Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interested minds want to know...

So in doing some more intake development this winter, we sat down to discuss options. Targets to test included positioning, tubing diameter and tubing length all tied into current engine bay temp data and additional hypothesis.

I still have my charcoal canister in the car. I have it because when I first built this car I decided that it was not legal to remove it. As part of the fuel evap system, I submit that it is clearly not part of the D.1.d (emission removal) allowance. All you can really remove is items part and parcel to the EGR system - read: exhaust gas emissions only.

Now this comes as a revelation to some because most remember the rule as 'all emissions equipment can be removed'. Including guys in my shop.

So in my car, the removal of the system allows for a MUCH better shot at a very advantageous intake position.

But in talking it through with a fellow rules nerd, while the LETTER of the rule is clear to me, the intent may be old - or at least as he pointed out:

...(the rule) pre-dates the use of hydrocarbon emissions standards, and it should probably be updated to reflect something closer to what the STCS rule is (and there's no reason to spec that catalytic converters can be removed, given the exhaust is free...)

Now when you take into account the fact we can basically create our own fuel storage and delivery systems with cells and pumps and lines, etc...we are allowed to bypass the entire EVAP (charcoal canister in this case) completely and legally - yet still not remove it.

SO.......

Do I write in and point out the out-dated rule as it pertains to other allowances and ask for a revision - or is it simply a 'everyone is already removing them anyway because they really didn't give that rule a good reading' and ask for it to be amended? Is that creep in the most basic sense?

Or, as someone else suggested, don't poke a stick at the rule. Nobody is complaining now so who cares? Well in my case, the removal results in some gains that may not be available if the letter of the law was followed. Can't speak to other platforms.

Thoughts?

[JeffYoung]

I tossed mine during my initial build back in 03-04, thinking it was emissions. It's up on the firewall, or was, so no gain other than weight I guess.

But isn't the fuel evap system designed to prevent the escape of vapor into the air? Isn't that an emission? I don't have the rule in front of me but when this debate came up before I still thought there was a way to shoehorn this into the existing rule.

If not, I'd be in favor of a clarification allowing it not because I don't have one or "everyone is doing it" but because having an evap system on the car is clearly, to me, emissions related and within the original intent of the IT ruleset to allow removal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I tossed mine during my initial build back in 03-04, thinking it was emissions. It's up on the firewall, or was, so no gain other than weight I guess.

But isn't the fuel evap system designed to prevent the escape of vapor into the air? Isn't that an emission? I don't have the rule in front of me but when this debate came up before I still thought there was a way to shoehorn this into the existing rule.

If not, I'd be in favor of a clarification allowing it not because I don't have one or "everyone is doing it" but because having an evap system on the car is clearly, to me, emissions related and within the original intent of the IT ruleset to allow removal.

So to clarify again: emphasis mine

D.1.d: Exhaust emission control air pumps, associated lines, nozzles, and electrical/mechanical EGR devices may be removed

100% about exhaust gas emission equipment. NOTHING else.

(On edit: this is why I bring up creep. Are we making it up when we say it 'was clearly the intent' to allow the removal of all the emissions equipment' when it NEVER said that?)

[Rabbit07]

I would argue that the rule doesn'r predate the evap emissions standards, but there is no real need for the parts to bee on the car.

Go for it, write the letter.

[JeffYoung]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?" Isn't this part of that, if it is not exhaust emissions?

[Greg Amy]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?" Isn't this part of that, if it is not exhaust emissions?

"Fuel lines" deliver fuel to and from the tank to the engine; evap is part of the fuel "system". And, even if they were considered "fuel lines", are you arguing the charcoal canister is a fuel line, too?

This caught me off-guard; I've always pulled that stuff out of my IT cars without thinking...

Chris, when did evap hydrocarbon controls start? I thought that was a late 80's thing; I don't recall any of my mid-80's cars having that.

[tnord]

i want to make sure i understand their function first.

is it just two vacuum lines, one from the fuel tank all the way up to the engine compartment that feeds this little black cylinder with some sort of filtering mechanism to scrub the vapor of the nastyness, then a return line back to the tank?

mine is still in the car as well, though i'd be happy to remove it for the same reasons as andy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?"

Nope. They may be replaced, relocated, or given additional protection.

[Rabbit07]

There were charcoal canisters on cars from the late 70's in some cases. I have owned a few GM cars from 78- that had canisters with Carbs on them. I know that the CJ Jeeps used to have an issue with the Charcoal ending up in the carb and clogging it. The sealed systems with leak detection pumps started with OBD-II. That was when you started getting codes for not putting your fuel cap on nice a tight.

Eitherway I am sure California emission cars would have had any of this stuff first. Growing up in Orange County, my 67 Mustang had an Air Pump on it.

[JeffYoung]

There is your technical legal out then. "Replace" the whole system (including the cannister) with a looped line 12" long or whatever.

Nope. They may be replaced, relocated, or given additional protection.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is your technical legal out then. "Replace" the whole system (including the cannister) with a looped line 12" long or whatever.

How does that allow any change to the canister? The rule I gave you was just for 'fuel lines'.

[Greg Amy]

I think we're reaching at this point. We can try and twist this any way we want, but I think Andy is right: there's no allowance for removing the canister (except maybe if you do a cell).

Let's stop twisting the words to fit a conclusion that we want, and simply change the rule.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I'd be in favor of that (changing the rule), but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.

Send a letter in though. I support this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.

Really? Imagine no ECU wording in the ITCS: Lets say you can 'replace' wiring to your ECU - in and out, you would then think that you could replace or remove the ECU because of that?

Yikes!

I agree you can get rid of the canister lines. I see NO WAY you can remove the canister under the current rules.

I will write something up.

[spawpoet]

I'd be in favor of that (changing the rule), but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.

Send a letter in though. I support this.

Can an injected car replace it's fuel rail with a higher performance rail under the same pretenses?

[Greg Amy]

Can an injected car replace it's fuel rail with a higher performance rail?

Different issue, but..."yes". The GCR defines "fuel line" as:

Fuel Line – A hose or tube which conveys fuel from one point to another.

A fuel injection rail is typically a tube that does that, so it can be replaced (and it's commonly done, especially to accommodate aftermarket fuel pressure regulators).

GA

[JeffYoung]

Didn't their used to be a prohibition on modifying the ECU? So that would have stopped your example I think.

Write the letter though, that is cleaner, I agree.

Really? Imagine no ECU wording in the ITCS: Lets say you can 'replace' wiring to your ECU - in and out, you would then think that you could replace or remove the ECU because of that?

Yikes!

I agree you can get rid of the canister lines. I see NO WAY you can remove the canister under the current rules.

I will write something up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Didn't their used to be a prohibition on modifying the ECU? So that would have stopped your example I think.

Write the letter though, that is cleaner, I agree.

Erase your preconceive notions on rules or history. If you are saying that because you can replace the hoses (or wires or whatever) in and out of something, that gives you the green light to replace or remove the actual unit those items connect through?

No way bro! That's my point.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you the best result is to change the rule.

[spawpoet]

Different issue, but..."yes". The GCR defines "fuel line" as:

Fuel Line – A hose or tube which conveys fuel from one point to another.

A fuel injection rail is typically a tube that does that, so it can be replaced (and it's commonly done, especially to accommodate aftermarket fuel pressure regulators).

GA

Thanks. I wasn't positive, and given the def. of a fuel line I see how it's a different issue.

As for the canister, count me as another that says write in for the change. The rule is not adequate as written to cover the way almost everybody has interpreted it.