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

Most useless **** I've ever read

Discussion in 'EPA Regulations' started by Ironraven, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

  2. erixun

    erixun Member

    :mad:Because my mini emits more crap than a 1-ton Ford truck driven by a 20 year old or a 20 year old 2 stroke motor.... EPA can go $#@%&*(%#@@#)?><:%#!!#@)? what a joke, just like the IRS...

    I would pit my mini truck against my 91 Blazer any day of the week and the mini would win in the exhaust exhalation department even with a full load, a full load of crap just like this report.

    Ok, I am off my soap box now.... :pop:
  3. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    Yeah, I sent an e-mail reply saying something to the effect of

    "OK, if you are serious about a mini truck emitting up to 4x the amount of pollution that a standard light duty truck does show me your data. After all I have a difficult time believing that a 3 cylinder 660cc engine emits more pollution than a 6 cylinder 3000cc engine. Oh, BTW here's a copy of an emissions test from a 1993 Suzuki Carry showing it passing even modern emissions standards for passenger vehicles..."

    I also asked where the 25mph limit comes from; as in what law it stems from as I know a couple people who have imported Nissan 240sx's for "Off road only" use in order to turn them into dedicated drift cars and THEY aren't speed limited, nor are they remotely required to be speed limited, NOR do they have an EPA sticker on the door. All they had to do is pass an emissions test and they were in like Flynn... so why the special treatment for mini trucks? Why not import them for "off road only" use and make them pass an emissions test? So f-ing frustrating... I'll be surprised if I get a response, it took 3 different people 6 weeks to send me this e-mail.
  4. TRAX and HORNS

    TRAX and HORNS Well-Known Member

    Guys its the way things work. Our system was sat up where you help me I help you, plain and simple. Very slim chance in betting them at a game they invented. In the end they win, no matter what. Some dude in DC is getting his pocket lined by a lobbyist in the mix of things. It really doesnt matter what the test shows. What matters is you scratch my back I scratch yours.
    We need to hire Al Gore. He did pretty well for himself over the last couple of years in Global Warming. Maybe someone in Gore country can loan Al a truck. Let him test drive it around the place, get a feel for the thing, you know what I mean. Al you freaking bird brain.
    Sorry for the the rant it just pisses me off thinking of Bill, Al, Obama, Bidden, Nancy, Harry, and that fat limp noodle Barney Frank.
  5. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    This doesn't have anything to do with Bill, Al, Obama, Biden, Nancy et all. THEY didn't draft this legislation. ****, they weren't even involved in this level of politics when this legislation was put in place and they probably have never even heard of mini trucks... so I'm not sure where you're going with that rant other than just to express a general bit of frustration about the government in general? In that case you should be including every politician ever since they are nearly all not worth the skin that keeps their organs in their proper places. It's funny you mention Gore though; I'd think something with as small a footprint as a mini truck WOULD be right up his alley, I think even if you don't agree with the environmentalism movement it's probably the way in as far as legalization of mini trucks is concerned. At least in Minnesota I know it will be a big deciding factor.

    Here was my response to the cryptic e-mail I got back when I asked for more information:

    Can you please link me to the full law you are pulling this from? It's so darn hard to keep skipping back and forth between sections and subsections without the full context of the legislation.

    I still am at a loss as to the reason behind the speed limitation and why the EPA would be interested in limiting the SPEED of a vehicle. I can understand limiting other things, such as emissions levels but speed doesn't seem to have anything to do with environmental impact and, in fact I believe has a negative impact in this case. If you lock out every gear but 1st gear that means you will be forcing a person to operate their vehicle at maximum RPM's in order to achieve a speed of 25 KPH which is about the limit any model of mini truck will move in first gear. I have driven several and they are perfectly useless when limited to first gear unless you have the pedal to the floor burning exponentially more fuel and therefore carbon emissions than if they were not so limited. Do you know if this legislation was drafted specifically for mini trucks? It is interesting that vehicles like dune buggies are specifically listed as NOT being in the same category. I don't understand why there is this distinction; especially from an environmental impact perspective. It doesn't make sense to allow for the unfettered use of vehicles whose only purpose is recreation while at the same time limiting business from utilizing smaller more efficient vehicles to fulfill the needs of their daily operation. From a nuts and bolts perspective, the only thing separating a mini truck from an ATV or a dune buggy is high-flotation tires, and many dune buggies are made from cars; most commonly the VW Bug, so it's impossible to claim INTENDED use for such a vehicle.

