widened exhaust
 

i am a local courier which requiring driving in the city a lot... also i dun make a lot of money for me to buy a brand new car for work so i went and bought a used car... before i bought the car i got a full inspection done at middles gate Honda.. and the only thing that was wrong with the car was the cv joints was licking oil or something like that and i had it replaced after... Everything went fine for about a year... around nov of last yr i got pulled over by the richmond rcmp and he gave me a paperwork for a VI... the officer said my car is running without a cat converter but i just went to an air care and i showed him the paper work for it and it showed i have a cat converter... then he said i changed the pipe size and i broke the baffle inside my muffler to gain more power... i told him... i bought the car like this... and i got it inspected at a honda dealership and there's nothing wrong with the car... but he still gave me a VI... so i went to the shop that i went for many yrs to get it inspected first before i bring it to a icbc inspection shop for a real inspection because my shop didn't renewal his thing... so i went home to search the icbc website for shops and i called around and none of them does this anymore and they all referred me to this shop in richmond... after couple weeks i went there to get it inspected and i got a pass on the VI.... and got the sticker for it and stuffs..... Yesterday i was driving along Hastings i saw an black undercover pulled over a car... 2 blocks later he pulled me over and gave me a ticket for widened exhaust... i explained it him that i got my car inspected twice and got a VI pass for it... and i showed him the paper work and he still gave me a ticket... when i got pulled over by the officer in richmond i was told that as long as i pass the VI i can have this muffler on the car as long as there's a cat converter and the baffle is broken... i told that officer in vancouver i was told by the richmond officer that as long as i pass the VI i can keep this muffler on... the the vp still gave me a ticket and told me if i dun wanna keep getting pull over i have to change my muffler... now what should i do? which officer should i believe... they are saying two different things... any advice?

This is exactly why I find VI's a joke! Why give you paperwork saying your car passed only to have another officer not believe you and give you another VI. I think the VI certificate should include pictures of the car exactly as it was when it passed VI and also if possible, list what mods were done to it such as what exhaust was on the car at the time it passed VI. That way a cop can't say you put everything stock, passed VI, and then swapped back in the aftermarket parts.

I need the section number on your ticket to be able to comment properly.

To serve and protect, not punish and badger...

Sounds like the officers who gave you the ticket might have that backwards :(

i think the section number is 7.03(4)

This has been disputed before; opened or widened can be read either as "the original one, but modified" or "An opening larger than the original"; most people tend to get ticketed on the assumption of the latter, but most people who are ticketed believe it's the former. I can't remember what the consensus here was, though.

ttt

I think the consensus was the former.

Really, reading it any other way is some pretty creative interpretation. Really, taken at face value: "equipped with a muffler the exhaust outlet of which has been opened or widened."

It doesn't say a thing about the entire exhaust being wider than stock, in fact it doesn't say anything about the muffler having a wider opening than the OEM one. It specifically refers to opening or widening the exhaust outlet of the muffler. I don't see how this can be read as meaning anything other than user modification of the muffler.

hey guys, I have just received a ticket for the same offence, 7.03 (4). Has anyone successfully disputed it before? According to Soundy, "It doesn't say a thing about the entire exhaust being wider than stock, in fact it doesn't say anything about the muffler having a wider opening than the OEM one. It specifically refers to opening or widening the exhaust outlet of the muffler. I don't see how this can be read as meaning anything other than user modification of the muffler." Will this help me win the dispute?

One of my members here issues this VT on a regular basis. He is very successful in prosecutions of it. But he does his home work and is prepared. He will go to a dealer and phisically measure the original outlet or that of an original manufacture replacement for that year, he will measure yours and present those in court. Most if not all JPs in Richmond will convict if your pipe is larger than what came on it stock.......

Personally if it is quiet I do not care that it is slightly larger than stock..... But it has to be quiet as in very near stock levels.......

thanks for your information Pacer, but I still have a question. What if the piping is exactly the same, or even smaller than the stock one, but the tip is larger?

