1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is the EPA wrong?

Discussion in 'EPA Regulations' started by stevert, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. stevert

    stevert Member

    For anyone who is interested:

    I believe that mini trucks have been misrepresented and wrongly categorized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Customs border protection agency.

    The EPA has jurisdictional authority over U.S. Customs specifically on vehicles that are imported into United States.

    EPA has unfairly restricted these vehicles because of pollution considerations?

    By limiting the transmission with a shifter restriction plate in an attempt to restrict speeds up to 25 mph only creates higher RPMs, increasing wear & tare on the motor, and does nothing more than create increased fuel consumption.

    Transmissions on these vehicles are geared very low and require a wider throttle body position is wasting larger volumes of fuel. In addition to this, environmental protection agency never took the time to identify if these vehicles actually pollute.

    Would it be unreasonable to think that this government agency which is funded by our taxes should serve its citizens by taking 30 minutes of their time such as I did to have the vehicle smog tested. They would find out that even in a used condition, these vehicles emit far less pollutants than the majority of vehicles on the roadway today. If they would simply take the time to look underneath one of these vehicles they would see that not only is their smog equipment but an OBDII port as well.

    This is a very important that that needs to be brought to the attention of the Environmental Protection Agency and those who are specifically responsible for categorizing the classification of these vehicles as seen by the U.S. Customs and border protection agency.

    The determination and classification of these vehicles can be found in a recent Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit tiger truck was involved with where the EPA on numerous accounts referred to these vehicles as nonroad vehicles.


    Interestingly enough, the Department of transportation should no longer view these vehicles in the stated "gray" area vehicle. The DOT has argued that these vehicles are "on road vehicles" and therefore subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations.


    Below is some information collected specifically from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the certification requirements for the importation of nonroad vehicles.





    In a recent document:

