Superformance in CT

[Fattyd]

Hello Friends:

Got a question for any Superformance owners in CT. I recently failed my Composite Inspection for a very few (and might I add rediculous) items. The one in particular that most have never seen is because the end of the side pipe(s) did not pass the end of the door openings. Anyone else had this problem? Don't know if it's exclusive to SPF owners but I don't know if other manufacturers make their pipes longer. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[SJK2]

Fattyd,
I'm following all info here and at factory five site as i do own a spf and am waiting on CT. inspection this year.
Good luck..

Steve

[Don]

Another source of info regarding CT inspections might be the SPF dealer on Long Island:

http://www.snakepitauto.com/

[SJK2]

Originally Posted by Don

Another source of info regarding CT inspections might be the SPF dealer on Long Island:

http://www.snakepitauto.com/

Thanks Don,
Your correct I bought my Spf from snakepit and Bill is very accommodating with help or parts to see through registration. Now if only CT-DMV would play fair.........

[Bob In Ct]

This post is really scary! I'm surprised you got any responses.

Bob

[Fattyd]

Thanks everyone for your imput. I have a couple of ideas I'm going to act on next week. More to come, I promise...

[Don]

I had been referencing the Composite standards R-157 dated REV 10/99 and just became aware there is an update with REV 12/04:

http://www.ct.gov/dmv/LIB/dmv/20/29/R-157.pdf

Takes awhile to load even with DSL

" Properly located and shielded side exhaust may be allowed in compliance with departmental side exhaust standards*. Passenger vehicles equipped with exhaust pipes exiting to the side, forward of the rear axle, must extend rearward beyond any passenger openings, Exhaust header pipes extending to the outside of vehicle frame rails must be shielded from excessive heat and not protrude beyond the extreme outer edge of the front or rear tires, whichever is narrower, so as not to pose a hazard to occupants or pedestrians"

* standard was not defined

Appears the above change and other changes from the 10/99 document are specifically directed for compliance by Cobras and T-Buckets, such as those made by Total Performance

[Cashburn]

Don,
Did you catch the EMISSIONS section on that updated R-157?

[Don]

Yes, have you been trailering to an emissions testing garage prior to going to Wethersfield for the inspection ? An intrepretation is the emissions test could also be conducted after the Inspection and then using a local DMV office to complete the registration process. But these are still independent of each other, pass inspection and fail emissions, or the reverse, still cannot register.

Jay, when bringing the customer cars for the inspection, have the updated , REV 12/04, regs been used ? There has also been mention of a 2006 revision, but I could not find.



*** Did not hear back from the DMV on the specific measurment standards which will be implemented on 1-1-2007.

From: "Jalbert, Dan" <Dan.Jalbert@dmvct.org>
Date: May 4, 2006 2:14:02 PM EDT
>
Subject: RE: New 2007 Emissions Standards for Composite/Kit Cars ?

DMV has not heard any news on the new outpoints for 2007 composites as of yet.check back in a couple months

Dan Jalbert
DMV Emissions Div
PH # 203-805-6230

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Jalbert, Dan
Subject: New 2007 Emissions Standards for Composite/Kit Cars ?

Dan: Any background on the new standard ? Was the change an Administrative decision or a change enacted by the General Assembly ? Any other details which need to be shared with those that are in the process of building a Composite/Kit Car , but will not inspect/register or test for emissions until after Jan 2007 ?

Don

" The vehicle will also require a new emissions test performed at an emissions testing station. Some vehicles are exempt from emissions testing. To determine if your vehicle is exempt from emissions testing, please refer to the listing of exempt vehicles."

" Note: Starting January 1, 2007 newly completed composite vehicles will need to have an engine that will meet new composite vehicle emissions standards. The standards that will be in effect are equivalent to the two-speed idle standards for 1980 and newer passenger cars and light trucks or 1988 and newer engines from trucks in the 8501 to 10,000 lb. GVWR range. Composite vehicles classified as 2006 model year and older will continue to be subject to existing standards which are approximately equivalent to the two-speed idle standards at a level somewhere between that for 1968 and 1973 vehicles."

[Cashburn]

Have not seen evidence of 12/04 in effect nor have I heard of a 2006 revision. We are in process of completing another car to be state inspected next month. Also in development we have cat pipes and longer/quieter pipes to address these demands. It is a moving target that we have to chase.