    I am also confused as to how there can be state laws in 14 states specifically allowing mini trucks to be operated above 25 mph on public roadways while, according to the legislation you have pasted below, it is federally illegal for them to do so?

    My basic premise is I would much rather operate a small efficient vehicle than a large inefficient one. I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I am attempting to limit my carbon footprint and vehicle emissions as much as I can. I come from a family of organic farmers, and I am currently in the process of starting a grassfed beef operation that will utilize rich grazing pasture to act as a carbon sink. For the day to day realities of managing cattle I will need either need to purchase an ATV to help herd and string fencing and a truck to haul equipment and water from pasture to pasture (both of which produce large amounts of emissions, especially the ATV) or I could purchase a mini truck which has minimal environmental impact ESPECIALLY compared to an ATV. However, if I can only operate the vehicle LEGALLY at speeds of approximately 16 mph (I have yet to find a mini truck that is speed limited that can move faster than 25 KPH) it would make absolutely no sense to purchase one and I will therefore be forced to resort to buying machines that will have double or triple the environmental impact. It is incredibly frustrating to me that the agency that is keeping me from limiting my emissions is the agency that is SUPPOSED to be protecting the environment. It seems to me to be counterintuitive that I will be forced to buy a vehicle that has as terrible of emissions as an ATV or as poor efficiency as a 4x4 truck by the EPA instead of being able to fill both of those needs with one single, efficient vehicle.

    I'm sure this is all inconsequential in the grand scheme of things and in the end will be nothing but wasted time. The EPA will likely not change its perspective on these little trucks and states will probably continue to legalize them individually regardless of the misconceptions the Federal government has about them... it would just seem to me to make a whole lot of sense to allow for the usage of smaller more environmentally friendly vehicles in this day and age where people are becoming more conscious of their impact on the planet we all share.

    We'll see if they come up with a response...
  6. The speed limiter deal ... sheesh (prior reason was not emissions tested). Sad deal when the EPA managed to keep that in there - even after doing the emissions testing and certification fees. That is a conversation I would liked to have heard and seen - that had to make some eyes roll here.

    As far as emissions - that appears to be getting all engines in line. But that speed limiter - seems unfair or special treatment to prevent popularity of a very useful truck...even for the Off Road Only venture.
  7. Ironraven ... that is worth a quote. I find this aspect of this industry interesting. Its turning this around...the how to?

  8. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    See the thing is Mini trucks have their OWN classification. They are "Offroad Utility Vehicles" here is the e-mail I got. See if you can make heads or tails of it. First is my e-mail full of questions:

    I appreciate your response. I am hoping you could answer a few questions for me.

    1. Can you furnish me with the data you have that shows mini trucks do not meet EPA regulations?
    2. Which statute is it that requires non-road vehicles to be limited to 25 mph? After all many friends of mine have ATV's which can travel at speeds in excess of 80 mph and they are also non-road vehicles.
    3. I also know that you can import certain Japanese vehicles for off road use only (such as Nissan 240sx etc) for racing purposes without them having an EPA certification sticker on the inside of the door as long as they have been tested to meet or exceed EPA regulations and they are absolutely not required to be speed limited to 25 mph. What is the difference?
    4. Can you tell me how you have determined that mini trucks pollute 4 times more than a standard light duty truck?
    I am attaching a Canadian emissions test of a 1996 Suzuki Carry that shows it exceeding current EPA standards for your review. Thank you for your time,

    So she responded with the following (the red is her emphasis)

    1. I do not have the data that went into the document you are referring to, but I have forwarded your request to our enforcement division (which published that document).
    2. Mini trucks are not ATV's as they do not meet the definition in §1051.801:
    All-terrain vehicle means a land-based or amphibious nonroad vehicle that meets the criteria listed in paragraph (1) of this definition; or, alternatively the criteria of paragraph (2) of this definition but not the criteria of paragraph (3) of this definition:
    (1) Vehicles designed to travel on four low pressure tires, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering controls, and intended for use by a single operator and no other passengers are all-terrain vehicles.
    (2) Other all-terrain vehicles have three or more wheels and one or more seats, are designed for operation over rough terrain, are intended primarily for transportation, and have a maximum vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour or higher. Golf carts generally do not meet these criteria since they are generally not designed for operation over rough terrain.
    (3) Vehicles that meet the definition of “offroad utility vehicle” in this section are not all-terrain vehicles. However, §1051.1(a) specifies that some offroad utility vehicles are required to meet the same requirements as all-terrain vehicles.

