Mr. Anghel

The O.P.P. detachment in Cambridge is part of the Greater Toronto
Region and as such we participate in the "Project eRase" program with
Toronto, York Regional, and Peel Regional Police.

The blitz that you refer to in your e-mail (sent June 2nd) is an
initative that is being conducted by Waterloo Regional Police, Guelph City
Police, Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Environment. I am
not familiar with this initative, however, I have been informed that the
contact person for this initative is Constable Rob Richards of the Waterloo
Regional Police Traffic Branch (phone number is 519-653-7700).

The O.P.P. do support any initiative to restrict street racing and
we enforce the law, as it is written, with respect to after-market
modifications. If the vehicle modifications are within the law then
owners/drivers of such vehicles do not have much to be concerned with. I
have enclosed particular sections of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that
deal with modifications and of particular interest would be Regulation 611
which deals with inspection and performance standards for vehicles in
Ontario.

As I understand, at present time there is no legislation prohibiting
vehicles from being equipped with nitrous oxide unless someone is
transporting more than five cylinders. That being said I believe there is
proposed legislation that would prohibit performance enhancing fuel
additives (like nitrous oxide).

As for the O.P.P. Greater Toronto Region, I can tell you that in
2002 we had 53 fatal motor vehicle collisions in which 60 people lost there
lives and in those collisions the number one causation factor was determined
to be speed. In the past six months I am personally aware of two fatal
collisions in our region (Greater Toronto) where heavily modified vehicles
were racing and as a result of the collision people lost their lives.

Public streets are not the location for racing and when observed,
the O.P.P. will strictly enforce all moving and equipment violations
observed or subsequently discovered. In addition, if a vehicle is observed,
that has been clearly modified from industry standards, our officers have
the authority to stop those vehicle and inspect them to confirm that the
vehicle is safe and legal to drive on a public street or highway.

If you have any further questions that I can assist you with you can
contact me at the phone number below.

Provincial Constable Jeff Bast #9969
Cambridge O.P.P.
(519)654-0150

He also sent me full sections of HTA (6.11 and 6.25) which i read carefully to see if some of the tickets they are givnig out are valid.

Exhaust:

Muffler
75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

So i guess the SRT4 is illegal to be on the road.
Also what is excessive or unusual noise??
One officer might find something excessive while a differnt one doesn't



ANd this is interesting:

Examination of vehicle
(2) Every police officer and every officer appointed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act may require the driver of any motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to stop, move the vehicle to a safe location as directed by the police officer or officer and submit the vehicle, together with its equipment and any vehicle drawn by it, to the examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient. 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.

COUGHCOUGH COMPLETE BS COUGHCOUGH, I think they need to come out to one of our events and see just how bad of "street racers" we really are.
ffg

Exhaust:

Muffler
75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

So i guess the SRT4 is illegal to be on the road.


tell them to show up for a meet and i will show them my car and laugh in there face about the muffler rule

muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle

A straight through muffler is not cut out, gutted, a straight exhaust, or a by-pass. WTF is a hollywood muffler?
A good quality straight through muffler will muffle the exhaust quite well.

If they are giving out tickets for every aftermarket exhaust, that also counts for any muffler that is installed onto a car that wasn't installed at the factory or the dealership, since any other exhaust would have different muffling characteristics.

Well how would they know it had differnt charachterisitcs if they don't measure sound or vibration???

Maybe my car was differnt from factory (bad muffler) and it made lots of noise ,so i replaced with something with lesser noise but after market in an attempt to quiet it down.

Two mufflers of differnt shape and size can have the same noise level, so how cna they say one muffler is illegal while another is not??

They really need to amend those highway traffic acts, very outdated and very vague. The only thing they can uphold is the second one of how the officer has the right to inspect the vehicule if he feels it needs a closer look ie the appearance or exhaust tone. Other than that like someone else said whats "unusual??" Its like saying "That's interesting" interesting could mean ANYTHING!!

They should take a few pointers from what California has done.

On a side note, my buddy's been telling me on the Quebec side near Ottawa, they're testing exhausts out by sticking a rod in to see if they have baffles....so stupid!

Nick, when he sent u this:

Examination of vehicle
(2) Every police officer and every officer appointed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act may require the driver of any motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to stop, move the vehicle to a safe location as directed by the police officer or officer and submit the vehicle, together with its equipment and any vehicle drawn by it, to the examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient. 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.

Is that all he sent or did he send the whole section???
Because if he only sent that, then I have a severe problem with his creditablity.

