|
|
Feb 12, 2018 20:34:01 GMT
|
Nic996, in thne UK we are (currently) allowed to do as we like as long as we pass IVA (individual vehicle approval). For this we can use any engine and as such have to pass emissions based on the date of the engine. Not too bad to achieve. The new rules (if implemented) will mean any engine fitted will need to pass whatever emissions levels are current at the time of registration (IVA gives you a brand new registration making your car brand new as well). This means and car presented for IVA will have to meet 2018/2019/2020 etc emissions levels - not so simple if only running Fi and cats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Blackpop, just for my understanding... does that mean that anyone building or rebuilding a car that deviates from the basic description of the vehicle will, in future have to use a completely modern engine and ancillaries?
So for EG: Somebody building a Morris Minor with a V8 will need to use a (eg) 2018 Lexus V8 engine and the entire management system if they hope to pass both IVA & Emissions/MOT?
Because if so, does that hint at a possible increase in the availability of crate engine packages? I realise that would still be prohibitively expensive (as well as extra-complicated) but at this point does that look likely to be the only possible future for UK hot rods?
Because it's unlikely that anyone is going to buy an entire brand new car just to lift the mechanicals to drop into a project, so I assume it's crate engines or death at this point if this goes ahead.
====
if my understanding is correct then that means I can happily drive around with my stock-fitment Essex v6 in my 73 Scim, but were I to take that engine out of my Scim and drop it into (eg) a 73 Morris Minor, it would suddenly need to pass modern MOT emissions... despite both being 73 cars and the engine being exactly the same.
====
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I work with similar issues in Sweden, especially our closest match to the IVA/BIVA tests.
For years, we have managed to get special exemptions regarding emissions for new amateur built vehicles (that get a current year registration). The key here has been to use the EU vocabulary of vehicles that are "rarely or never used on public roads".
While that may sound like a limitation, in reality most of the enthusiast vehicles are used for limited miles per year. In Sweden, the average car is driven around 14000 kms per year, and our research show that enthusiast vehicles on average are driven less than 800-1000 kms per year. This means that we can show that the emissions are negligible.
I think that the UK enthusiasts should try using that as an argument. Combine it with the importance of the vehicle hobby, for the social aspects but even more for the small and medium enterprises that cater for the business. We have been able to show that the hobby gives many thousands of persons a job. That is something the authorities can relate to.
To meet the authorities wishes for lower emissions, we are also looking into tying higher emission standards to higher output engines. This means that a traditional hot rod or similar, with for example a flathead V8, or a "run of the mill" SBC with maybe 200 bhp can keep a carb and only has to pass simple tests (4,5% CO at idle). For more power, lambda controlled engine management, a catalytic converter and the emissions testing equivalent to a modern car could be mandatory. This is something most builders can accept.
What has worked for us, is uniting the vehicle enthusiasts and getting to a point where you work WITH the authorities, and not against them.
