No announcement yet.

Technocarb systems?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Technocarb systems?

    I spent a good deal of time on the phone with a local shop who installs Technocarb systems. He told me that he has papers from his lawyer stating that his conversions qualify for the govt. tax credits even though they are non EPA certified. I don't believe that this is possible, but wanted to get some other peoples opinions on this. Also what is going on with Technocarb systems? Most kits that aren't certified get deleted off this forum so does that mean Technocarb is a legal non EPA certified system or not?

  • #2
    Re: Technocarb systems?

    Anybody know about technocarb? Could really use the help.


    • #3
      Re: Technocarb systems?

      Technocarb had some EPA certifications for various engine families a few years ago but has not renewed them or carried them forward for the current model years. So we are OK with folks discussing the company but not in promoting the kits. Many of us wish Technocarb would suck it up and get some certs done again, but it seems they just want to milk the market until EPA and Transport Canada shut them down. I guess the EPA recall of's non-certified Argentine kits has not deterred them. Seems odd to me that they would want to get painted with the same broad brush.

      In the mean time I know so many people now who have put on Technocarb kits only to have the check engine light constantly illuminated while the poor sods installing them keep having to rewire them, put on additional gear from Technocarb to try and fix the issues, etc. Its a mess out there.

      The lawyer is dead wrong about tax credits for non-certified systems. Currently, the only federal credits are for vehicles / conversions listed here:

      {A new one for the Ford F-250 just got certified by FuelTek so it should be on the next list when the IRS publishes again}

      I see you are in Utah. On the state credit side they are very clear about this too:


      • #4
        Re: Technocarb systems?

        Thanks for the information John it is very appreciated.


        • #5
          Re: Technocarb systems?

          Some older systems from Technocarb worked OK. EPA certified kits were produced and installed. Some problems existed. 5.3 Chevy Truck would burn out cylinders #7 and #8 - those last 2 cylinders would starve for fuel. They still have certs for some of 2007 models as well as 2006 and 2005. I cannot tell you much about installs but I can tell you some repair stories, some are crazy. Cracked intakes (from backfires), burned piston crowns, blown up radiators, burned valves, damaged catalysts, excess oil in fuel rail, etc.

          Technocarb is not a big player out there so have I seen a few vehicles but not very many problems. Usually poor set-up and incorrect calibrations.


          • #6
            Challenge the Regs ?

            Illegal systems.

            I can understand the official position of the board concerning non epa certified conversions. However, as a lawyer from Detroit Michigan, and as a person that shares this forum's concern and disgust with the damage gasoline is causing to America's security, and the harm it is causing economically, environmentally, and politically, I have concerns about the forum's position.

            First, ethically as a lawyer, we are allowed, and in some ways encouraged to challenge laws and especially regulations, when there is reason to believe that such a challenge is warranted under the law, or that such a challenge will result in new law.

            Recently, the EPA lost in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning other EPA regulations. The Court held the EPA regulations to be illegal.

            If the effect of the EPA regulations, in the case of CNG conversions, is to unreasonably stifle an alternative technology that could stop the bleeding almost immediately that gasoline is causing, then I think those regulations should be challenged in Court. It seems to me that if a modified vehicle can pass inspection as well as any other vehicle, and is just as safe, then why should the Government care ?
            On the other hand, we all know that CNG, ANG, and other alternative fuels have the potential to quickly reverse the damage that gasoline has caused, both economically, environmentally, and politically, to America.

            Since this is my first post, allow me to express my appreciation for the great job the owners and members of this forum have accomplished. What is being done here is no less important to America than what our boys in military uniform are doing on the battlefield, and has the potential to save a lot of lives by hopefully one day soon making imported oil as worthless as it should be.


            • #7
              Re: Challenge the Regs ?

              Originally posted by MartinLeaf View Post
              However, as a lawyer from Detroit Michigan ..
              Is this you?

              ?Innovation is driven by having access to things.? -- Gleb Budman, CEO of


              • #8
                Re: Technocarb systems?

                Yes, but I am not with that firm anymore, I have my own.


                • #9
                  Re: Technocarb systems?


                  Very thoughtful comments and the owners of this site appreciate the kudos. We don't really want to stifle discussion which can further the art nor do we want to hold back initiatives which could effect change in any government policies favorable to our community's mission of promoting alternative fuels. Our only concern is that we don't allow this popular chat board to become a catalyst in furthering illegal activity.

                  This again gets us back to Technocarb. They could easily get their CNG products once again certified with EPA but they chose not to. Some of their LPG systems carry current certs...


                  • #10
                    Re: Technocarb systems?


                    I live about forty five minutes from the EPA lab in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where, as you know, new certifications are done. The person responsible, Marty Rhineman(sp) seems to be very helpful in answering questions and providing additional information resources.

                    If my location can facilitate anything regarding EPA certification matters, for anyone working on such things, especially if such matters can be handled on Football Saturday afternoons, after U of M home games, let me know .



                    • #11
                      Re: Technocarb systems?

                      Marty, you stated: "Recently, the EPA lost in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning other EPA regulations. The Court held the EPA regulations to be illegal." could you give the complete cite for the case and possibly who the parties involved? Jim
                      [email protected]
                      Jim Younkin


                      • #12
                        Re: Technocarb systems?

                        The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Friday that the EPA overstepped its authority by instituting the rule. It said the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the authority to change pollution standards the way it did. Citing "more than several fatal flaws," the court scrapped the entire regulation.


                        • #13
                          Re: Technocarb systems?

                          Sorry, I made a mistake, it was the court of appeals for the District of Columbia. I indicated Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But the reference above is the correct case.

                          Here is the cite:

                          The petitions under review involve EPA’s construction of
                          the CAA, a statute it administers. Where the statute speaks to
                          the direct question at issue, we afford no deference to the
                          agency’s interpretation of it and “must give effect to the
                          unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A.,
                          Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43
                          (1984). But where the statute does “not directly address[] the
                          precise question at issue, . . . the question for the court is
                          whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible
                          construction of the statute,” and we only reverse that
                          determination if it is “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly
                          contrary to the statute.” Id. at 843. An action is “arbitrary and
                          capricious” if it
                          has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it
                          to consider, entirely failed to consider an important
                          aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its
                          decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
                          agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed
                          to a difference in view or the product of agency
                          Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
                          463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. EPA,
                          768 F.2d 385, 389 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that “the


                          • #14
                            Re: Technocarb systems?

                            Way to go Marty!

                            Your Legaleese (sp) can do a lot of positive for us that are on the "Illegal" side of the water..

                            In Argentina and hoping to do conversion soon!