If u read the whole section of that part of the HTA it is referring to Commercial Motor Vehicle. Here's the whole part of that section:

Inspections, unsafe vehicles

82. (1) In this section,

“commercial motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in subsection 16 (1); (“véhicule utilitaire”)

“operator” means,

(a) the person directly or indirectly responsible for the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, including the conduct of the driver of, and the carriage of goods or passengers, if any, in, the commercial motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, and

(b) in the absence of evidence to the contrary, where no CVOR certificate, as defined in subsection 16 (1), or lease applicable to the commercial motor vehicle, is produced, the holder of the plate portion of the permit for the commercial motor vehicle. (“utilisateur”) 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.

Examination of vehicle

(2) Every police officer and every officer appointed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act may require the driver of any motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to stop, move the vehicle to a safe location as directed by the police officer or officer and submit the vehicle, together with its equipment and any vehicle drawn by it, to the examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient. 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, s. 14.

So basically they are referring to work trucks (ie. transport trucks and cube vans and such).

I can't believe he actually tried to pawn that section off as a legitiment reason to search our personal motor vehicles.

Unless I'm not understanding the HTA correctly, the guy that wrote u that letter is an ass.

the SRT4 comes with resonators and no mufflers. if somebody could explain the difference between the 2, you get a cookie...

the resonators, or wtf you want to call them, muffle sound. the car is not unmuffled.





with regards to baffled or not, a large bore muffler with a straight thru design still does not constitute a straight thru muffler..... by straight thru they mean guys in the 70s who would cut open their magnaflow, torch out the baffles and weld it back together, hence also the rod test.

your avg HKS straight thru muffler has glass packing and other sound reducing measures built in, hence it is not illegal.








technically this is all useless anyways. if you have changed ANYTHING on the car from the way it was insured in the first place as completely OEM, you are denied coverage and driving illegally, unless you have a policy adjusted for your modifications. Most of you dont. Think about it this way..... you are worried about equipment violations that will cost you less than $1,000 out of pocket even if they find you with 10 or more of them. You should be more worried about getting in an accident, being denied coverage for any one of those 10 modifications, and having to pay back $30million over the rest of your natural life.

realistically, anybody who has not got an updated and accurate insurance policy should not even be posting in this thread... stupid lighbulb violations should be the last thing on your priority list. you should be out attatching safety padding all over the outside of your car, or finding a good cardboard box to live in when the odds catch up to you.

Not to be a dick, but... "facts do not cease to exist simply because you ignore them" -benjamin disraeli. The HTA is not your biggest problem, for most of you. get your priorities straight. you can still drive your car with a loud-exhaust ticket.... you cant drive without insurance.

if you have an updated policy, nevermind me. :tounge:

The first 2 sections are the definition of an "operator" ( 1a, 1b). 2 is the Examination of the vehicle. When you read on its states that the cops can stop the driver of ANY MOTOR VEHICLE. This being cars, buses, trucks, motorcycles or whatever. So 1a and 1b have no relevance to us unless you want to know what an operator is.

Originally Posted by 4gls

the SRT4 comes with resonators and no mufflers. if somebody could explain the difference between the 2, you get a cookie...

the resonators, or wtf you want to call them, muffle sound. the car is not unmuffled.

with regards to baffled or not, a large bore muffler with a straight thru design still does not constitute a straight thru muffler..... by straight thru they mean guys in the 70s who would cut open their magnaflow, torch out the baffles and weld it back together, hence also the rod test.

your avg HKS straight thru muffler has glass packing and other sound reducing measures built in, hence it is not illegal.

WRONG!!! A straight through muffler is any muffler that DOES NOT have a baffle blocking/diverting the flow of exhaust gases. If you can put a meter stick right through the muffler its straight through, so guess what.... All those HKS/Ractive/OBXR/Vibrant/whatever mufflers are ALL straight through.

Straight through mufflers are illegal according the the HTA. Now for the SRT4, it has 2 resonators, both of which are straight through, and don't even have glass packing. By that definition, then its illegal as well, except that its stock, and passes all laws.

I want to get my godfathers S4(3" turbo back exhaust), and get a dB reading compared to an SRT4. The SRT4 is easily 10-15dB louder at WOT than the S4, at idle its even a bigger difference.

im gonna post a well written thread on the exact topic of muffler violation. This post was written by my good freind Chadfrom Barrie, he has been accused 2X by teh same officer of having illegal exhaust. Hes doen his research, and understands automotive products. He is a class A mechanic, and just finishing up Automotive PRoduct design at Georgian. Here is his post from LAC, If you wanna read the entire thread, Ill post the link at the bottom, there is alot of usless BS in the thread, but this post was well written and full of good facts, and evidence that the law here in ONtario is vauge.