    “Change in Non-Compliant Mini-Truck Importations

    (09/18/2008) The Environmental Protection Agency has regulatory authority of motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Mini-trucks imported in violation of the CAA will be processed for export only.
    EPA regulations 40 C.F.R. § 85.1703(a) provide criteria by which a vehicle may be excluded from the motor vehicle requirements of the CAA. In order to qualify for exclusion from the EPA motor vehicle requirements as non-road vehicles, mini-trucks must be in an admissible condition prior to importation. EPA will no longer approve modifications to imported mini-trucks in a FTZ when those modifications would serve to reclassify the mini-truck as a non-road vehicle”.
    Under EPA Definition: Motor vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 85.1703(a).
    (5) An imported vehicle or engine, subject to the following provisions:
    “Offroad utility vehicle means a nonroad vehicle that has four or more wheels, seating for two or more persons, is designed for operation over rough terrain, and has either a rear payload of 350 pounds or more or seating for six or more passengers. Vehicles intended primarily for recreational purposes that are not capable of transporting six passengers (such as dune buggies) are not offroad utility vehicles”.
    Title 40: Protection of Environment why was the per added pain
    PART 1051—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND VEHICLES Subpart B—Emission Standards and Related Requirements
    (iii) For all-terrain vehicles and offroad utility vehicles subject to this part, see §1051.107 and §1051.145.
    f) As described in §1051.1(a)(4), offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to the same requirements as ATVs.
    § 1051.107 What are the exhaust emission standards for all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and offroad utility vehicles?This section specifies the exhaust emission standards that apply to ATVs. As is described in §1051.1(a)(4), offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to these same standards.
    (a) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section by model year. Measure emissions with the ATV test procedures in subpart F of this part.
    (1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards. You may generate or use emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program for HC+NOXemissions, as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a family emission limit for each pollutant you include in the ABT program for each engine family. These family emission limits serve as the emission standards for the engine family with respect to all required testing instead of the standards specified in this section. An engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the whole averaging set of applicable engine families meets the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles within the family meet the family emission limit. Table 1 also shows the maximum value you may specify for a family emission limit. The phase-in values in the table specify the percentage of your total U.S.-directed production that must comply with the emission standards for those model years.
    Calculate this compliance percentage based on a simple count of your U.S.-directed production units within each certified engine family compared with a simple count of your total U.S.-directed production units. This applies to your total production of ATVs and offroad utility vehicles that are subject to the standards of this part; including both ATVs and offroad utility vehicles subject to the standards of this section and ATVs and offroad utility vehicles certified to the standards of other sections in this part 1051 (such as §1051.615, but not including vehicles certified under other parts in this chapter (such as 40 CFR part 90). Table 1 follows:
    Table 1 of §1051.107—Exhaust Emission Standards for ATVs (g/km)
    Phase Model year Phase-in
    (percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits
    Phase 1 2006 50 1.5 35 20.0
    2007 and later 100 1.5 35 20.0
    (b) The exhaust emission standards in this section apply for ATVs using the fuel type on which they are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical emission standards for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of hydrocarbon emissions for ATVs powered by the following fuels:
    (1) Gasoline- and LPG-fueled ATVs: THC emissions.
    (2) Natural gas-fueled ATVs: NMHC emissions.
    (3) Alcohol-fueled ATVs: THCE emissions.
    (c) Your ATVs must meet emission standards over their full useful life. For ATVs with engines that have total displacement of 100 cc or greater, the minimum useful life is 10,000 kilometers, 1000 hours of engine operation, or five years, whichever comes first.
    (2) Your useful life may be based on the average service life of vehicles in the engine family if you show that the average service life is less than the useful life required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, but more than the minimum useful life (10,000 kilometers or 1,000 hours of engine operation). In determining the actual average service life of vehicles in an engine family, we will consider all available information and analyses. Survey data is allowed but not required to make this showing.
    [67 FR 68347, Nov. 8, 2002, as amended at 70 FR 40488, July 13, 2005]
    § 1051.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time?
    Link to an amendment published at 73 FR 59247, Oct. 8, 2008.
    Apply the following provisions instead of others in this part for the periods and circumstances specified in this section.
    (a) Provisions for small-volume manufacturers. Special provisions apply to you if you are a small-volume manufacturer subject to the requirements of this part. Contact us before 2006 if you intend to use these provisions.
    (1) You may delay complying with otherwise applicable emission standards (and other requirements) for two model years.
    (2) If you are a small-volume manufacturer of snowmobiles, only 50 percent of the models you produce (instead of all of the models you produce) must meet emission standards in the first two years they apply to you as a small-volume manufacturer, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For example, this alternate phase-in allowance would allow small-volume snowmobile manufacturers to comply with the Phase 1 exhaust standards by certifying 50 percent of their snowmobiles in 2008, 50 percent of their snowmobiles in 2009, and 100 percent in 2010.
    (3) Your vehicles for model years before 2011 may be exempt from the exhaust standards of this part if you meet the following criteria:
    (i) Produce your vehicles by installing engines covered by a valid certificate of conformity under 40 CFR part 90 that shows the engines meet standards for Class II engines for each engine's model year.
    (ii) Do not change the engine in a way that we could reasonably expect to increase its exhaust emissions.
    (iii) The engine meets all applicable requirements from 40 CFR part 90. This applies to engine manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers who use these engines, and all other persons as if these engines were not used in recreational vehicles.
    (iv) Show that fewer than 50 percent of the engine family's total sales in the United States are used in recreational vehicles regulated under this part. This includes engines used in any application, without regard to which company manufactures the vehicle or equipment.
    (v) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph (a) of this section, they will be subject to the provisions of this part. Introducing these engines into commerce without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity violates the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101.
