It is self evident at this point in time that on OBD-II cars, emissions legality will solely be determined by a MIL (check engine light). As we know, nearly all MILs are emissions-related and it's how OBD-II cars "police" themselves for emissions compliance, so to speak.

For the sake of this poll, we are going to assume that for all OBD-II cars, if you have a MIL, you will not pass the emissions criteria as "clarified" by the STAC/SEB and will be deemed illegal in ST*.

Considering this, please weigh in on the poll and add your feedback below on why this is or isn't a good thing for ST*.

UPDATED FOR SEPTEMBER 2007 FASTRACK

 

It is a curious proposition and I think I disagree with the approach the SCCA has taken. It isn't their job to police the emissions legality of the cars in competition; it isn't on public roadways, after all. In the spirit of competition, they can require a cat since it is easy to check visually. Sure they can check for a MIL and that is a pretty good indication of emissions legality as far as the obd-ii emissions tests are concerned, but how a competitor gets there is not their problem. Within the spirit of the rules, that cat accomplishes what they need.

I, as well as others, have the capability of getting some really interesting solutions to mask the codes. One can disable the code, change what code is thrown, change the severity of the code, change the parameters of what throws the code, or even bypass the checks that can throw the code. There are few people capable of identifying what is going on, first of all, but what competitive advantage does it really have? If somebody went to nationals with the intent of offering reverse-engineering assistance for protests, no car would get through nationals without protestation.

You can attack the very intent of disabling codes, though, and that it is strictly because parts were installed that don't fit within the specifications of the factory. Installing a lightweight flywheel and a lightweight crankshaft pulley on the 2.0L WRXs can cause a misfire code that aren't misfires at all.

There does have to be a line somewhere because I know of a couple things that bring stand-alone control to the OEM ECU market . There will always be people out there that know way more than anybody else and can use that to their advantage.

Launch control, for example. I see no rules in ST that prohibit launch control nor do they condone it. There are restrictions for traction control, which is not the same thing in my mind. The hard part about restricting this is the Evos have it from the factory, the Lotuses just launch of the rev limiter in SS, and the Subarus can get some additional code added that allows user programmable launch control. Within the field of competitors, how many know what it is or what it would look like in code even if they could figure out how to access the programming on the ECU?

They are shooting for emissions compliance but artificially strangle it in some places and open it wide open in others. You can get a larger MAF with a CARB EO for an M3, but it isn't legal for STU. Yet they are ok with illegally replacing a catalytic converter on a new car. "I'm sorry EPA officer, I bounced my cat off of a rock while rallying it and I had to replace it with this sweet high-flow cat."

I'm pretty sure it was a knee-jerk reaction to the legal action taken against the company selling o2 sensor emulators and they want to stay out of the sights of the EPA.

-Jon

 

I think there are too many ways to get around a MIL light. If they really want to do a emissions compliance check that is fair, have an onsite smog dyno. I somehow get the feeling that getting every single car dyno smogged will never happen.

 

Doh! I meant to vote "NO"!!!!! I'm a freaking moron Wonder if there is anyway I can change my vote ...

 

Seriously. It is going to be pretty frickin' difficult for anybody to present convincing evidence if I were cheating and really wanted to hide it. I mean, what's anybody going to do if I modify the rom structure or even MUT/flash protocols themselves. Those are both legal.

Futhermore, I don't think a protest committee can legitimately expect competitors to present copies of their ECU roms for inspection. Most of these images are property of large corporations and their actual functionality isn't publicly documented. I mean, most vehicles don't have super-geeky owners like us who are willing to take the time to reverse-engineering the ecu functions and diagnostic protocols -- much less build the software tools to modify them.

d

 

Huh... maybe having an onsite dyno smog isn't such a bad idea after all. Has to be better than sifting through everyones ecu code That's the whole reason F1 gave up trying to regulate traction control, etc. It was impossible to go through everyone's unique coding and try to find some form of 'control' that was purposely hidden.

This was even an issue in AMA superbike racing.

 

I voted no just because not all check engine light's are emissions related. Is it a good early warning tool, yes, but it would need to be investigated further.

 

I'm going to stick to the poll question, "no". I don't believe even a "sniffer" should be used to test for exhaust emissions at Tour's/ Pro's/ Nat's considering I live in a State that has no emissions testing whatsoever. If it ended up being the case, then any competitor who has their car registered in a non-emissions testing State would need to find other means to test for compliance. If the equipment was made available at say, the Divisional level with little or no cost involved, then I would reconsider.

Dave

 

I don't know how there's seems to be nobody on the committees in question that understand this, but it seems to be the case. It's unfortunate for the classes in question and the SCCA in general that there's such a lack of expertise that could lead to such a ruling.

The Club Racing side of the SCCA just went through this exact situation. The Showroom Stock / Touring classes had a rule that said a MIL would make you illegal and you could be protested. They rescinded this ruling this year because it simply didn't work: the essentially stock race cars often threw CELs for various reasons that had nothing to do with illegal modifications. And now we're supposed do the same - but on cars that are highly modified.

 

basing emissions compliance on OBD-II cars by the check engine light is stupid.

My non-OBD-II car throws a CE light when the speedo is disconnected. Does that mean that I am still legal for ST?

1) it's not an ODB-II car, so do the CE light rules apply? no...
2) it's not a emissions releated code.

Is my old POS NX 2000 legal? who knows... the rules to too damm vague.

My EVO throws random P0300 codes due to poor programming from the factory. If my EVO were still in ST legal trim, would I be disqualified?

The rule sucks, and I am glad that I am not in ST.

 

To answer the poll, nope. As it has already been stated, there are so many work-arounds to this that trying to police the class that way is utterly futile.

Ok, now who is the moron who answered yes???

 

I have found this discussion interesting both here and on the SCCA Forums. I really think that the SCCA needs to re-evaluate the goals for ST* classes. As originally intended they were supposed to be a class that would allow new members to bring their street cars (mostly tuner cars) and compete on their street tires. Going with that goal in mind then allowing a high-flow cat seems to fit that goal, as most people who change their exhaust also change this part. I believe they need to require a cat within x inches of the original but that require it to be emmissions legal is bunk. I do not have an emissions test where I live so who's job will it be to show I am compliant. I believe they need to keep the rules simple to better fit the audience they are aiming for and allow the owners to deal with emissions in their own way (if they have to).

 

That's MR. Moron to you buddy!

 

UPDATED FOR SEPTEMBER 2007 FASTRACK

See original post for clarification.

 

So sniffer for pre-OBD-II, and no sniffer for OBD-II? If I'm in the 'pre' category, I'd want ALL the cars on the sniffer.