[Fattyd]

Originally Posted by Don

I had been referencing the Composite standards R-157 dated REV 10/99 and just became aware there is an update with REV 12/04:

http://www.ct.gov/dmv/LIB/dmv/20/29/R-157.pdf

Takes awhile to load even with DSL

" Properly located and shielded side exhaust may be allowed in compliance with departmental side exhaust standards*. Passenger vehicles equipped with exhaust pipes exiting to the side, forward of the rear axle, must extend rearward beyond any passenger openings, Exhaust header pipes extending to the outside of vehicle frame rails must be shielded from excessive heat and not protrude beyond the extreme outer edge of the front or rear tires, whichever is narrower, so as not to pose a hazard to occupants or pedestrians"

* standard was not defined

Appears the above change and other changes from the 10/99 document are specifically directed for compliance by Cobras and T-Buckets, such as those made by Total Performance

Hey Don:

Just a thought. Despite the fact that door opening (at its highest, most far back point) does extend past the edge of my pipes, I have 2 things to bounce off you or any other owners who may have an opinion on this.

First, the top edge of the door is in line where the fiberglass bowes out around the tire. Resultantly, I don't know if I could ever get a pipe (without touching the fiberglass) to go beyond the furthest door opening.

Second, and I don't know if they'd ever get this through their skulls, but it would seem that this section, inclusive of the heat shields and all, is meant as a protection to the driver and passenger. Now I just ran a quick measurement on my car. Even with the passenger and driver seat all the way back, the furthest, inside area of the seat IS equal to or in front of the edge of the pipes. In my mind (of course I'm the crazy one right) this accomplishes what the reg is seeming to do. If when I or my passenger exits the vehicle and we, by default of the seat configuration, are ALWAYS going to be ahead of the edge of the pipe, this in a "common sense" world would comply. Any thoughts...

[Bob In Ct]

I would have to believe the state's position (which I don't agree with) is not about getting burned by the pipes but rather exhaust in the cabin.

Bob

[REDSC400]

I find this "new" CT regulation very problematic as it is applied to the Cobra. The side profile of the Cobra door places the rear-most or trailing edge of the door on the 427 to be just about flush with the beginning of the rear tire. So to meet the regulation one cannot have side exhausts....

I think Bob is correct about the exhaust in the cockpit area.... but in an open car roadster, it is not very applicable.

[Don]

When I first attempted to register my Cobra, it was a very quick realization that using logic, at least from my viewpoint, would be extremely challenging when contesting, seeking clarification, and/or arriving at mutual understanding and compromise.

It did not appear that the on site Inspector had the authority to modify or interpret the regulations, as I viewed them, or did not want to.

Your analysis makes sense, but the regulation , assumption on my part, is formulated and approved by the senior management of the DMV , given the authority to do so by CT law.

Strictly a guess on my part, but to present your case may require a session with the senior DMV Managers in order to get a favorable ruling. Just finding out who to contact and meet with might be another challenge. The option is still there to go for a 2nd inspection and determine whether the Inspector will agree with your analysis. In this way when meeting with the DMV senior managers, their protocol and internal structure has been followed. Or, a different inspector might not arrive at the same conclusion as the first inspector.

Have you tried contacting Mike Stenhouse at Second Strike to see if you can obtain a listing of SPF owners in CT to determine how they resolved the issue ?

http://www.secondstrike.com/


MichaelStenhouse@bellsouth.net

[cobracobra]

They tried to bag me also on that on my Unique, No problem on my second try, although it was the supervisor that did it (nice guy). Dig up the old posts on this subject....at this rate I stated it's going to be impossible to register these cars in CT!

Good Luck

-Mike

[SJK2]

Originally Posted by Don

Have you tried contacting Mike Stenhouse at Second Strike to see if you can obtain a listing of SPF owners in CT to determine how they resolved the issue ?

http://www.secondstrike.com/


MichaelStenhouse@bellsouth.net

Being a member of SCOF i checked and there is only one other spf owner registered, can you believe that.!! And he may have reg'd years ago. Also to Fattyd, i am talking w/superformance on a buy of a longer quieter pipe in raw material that perhaps can stay in CT. and be passed around until inspection done. Factory Five did this for there Ct. people I'll keep posted.....

[Bob In Ct]

Who might that SPF owner be?

Bob

[Bob In Ct]

According to the February 2001 list I have from SPF there were 3 owners. Me, John and Bob. John, who owned the first SPF to come into the US has since moved to Florida. John loved to drive fast, I miss that guy.

It's hard to believe that nobody else has registered since then. I knew an owner in Danbury (Mark) with a silver car, but maybe he registered it out of state.

Bob