    We have had some try to argue that mini trucks could be considered offroad utility vehicles, and the following analysis has been done:
    In order to determine whether a mini truck can be considered an offroad utility vehicle, the following regulatory analysis can be done (I have added the text in red):

    Per §1051.1(a)(4), Part 1051 applies to :
    (4) Offroad utility vehicles with engines with displacement less than or equal to 1000 cc, maximum engine power less than or equal to 30 kW, and maximum vehicle speed higher than 25 miles per hour. Offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to the same requirements as ATVs. This means that any requirement that applies to ATVs also applies to these offroad utility vehicles, without regard to whether the regulatory language mentions offroad utility vehicles.

    The definition of an offroad utility vehicle per §1051.801 is:
    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. (Note:§1051.1(a) specifies that some offroad utility vehicles are required to meet the requirements that apply for all-terrain vehicles.)

    They key to the sentence above is "nonroad vehicle". Now to the definition of motor vehicles and exclusions.

    (a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle and excluded from the operation of the Act:
    (1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces; or if the vehicle (mini truck or otherwise) is not speed limited it does not meet this criteria
    (2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, such features including, but not being limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles), a differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law; or We have determined that mini trucks have these features (windshields, turn signals, seat belts, radios air conditioning and we have previously stated that "With regard to 85.1703(a)(2), the mere deletion, removal or absence of features that can be readily added or the lack of U.S. Department of Transportation approval of safety features on the vehicle are not sufficient grounds for exclusion".
    (3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, such features including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry. The examples we are talking about here do not meet this criteria

    Based on the definition of nonroad, if mini trucks (whether new or used) are not speed limited they would be considered motor vehicles as they do not meet exclusion criteria in §85.1703(a)(2) or (3).

    3. There are certain exemptions available if the intended usage fulfill all the requirements as described in the regulations. What you are describing would require a competition exemption as described in 40 CFR 1068.

    4. Again, I do not have the data that went into the document you are referring to, but I have forwarded your request to our enforcement division (which published that document).

    The test report you submitted looks to be an inspection/maintenance test. This is not consistent with the engine testing requirements outlined in the regulations so I cannot speak to whether this engine would pass the applicable standards.

    So that's why I put the thing about dune buggies in there... I mean what's to stop me from "modifying" a mini truck and calling it a "dune buggy" and then claiming it can be driven at any speed I want off road? Why can't someone import one for "Primarily recreational use as a dune buggy" and have it be just fine? It's total bullshit... I am more or less convinced that the Federal Government will never allow for non-limited trucks to be imported... and that means it's up to the states to use their common sense and legalize their use.

    Edit: I also find it completely ironic that mini trucks are deemed TOO SAFE to classified as "nonroad vehicles" without being speed limited...
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  9. TRAX and HORNS

    TRAX and HORNS Well-Known Member

    Does any of it make sense in DC. OK in general lets take it another level. I know very few up in DC that gives a hoot about anybody else. 95 % of them are up there to line there pockets any way they can. I will say most have good intentions when they make it that far. But as soon as they get to DC they have to play the game. Ive seen it with most Reps. from Texas that
    in their hearts want to make a difference. But when they get to DC their hands get tied up and they have no other choice but to play the game. They do that long enough and they get in the habit of taking care of themselves and the ones around them only. Change has to be made, term limits, and having freaking common sense would be a good start. My point in all this which I didnt make clear was you have a little engine, engineered for going to point a to point b that is economical. Why wont the USA embrace such a thing. Last year I was in Costa Rica and a large number of vehicles were diesel, hey costa rica gets it why dont we. Screw the the carbon foot prints. There's something else I'm sick of seeing, carbon footprint,Shezzz. The Good Lord new what we were capable of. For the most part the earth will take care of its self. I do agree we dont need to pump oil in our water streams ect.
    Oklahoma was the only state that had the B***s and told the Feds " this is our states and we run it the way we see fit". All the epa crap towards the mini trucks made it difficult on us the importers which is going to make the price go up which will be passed on to you the retail buyer. Wait till this administration gets though we will happy to get Jimmy Cater back in office.
    The only thing we can do is vote the bird brains out. Draw a line in the sand, bird brains on this side non bird brains on the other. The bird brains go.
    We all need to get a voters card and vote. It does make a difference.
    Terry Bearden
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  10. "I am more or less convinced that the Federal Government will never allow for non-limited trucks to be imported... and that means it's up to the states to use their common sense and legalize their use."

