While most of us are dedicated to seeing The Gadgetman Groove get onto every engine in the world, there are some who have come into our ranks and began campaigns of disinformation and seeking ways to cause problems. One such person has recently contacted me.

I will refer to him only by first name, to protect his identity. I want to respect his right to say and do as he sees fit, even if it IS to contact "the authorities" in an attempt to cause a disruption in our testing and proving process, which is not only lengthy but difficult enough to manage as it is.

David had this to say in an e-mail to me this morning in response to the recent e-mail about compliance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA:
I was willing to suggest solutions too but right now all I am interested in is keeping everything LEGAL!
I REFUSE to get involved in anything that places me and others at risk of being fined or sued by the EPA!
You have to get that through your thick skull man!

Further I refuse to be involved with a 'know best' wannabe novice who promotes himself as otherwise!

I don't care what your so called team of Lawyers say...so far they are WRONG!

The people who know more than me, you and your lawyers work for the EPA!

My quotes are DIRECTLY from the HORSES MOUTH!

At this point they consider the groove to be TAMPERING too!

IF you really want to make this happen, make the groove LEGAL, you MUST use the channels and means the EPA has available for you to prove your case and get proper APPROVAL to market and install your groove in automobiles!

This isn't over by a long shot. Dream on.

David

Be aware that no matter how nice someone appears to be, they may harbor resentments as is probably the case in this instance.

Remember the saying: "All that is necessary for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing."

I ain't that kind of guy.

Nor should you be.

Maintain your position as a defender of the Most Right Thing, which will NEVER include attacking anyone. We are better than that!

And, we have something AMAZING to give to this planet!!!

Ron

No worries all we got to do is to connect pcv line. right?
If it can be on passive side, easy enoughf.
Other wise I imagine that it can be connected on the intake closer to head on 1 manifold tube , that would then only afect the airodynamics for 1 cillinder.example next to brakebooster on my car,Im shure there are more places it can be connected to.
some cars have all pcv connection on air filter example ford transit 1988
My cars pcv vacuum line is a simple T shrink connection,small line going to manifold right after TB and the big pcv tube just before TB. What is the purpuse for this? I mean its not a valve? What is the thought behinde this construction.? How does this affect emitions? When a correct groove mod reduces the emitions greatly compared to this small pcv line If this is about cleaner emitions, why not just cap the small pcv on both ends and apriciate the cleaner emitions made possible thanks to the groove winds.
Mob Sweden

Markus,

I am not familiar with the laws in Sweden, but I can safely assume they take the EPA's lead. You will need to read and interpret the laws yourself and determine on your own what path to take in that regard.

As you know, we stand for serving the greater good, and seek to violate no laws in our quest to benefit the planet. Unfortunately, in the USA, it has been made extremely complex to do what we are doing and satisfy all the laws set up to protect the corporations over the citizenry.

Still, I will do the best I can and when I get information I will disseminate it as best I can.

So, you do the best you can, I'll do the best I can, and if that isn't good enough, at least we put forth the effort for, as our president Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt said "It is far better to dare mighty deeds and fail than to take rank with those poor timid souls who will never know victory nor defeat."

Go get 'em, tiger!

I`m here to tell you that I`ve dealt with epa for years on many different fronts.They do make the laws and we must abide by them. but as long as we still end up putting the hydrocarbons back to the engine the cat will do its job and thats what it was made to do. Epa is our so called pollution police and if they check our 5 gases analized they will see we are doing them a big favor. The reason for the pcv is to let the engine breathe without passing hydrocarbons to the fresh air in which we breathe. We still do this no emission changes there. The direct vacum just makes it quicker for the passive air to pass through the engine back to the intake. This is a total 360 degree return we still have this.When you hook up the , lets call them the breathing tubes, as we tell you the hydrocarbons are drawn into the intake stream via ventura effect same as gasoline drawn passed by in a carb. engine. Any time you have a "y" with pressure , air flow, you get two sides pressure and one vaccum. Ther is noway you won`t have the engine breathing properly. So as I see it we are still keeping within there guidelines. Dan gadgetman Mo.

This does not surprize me! You can buy any number of products off any of the performance sites/ebay that have been modifed to increase mpg and performance not everthing is ran through the EPA.
What I here is a out right threat!
Craig

Been reading up on some of the EPA section 203

EPA has a policy in place which essentially could be interpreted as 'no harm, no foul'
BUT if an issue were pressed, oweness of proof falls on the individual.

There is a procedure for registering aftermarket products with the EPA which requires 2 different vehicles with engines that are considered used majorly in the market, triple tested prior to applying the product, triple testing after and then again triple testing with the product removed. But it is not cheap.

I also found this while surfing...

Panacea-BOCAF On-Line University

Fuel Saving and Pollution Cutting Retrofitting Modifications

www.scribd.com/doc/57311974/6/GEETGenera...d-GEETDealer-Eco-Pro

and this...
www.off-road.com/trucks-4x4/tech/emissio...there-any-20122.html

short excerp from that page...
"However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an enforcement policy, Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A (Memorandum 1A), to provide guidance to the public to reduce the uncertainty regarding potential liability under section 203(a)(3) of the Act for using or selling aftermarket parts or systems, or making adjustments or alterations to parts or system parameters. ? Basically, Memorandum 1A states that we will not consider any modification to a certified emissions control configuration to be a violation of the tampering prohibition if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions are not adversely affected. In many cases, durability aging and emissions testing according to the Federal Test Procedure would be necessary to make this determination."

Karl