Jasper Offers GM V8 AFM/DFM Delete Engines

[HEMIMANN]

Well, this is interesting. Except I can't see how it's legal, at least in the U.S. I am assuming AFM/DFM is part of the EPA Certification of these engines and therefore can not be removed for use on U.S. public roads? Note they team with HP Tuner for a wiped ECM upgrade.

If GM would stop outsourcing engine parts for cheapness, they might have a complete V8 engine again.

Jasper Adds New GM Engines with AFM, DFM-Delete

These engines are available with an AFM-Delete, or second-generation DFM-Delete option, removing the cylinder deactivation technology.

www.shopownermag.com

 

[Wild one]

Well, this is interesting. Except I can't see how it's legal, at least in the U.S. I am assuming AFM/DFM is part of the EPA Certification of these engines and therefore can not be removed for use on U.S. public roads? Note they team with HP Tuner for a wiped ECM upgrade.

If GM would stop outsourcing engine parts for cheapness, they might have a complete V8 engine again.

Jasper Adds New GM Engines with AFM, DFM-Delete

These engines are available with an AFM-Delete, or second-generation DFM-Delete option, removing the cylinder deactivation technology.

www.shopownermag.com

Don't quote me on this,but i think the little 4.8 was a factory non AFM engine when it was used in the heavier truck lines

 

[Docwagon1776]

Well, this is interesting. Except I can't see how it's legal, at least in the U.S. I am assuming AFM/DFM is part of the EPA Certification of these engines and therefore can not be removed for use on U.S. public roads? Note they team with HP Tuner for a wiped ECM upgrade.

If GM would stop outsourcing engine parts for cheapness, they might have a complete V8 engine again.

Jasper Adds New GM Engines with AFM, DFM-Delete

These engines are available with an AFM-Delete, or second-generation DFM-Delete option, removing the cylinder deactivation technology.

www.shopownermag.com

They aren't the first rebuilder doing it. I don't know the legalities, but the ones I know of say something like "off road use only in CA" and that's it.

*edit* Like this one, but it also mentions NY: https://fraserengineco.com/6-2l-chevy-gmc-cadillac-dod-delete-engine-for-sale/

 

[HEMIMANN]

I love that so-called "disclaimer". Parts that were OBVIOUSLY marketed for public use with the statement "for off-road use only".

Got a bunch 'o dem on my Harley. lol

 

[Ritchie_Rich]

Yup. Me too. ‘96 Heritage Nostalgia Softail

 

[MeatCurtains]

Cylinder deactivation isn't a emissions reg it's a fuel economy reg last I checked and you can disable it until your hearts content.

It's been a few years since I dug into the epa regs but a lot of them are extremely specific.

 

[HEMIMANN]

CAFE is an EPA Regulation

 

[Docwagon1776]

CAFE is an EPA Regulation

EPA doesn't have anything to do with CAFE. That falls under the purview of NHSTA.

 

[HEMIMANN]

???

 

[Ritchie_Rich]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA
Docwagon1776 is correct.

 

[HEMIMANN]

A quick check from the great web crawlers in the sky (which may or may not be right):

The primary U.S. agency enforcing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of the Department of Transportation, which sets the rules for how far vehicles must travel per gallon of fuel; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also plays a role, calculating fuel economy levels and regulating emissions.
Here's how they work together:

• NHTSA: Establishes and sets the CAFE standards for different vehicle types (passenger cars, light trucks, heavy-duty vehicles).
• EPA: Calculates the actual fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for manufacturers, working jointly with NHTSA on rules.

Both agencies coordinate to ensure compliance with these standards, which aim to improve fuel efficiency for the U.S. vehicle fleet.

Addendum - EPA has a role in this. I don't care who is right, but EPA is the culprit in most vehicle engine regulations. The reason for the regulation is environmental, not safety. The whole push to lower fuel consumption was to save oil resources, and now to reduce CO2 output. Both are environmental. And so are combustion exhaust constituent regulations.

 

[Docwagon1776]

NHTSA is the body that sets and enforces CAFE and EPA has zero legislative authority to do either of those things. EPA reports testing results as part of the verification for emissions back to NHSTA, otherwise they would be duplicating efforts, and I'm sure they share information as their missions overlap somewhat, but NHSTA (or more broadly, the Dept of Transportation) remains the sole enforcement body for CAFE.

The important part of this is CAFE doesn't apply once the vehicle is off the lot. NHTSA doesn't have authority over individuals or individual vehicles, whereas the EPA does. You can put big oversized mud tires on your truck and fuel economy will suffer, but that doesn't affect CAFE and NHSTA has no possible enforcement action.

 

[HEMIMANN]

NHTSA is the body that sets and enforces CAFE and EPA has zero legislative authority to do either of those things. EPA reports testing results as part of the verification for emissions back to NHSTA, otherwise they would be duplicating efforts, and I'm sure they share information as their missions overlap somewhat, but NHSTA (or more broadly, the Dept of Transportation) remains the sole enforcement body for CAFE.

The important part of this is CAFE doesn't apply once the vehicle is off the lot. NHTSA doesn't have authority over individuals or individual vehicles, whereas the EPA does. You can put big oversized mud tires on your truck and fuel economy will suffer, but that doesn't affect CAFE and NHSTA has no possible enforcement action.

I can tell you this from personal experience - the EPA enforces regulations via the Dept. of Justice. Several fines against Cummins prove it. I was involved in one of them.

 

[Docwagon1776]

I can tell you this from personal experience - the EPA enforces regulations via the Dept. of Justice. Several fines against Cummins prove it. I was involved in one of them.

From my somewhat limited experience, other than the military, that's how federal law works. The DoJ is who the prosecuting attorneys (AUSAs) work for and charges from federal agencies are referred to an AUSA to file and try in court. Criminal law for sure, say I had a serial robber and wanted to do a Hobbs Act violation (interfering with interstate commerce) and get them tried federally instead of just locally. I'd need a federal officer (we have FBI agents embedded as well as TFOs, local officers who also have limited federal authority temporarily as a Task Force Officer) present the case to an AUSA in the same way I'd present to the local prosecutor.

There may be exceptions where an agency goes to court without the DoJ other than military UCMJ cases, but if there are I'm unfamiliar with them.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Yep. So what I'm trying to say is the EPA is the instigating agency. Without them, the others don't do any enforcement.

 

[jawzs2]

I love that so-called "disclaimer". Parts that were OBVIOUSLY marketed for public use with the statement "for off-road use only".

Got a bunch 'o dem on my Harley. lol

Yep - my Screamin' Eagles wake up the "wildlife" - LOL

 

[Docwagon1776]

Yep. So what I'm trying to say is the EPA is the instigating agency. Without them, the others don't do any enforcement.

But that's not the case with CAFE. EPA is *NOT* the enforcement body. NHTSA and the Dept. of Transportation is.

To make this a little clearer, let's use a somewhat inexact analogy:

NHTSA is the police department.
EPA is (in this instance) the Crime Lab techs.
DoJ is the prosecuting attorney.

It's not exact because of the legislative components, but as far as the executive components (law enforcement) it's pretty spot on. EPA is testing the evidence and reporting back to NHTSA. NHTSA is finding compliance or non-compliance. CAFE is a civil thing with a set fine schedule, but I suppose if an auto maker fought it in court than the DoJ would "prosecute", or more technically defend the gov't interest in the existing fine schedule.