    (vi) Engines exempted under this paragraph (a)(3) are subject to all the requirements affecting engines under 40 CFR part 90. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 90 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing equipment that uses these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as other engines subject to 40 CFR part 90.
    (4) All vehicles produced under this paragraph (a) must be labeled according to our specifications. The label must include the following:
    (ii) Your full corporate name and trademark.
    (iii) A description of the provisions under which this section applies to your vehicle .
    (iv) Other information that we specify to you in writing.
    (b) Optional emission standards for ATVs . To meet ATV standards for model years before 2014, you may apply the exhaust emission standards by model year in paragraph (b)(1) of this section while measuring emissions using the engine-based test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 instead of the chassis-based test procedures in 40 CFR part 86. In model year 2014 you may apply this provision for exhaust emission engine families representing up to 50 percent of your U.S.-directed production. This provision is not available in the 2015 or later-model years. If you certify only one ATV exhaust emission engine family in the 2014 model year this provision is available for that family in the 2014 model year.
    (1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards, while meeting all the other requirements of §1051.107. You may use emission credits to show compliance with these standards (see subpart H of this part). You may not exchange emission credits with engine families meeting the standards in §1051.107(a). You may also not exchange credits between engine families certified to the standards for engines above 225 cc and engine families certified to the standards for engines below 225 cc. The phase-in percentages in the table specify the percentage of your total U.S.-directed production that must comply with the emission standards for those model years (i.e., the percentage requirement does not apply separately for engine families above and below 225 cc). Table 1 follows:
    Table 1 of §1051.145—Optional Exhaust Emission Standards for ATVs (g/kW-hr)
    Engine displacement Model year Phase-in (percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits
    2006 50 16.1 400 32.2
    <225 cc 2007 and 2008 100 16.1 400 32.2
    2006 50 13.4 400 26.8
    ≥225 cc 2007 and 2008 100 13.4 400 26.8
    (2) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with the steady-state duty cycle described in Table 2 of this section.
    (i) During idle mode, hold the speed within your specifications, keep the throttle fully closed, and keep engine torque under 5 percent of the peak torque value at maximum test speed.
    (ii) For the full-load operating mode, operate the engine at its maximum fueling rate.
    (iii) See part 1065 of this chapter for detailed specifications of tolerances and calculations.
    (iv) Table 2 follows:
    Table 2 of §1051.145—6-Mode Duty Cycle for Recreational Engines
    Mode No. Engine speed (percent of maximum test speed) Torque (percent of maximum test torque at test speed) Minimum time in mode (minutes) Weighting factors
    1 85 100 5.0 0.09
    2 85 75 5.0 0.20
    3 85 50 5.0 0.29
    4 85 25 5.0 0.30
    5 85 10 5.0 0.07
    6 Idle 0 5.0 0.05
    (3) For ATVs certified to the standards in this paragraph (b), use the following equations to determine the normalized emission rate required by §1051.137:
    (i) For engines at or above 225 cc, use the following equation:
    NER = 9.898 × log (HC + NOX) − 4.898
    HC +NOXis the sum of the cycle-weighted emission rates for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/kW-hr.
    (ii) For engines below 225 cc, use the following equation:
    NER = 9.898 × log [(HC+NOX) 0.83] − 4.898
    HC +NOXis the sum of the cycle-weighted emission rates for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/kW-hr.
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Phase-in flexibility. For model years before 2014, if you make a good faith effort to comply, but fail to meet the sales requirements of this part during a phase-in period for new standards, or fail to meet the average emission standards, we may approve an alternative remedy to offset the emission reduction deficit using future emission credits under this part. To apply for this, you must:
    (1) Submit a plan during the certification process for the first model year of the phase-in showing how you project to meet the sales requirement of the phase-in.
    (2) Notify us less than 30 days after you determine that you are likely to fail to comply with the sales requirement of the phase-in.
    (3) Propose a remedy that will achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the specified phase-in requirements, and that will offset the deficit within one model year.
    (e) Raw sampling procedures. Using good engineering judgment, you may use the alternate raw-sampling procedures instead of the procedures described in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing certain vehicles, as follows:
    (1) Snowmobile. You may use the raw sampling procedures described in 40 CFR part 90 or 91 for snowmobiles before the 2010 model year.
    (2) ATV . You may use the raw sampling procedures described in 40 CFR part 90 or 91 for ATVs certified using engine-based test procedures as specified in §1051.615 before the 2015 model year. You may use these raw sampling procedures for any ATVs certified using engine-based test procedures as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (f) Early credits. Snowmobile manufacturers may generate early emission credits in one of the following ways, by certifying some or all of their snowmobiles prior to 2006. Credit generating snowmobiles must meet all other applicable requirements of this part. No early credits may be generated by off-highway motorcycles or ATVs.
    (1) You may certify one or more snowmobile engine families to FELs (HC and CO) below the numerical level of the Phase 2 standards prior to the date when compliance with the Phase 1 standard is otherwise required. Credits are calculated relative to the Phase 2 standards. Credits generated under this paragraph (f)(1) may be used at any time before 2012.
    (2) You may certify a snowmobile engine family to FELs (HC and CO) below the numerical level of the Phase 1 standards prior to the date when compliance with the Phase 1 standard is otherwise required. Credits are calculated relative to the Phase 1 standards. Credits generated under this paragraph (f)(2) may only be used for compliance with the Phase 1 standards. You may generate credits under this paragraph (f)(2) without regard to whether the FELs are above or below the numerical level of the Phase 2 standards.
    (g) Pull-ahead option for permeation emissions. Manufacturers choosing to comply with an early tank permeation standard of 3.0 g/m2 /day prior to model year 2008 may be allowed to delay compliance with the 1.5 g/m2 /day standard by earning credits, as follows:
    (1) Calculate earned credits using the following equation:
    Credit = (Baseline emissions − Pull-ahead level) × [Σi(Production)i× (UL)i]
    Baseline emissions = the baseline emission rate, as determined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    Pull-ahead level = the permeation level to which you certify the tank, which must be at or below 3.0 g/m2 /day.
    (Production)i= the annual production volume of vehicles in the engine family for model year “i” times the average internal surface area of the vehicles' fuel tanks.
    (UL)i= The useful life of the engine family in model year “i”.
    (2) Determine the baseline emission level for calculating credits using any of the following values:
    (i) 7.6 g/m2 /day.
  2. Acerguy