"4) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine equipped with a muffler the exhaust outlet of which has been opened or widened."

It comes down to defining what the "exhaust outlet " is. To some JPs it may be the immediate exit from the closed muffler itself, to others it may mean the termination of the exhaust outlet..ie..the last bit of tail pipe. To me the tailpipe is the "outlet" of the exhaust...it sure ain't the intake. A quick dictionary definition may clear things up. Quote...

out⋅let  /ˈaʊtlɛt, -lɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [out-let, -lit] Show IPA
Use outlet in a Sentence

–noun 1. an opening or passage by which anything is let out; vent; exit

the tail pipe is a " passage by which anything ( the exhaust) is let out", is it not ? If it was closed at the end of the tail pipe the exhaust could not be let out, therefore the tailpipe termination is the exhaust's "outlet".

(4) No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine equipped with a muffler the exhaust outlet of which has been opened or widened.

Here's my take:

-It appears that it is referring specifically to the muffler portion of the exhaust system

-The "A muffler" wording doesn't appear to be limited to either OE or aftermarket mufflers, so we can safely assume that this applies to any muffler installed on the car

-It appears to only cover opening or widening of the muffler in question be it an OE or aftermarket muffler

THEREFORE it would appear that this section ONLY prohibits taking the muffler in question (OE or aftermarket) and widening the exhaust outlet.

No where in this section does it appear to prohibit the installation of an aftermarket muffler with an opening bigger than what is found on the OE muffler providing that you haven't taken the replacement muffler and modified the opening in a way that would widen it.

Hmmmmmm guess i will never have to worry about this kind of ticket. My car never came with a muffler from the assembly line. At least not a conventional muffler as thought by 95% of people. The turbo however is classified as a muffler. This would now mean if i change the 02 housing to a larger one then i would fall into this catagory. I would like to see an officer trying to check the size of my 02 housing(which is stock) without burning themselves lol.

"7.03 (1) A motor vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with an exhaust muffler consisting of a series of pipes or chambers which ensures that the exhaust gases from the engine are cooled and expelled without excessive noise"

This is the definition of a muffler...and you see that it mentions the pipes as being part of a muffler. If you remove the tailpipe ( illegal unless the muffler itself is at the very outside rear of the vehicle) you get a louder exhaust sound..therefore the tailpipe is part of the muffler. That is what I have successfully argued in court. You also have to figure in that the Regs also require your vehicle to be no louder than a stock system....another problem to overcome.

"Vehicle noise

27 A motor vehicle shall be equipped with an exhaust muffler which complies with section 7.03 of the regulations.

The opinion of an inspector as to whether the engine and exhaust noise is greater than that made by other vehicles in good condition of comparable size, horsepower, piston displacement or compression ratio shall determine whether exhaust gases are expelled with excessive noise.

When tested in an inspection station, the vehicle engine, any auxiliary engine and exhaust level shall not exceed Table 3 standards.

[en. B.C. Reg. 658/76, s. 2.]

Table 3

[am. B.C. Reg. 656/76, s. 2.]

Class of Vehicle Maximum Allowable

Sound Pressure Level

DBA
Light duty 83
Gasoline-driven heavy duty 88
Motorcycles 91
Diesel-driven heavy duty 93

That is bs that he gets a vi.. gets it inspected and passes yet the cop can still give him another vi for the same thing... What is teh point in even giving out VI's? Why not just say "change the exhaust back to stock and then get it inspected"..
If that is gonna be the case you shouldnt be able to pass vehicle inspections with anything but stock equipment..

I don't know the car or the circumstances but this once again proves why the VI/inspection system doesn't work... why should an innocent citizen have to be put out financially to satisfy an officers claim?

