Recycling the whole car by keeping it on the road

[dcb]

Most of the conditions are of the certified configuration OR reasonable basis format. The most telling sentence is (IMHO) and which supports what I'm trying to get across here, since they thought this configuration required a special unambiguous sentence all to itself:

Under no circumstances, however, may a heavy-duty engine ever be installed in a light-duty vehicle.

[Christ]

The caveat there, of course, is that some heavy duty vehicles shared engines with light duty vehicles. For instance, the Ford 300 inline 6 was used in 2-ton dump trucks, mated to the same 4 speed that came in the F-series trucks of the 70's and early 80's, before EFI was introduced to them.

Cummins and IH are also prime candidates for HD/LD swaps, because many of those engines were also cross-installed by OEM's.

[dcb]

yes, not entirely unambiguous, but it makes the intent pretty clear IMHO.

[Christ]

Indeed. Regardless of all that, how many people do you know or have you heard of that were busted for switching?

On top of that, how many of them were/were not driving around like idiots or publicly noting that they'd done so?

Moral of the post: Don't draw attention to yourself, and you'll likely stay out of the negative spotlight.

[dcb]

I understand the desire to stay under the radar. However I don't think people whom have actually made improvements in efficiency should live in fear.

The EPA stations around here will actually test your car for $20 on the dyno. I would think that just doing that before and after the swap would be a reasonable investment.

I would also not suggest a marginal swap, i.e. 1.8L honda for a 1.8L toyota even though you could claim it shouldn't be worse, and perhaps after much research you could demonstrate it. As much as I think everyone would benefit from learning how to build custom motor mounts, I think an "engine swap of opportunity" should be avoided, and only a clear improvement in emissions/efficiency should be attempted.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

Seems pretty unambiguous to me; the vehicle has to be identical to a certified configuration. That means engine plus chassis has to be something that the EPA and/or DOT and/or CARB has already signed off on.

More evidence of the "DON'T TOUCH IT DUMMY" school of thought for emissions testing regs.

-soD

Just the powertrain config has to be identical, not the chassis+powertrain.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by dcb

I understand the desire to stay under the radar. However I don't think people whom have actually made improvements in efficiency should live in fear.

The EPA stations around here will actually test your car for $20 on the dyno. I would think that just doing that before and after the swap would be a reasonable investment.

A state and/or federal emissions test can be performed at any time, at the operator's discretion, according to my (used to be) local test stations, for the normal fee.

The results pre and post modification can and should be considered legal testimony of improvements for changing of emissions equipment, and certification of compliance with EPA regulations, to be carried in the vehicle at all times after certification. It's like getting a BAR plate on the door jamb to certify a new config.

Caveat - (There is always a catch, is there not?)
Most inspection mechanics don't know that a vehicle can fail the typical visual inspection if the current configuration has been recertified by an emissions test. In other words, you can remove the EGR valve, etc... and get certified that way, and once you've done so, the vehicle technically should fail a visual inspection, but does not legally fail it. Many inspection mechanics will question it, and aren't aware of the proper legal channels by which they should verify the vehicle's configuration change.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by tim3058

shovel, I agree. Why scrap a good car to replace it with something similar. The 40mpg 1985 vs the 40mpg 2009 comparison, sure the old car may not have the OBDII and later computer, emissions controls, etc, but think of the replacement cost in pollution. The junkyard equipment and steel/aluminum mills to recycle scrap metal and process ore into new metal, the various chemical plants to process plastics, factories making the new car parts, trucking the pieces to the auto plant, assembly at the auto plant, painting, transporting by railcar to various cities, transport to the dealers by car carrier... think of how many workers along the way drove their car to work to build that new car also. No way can the total energy/pollution cost pay off to junk a roadworthy old car. Keeping it running beyond 8 years also lessens the cost of transportation (few hundred bucks in repairs vs a $25,000 car loan). So yes, the longer a car is kept on the road, thats one less new car that needs to be built... reduce, reuse, recycle all at once.

And consider the fuel used for most of the equipment/trucking/railroads for that new car... diesel. Pretty bad pollution tradeoff to get a new "green" car

This is more or less the argument I fall back on when someone tells me how egregious the emissions on my car are