    That has been the conclusion of some here - boldly or not so boldly put.

    IMHO, I feel its the coming along of popularity, States, and users that represent votes that may bring this to an eventual head...helped on by fuel costs/economy. Its going to be the active community of users that will need to network & rally when this goes to court. That process may fail if the EPA/lobbyists nip this in the rear before the ball rolls much more.

    I have no formal documented studies - but I have a theory that the consumer of these trucks will remove the speed limiting devices with little haste. Therefore, whipping up on those ATVs and enjoying the full potential of the truck :D
  11. Tracks & Horns - I agree...

    Wish the guys who fought this had the means to better the game being played. Although, when competing against each other etc, I'm not sure how solid the bond was.

    Yeap, in the end - We the People will pay. And that pay is getting harder to earn...
  12. DannyM

    DannyM Member

    Chicken and Trax, I agree with both of you. Personally, I feel the ATV market as well as the big three vehicle manufacturers here in the USA are financially behind the problems with the mini trucks. At first, with only a handful being imported, no problem. But as more were being imported and a lot of people saw the use of these vehicles and how cheap to operate, the above mentioned saw problems. With us not having anyone lobby for us, and us not having the money to do so, we are at a disadvantage. It is a common fact that Chevy, Ford, and Dodge will not build anything in this size, and for years they have all three really not liked the imports of any foreign cars and trucks. Americans have loved the large, powerful, and totally inefficient vehicles we have been driving. But now that government has and is more and more taking control of things, things are getting tighter and tighter. I want a vehicle, but because of just making a living and supporting my family coming first, my owner ship of a mini truck will have to wait. I am glad some states have the courage to look our "big brother" in the eye and let him know, we do not agree with you and allow these vehicles on our roads. When I get a vehicle, yeah, the limiter will have to come off. You will get run over and killed here on these mountains with the logging trucks running around. We have several around here, they all go about 45, safely on the roads, and off road, are an almost necessity. Especially with the weather we have had this winter. What do we do, not sure, but I agree, somehow we need to get some positive info to the right people, and maybe get things changed Could Al Gore do it, he is not my favorite nor much on anyone else from Tennessee either (last election he was in proved that) but he might actually have an inroad we could use. Worth checking out anyway. Danny
  13. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    Couldn't agree more. Honestly regardless of whether I agree with their policies or not I would like to see a complete change of the guard. The unfortunate thing is we don't vote for the director of the EPA etc... those are appointments or government jobs ya know?

    I'm not trying to get into a global warming or whatever debate here, but if we are going to convince people that these trucks are a worthy form of transportation focusing on their efficiency and environmentally friendly aspects are going to get you miles further than "It's my state, it's my property and I'll do what I want!" Because as you stated before... politicians don't give a hoot about you, your state or your property. But if there's a buck to be made or a tagline they can use to show that they are on the latest eco-friendly bandwagon odds are they'll jump on it.

    OK isn't the only one either. WY, AK, KS, LA and NB all have laws allowing for the use of mini trucks without speed limiters.
  14. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    Once enough states legalize them the Feds will more or less have to follow suit. There isn't a whole lot they can do about it, especially now dedicated people like Freemontminitrucks are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that these are clean efficient vehicles.
  15. Ironraven and others. The EPA did hear your complaint and others about the futility of the shift blockers, unfortunately.

    Mr. Obvious (funny handle) recently mentioned this on another post. Look at the first link that IronR lists in the beginning. In this link the EPA publishes that starting in 2011 the mechanical shift blocks will no longer be acceptable.

    This means another freaking costly hurdle to jump over to own these trucks.

    Since they are saying the speed limitation device cannot be mechanical then it must be electrical. (Is there anything else besides electrical or mechanical?) I think this will add $500-1000 a copy to the cost of the truck and may very well push the cost too high to make practical sense for the purchaser. For the older trucks it will mean developing a separate approved speed limitation device for each engine family. What a headache!

    I read in another post that the certifications are going to be available for $495.00 for each truck. Add in the cost of the devaluation of the dollar against the yen which is easily $1000-1500 per truck depending on the value of the truck. Now add the engineering cost of this latest decree along with the physical cost of the device itself. Again, I would estimate the speed limitation device will cost $1000.00 a truck. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am wrong by much.

