Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

    Oh Kripes I couldnt have said it better. Its like there is one milk bearing cow in the township that gives milk for free and ten thousand others that have three dollar a gallon milk like the rest of the world and all these folks can do is bitch at the one cow with the free milk and the folks wait in line to get some then bitch because their pail ain't full when they leave

    Tight like a tiger

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

      Here's a question.

      I have an 01 Tahoe with an EcoFuel system in it installed by AZStar. AZStar is no longer in business and I don't think the EPA had the regulations they have now as far as kits go (this is a mixer kit.)

      Does anyone know if this kit is "certified"

      I know that the kit uses a injector emulator, and has its own ecu tricking box that wires into the OBDII interface!

      Am I illegally running my car? Can I be fined?

      A while ago I bought a Bi Fuel 1998 Ford Exploder for Murphy with the check engine light on. There wasnt any documentation on the kit it was just a simple IMPCO 450 mixer with dualcurve computer trickery. Am I liable for selling that car?

      I am actually seriouse here, given the current rules / regulations, where does my Tahoe stand? Where do all of the cars that were converted pre- EPA CNG regulations stand?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

        JGW50,
        Shouldn't be a problem. Conversions are held to the regs in place at the time of the conversion as they relate to that model/year.
        We also used to have this thing called Option 3. It allowed the flexability that we so need now, but it was harpooned by the OEMs and EPA.
        If it's in and still running, let it be.
        Your Friendly Nazi Squirrel Administrator

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

          Originally posted by John Mitton View Post
          Non-EPA certified kits:
          1. Are illegal
          2. Void warranties
          3. Cannot obtain tax credits (here in Utah the Div. of Air Quality is now requiring the EPA certificate before processing tax credit form TC-40V. On the federal side auditors are also going to want to see your cert if you claimed the tax credit on form 8910)
          4. Subject the installer and owner to penalties of up to $10,000 per day for tampering with onboard emission diagnostics.
          5. In California subject the vehicle to impound (CARB cert required)
          6. Typically do not require the installer to have any training for safe installation and service

          Most importantly they compete unfairly with those who spend the money to get their retrofits certified.

          If you folks want to discuss in generic terms the benefits vs. risks of these kits be my guest. But we do not tolerate promoting specific illegal retrofits here.
          http://cngchat.com/index.php?pid=9#furtheringillegal
          So, if a retrofit kit is going to be used for "off road use only", then in this case discussion of retrofits is perfectly fine on this forum then, right?

          That being said, I am going to put a bi-fuel kit onto my mostly street driven SUV (96 Blazer w/ OBDII), which I will only burn pure gasoline on the street-driven roads, but when I go off-road, I will switch it over to CNG fuel to save on recreation costs (since it is also a "recreational vehicle"). I'm thinking of using a {reference to illegal product removed by moderators} kit since they seem to have the most world-wide experience in retrofit kits, plus it is a closed loop system. I know that with their piggy-back system, if you run on gasoline mode, it doesn't tamper at all with factory emission controls, so are there any other people who have experience with {reference to illegal product removed by moderators} kits (for "off road use only" of course)? Disclaimer: I would never use this system on any public highway. We can discuss it this way (w/o being banned) right? Because I would never want to break the law. My government is too smart and always knows best.

          I was an ASE cert. master technician for 15 years, and let it expire 3 years ago when I took on a new profession in the computer field, so I am technically not qualified to install CNG (I could blow up the shop, the car or both), but in my years, I have done tons of work on agricultural propane burning engines, and know the systems inside and out (yes I know that LPG is lower pressure liquid, not high pressure vapor like CNG), and I will install this kit in my home garage (yes I still have all my old Snap-On tools). Does this mean anything bad? I may even install CNG kits on other people's cars too (for "off road use only" of course). I will only use new tanks that wont expire for 20 years. Installation will be of very high, professional grade. And I guarantee that any car I install will burn cleaner on CNG, and there will be no check engine light on when I'm done, or I will personally remove the kit (since I don't want our off-road areas to become smoggy either - above and beyond the Government's expectation).