Gustaf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Blackpop, just for my understanding... does that mean that anyone building or rebuilding a car that deviates from the basic description of the vehicle will, in future have to use a completely modern engine and ancillaries? So for EG: Somebody building a Morris Minor with a V8 will need to use a (eg) 2018 Lexus V8 engine and the entire management system if they hope to pass both IVA & Emissions/MOT? Because if so, does that hint at a possible increase in the availability of crate engine packages? I realise that would still be prohibitively expensive (as well as extra-complicated) but at this point does that look likely to be the only possible future for UK hot rods? Because it's unlikely that anyone is going to buy an entire brand new car just to lift the mechanicals to drop into a project, so I assume it's crate engines or death at this point if this goes ahead. ==== if my understanding is correct then that means I can happily drive around with my stock-fitment Essex v6 in my 73 Scim, but were I to take that engine out of my Scim and drop it into (eg) a 73 Morris Minor, it would suddenly need to pass modern MOT emissions... despite both being 73 cars and the engine being exactly the same. ==== This is not meant as a thread steal Mark Quatermass as you scimitar has or had a Ford Essex v6 in it from new you would have to fit a modern Ford V6 from say a Mondeo or equivalent power modern Ford engine as described the new engine will need to be from the same manufacture as the origninal and not to just pick an engine of your choosing. Anyway all of this is conjecture as nothing has been written into law yet so as with the MOT situation a few months ago it could all change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quatermass as you scimitar has or had a Ford Essex v6 in it from new you would have to fit a modern Ford V6 from say a Mondeo or equivalent power modern Ford engine as described the new engine will need to be from the same manufacture as the origninal and not to just pick an engine of your choosing. Yeah, no... I know that. You've focussed on the wrong car in my hypothetical question buddy. It was a purely theoretical question to Blackpop who is invested in following this development closely. I'll re-state my question to avoid any ambiguity... ==== if my understanding is correct then that means I can happily drive around with my stock-fitment Essex v6 in my 73 Scim, but were I to take that engine out of my Scim and throw the Scim onto the scrap head never to be seen again because I'm all focussed up on my Morris Minor V6 project, and I drop the Essex V6 from my now scrapped, never to be seen again Scimitar into my project-buuld V6 73 Morris Minor... then the Morris Minor with the exact same Essex V6 from my now scrapped Scimitar would suddenly need to pass modern MOT emissions... despite both cars being the same age and the engine being exactly the same. Is that theoretically what's likely to be the case? ====
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 10:21:11 GMT
|
getting to a point where you work WITH the authorities, and not against them. This, is think, is the crux of the matter. I tend to stay away from the discussions about all this stuff because they blow up from a tiny grain of what is known into huge emotional storms of opinion and conjecture, all built on some things some people have mis-read or misunderstood and passed around the community until nobody has a clue what's real and what's just folklore and hearsay. It's also difficult to think/speak objectively because everyone is so impassioned. So trying to be objective can appear to the community that one is all for the proposed legislation and not against it at all. But the fact of the matter, as far as I can see it, is that there are no real, valid, tangible and reasonable arguments that can be made - in the great scheme of things - that can really truly justify a small segment of car users being allowed to do things with bygone materials in sheds and garages that are increasingly out of step with where mass transportation (and the economy of the future) is heading. I'm not condemning the sub-culture though, I just think it's important to see it through the eyes of those we're up against in order to find a way through. 99% of the arguments against this kind of legislation are subjective, based on personal need/desire, and are hinged on the idea that it's just not fair. We are fighting to retain certain liberties not available to the general population. I do feel it would be a good thing for the community to consider a different approach. Petitions are good for rallying people and showing our unity and numbers, but if the petitions are merely saying "it's not fair, this is a way of life, most of us take this very seriously and we build good safe cars that everybody loves to see, and we're 60% of the way through a 20k build which is now likely to become scrapmetal" then it's entirely missing the point. None of that sentiment is going to overpower the forces of change. In the eyes of those considering this legislation that's like 10,000 traction engine enthusiasts fighting for the right to be allowed to use their traction engines as daily drivers. I think the two hard kernels of genuinely useful facts are: 1. It's a very big industry, the sum total of which represents X jobs, X revenue and X taxes. 2. These are low usage vehicles. The non-contemporary emissions are offset by the extremely low use That's it. Everything else is personal, subjective and not likely to make a tiny dent in the future planning for road/transport infrastructure. We have to leverage point 1, and accept a degree of compromise on point 2. So I think we have to negotiate and be objective. I think it will be inevitable that we will have to accept a mileage cap as part of the negotiations to be allowed to continue what is a very eccentric pastime (for classics too, because they'll come for classics next, no doubt). We are not fighting to defend normality, we are fighting for abnormality. That's the objective view on this. I love the things that are under attack here, but in many ways we haven't got much to fight with... but if anyone says that anywhere (including here) you get met with a barrage of angry people accusing you of ignorance, apathy, and 'being part of the problem'. Disclaimer: I am using 'we' in this despite being the driver of a stock classic car. I'm not a builder or a modifier but I love the scene and would hate HATE to see it die. I just don't think the community has found it's objectivity amongst the swirling rage-clouds and panic of subjective noise and anxiety. Edit, additional thought: I also wonder whether there is any possibility of the community negotiating an amnesty period that allows people who are deep into a build now to have a set amount of time to complete to the 'old' rules before projects are subjected to the 'new' rules. So in Blackpop's case (if this goes ahead) he can apply for amnesty based on the history of his build and evidence that it is going to be completed within 18 months. Then he has a deadline to meet which could be painful, but might be less painful than knowing he won't get his car on the road at all. I think there is possible a case to be made for that, if it was approached objectively rather than personally/passionately. They might possibly see their way to allowing X amount of builds-in-progress to be completed on the basis that the rules have changed mid-way through projects.