    All together this adds $1,500 to any vehicle imported before December 31, 2010 and $2500.00 for every vehicle after this date. I think there is a limit on what people will pay.
  16. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    It does depend on how they limit them. You can't electronically speed limit a carbureted engine... I know a popular way to limit trucks with a high/low is to put a pin in the tranny so you can't shift out of low range...
    chickendumpling likes this.
  17. Well, if I were to stand up for the speed limiting thing. Those in the EPA need to make it cost prohibitive to remove that device. To my current knowledge, there is no enforceable penalty for doing so to the end user (me).

    As long as the truck is designed for on-road use out of the factory with a 5 speed transmission to reach 65 mph etc - thats going to be an issue that will plague this industry (good or bad) until the truck is specifically designed for 25mph and off road use only and no subsitute parts will install. Yes, that is costly and thats driven by the consumer base.

    As long as the part or electrical device can be removed without rendering the truck useless and costly - it will be purchased and brought in separately (to easy). The State(s) would have to enforce that penalty or the Feds have to come in and enforce by whatever means. Most likely, we are not going to see that until things are in the green and the bigger issues in this country are handled.

    Really would like to see the game get taken to the EPA etc. Feels like the people lost control of what we want.:(
    Ironraven likes this.
  18. I think the pin in the trans will give you the same result as you have here with the shift plates. The vehicles will go some speed less than 25 with much frustration to the owner.

    Still, your idea might be something that will economically work for the older trucks, but probably not be very popular with the purchaser. The EPA would have to be sold on it.

    Norm, I think your only penalty would be the risk of forfeiture on the truck. It seems that you would be given a chance to make the truck compliant or it would be confiscated and distroyed.

    I have never heard of any enforcement actions ever taken against the purchaser. I think the feds have bigger fish to fry then the minitruck industry. Much bigger.
  19. No offense, but the harder you guys push the EPA on this the worse it's going to be and the trucks simply won't be imported anymore. Non speed limited trucks just isn't going to happen, and if every state in the union made them street legal the feds would either pull highway funding or just block the trucks at port. Honestly, it does scare that these points are being argued directly to the compliance and innovative strategies dept., this really will only make things worse.

    Bob's right, they heard everyone loud and clear and the cost to reprogram an ECM to 25mph is about 800.00, so yeah, they heard everyone and now have take appropriate measures to make sure it has been addressed. If you guys really do like the trucks, please drop it with the EPA, it's only going to make things worse:(
  20. Speed limiters will not stay on...that is reality.

    1) Inspections will have to be mandatory in all States.
    2) Ownership registered and transferable in all States.
    3) Alteration cost prohibitive.
    4) Penalty enforceable down to every owner.
    5) TIPS program with reward.
    6) Speed limited to 25 mph.
    7) Off road use only.

    That my friends is one nightmare to police and have everyone on board. Its going to be making an example out of someone(s) - then many are not going to be so eager to own one of these limited trucks with ATVs smoking past ya.


    Edit - Yes Gung Ho, for speed limiters to stay on...

    That leaves a full ban or cost prohibitive action by the EPA. Or, changing the rules...and with history, NEVER is not the case.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  21. I don't quite understand your point:confused:
  22. I think he means "For speed limiters to stay on:"

    I buy the trucks to compete with the John Deere Gator. I like the John Deere products I own, but the minitrucks are better over-all than the Gator.

    I do not buy the trucks to compete with ATV's that go very fast. I buy and sell them to fill a niche that wants super quiet, super efficient Suzuki Super Stalkers.

    My guess is that as the industry matures and minitruck sales begin to penetrate and resonate among schools, municipalities and others a law revision may be in order. In fact, it would be ideal if there was a national class of moderate speed vehicles, say up to 50 MPH. The trucks would fit perfectly!
  23. I must be alone

    Guys, don't blast me too hard, I'm trying to convey discussion through text (not easy) - its what stirrs not only in my mind, but those I visit with. Every person I have physically talked to - has NO problem with the truck on the road. Funny, or I'm only running into those who are interested? I'm trying to discuss my thoughts out of over a year of ownership and forum reading (will not bring names forward). Did I take a risk - I would say yes. Therefore - things may change for me as a mini truck owner as things have for you. Yawn or pass - maybe something here will ring a cord worth something beyond a pathetic post.

    Point: Customers are not driving them as imported as well as States - there has to be a number of more than just - me -.