          So is there a problem with this? Using kits "for off-road use only"? to help clean our air while we are on our recreation time?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

            Originally posted by younkin View Post
            I agree with the Stick let the CNG cars roll, no one on this board has showed me any laws yet. I don't have a CNG car yet but I do have 30 years wrenching and I have seen many poor mechanics and crooked mechanics but on the other hand I have also worked with many very good, honest, hard working mechanics. I have smog tested in Utah and California and there are always those who like to bend the rules but lets not go on a witch hunt just yet. As a mechanic I look for ways to solve promlems, thats what I do all day fix cars. The cars all by themselves will break (especially the American ones). There are dishonest people in every profession from politicians to investment bankers but I know one thing for sure and you can take this to the bank, gas will never go down in price, an old Mechanic, Jim
            Hey Mr. Younkin,

            Do you remember me? I've run into you from time to time. Remember, I'm the guy who worked for your old Internet company, and sometimes run into you out and about? I live in SF

            Don't worry, I'll be one of those very good, honest, hard working mechanics you speak of too, because I will only install for "off road use only" if I do them. I need to do my car first, and then see how well it turns out when I go "off-road" to test it out.

            The only stick-in-the-fan I can see to a kit like {reference to illegal product removed by moderators} (where it injects fuel mainstream ahead of the TB), is with newer cars like Honda and many others for example that have many engine offerings now that use variable cylinder technology, since you can't kill the fuel to individual cylinders. Those applications I don't think will be able to use your average retrofit kit. But the {reference to illegal product removed by moderators} kit looks promising for many other applications since they run closed loop. DISCLAIMER: I speak from the tense that any kit if installed on any vehicle will only be used "for OFF-ROAD use only".

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

              I get a kick out of the age exemption too, vehicles older than ____ don't have to meet emissions standards. Sounds great to me. I'll pick up a old rusty bucket, drop a 454 with a pair of turbo's on it with a couple of mixers and I'm home free-mad max style!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                ok i've read the whole thread now..politics suck!

                It feels like watching a senate committee try to screw in a light bulb by voting on who should do it and with which hand and at what time of day etc. etc. all the while night is falling and it's getting darker and darker in the committee chambers.

                If we could focus on the relevant issues and principles rather than bash personalities that would help, but alas it's not as entertaining and that seems to be a basic human need we all share, the need to poke at something and vent our spleens occasionally. There is certainly more than enough opportunity for that with the current state of affairs and CNG no matter which side of any of these issues you are on.

                But what about the light bulb? Shall we lose sight of the governing purposes of the whole thing?

                can we agree on even that much?

                1- We want to protect the environment.
                I don't think anyone argues that do they?

                2- We want the most economical solution to our transportation needs.

                Here is where the arguments begin and end I think. Follow the money and you will be able to understand why different groups of people take different sides of issues. Everyone including the EPA and state governing bodies has a vested interest. We are dealing with competing financial interests. That's the only reason to debate why it matters WHO does the work and who isn't allowed to do the work. The debate isn't about whose qualified from a technical skilled standpoint as much as whose qualified from a political compliance standpoint. That's the reason the committee can't get the light bulb screwed in before it gets dark. The focus has shifted from HOW to do the job to WHO 'should' do the job.

                I conclude the following:

                1- It's pretty well established seems to me that the job (meaning after market conversions) CAN be done and done right.

                2- A job done right benefits the environment and the economy in many ways.

                3- It is possible that the job can be done right by other than rocket scientists who are 5th generational descendants of rocket scientists who all have PHD's in rocket science.

                4- The issues before us are more focused on our calculators and the placement of our seats than our credentials and out titles.

                That brings us back to the starting place where this all shakes out... THE MONEY MOTIVATIONS!

                Being that I am a Utahan, I can talk about Utahan's driving and merging skills. I get my amusement watching Utahan's try to merge on the freeway. To say it's comical is an understatement. Don't look to Utah to resolve issues that involve sharing or merging of control issues. We can no more work this out than we can merge on an on ramp. It's not in our genes.

                Personally I feel screwed by the whole thing. My family drives two Nissan's one 2001 Altima and a 2005 Pathfinder. The Pathfinder is the only one that would have warranty issues. Neither one is old enough to skirt the OBDII issues and we live in Utah County where apparently the laws keep pace with the issues at about a 50 year lag time and the laws made 50 years ago were all based in premise that everything in the world is evil and to be shunned at all cost. This doesn't make for a progressive climate or adaptive political attitude. I am always amused when I see on the news where Utah ranks high in some cities as 'best place to live, work etc." or "best business environment or entrepreneurial place". Where do the people that take these surveys get their info? I live here and I don't see the resemblance to what they describe.

                My Altima gets 30 mpg approx. and we commute 60 miles a day with it. I reckon we'd save $120/month if we converted to cng just on the commute alone assuming we do nothing else with that vehicle. That's $1440/year for the commute.