|
|
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2018 10:49:14 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 10:24:03 GMT
|
But maybe we should find a thread that is already covering this rather than vandalising Blackpop's build thread. Apologies Blackpop... I can delete my comments to cut down the chaff. Just say the word and I'll delete.
= )
|
|
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2018 10:47:38 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 10:53:49 GMT
|
So Blackpop, just for my understanding... does that mean that anyone building or rebuilding a car that deviates from the basic description of the vehicle will, in future have to use a completely modern engine and ancillaries? So for EG: Somebody building a Morris Minor with a V8 will need to use a (eg) 2018 Lexus V8 engine and the entire management system if they hope to pass both IVA & Emissions/MOT? Because if so, does that hint at a possible increase in the availability of crate engine packages? I realise that would still be prohibitively expensive (as well as extra-complicated) but at this point does that look likely to be the only possible future for UK hot rods? Because it's unlikely that anyone is going to buy an entire brand new car just to lift the mechanicals to drop into a project, so I assume it's crate engines or death at this point if this goes ahead. ==== if my understanding is correct then that means I can happily drive around with my stock-fitment Essex v6 in my 73 Scim, but were I to take that engine out of my Scim and drop it into (eg) a 73 Morris Minor, it would suddenly need to pass modern MOT emissions... despite both being 73 cars and the engine being exactly the same. ==== Got it in one. If they proposed a 5 or 10 year 'feed in' for this then the aftermarket companies could develop engine/ECU packages to suit old & new engines - but they propose to bring it in this July!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 11:00:05 GMT
|
Quatermass,
no worries - it's all part of the build thread. You make valid points with ref jobs/industry -low usage/emissions. This is unfortunately the compromise we will need to accept. As long as its a reasonable allowance for mileage I can live with it - 3,000 miles would be ok but no less. People in Scotland migt not like it though a a single trip to a show 'down south' will rack up over 1200 miles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 15:03:12 GMT
|
Apologies for possible thread steal. But hey, the Swedish rules were developed with a Ford Popular build as the "example" back in the early 1980's so it has some connection.
I agree with a lot of what Quatermass writes, but would like to add "cultural heritage" to the list. The EU actually recognizes "historical vehicles" as something that is worthy of mention and offers some respect to them. What we also have to show is that modification and modernisation of historical vehicles is equally as important, as just as old as historical vehicles themselves.
Thus, there is reason in allowing that to continue. But the key is, as has been said, "low use" and be very clear in stating that these old vehicles are not modified in order to be used as daily drivers.
In Sweden we are working on not getting a solid cap on allowed mileage per year since it tends to differ from year to year. I still dream of driving my Capri or Cortina to the UK one year. That year may see 5000 miles on a car that the other 9 out of 10 years is driven 100 miles...
Gustaf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 15:48:43 GMT
|
We are kind of lucky here in Ontario Canada in that the rules for emissions are pretty common sense. The gist of it is that they do not want your car creating more pollution that it did when it was an original spec classic car. Fair enough.
If it is spewing smoke because it is worn out, of course they will fail you. If it had certain emissions controls when it was made, ( EGR, Closed circuit Evap controls ect) they need to be in place. It is NOT like California where the emissions controls have to be the exact factory parts, so you can use aftermarket cats and fabricate what you have to.
