Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 410 posts

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#331

Post by winrid »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #228
MisterTea wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it were simply just strait pipes. The biggest buffoons are the ones running "pops and bang" tune where the clown car's engine dumps fuel into the exhaust to make it pop, bang and gurgle. Makes the car sound like shit but these mental midgets think it makes their already ugly slammed trashcar somehow sound cool. The kinds of people who do this usually have very little going on upstairs.

My dad bought a truck with aftermarket headers installed and dual aftermarket glasspack mufflers. If you were going down a hill and let off the throttle, it would "popcorn" like you described, but not obnoxiously. It was loud when you accelerate quickly, though. Scared a horse once when he pushed the clutch in and revved the engine. I'd personally rather have a fast, but quiet vehicle. Most vehicles people make loud…

That was also probably due to having a carburetor which won't completely stop putting fuel into the engine on decel like EFI.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#332

Post by 13of40 »

mint2 wrote: post #274
paulddraper wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not actually enforcing the “for track use” only rule How does a manufacturer enforce the use of a device in that way?

Verify their distributors are doing some sort of due diligence? Doesn’t seem that hard to make some sort of reasonable effort.

Is the rule really about "track use" or is it just off-road or on-private-property use? How does the distributor know I'm not just rolling coal on my uncle's farm?

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#333

Post by winrid »

tekla wrote: post #298
testfoobar wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO such start/stop is a fraudulent way to meet MPG targets. Almost everyone I know presses the button to turn off the feature the moment they start their car.

Why the hell would you do that.

If it's hot and you want your AC to keep running. Or if the baby in the back seat cries once the vibration from the engine stops :)

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#334

Post by QuarterReptile »

dheera wrote: post #264
Scoundreller wrote: post #96

My experience is that eBay screws up their filters and wayyy overfilters. The Canadian government has some secret spat with Xiaomi cellphones and got eBay, newegg and Amazon to stop their sale. They weren’t approved for sale in Canada, but I suspect some other reasoning for targeting a Chinese manufacturer in particular and not all the other unapproved products. However, eBay just blocked anything with “xiaomi” in th…

During COVID I reported a bajillion eBay sellers for selling masks above MSRP, they did nothing.

Anti-price-gouging laws are an incredibly bad idea.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#335

Post by mcronce »

datavirtue wrote: post #257
MarCylinder wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mufflers do not impact emissions. In the case of gasoline cars, there are mechanisms for controlling intake air, recirculating exhaust gas, and filtering emissions directly out of the exhaust gases. All of these impact carbon emissions. These defeat devices allow drivers to modify some or all of these attributes in favor of gaining engine performance.

Muffler delete is a known cause of misfires. It manifests as a popping sound surrounded by the other shitty sounds produced by such a modified exhaust. We have all heard it. A misfire is raw fuel being expelled.

A misfire is a failure to combust the air/fuel charge in the combustion chamber during the expansion stroke, and they aren't typically caused by muffler deletes.

They can lead to the popping sound you're describing, but they don't always, and they're far from the only cause, and muffler deletes aren't necessary for those either. Unburned fuel hitting oxygen in the tip of a hot exhaust and immediately burning is the direct source of the noise, and causes for that are numerous.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#336

Post by mcronce »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #222
CobaltFire wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous; you have to do a lot more than change an air filter. You would have to change the actual piping, etc. with one that the seller declined to spend the money on certifying as compliant. Further, and most people don't know this is a thing, you CAN tune your car as much as you want and have it certified with all of those parts as a one off for about $5,000 and a six-ish month wait. This is how you ca…

> you have to do a lot more than change an air filter You are barely correct. A filter alone is insufficient to be an issue, but a cold air intake will mean you don't pass smog in CA.

That would be changing the actual piping, which they mentioned.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#337

Post by mirashii »

Scoundreller wrote: post #320
kps wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying they cause harmful interference. It's up to the vendor to get certified that they don't. You can't sell an uncertified radio transmitter. It's not a conspiracy.

> You can't sell an uncertified radio transmitter. It's not a conspiracy. When they pick and choose who they target for RF and somehow end up focusing on a Chinese cellphone manufacturer, it suggests something is going on beyond RF reasons.

No, it signals that that manufacturer didn’t follow the established process for certification.

What evidence is there that anyone is picking and choosing?

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#338

Post by kps »

Scoundreller wrote: post #320
kps wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying they cause harmful interference. It's up to the vendor to get certified that they don't. You can't sell an uncertified radio transmitter. It's not a conspiracy.

> You can't sell an uncertified radio transmitter. It's not a conspiracy. When they pick and choose who they target for RF and somehow end up focusing on a Chinese cellphone manufacturer, it suggests something is going on beyond RF reasons.

Once again, it's up to the vendor. You submit your test reports showing compliance with the standards, and you get your certification. The only ‘pick and choose’ here would be by Xiaomi who apparently don't think the Canadian market is large enough to bother with.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#339

Post by achates »

rumblerock wrote: post #237
sandworm101 wrote: post #25

My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My understanding was that they were legal for track purposes. I would never want to say that people should be able to defeat emissions, but a part of me does not like the idea that every vehicle owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity. The "right to repair" people should be all over this fight…

I for one love that BMW built the catalytic converters into the exhaust manifolds on my car, meaning that the only CARB-viable route outside of gambling on used units is a $10k replacement.

You knew what you were getting into when you bought a BMW.

Re: US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices

#340

Post by pests »

defrost wrote: post #328
pests wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have the video of the challenger hellcat outrunning a helicopter... https://youtu.be/W9eLpH513po?si=e2vfe_ntQSkduewW

Interesting link, that said: A video that opens from a news helicopter and a reporter stating "we've been tracking him for ten minutes" that continues to track for another 3 or four minutes. The police helicopter pulls off towards the end for lack of fuel .. and the news helicopter says that they are having trouble keeping up (despite having done so for at least 13 minutes). I'm going to guess this is more a resource…

I agree with your analysis but they do state they are using a powerful lens to even get that footage and then further on....

3:20ish "We're having trouble keeping up with this guy"

3:30 "We are currently going 120MPG and he is losing us. We're at the maximum speed right now." [news anchor after speaking to pilot]

3:50 "This is the first time the vehicle has outrun the chopper" [studio host?]

So I think you are correct in the 130-145 MPH max speed and them just hitting 120 due to wind or hardware.

Post reply on HN