                On the Pathfinder which gets approx. 20 mpg on the highway that's a different matter. I do assembly and deliver work with that. Plus we do recreational stuff in the Pathfinder (and we LOVE it!) None of these miles are as regularly scheduled as the commuting miles but I figure we put almost as many miles on each vehicle month to month, that's being conservative. 300 miles a week on average. That means instead of using 10 gals/week in the pathfinder I'm using 15. That means I'm saving about $180/week on the conversion in fuel costs instead of $120. (assuming I'm using the calculator correctly) If I'm saving that much each week on fuel, maybe the warranty issues aren't so important?

                So let's see, combined savings of $300/week for me to convert two vehicles. $15,600/year total. I'm motivated to find my way thru the political minefield now. Mind you I hate politics. Our common inability to focus on solutions will be the death of us all. Reminds me of Lord of the Flies. We all kill each other on an island that is otherwise perfectly capable of sustaining us all. And...scotty isn't going to get the transporter fixed, there is not going to be any beam ups. We're stuck with each other on this rollercoaster.

                We have incentives on one hand and fines on the other. Yes I'll be contacting my commissioner and representative etc. etc. and in the mean time I'll be looking for someone qualified to do a good job converting my vehicles, If I can locate a kit that has good reputation and that will give a good result I can do myself I'm open to that too, at least on the Pathfinder which we take off road all the time.

                Since the forum won't allow people to post specific kits here, I'd be happy to have the people who are in the know email me the specifics and I'll keep asking around at the shops until I find something I feel good about. The 'closed loop' thing sounds intriguing.

                I don't see how they can be too upset with a conversion which doesn't compromise the existing system's performance and which produces acceptable results on each separate fuel in a bi-fuel arrangement. Except as I have been saying, from THE MONEY standpoint! Yea they don't get to TAX the components or TAX the kit system or TAX the installers! poor epa, poor babies, boo hoo. but hey was the epa created to be a business interest or do a public service of protecting the common interest of the environment? What IS their legitimate purpose in this?

                It's all too clear. Since were talking politics here..

                I think the first step is to know who your friends are. That's easy. Follow the money trail.

                You may say, Well, this isn't screwing in a light bulb it's far more than that. Yea, ok, but it's not so highly evolved that it's incomprehensible unless you have a PHD. Either I'll find someone who had/has proper training or I'll get the training myself eventually. The motivation remains.
                Last edited by Aaragorn; 05-30-2008, 11:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                  Originally posted by ThunderStik View Post
                  Great statement! Great post.
                  Thanks, I'm serious, if you know a quality kit please email me the specifics and relevant study info.

                  Weather I end up doing this myself or having someone else do it I want to fully understand what is going down.

                  Since I'm venting about politics might as well vent the whole spleen....

                  There are plug in cars now which get 100 mile range per overnight charge. You know why they are not hitting the market big time? because they don't work well in Arizona or Michigan. One is too hot and the other too cold. They work ok in most of the other 48 states. They figure that capability would address 90% of the private transportation market who like myself has a regular commute of less than 50 miles one way. BUT because it doesn't address the WHOLE country and two states are not viable the manufacturers are sitting on it. Go figure!

                  Where is it written that ONE solution has to accommodate EVERY contingency? We're sooo dmed.
                  Last edited by Aaragorn; 05-30-2008, 11:36 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                    Originally posted by John Mitton View Post
                    Non-EPA certified kits:
                    1. Are illegal
                    2. Void warranties
                    3. Cannot obtain tax credits (here in Utah the Div. of Air Quality is now requiring the EPA certificate before processing tax credit form TC-40V. On the federal side auditors are also going to want to see your cert if you claimed the tax credit on form 8910)
                    4. Subject the installer and owner to penalties of up to $10,000 per day for tampering with onboard emission diagnostics.
                    5. In California subject the vehicle to impound (CARB cert required)
                    6. Typically do not require the installer to have any training for safe installation and service

                    Most importantly they compete unfairly with those who spend the money to get their retrofits certified.