    Acerguy Moderator Staff Member

    Nice post, Stevert.

    Does anyone know where the 25mph thing comes from? I wonder if it is an EPA rule or a DOT rule to insure that the vehicle is "off road only"? I mention this because there are obviously lots of UTVs and ATVs that go a lot faster than 25mph.
  3. SpikeFiend

    SpikeFiend Member

    These trucks are ODBII compliant? Is that only for the newer trucks ('96 and up) or do the '90-93's have it as well?
  4. canadian1

    canadian1 Member


    the e.p.a. is not a testing agency. they do no testing themselves. do not mix federal testing with state testing. not all states even have emission testing. federal testing is done in a lab. if the imported vehicle does not have a metal tag that is attached to the engine or door jam that states it is in compliance to u.s.a. standards than it must be imported by a license importer that is license by the e.p.a. these people have very sophisticated labs or they sub it out to licensed labs that are approved by the e.p.a. and d.o.t. the license importer can make all the necessary modifications to bring the vehicle into compliance for on road use. this cost mega thousands of dollars. as far as d.o.t.; well when they get involved than each vehicle must meet the safety standards of today's vehicles. the customs agency is a policing agency. the e.p.a.--d.o.t.--dept. of ag. and those agencys write the rules and customs enforces them. did i miss any of your questions?
  5. Super Mini Trucks

    Super Mini Trucks New Member

    Right or wrong they have done it.
    I have been in touch with US EPA & US DOT in DC
    They have covered all the bases & are ready for a fight. In fact they are pretty ticked if & when you can talk with someone in authority.
    As of 12-8-08 There will be no more imports of the Kei Class Mini Trucks
    They have heard from several US Senators & Congressmen & they have a block wall attitude.

    You can thank the folks in the states that have allowed them on the road.
    We have always been against them being allowed to be licensed for road use.
    This was the reason.

    Now several states have done it & the EPA has implemented rulings that will stop them.
    It is not right but it is what it is. Belive me after 5 years of dealing with them, inventing the so called speed limiters, & putting up with all the BS from all sides we have a lot vested & are very disappointed. I have studied the documents, had legal consul & cannot find a loophole. I found one but after submittal they added the 2008 standards stating the trucks being modified now makes them 2008's & subject to 2008 Regs.
    All we can do is rally our elected officials, but don't expect that will get er dun.
    DOT will now step up with the facts of several states passing laws to allow use on hiways & they will not allow them because of safety issues. I know all the arguments some of which have validity, but these were originally manufactured for road use in Japan, & are not a motorcycle.

    WE will still offer parts & accessories as long as the market supports it.
    We will still offer RETAIL Sales as long as our inventory lasts about 200 units
    Wholesale sales will be decided on a case by case basis (existing customers only)
    Direct shipments from Japan have been suspended
    All direct shipments from Japan are only coming here, no more direct wholesale sales

    So Sorry
    Regards, Mike
  6. canadian1

    canadian1 Member


    so right;so right. i know of two states where the d.o.t. examiners have visited with the governor;some importers;dealers and purchasers. the governor was told not to issue any more tags(license plates) or the state would loose their federal highway funding. importers and dealers stock was checked for restrictor plates and sales records were confiscated. if restrictor plates were missing or turned down the trks. went to the shredder. same as for purchasers they visited. no restrictor plate; the trk. went to the shredder.
  7. Banzai

    Banzai New Member

    Come to think of it, doesn't Japan have almost as strict of emissions standards as we do in the US?

    Did the EPA ever consider that? Typical Gov't, eliminate something that they can't tax by regulation.

