Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
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:
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?
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?