I guess this means no more playing with the pcm or mods

OBD II topic on SLP board

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Rhode Island Red ]

This sounds like one of the EPA's famous unfunded mandates. They tell the states they have to get emission levels down to some level and perform specific kinds of tests and then leave it up to the states not only to figure out how to do it, but also to pay for it!!

The State of New Hampshire told them to bleep-off and have not tested emissions for several years. They had been testing before then. Of course, the government holds the threat of witholding highway funds to force compliance. Some states' existing test programs were already structured in a manner that made compliance easy, but many others were not. In NH, for example, the existing equipment consisted of a tail-pipe sniffer that measured levels of pollutants in PPM's and compared the readings to established threshold limits. It was pass/fail and if you failed, you had to spend a minimum of $400.00 on a tune-up/emission service. If you car still failed, you could get a waiver. The equipment was not cheap, but it was within reach of dealerships and most service stations.

The new requirements forced the state to centralize testing at state operated facilities. The state would have had to fund construction of multiple test facilities in cenralized locations that motorists would have to travel to. They would also have to create a pile of new government jobs and fund lengthy training. Also, there would of course have to be the obligatory bureaucratic body to oversee the whole mess. Additionally, the cost of a basic inspection would skyrocket because someone has to pay for all this stuff. Based on demographic data the state accurately predicted obscenely long waits for a pass/fail test. If your car failed, you had to take it to the dealer to get it fixed and then return to a test facility for another lengthy wait for another pass/fail test. Service station owners were upset because they would lose a good source of dependable revenue, not to mention their previous investment in equipment. Dealerships were up in arms because they were going to have to be performing warranty repairs on cars that fail anyway and they felt that they should be allowed to at least do the re-testing at a bare minimum. Uncle Sam said no deal, so they told the EPA to bleep-off.

Automotive emission control systems have drastically reduced the level of pollutants. Even cars like the SS come in as LEV's. There are political reasons why they choose to ignore deisel truck emissions, and other sources. The problem, from the EPA perspective, is that even though individual car emissions are so low, there are bazillions of cars out there and the cumulative effects add up.

I think peforming a check to see if a car's PCM has been reflashed is a little much. If the car can pass a test with the same or better emissions profile, what do they care?? Besides, what do they do if your car has been recalled under warranty for a PCM program upgrade? My daily driver, an '00 5-spd Cavalier, has been recalled by GM for a new PCM program. Will I be automatically rejected because my PCM has been reflashed at the manufacturer's request? I better not be!!

What's next?? Will they start visually inspecting every component on the car to see if it's been altered? Will they dust for fingerprints?? What about cars like the SS with their optional intakes and exhausts? Will they be rejected because some $10.00 / hour job for life because I have a pulse state-employed mushmind looks in a book at a picture of a Z28 and sees equipment installed by SLP that's not in the book?

At least with the HPP3, you have the option of returning your car back to stock. The aftermarket will definitely feel the pressure. That's not necessarily a bad thing though... The aftermarket is a lot smarter than the bureaucrats and technical solutions will no doubt be found to whatever the EPA can think of imposing without violating the law. Any new laws will force the creative juices to start flowing and the consumer will enjoy the benefits. Unfortunately, the consumer will also have to absorb the cost. The trick is to be vigilant for well-intentioned, but misguided efforts that impose unduly on our lives and if you feel strongly enough about it, write a letter or send an e-mail to your elected representatives. They do look at this stuff and if enough of their constituency opposes it, they will likely opoose it too.

Sorry for the long rant....