    God i hate the Govt' so much.
  8. canadian1

    canadian1 Member


    they do have emission laws but they are completely different than ours. this is why all of these trks. are being exported out of japan. i won't get into details but it has to do with the taxation laws.
  9. Super Mini Trucks

    Super Mini Trucks New Member


    I was in contact this AM< with the head of the small engine group at the EPA

    By Friday 10-31-08 I will have the ruling as it pertains to the mini trucks in hand.
    I will post it as soon as I recieve it.
    No hope there but I will post.

    The 348 pages of the new rules pertains to many engines which also apply to the minitrucks.

    They are considering all trucks to be 2008 being that they were modified for off-road use, thus they must meet 2008 standards.

    Yes the emissons controls are in place on all the trucks, but they will have to be certified by the EPA on a engine/trannsmision/year basis.
    Cost is about 50-70K per cert.

    We nor anyone will be able to afford.

    The states should of never allowed them on the road each one that did it placed another nail in our coffin.

    Regards, Mike
  10. canadian1

    canadian1 Member


    Amen: Bro. Mike
  11. SpikeFiend

    SpikeFiend Member

    There's still time to move to Canada! :)
  12. Beviecaye

    Beviecaye New Member

    does anyone mind sharing a sample letter

    that could be sent to our legislatures. I would be glad to storm the gates, but I must be honest, I am a newby and haven't had a lot of time to research - in fact, just today found out about the EPA issues.

    And.... up until today, didn't realize it was a negative thing for MY state to have legalized these. I was actually excited about being able to drive from my residence to our farm. We have only had our truck a short time, and I LOVE it. Of course then the GOVERMENT has to step in. URG....

    Any info I can use to compose my complaint to the Oklahoma US representatives and senators would be appreciated. Thanks guys.
  13. Colin

    Colin Member

    They should be legal in all states. You can thank the states that did the right thing and allowed the trucks to be used for their intended purpose for bringing the issue to the forefront. Unfortunately, another misguided bunch of control freaks at a federal agency chose the wrong course of action, rather than allowing road use in all 50 states.

    It's a matter of perspective. I don't see anything wrong with using a vehicle for its intended purpose (light duty hauling on- and off-road.)

  14. pepci

    pepci Member

    Well I guess I am happy Wa. didn't let them on the road as i was happy with off road use only. So now I guess we will all have the choice of 25 yr old refurbished trucks that may not be used for on road use in all states as well.I myself will choose to just be happy I have acouple trucks of good quality that will go a long while. DAMN EPA!
  15. canadian1

    canadian1 Member

    25 yrs.

    any 25 yr. old or older vehicle is street legal in every state; not only mini trks. this is federal law
  16. pepci

    pepci Member

    I have no need for a 25 yr old truck canadian1. I have newer trucks to drive off road.
  17. pepci

    pepci Member

    Besides I have never found any trucks beyond 1986 from the distributor I use as they are harder to come by aren't they?
  18. canadian1

    canadian1 Member

    25 yr. old

    yes they are harder to come by but i have two nice trks. on hand now.
  19. pepci

    pepci Member

  20. canadian1

    canadian1 Member

    pics. and details

    standby my good man
  21. MT-Importer

    MT-Importer New Member

    EPA imports

    MY 2 Cents worth,

    I am an importer of Kei trucks in Montana and I have been following all the posts about what the EPA is doing. I will give a little background, as it might help you to understand just what is happing. I am a geologist and am hold Certifications from the EPA and have worked with them and they are the typical officious government agency, who will not pay a lot of attention to congressman unless they have direct control on their budget.
    I have first hand experience on a issue just like this, In what seems to be a different life, in the 1980 I was an international arms dealer and importer of firearms and machine gun parts into the United States, Back then the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms wanted to ban machine gun parts from the US market, They had two ways to accomplish this change in US law without having congress pass new legislation, Either they could make a letter ruling and publish it in the federal register, which is what the EPA is doing in this case, or they can try to change the law by finding an imported and charging him with a crime and gain a conviction and then set a present and thereby change the law. The BATF choose the latter way and they sent a agent who lied before a grand jury and they indicted me with one conspiracy and 43 counts abetting the manufacture of machine guns by selling parts to people who I never meet or spoke with. I filed an suit against the Government, this suit is what is called a “DEC Action” ( Declaratory action), this is where a federal judge looks at the proposed changes ( interpreting) that the government agency is making and determines if this way conforms with the intent of congress when it made the law. The Federal Judge can make a call on if it is correct or overreaching. This legal action does not cost a lot, about $5,000 to $10,000 on this issue of the EPA standards. However it does not stop a criminal prosecution, The BATF cost me $450,000, months of time wasted, and my entire business just to stay out of jail, the six weeks trail ended in 3 days when the BATF gave up, offered me a deal and I have to withdraw my Dec action. I returned to college and pick up a degree another degree in Pre law and for the last 14 years I have been working part time in the legal field. I have read all 348 pages of the proposed federal regs and think it can be challenged.