    Point: The above, was indeed promoted by SOME dealers/importers in the past - maybe even today.

    Point: Every importer/dealer can not support State on road legalization of one of their current trucks on the market and must discourage customers as well.

    Point: Federal import/EPA law to the letter, followed by importer to consumer - is it really worth owning a minitruck?

    Question: What justifies the price difference between a turbo, automatic trans, and a manual trans - should not be much with a limit of 25mph, unless someone can take advantage of the feature?

    Question: We have States putting them on the road in some capacity. If you are an importer or have dealership interests in that State, what are you telling your customers and what are you saying to the State reps when they call for an opinion for possible legalization?

    Me: I bought the truck for on road use. Its saved money (gas/insurance) and space. Its a perfect truck for in-town tasks and work. I'll ride the wave as long as it lasts. I promote the truck for on road use and refer to dealers who I believe hold similar intentions. I enjoy watching others come into the on road realm as well as having the off road too. I enjoy watching States/Consumers realize the FULL POTENTIAL of these trucks. I am sincerely sorry that my enjoyment and passion has caused spite. If the sky falls and my gem is yanked from the road by a witch hunt - I have absolutely no use for the truck, and it will be for sale immediately. Damn - I really like this truck. I'll look for the best next thing for utility and savings.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  24. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    @ Freemont:
    Making it worse? Well you may be right; however I tend to doubt that the words of one person such as myself would make nearly as much difference as you claim. If that were the case wouldn't these trucks be legal already? If the words of the People make a lick of difference in government policies there would be a small fuel efficient vehicle parked in the driveway of 90% of American households regardless of where it was made or what supposed standard it does or doesn't meet. There are armies of people interested in Kei vehicles... not just trucks, but the small cars as well. There are even more interested in importing low mileage, low cost full size cars from the Japanese market and despite years of complaints and whatnot nothing has changed on that front either. As long as mini trucks aren't allowed to be driven on Interstate highways (which the aren't in any state) then the Feds can't with hold funding for roadways at all. They can't really say **** about something that is done in a state with state funding that has nothing to do with Federal dollars.

    I agree, without spending several million on education and whatever for law enforcement about these trucks, their legal limitations etc there is just no way the EPA will be able to do anything about a truck that is already in the country. Just like Federal agents can't do jack about guys in Cali growing "medical marijuana" as long as they aren't importing it from across the border or exporting it out of state. The issue here is that they may once more place restrictions on the importation of trucks... but with all the money they stand to make on certifications I doubt that'll happen.
  25. Iron, the EPA is just like a woman. She hears what she wants to hear.
  26. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    rotfl, yup and the EPA won't listen to logic or reason either... like a woman on the rag.
  27. Canadian_Jumbo

    Canadian_Jumbo New Member

    Whats really funny with you guys is you have to comply to all that emissions stuff. In Canada I don't think we really seem to care, it depends on the province though. I know the town I am located in the local gaurage is pulling the catalytic converters of all the vechiles they work on, unless they are these new diesels with the particulate filters. They do it because they say you gain 2-5 or more MPG. Less restriction in the exhaust, but more emissions. The downside is our minitrucks have to be 15 yrs old to meet our import regulations. We can drive them on any road which is nice, whereas in the states some classify these vechiles as ATV's and some dont from what I have read. Eventually though they are probably going to get alot toughfer on the emissions in all vechiles. I knew a guy who ran his mini truck on LP (propane). And he said that even though they say it is cleaner he really didnt like the smell and would rather not have converted it to begin with.
  28. renchjeep

    renchjeep Member

    My 94(?) Mitsu Minicab is carbureted (550 cc 3G81 3 speed 2wd), and electronically speed limited. Not sure how that is done, but I assume a speed sensor simply cuts spark intermittently, like a rev limiter. That's what it feels like. Truck stays running, but "lays down". Also, it comes in at around 23 mph, not 25. Anyone have an "easy" way to eliminate this? Also, is there a way to tell if I have a 4-speed with some kind of 4th gear lockout? Is it internal to the trans, or some sort of linkage trickery?
  29. Ironraven

    Ironraven Active Member

    Easy way to eliminate it is probably to disconnect the VSS (vehicle speed sensor) which means you'll have no speedo but...

    I'm guessing it's not an RPM limiter since you could potentially shift at whatever RPM to keep the limiter from kicking in and get more speed that way.

Share This Page