You commit murder, the taxpayer's provide you with legal aid... you drive drunk, the taxpayers provide you with legal aid... You get pulled over by a cop who knows little to nothing about cars and feels it necessary to hand out a VI that you can't dispute or argue... and you have to fork money/time out to prove that you have done nothing wrong...

If you have a passed inspection and you drive out from said inspection centre a cop can pull you over and reissue an inspection... WHY do they issue documentation/decals that are valid for a year if they hold no water and mean nothing when presented to an officer...

Complete garbage and a waste of police resources if you ask me...

If you don't want a VI... stick with a stock sounding exhaust. End of story.

Probably because there are many inspection stations that do defective inspections and /or take money to pass defective vehicles for their "friends" (some RS posters will tell you where to get one for a few$$) or the vehicles are re-modded after passing the inspection ( also discussed here on a regular basis)...or get caught with a defective "passed" vehicle, convert it back to legal & get the car re-inspected & then go to the Police saying that the Cop was harassing them and didn't know what he was doing. Don't know the experience of the other Police here, but all of these have happened to me, some even going as far as fraudulently making false complaints against me so that I would be pressured to not do my job.

Sometimes the inspectors were technically ignorant of what they were required to inspect and what standards were required by law, most of the time it was corruption. I never issued a VI to a vehicle that did not have at least 2 visible violations and usually it was 3 or more. I don't know what basis other Cops used, but the ones I worked with over the years, used a similar standard. The only exception was for some major safety concern..eg rusted frames, lack of ground clearance, bald tyres, HID conversions at night, that sort of thing.

To the OP and the other posted who got nailed: what kind of exhaust are you running?

This was a very common ticket in Ontario and Quebec too, yet usually the ticket only went to the annoying fart can exhaust. Its huge, loud, usually poorly installed, and sounds like crap. You deserve a ticket just for bad taste :haha:

I have a dual 2.5" exhaust tip on my car, its technically 0.5" wider than stock, and stock there was only one. Yet it looks tasteful, fits with the look of the car, and is only slightly louder than stock. Never had a ticket "knock on wood".

Its the people who go from something like this (a stock muffler system) : http://www.aj-racing.com/ajpwr/Fit/stock-muffler.jpg

to this (fart can) : http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_...0004_large.jpg

and then complain about getting a ticket for their muffler. The outlet is massive, it produces a hell of a lot more noise and annoys everyone driving/walking/living around you.

My daily beater came with a fart can from the previous owner and it gave me headaches every time I drove it. To put a stock-style muffler back on, parts, labour and taxes cost me $130. Saves me a ticket and never-ending headaches.

Thats a poor attitude and sheer lack of mechanical knowledge. As an engineer I know that the parts wear out and need to be replaced. I replaced my exhaust with the factory approved after market suppliers part. I sounds close but is louder. You can go to Midas and get the factory similar part and it will be loader. Design and marketing are not in my control, and the parts are not "exactly the same". A VPD cop stopped my son and looked under the hood, he said the engine bay doesn't look stock and issued a VI. The retarded VPD wouldn't know a stock engine bay if bit him on the nose. It's nothing more than harassment and muscle flexing from the cops. My brother in-law is RCMP and you put us together and you should hear the crap that comes out of him. Clearly the cops are not selected on intelligence, but on size and attitude. I say fight every ticket and call it for what it is "HARASSMENT"

With my Mazda I get people asking me if I changed the exhaust all the time. They are surprised when I tell them it's stock. 2.5" mandrel bent stainless steel with a 3" tip out of the Muffler from the factory. It is quite a bit louder than a regular Mazda 3. I wonder if that would make me a target for an officer who doesn't know any better?

Either way, hooray for vague interpretive laws!

According to 7.03 (4), the pictures you posted are NOT a violation of the "widened outlet" rule.

Regardless, I still think the sound output from those things makes anyone driving one of those cars an obnoxious douchebag.

Didn't you read what Pacer said? Yes, the fart can on that neon CAN be a violation of the "widened outlet" rule, that is if a judge should agree with the officer.