    I think you are on the right track in getting people together and this is what I would proposed;

    1) start a non profit 501( c ) and get every one to join and donate, it will be tax deductible, if only a small portion of the members here kick in $10-20 and write letters and call the right people, a lot can be done.

    2) hire a attorney and get a fixed price for a Declaratory Action, a Washington DC lawyer will bleed you dry and ask for more, I know, I work with them every day. I do not know this guy, he may be different, but he will most likely put his kids through college on this if you let him.

    3) Put pressure on the right congressional reps and senators, the ones with the budget control, the EPA is big enough and powerful enough to ignore the rest.

    4) If you can not change this then, this Non Profit should buy testing equipment, ship it to Japan and then do certification of the trucks in Japan, this could be a mobile unit, if we all got together the price would be very little per truck, this would beat them at their own game.

    Do not kid your self this is a way to put about 90% of out of business and mark my words, if you do not challenge this over reaching EPA action, that one of you is going to be charged after these regulations goes into effect and fined $32,500 per day and facing 18 USC 001 which is 5 years for making a false statement to the EPA.

    The way I see it and read it , the EPA by taking the step and trying to make a used vehicle “new” is very much over reaching and they would have a hard time convincing a Federal Judge that a 1997 Honda is and should be considered a 2008 for testing purposes, that is not what the intent of the original law passed by congress says.
  22. speedy67

    speedy67 Member

    Import them as parts. A rolling chassis and a drive train. Install the d-t after you take delivery and call it a 'kit-car'.

    If somebody could source a 35 hp diesel engine that would fit in 'em, I could sell dozens a year. for some reason, everybody figure these little tykes should be oil-powered.;

    I think they'd make great electric run-about vehicles for in town. Too bad that Zaptruck was a scam....http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-truck-xl
  23. canadian1

    canadian1 Member

    diesel engine

    the chinese make a diesel that will fit.
  24. SpikeFiend

    SpikeFiend Member

    They would actually be pretty easy to convert to electric since there is so much room for batteries. The trickiest part would be getting a motor adapter plate made.

    These guys will do it:

    Once they have an adapter made it becomes a bolt in replacement and will do better than that ZapTrucks 25 mph. Performance should be pretty similar to stock actually, and you'll have better low end torque.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  25. Mighty Milt

    Mighty Milt Active Member

  26. Shrimp Daddy

    Shrimp Daddy Member

    I guess I don't see why some of you are blaming states that have allowed licensing of mini's, stating that is one reason for the epa ban. Broken into it's lowest common denominator, isn't this just like licensing an atv. Our state has allowed licensing of atv's since the mid eighties. Heck I had the first four wheeler licensed in my town in 1986. So wouldn't it be cut and dried to say that if a state allows licensing of atv's then it would allow mini's. It can't be an emisions problem because mini's would seem to be no different from atv's as far as exhaust pollutants are concerned.
  27. speedy67

    speedy67 Member

    Which particular manufacturer? Is there a link with specifications? 16 or 18 horsepower ain't gonna cut it, and it would have to have the RPM to get some speed too, or at least the power and torque to turn bigger tires (gearing) to get the speed. Also, will it fit on the angle like the gas engine? Maybe with an undercarriage/drivetrain drop to get the body/tire clearance you could shoehorn a more vertical engine in.
  28. edderds

    edderds New Member

    I agree. There are 60's and 70's model cars all over, not to mention the John Deere tractors and Honda 4-wheelers, that aren't required to meet EPA standards. Yet the EPA stops a handfull of mini trucks from entering the USA. Something isn't right here. Forget the off road/on road issue. My Suzuki Carry gets 13 MPG better than my Honda TRX650 4-Wheeler. Less fuel consumption = lower emissions the way I see it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the EPA outlaws mini trucks, why not outlaw gas guzzuling 4-wheelers?

Share This Page