so we all know fun and unique vehicles are being cucked by dumbass

>>17454622
tl;dr

>>17454667
company offers shitty epa friendly engine to get the chassis it wants out without cucking it (like new colorados being almost the size of a 1500 rather than an actual mini truck), gives dealers crate engines to install as a dealer option after the sale to avoid epa bullshit for customers

>>17454683
How do you fuck up a quote like that?

>>17454686
Just woke up and haven't prepped my shitposting engine with coffee, friend.

>>17454676
chevy and ford are almost there already, both sell new crate engines, i assume dodge does too but i'm not sure
just gotta install it yourself

>>17454683
maybe he's jelly of aussie utes

>>17454696
>chevy and ford are almost there already, both sell new crate engines, i assume dodge does too but i'm not sure
>just gotta install it yourself
it's federally illegal to install those crate engines in any car made after 1975 for use on public roads. The gotcha is if the car post-75 had one of those engines in the first place, regardless you can't legally put a 454 into your shitbox.

>>17454622

There are a couple of examples of this already in the real world. Hennessey does something similar by taking stock commercial vehicles and then kitting them with a performance package that they have managed to streamline. There is also that Mustang dealership that sells you a brand new mustang in addition to doing a bunch of motor work.

Anyways, what you are suggesting has many problems. The EPA is far more strict than you can think and actually has guidelines for motor swaps and emissions that apply to consumers but mainly exist to keep manufacturer in check. In other words, there is no legal way to do what you want to do other than on an enthusiast/personal/consumer level. Also, emissions aren't suddenly a non-issue just because you are making post sale modifications. You can make whatever post sale modification you want - but it still has to pass the emissions tests in accordance with your state's guidelines. You can absolutely forget about shit like this in California.

But yes, I mostly agree. it would be cool.

Sounds like a huge hassle when customers want vehicles with higher gas mileage and you can use that as a marketing gimmick to make them buy a new vehicle.
see. ECOBOOST

>>17454825

the big 3 all sell crate engines that meet emissions standards for every state. Not every one does though

>>17454825
>you can't legally put a 454 into your shitbox.
Yes you can so long as the engine is the same year or newer with all emissions intact.

>>17454825
>you can't legally put a 454 into your shitbox.

The fuck I can't. Next door neighbors got a V8 swapped S10. Guy up the roads got a turd gen with an LS in it.

Living in a flyover with no emissions laws has it's perks.

>>17454917
I've seen videos of people in CA talking about swapping in a whole new engine just to pass smog and then swapping it right back out once they were done. Very few people are going to go to those lengths though.

>>17454622
I know in places like Wyoming, it's pretty common to cut out the cat and weld a straight pipe in and then do things to the O2 sensor so the CEL stays off or just drive it with the CEL on.

File: 2017-suzuki-gsxr-1000-static-beauty-right.jpg (161KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x667px

Its basically what bike companies do with their safety/emissions equipment.

For example, the monstrocity of a muffler on this bike also contains the catalytic converter, and is convienantly flanged so an aftermarket setup is ~300$ and 15 minutes to install.

Also the hideous license plate/reflector holders are always held in with basically two bolts and are a 30$ / 10 minute job to delete. Thanks based japs!

>>17455652
>Living in a flyover with no emissions laws has it's perks.
Kek, yes it does