Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[Ron Earp]

I'm not seeing how that rule allows for removal of the equipment 99.99% of us don't have.

Write that letter and get that rule changed. Oh, and put the washer bottle on there for shits and giggles.

[Russ Myers]

I'm up for a small amount of creep. Just try to find side marker lights to replace broken and missing lights on a 1980 Pinto. Can we just cover the holes like prod cars?

Russ

[Ron Earp]

I'm up for a small amount of creep. Just try to find side marker lights to replace broken and missing lights on a 1980 Pinto. Can we just cover the holes like prod cars?

Russ

Dood, no way.

IT cars are dual purpose. This isn't prod you know. We do that and next thing you know we'll have 0.600" lift cams, 13:1 compression and someone will write "be careful what you wish for".

[joeg]

I put my horn in the cannister--both "disappeared" at some time

[tom91ita]

I'm not seeing how that rule allows for removal of the equipment 99.99% of us don't have.

Write that letter and get that rule changed. Oh, and put the washer bottle on there for shits and giggles.

NO NO NO!

the rule request will be denied!

[tom91ita]

last fall, even though i am not Catholic, i started sort of a confession thread about my charcoal cannister missing.

https://improvedtouring.com...light=emission

i sincerely apologize to all of those that thought they were beating a legal car. and also to those that were unable to pass my illegal car.

i have done zero to correct this and sort of have the attitude of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone....."

Andy, if you send something in, i will also send a note supporting it.

i tossed my old GCR's but i could have sworn something was there but it was likely just seeing "emissions" and then going right past it.

[Chip42]

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

yikes - is that the accepted interpretation? I always operated under the more conservative belief that the rail was to remain stock, as it was a destination for the fuel (call it the "fuel injection system manifold") rather than a mechanism for conveyance as I read the definition. yes, it does convey to the injectors but is a restriction in the system that I figured was "accounted for" in the "process", just like the stock intake manifold.

as for evaporative emissions - I support the allowance for removal rule change idea. "all emissions systems" could become an entourtured definitionns so lilely best to add "evaporative" to "exhaust" in the ITCS and add the example of the charcoal canister and associated solenoids.

while we're at it - can bypassing of the heater core be allowed in place of plugging the plubming to it? or better - just dropping the plumbing between the core and the engine once the outlets are plugged or bypassed? seems a similar concept to the one we are discussing - a disapproved means to an approved end that acomplishes the same thing and removes a little clutter. as I have an MR2, it removes more clutter for me than most.

[lateapex911]

yikes - is that the accepted interpretation? I always operated under the more conservative belief that the rail was to remain stock, as it was a destination for the fuel (call it the "fuel injection system manifold") rather than a mechanism for conveyance as I read the definition. yes, it does convey to the injectors but is a restriction in the system that I figured was "accounted for" in the "process", just like the stock intake manifold.

Roffes Corollary: If it says you can, you bloody well can.

as for evaporative emissions - I support the allowance for removal rule change idea. "all emissions systems" could become an entourtured definitionns so lilely best to add "evaporative" to "exhaust" in the ITCS and add the example of the charcoal canister and associated solenoids.

while we're at it - can bypassing of the heater core be allowed in place of plugging the plubming to it? or better - just dropping the plumbing between the core and the engine once the outlets are plugged or bypassed? seems a similar concept to the one we are discussing - a disapproved means to an approved end that acomplishes the same thing and removes a little clutter. as I have an MR2, it removes more clutter for me than most.

Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

[Chip42]

Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

I think you're over-reading my statement. I understand why we are supposed to keep the heater core and associated HVAC ducting / fans based on the "evolutionary" aspect of the dual use first principle. (even though all of us take it all out, clean and prep the interior, then replace it sans AC specific components). what is allowed, currently, is to block the passage of water through the plumbing to the heater core, but not the removal of the core or ANY of the plumbing. the allowance and limitation don't make sense together.

It is aknowledged that the heater core is not needed to function to be legal. It is often much easier to cap off or "plug" the outlets at the motor or bypass the core with a length of hose from outlet to inlet. what competitive advantage does this create, or necessary limitation that is intrinsic to IT does leaving the plumbing provide? hell- leaving it all is a good way to help you see in the rain!

In the case of an MR2 or simillar, one could theoretically then remove ALL plumbing between the core and the engine water in/outlets to it, which would already be plugged (or bypassed if allowed). This is just a little weight in a good spot (low, center), so there's no reason to remove it.

[lateapex911]

But, taking your thought process further, you're saying 'they let me block the lines, so I'm not required to use them, why have them at all? Let me remove them!". Right?
I think it's very similar that somebody would say, "They let us remove the lines, so therefore i'm not required to use the heater core, why not let me ditch it"?.
And another would say, "They let me remove the heater core, obviously I don't need the ducts and housings associated with it, why not let me remove all of that?".

That's creep.
And, in all reality, the statement COULD be, " they let me block the lines, why do I have to have them at all? ANd obviously with blocked lines, I'm not using the heater core, it's housing, or any of the ducts, flapper valves, controller levers switches, cables, brackets wires or trim bits, so everything should go."

I'm GUESSING the original logic was to allow the guys who live in the south/west and don't need a heater core, to leave the old junky one in and the allowance for blocking is a cheap and easy way to fix a leaking core, while not penalizing the rest of the guys in other parts of the country who need and use a heater core.