- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
October 5, 2013 at 6:41 pm #1638AnonymousGuest
(– by C.C. #5334 –)
Letter I sent my MPP
I have a concern with the Ontario drive clean test in relation to modified vehicles. I recently had my 2002 Grand Cherokee tested and it failed the test. The tailpipe emissions are on par and the actual OBDII monitored emissions systems are working properly. There are no codes that relate directly to the evaporative emissions of the vehicle. There are however codes because the vehicle has been converted from an automatic to a manual transmission. These codes should not fail the vehicle as any manually equipped vehicle from the factory would drive in the same fashion. The vehicles ECU would just be programmed to ignore the missing sensors.
The engine in the vehicle is a generic Jeep 4.0 and available in all jeep models of the same year therefore would be available in a manually shifted configuration. I cannot simply swap out the trucks computer for a manually shifted unit as the VIN in the computer would reflect a different vehicle and not validate my emissions information. I cannot reach the required $450 conditional pass limit as the truck has no real concerns besides a reliable transmission, and therefore nothing to repair.
My question is this. What do I do from here, with a vehicle that would pass the old and more relevant tailpipe emissions test? I would be more then willing to submit the vehicle for proper emissions testing that provided relevant emissions numbers. This new test however has no relevance. I can say this, as I have seen O2 sensors relocated to fool the computer into believing the readings are valid, with test pipes or hollowed out catalysts installed. With this there is no emissions control, yet the ECM will throw no codes and consider that a valid non pollutant vehicle. A tailpipe test would catch this type of trickery and allow for driveline changes that do nothing to effect tailpipe emissions.
Swapping back in a stock transmission for a vehicle that sees severe duty in inhospitable conditions is really not an option as the failure rate and replacement costs are astronomical. The vehicle is used for recreation, charity trail rides, and environmental cleanups on a regular basis and requires the more robust gearbox to carry the loads.
Again I ask what to do to enjoy my vehicle? Not only as a concerned motorist, but also as a 10 year licensed 310S auto mechanic.
Thank you for your time.
Chris MuirOctober 9, 2013 at 9:25 pm #3459AnonymousGuest
(– by 762X39 #2435 –)
I can't offer you any technical help to solve this problem but will say that your situation sucks. I retired a vehicle in 2002 because it couldn't pass the test (it was an 84) because it didn't have an O2 sensor (the 84's didn't come with an O2 sensor but the 85's and up did) but the MTO was convinced I was lying (can't fight city hall…). I hope you get some satisfaction in your fight. My solution was to buy a 1970 Mercedes 4X4 with no emissions at all that is exempt from testing but this won't work for everyone. I am looking forward to seeing what kind of response you get from the Minister.October 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm #3460AnonymousGuest
(– by Bad Karma #5647 –)
your 84 is exempt… anything 87 and older is exempt. you should never have had to retire an 84.October 13, 2013 at 1:29 pm #3461AnonymousGuest
(– by 762X39 #2435 –)
your 84 is exempt… anything 87 and older is exempt. you should never have had to retire an 84.
No, this is not entirely true. When emissions testing came into place, the rule was 20 years or older. The rules have changed since then.
Originally, vehicles under 4,500 kg (cars, SUV, light trucks) and over three years old (and up to the 19th year) required an emission test every two years before the vehicle's owner or lessor can renew its licence plate. Starting with 2006, the test exemption was increased to five years, while the rolling exemption at 20 years ended, and all 1987 and older vehicles became exempt.October 13, 2013 at 4:43 pm #3462AnonymousGuest
(– by LugNutz #5331 –)
"Vehicles under 4500lbs"? So if I armour up, add pitbulls on steel bead locks and keep the tool box in when I hit the scales, I'd be exempt from e testing?October 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm #3463AnonymousGuest
(– by 762X39 #2435 –)
"Vehicles under 4500lbs"? So if I armour up, add pitbulls on steel bead locks and keep the tool box in when I hit the scales, I'd be exempt from e testing?
That's kilo's, I don't think the tires could handle the weight 😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.