are crazy expensive as it is.

Most civilian planes will be able to use the new 100 octane Unleaded fuel, but the real high performance racers, acrobatic flyers and still flying WWII aircraft won't be able to fly as there isn't a 112 octane replacement fuel available for their high compression engines. For 30+ years the oil companies have tried to find something even 1/4 as efficient as tetra ethyl lead is at raising the octane rating of gasoline, and failed. 100 octane level can be reached mostly by ultra refining of gasoline, but going higher is going to take something as effective as tetra ethyl lead or switching to something other than gasoline. Methanol has the necessary high octane rating, but not the proper vapor pressure to work as an aircraft fuel.

IMO...We need to get in on the regulatory comment period to insure proper carve outs are permitted for the older hi compression engines to allow for authentic operation.

[x33rs]

As of right now, we don't do any EPA testing where I live and never have. So not really sure why I would be concerned whether the EPA knows my cars run on currently available pump gas. My advice would be to get your classics off that expensive stuff that is getting harder to find, and apparently may go nearly extinct from the sounds of it.

I started building pump gas friendly engines a couple decades ago. I got tired of the hassle of mixing fuel, or even finding it. Even 20 years ago that was expensive, and airports were already cracking down on guys bringing in cans to fill. I can't even imagine now.
That all got old pretty fast back then. Couldn't drive the car for any distance at all, and never really got to enjoy them as a result. Then we got tired of new cars and the direction they were going so we decided to drive the classics daily. That caused me to rethink how the engines were built and the changes I needed to make so I could just pull into any pump and fill up. As engine builders got smarter I learned a lot, experimented a lot. Now we can have a pump gas friendly engine that makes more power than the original engines did, and they aren't snarly to drive either.

We'll continue to drive them as long as there is pump gas available, and I can afford it. Hopefully I'll be gone before it gets to a point it's unobtainium, and if I'm still around, I guess I'll either have to get very proficient with my bicycle or go back to riding horses. :biggthumpup:

[70 copo]

While I have been posting about AVGAS (and its implications for the potential availability of racing fuel) lets focus only on cars in this individual post:

Just to be clear, for anyone who may be new to this thread please be advised that if the EPA has its way --you will not be able to alter the factory built specification of any automobile engine - including engine internals meaning-any modification (fuel friendly intent or not) could well render the engine non compliant.

Post 87 on the previous page of this thread - is instructive as to the big issues in play here.

[70 copo]

Good news to report!


This IS the biggest SCOTUS ruling of the session and that's why it was last opinion released.

The EPA LOST!!!!

Backstory:

https://www.grid.news/story/science/2022/06/27/the-supreme-court-might-throw-a-big-wrench-in-the-epas-attempt-to-fight-climate-change/

SCOTUS BLOG:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/

My understanding is that this ruling could possibly reign in the entire administrative state,—not just the EPA.

Guns:

ATF: Can't ban unless specifically written as a law (no nebulous/arbitrary interpretations that make things criminal).

Climate/Cars/Parts

EPA: You have to regulate only what is allowed under law for the individual, not make blanket policies.

Indeed. A ruling that limits the executive bureaucratic administrations power to dictate fiat laws at will would be an enormously huge win. Far more than anything we've seen in our lifetimes I would think we now perhaps have the tools to push back against these rules for the first time in history.

[Lynn]

YEP. I am sick of bureaucratic morons LEGISLATING. So many times they are WAY over eager, overreaching, and just plain stupid, without taking into account the consequences of their actions. I was jumping for joy when I read this. BTW, I have no problem with Congress legislating in favor of clean air. I probably lean farther left than most on this site when it comes to that arena. But it needs to be done by law, not by regulation.

Now, we just need to get our State courts to do something similar on the State level, as today's SCOTUS decision only affects the fed.

[70 copo]

Today it's a diesel truck. Perhaps in a few short years OUR cars.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/diesel-ram-owner-forced-to-scrap-truck-over-deleted-emissions-equipment?mibextid=oUeriK