                    If you folks want to discuss in generic terms the benefits vs. risks of these kits be my guest. But we do not tolerate promoting specific illegal retrofits here.
                    http://cngchat.com/index.php?pid=9#furtheringillegal

                    #3 is not necessarily true: Utah Code Section 59-10-1009 (1)(c)(i)(C)(I) (Effective 01/01/09): "certification of the conversion equipment by the federal Environmental Protection Agency or by a state whose certification standards are recognized by the board;"

                    Just my 2 cents.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                      Originally posted by John Mitton View Post
                      Non-EPA certified kits:
                      1. Are illegal
                      2. Void warranties
                      3. Cannot obtain tax credits (here in Utah the Div. of Air Quality is now requiring the EPA certificate before processing tax credit form TC-40V. On the federal side auditors are also going to want to see your cert if you claimed the tax credit on form 8910)
                      4. Subject the installer and owner to penalties of up to $10,000 per day for tampering with onboard emission diagnostics.
                      5. In California subject the vehicle to impound (CARB cert required)
                      6. Typically do not require the installer to have any training for safe installation and service

                      Most importantly they compete unfairly with those who spend the money to get their retrofits certified.

                      If you folks want to discuss in generic terms the benefits vs. risks of these kits be my guest. But we do not tolerate promoting specific illegal retrofits here.
                      http://cngchat.com/index.php?pid=9#furtheringillegal
                      As for #2: Magnuson Moss Warranty Act

                      US Code - Title 15, Chapter 50, Sections 2301-2312
                      Legally, a vehicle manufacturer cannot void the warranty on a vehicle due to an aftermarket part unless they can prove that the aftermarket part caused or contributed to the failure in the vehicle (per the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) .

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                        As for #1...Well that seems to be debateable. This whole issue of not being able to talk about non approved conversions being installed in road vehicles hinges around the legality. How is it illegal if it does not interfere with the emission system and in fact improves upon the emissions? Honest question. Does "tampering" with an emissions system include never fixing it if it goes bad? What if someone didnt pass their emissions test for registration and installed a viable non approved kit to fix the situation and improve their emissions problem? What about pre OBD II cars? Etc. Etc...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                          Here's a hypothetical situation....

                          I'm on the sidewalk in the middle of a city block that is 200 yards long. Directly across the street is an old woman getting mugged. I can help her if I get there quick. Do I jaywalk () across the street (approx. 50 ft.) or do I go to the intersection (100 yds.), wait for the light, cross the street (50 ft.), then go help the woman (another 100 yds.)? Which do I choose? The answer will not be given here... Just do what is right. (Maybe that means different things to some of us.)

                          I'm done. (maybe)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                            very interesting comparison, obviously doing the right thing will be to help the hold woman. Don't think a officer will give you a ticket for jaywalking. But funny you worded it this way, because the right thing to do would also be to get a certified kit, and unlike the officer the EPA WILL give you a ticket, more importantly they are looking for any excuse to shut CNG down permanently (that's what our government wants) So there will be a few that ruins it for the rest of us.

                            You know who you are, and others know who I am talking about. Someone in Utah is offering regular consumers training (in 1 day) to learn how to install their own CNG kits with not mechanical training or backgrouund for $200, this has disaster written all over it.

                            Would you still jaywalk to save her if she was posing as and old woman but really a suicide bomber in disguise, by the way that's not a purse.
                            sigpichttp://WWW.CNGMOTORS.COM
                            SAVE TIME. SAVE MONEY. SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

                            2003 Hummer H2 bi-fuel
                            2000 GMC Yukon XL bi-fuel
                            1999 International 4700 dual-fuel
                            2007 Chevy Avalanche bi-fuel

                            FMQ2-36 Fuelmaker w/ 24 GGE cascade

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                              How can the EPA, 'give you a ticket'? They have no legal power, they do not make 'laws'. There is a lot of mis-information on this site. The EPA releases 'memos' with THEIR criteria for a safe conversion. There is no actual law that says you have to be epa certified. You can still convert a vehicle safely and still be epa compliant, you don't have to pay them to certify your kit unless you want to. I would say it's like being ISO9000 certified. You can pay to be certified, or you can just just be compliant
                              2000 Escalade (option 3 conversion) FOR SALE
                              2004 F150 XLT (OEM conversion)
                              2000 Camry (Awesome Car!!)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Whats the deal with non EPA conversions?

                                I would like to see John Mitton post some proof for his claims. The research I've done makes me believe that John has a personal agenda and this whole EPA cert thing is in his best interest financially. Show me some proof of your side of the argument!! I've read memo 1A. What else is there?
                                2000 Escalade (option 3 conversion) FOR SALE
                                2004 F150 XLT (OEM conversion)
                                2000 Camry (Awesome Car!!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X