Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:49:47 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: gov't sure fire way to destroy an engine Re: about oil
              additives
In-Reply-To:  <ac1f198b0907271349h7deef39dg516c66f2e248f35d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The only engines that can obtain an EO for blanket anti-tampering
exemption are pre-OBDII (read 95/96 and older) engines, so no newer
engine swaps cannot be exempted in the same way, "they" won't even
look at a filed application. This is the policy shift and is the
reason an older early 90s subie ej22 can be legal if you follow the
KEP EO, but a cleaner even more modern version of the same engine
would not be able to get an exemption.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:28 PM, John Rodgers<inua@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim Akiba wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Rodgers<inua@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Next thing you know "They" will be dictating that no engine replacements
>>> or
>>> engine upgrade swaps of newer engines into older vehicles are to be
>>> permitted either.
>>>
>>
>> lol you mean like CA already does?
>>
>> Jim Akiba
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have not really paid to much attention to CA. Do "They" really not allow
> newer modern engines to be swapped into older vehicles likes Vanagons? I
> like to think I could swap out my tired old WBX for a newer Suburu engine or
> Zetec and still drive in CA.
>
> John Rodgers
> 88 GL Driver
>
>