Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rule Question

    I have a question regarding rule 5.0-B.4;

    Removal or gutting of the catalytic converter(s) and/or other 1 PIP
    modifications such as modification or removal of emissions control
    systems including: emission control air pump nozzle(s); thermal reactor(s)
    and integrated plumbing; PCV and fuel evaporator systems that render the
    vehicle non-compliant with the applicable emissions standards for a street driven vehicle of the type.




    I have an oil breather tank that vents from the valve cover to the can, and drains back into the oil pan. There is a filter on top to vent the can and crankcase pressure. I have this done because the motor in my car in an economy motor and is not designed to rev at high RPM's. At high RPM's the pressure in the crankcase builds up and blows out oil seal, cam seals, rear main seal, distributor seal, whichever is the weakest link.
    My car is not equipped with a factory PCV system, just a hose that runs from the valve cover to the throttle body. I have this disconnected because it dumps oil into the intake and creates a smoke screen after right hand corners.


    My questions is - Should I be claiming this PIP given that this is not a performance enhancing modification, but a reliability/safety modification? It does not "render the vehicle non-compliant with the applicable emissions standards for a street driven vehicle of the type" as I have a valid Ontario Emissions test.
    Time-Attack #29
    1990 Toyota Celica GT-S

  • #2
    Re: Rule Question

    Kyle, if you can pass the emissions test, you should be good without claiming a PIP
    Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rule Question

      Originally posted by Dave Barker View Post
      Kyle, if you can pass the emissions test, you should be good without claiming a PIP
      Great! Thanks for the clarification Dave.
      Last edited by k.beaty; 04-05-2016, 01:01 PM.
      Time-Attack #29
      1990 Toyota Celica GT-S

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rule Question

        That's not how I would interpret the rule. Venting crankcase gases to atmosphere (not manifold) violates the law. I think you would take the point.

        I believe technically, any modification of the PCV system should fail the visual inspection which should be part of an emissions test. These are federally regulated systems.

        I'm not saying I agree this should take a point, but I think you do meet the description of the rule.

        That's my $0.02, but it's my first year with this group, so it will be interesting to see how the rules are interpreted. Just trying to provide a caution.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rule Question

          Originally posted by WrenchTime View Post
          That's my $0.02, but it's my first year with this group, so it will be interesting to see how the rules are interpreted. Just trying to provide a caution.
          That is how I think a steward would have to interpret the rule.

          A good baffled catch can / air oil separator can return the oil to the crank case and the crankcase air to the intake without venting. If you want to remain VTA due to risk of oil vapour reducing effective octane, then take the PIP.
          sigpic

          Stephen, SPDA VP, OTA Director, CCC Member
          OTA: SGT1 ! -=- CSCS: SSA #842

          Comment

          Working...
          X