If you think about it, engine conversions to more modern engines( especially if EFI) should be encouraged as they tend to run cleaner than what was originally in the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 19:34:18 GMT
|
@quatermass why would a morris minor with an essex V6 need an IVA ? you just lose a point from 14 and carry on trundling round on its original reg? or have i missed the crux of your example that its a space frame new build based on the silhouette and some exterior panels of a minor ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 20:21:45 GMT
|
Oh yeah, bad example... So let's just upgrade that moggy to something that DOES require IVA but only uses the old engine out of my old, thrown away, never to be seen again Scimitar.
|
|
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2018 21:07:53 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 20:40:44 GMT
|
A moggy with a scimitar engine would need IVA as you would have to cut bulkhead to fit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 21:07:15 GMT
|
That was what I assumed when I posed the question, but I'm not very knowledgeable so was happy to amend the details of the fictional Moggy to avoid losing the original point of my question. It was the least I could do considering I had already sent a perfectly decent fictional Scimitar to the junkyard for no valid reason. I tend to find on car forums of every kind that you can ask a question and no matter how water tight you think you've worded it, someone will always pick it up and run off in another entirely unexpected direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 22:03:44 GMT
|
But as long as it is just an engine swap, (or maybe gearbox too), as long as you are over 8 points and not needing an IVA there is no problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 23:21:33 GMT
|
No, yeah... It's... That's....its, ehmmmmm, okay....
Guys, it's not a real car. It's not really real. It wasn't even my actual real Scimitar it was a pretend one that I made up. And I don't even HAVE a pretend Morris Minor, like, at all.
What I was doing was, I was.... Ehhhhm, I was asking a hypothetical question about whether emissions tests for a particular engine would be treated differently if it was taken from one, from.... If, See, ok, so, what I... What,
Hey, I wonder how Blackpop's getting on with his IVA build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 23:53:16 GMT
|
But as long as it is just an engine swap, (or maybe gearbox too), as long as you are over 8 points and not needing an IVA there is no problem? For you if that were your build then no, no problem. But the bigger picture is they are removing/making it almost impossible to pass the one LEGAL way left of modifying your vehicle beyond the 8 point rule. So please fill out the consultation opposing the relevant sections for the greater good of car modifying.
|
|
|
|
lord13
Part of things
Posts: 537
|
|
|
I tend to find on car forums of every kind that you can ask a question and no matter how water tight you think you've worded it, someone will always pick it up and run off in another entirely unexpected direction. Yeah . . . I get that a lot . . . coupled with the fact that my 'humour' needs a service every now and again, and possibly a complete overhaul, I tend to either a) tread on a few toes, or b) inadvertently manage to wind someone up ( I did it earlier on in this thread and deleted one of my posts because of it... well mainly cos the other guy deleted his post and mine just looked stupid without it but that's by the by) Anyway... Mr blackpopracing I emailed your guy in the government, but I don't really think it will do anything. If you remember they asked us all about the mot exemption thingy, we all said, or the majority of us said, that it would be a bad idea...and still they went ahead with it. So I guess they'll be going ahead with this too. I think it's all part of the 'master plan', to remove modified vehicles from our roads. First this VHI comes in, questionnaires when taxing a vehicle to make sure it's of 'historical interest' and therefore mot exempt. then this IVA debacle, making sure no modified vehicle will pass unless you have a 'mega-bucks' new engine. soon to be followed by the ( and i'm making this all up here, just guessing ok, so no one picks me up on scare mongering...I am scare mongering, but with good reason) 'well, if it's NOT VHI compliant, why isn't it?' questionnaire, and on the heels of that ...oh ok...you'll need an IVA for that as you've moved too far away from the original type approval. 8 point rule? oh no we scrapped that archaic nonsense, now you have to have ALL the components it came with when it was new or at least OE replacements or their modern equivalents... So yes I made that last bit up... but don't you think it's going that way? ... and a 4 week consultation period is just their way of making sure it will go through as there's no way we can have the political weight behind a protest in 4 weeks. this is all done and dusted.... in their eyes . . . so...have i annoyed anyone? upset anyone? if so I'm sorry , ignore me, I'm no one ok
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
(hey you didn't annoy me for what it's worth... I'm just enjoying myself. Sometimes that takes the style of mock irritation/outrage in the manner of a Basil Fawtly type, but never seriously)
|
|
|
|