Oh man……Where do I start. I have had a performance muffler on my car for about 2 ½ years and have recently received two “improper muffler” tickets from the same officer in 2 months. The second time I was pulled over the officer told me to “go to the library, read the highway traffic act and get educated” And that exactly what I decided to do!! Here we go……………………………….

AJL wrote:
^ I think that if your exhaust can be heard a block away you deserve to be pulled over and given a ticket for noise pollution


Well what is your definition of loud? The problem is that is the officer’s discretion of what is loud. Ontario doesn’t have a dB rating. You can buy a brand new car and if an officer thought it was loud he could give you a ticket. Everyone’s definition of loud is different. You ask a teenager and a person in their 60’s what loud is and you will get two different answers. The new Dodge SRT-4 doesn’t even have a muffler right from the showroom floor! Does this mean that an officer can give you a ticket for “no muffler”. In theory ……yes, but the car came without a muffler…….so who’s right?

It does not say in the Ontario Highway Traffic act that your muffler has to be stock. It also doesn’t say that the muffler on your car has to muffle as much as a stock muffler. If this were true maramont mufflers from Canadian Tire, and econogold mufflers from Midas would be illegal. It also doesn’t say that performance mufflers are illegal. This was the purpose of Bill C241 that the Ontario government tried to pass last year. Fortunately for automotive enthusiasts this bill did not pass because it was so poorly worded. It’s purpose was to combat street racing, but the way it was worded it would have made simple things such as spoilers, body kits, and other components that have nothing with a cars performance illegal. (among other things)

http://www.naaaccc.ca/sema_jan_2003.htm


I’m sure police get a lot of complaints about these mufflers, and I agree some are extremely loud. I feel it‘s the police that are caught in the middle here. I’m sure they receive noise complaints from the public, but I also feel the law is too vague because it doesn‘t define loud. The problem I feel is the law itself, it is a gray area. So what do we do…….

I suggest that we do what they did in California, Maine, and Washington where it is based on a dB system, this way it makes it fair for everyone. Here is some information on how it is done.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/n...s040210_noise/
http://www.overboost.com/story.asp?id=1115
http://www.racingwest.com/news/story.php3/5175



After receiving my second ticket I went to the performance shop where I had purchased it. I talked to Barry Trapp and Performance Unlimited (who was extremely helpful). I told him that I had purchased a Vibrant muffler from him about 2 ½ years ago. I explained my situation and asked him if he had anything to say whether the muffler was legal or not. He said I was in luck, that Vibrant Performance is currently trying to get the law changed and gave me a contact name.

I then contacted Dino Rossi, Jr. at Vibrant Performance and made arrangements to meet up with him at their head office in Mississauga. We had a very good talk and he said they are trying to get the law changed so it’s based on a decibel system. He then gave me a letter stating the Vibrant mufflers meet the 95 dB requirement as stated by SAE standard J1169, which happens to be the only standard in North America. He also told me that if I am convicted, to appeal it and he will appear with me in court. I told him that I want to be involved and will do anything I can to help. I also went to Performance Improvements here in Barrie and they had another letter from Vibrant stating that all of their mufflers meet the 87 dB requirement as stated in the Motor Vehicle Act. I am currently trying to find out how it is measured, and I’m looking for any information I can to prove my muffler is legal. I want to go to court prepared with everything I can find. This will make it harder for the officer to prove his point.

Stevo wrote:
^ take it to the track


I agree 100%. Race on the strip.......not the street.

DadsGrandPrixGT wrote:
^If people would actually fight these tickets and go to court for a day instead of just simply paying the city, I'm sure they would get off. If enough people would fight these tickets the police would either have to start buying dB testers, or stop handing out these tickets. There may not be a change overnight, but eventually a change would happen.


I agree. Just because an officer gives you a ticket doesn’t mean that he/she is automatically right. The more people that fight these tickets, the better chance that the police will buy a dB tester.

500k_93_civic wrote:
^ lets see...for me to make a court date....

one day at work at 23/hr x 8 hours = about $170-175

for the "improper" muffler ticket of $100....it would be a better beneit to me jsut to apy the ticket, cus then i don't lose a days pay, and have to go through all the bullshit


I would gladly pay more than the fine itself to prove that my muffler is legal. I am waiting for a trial date on my ticket and I’m very confident that I can prove my muffler is legal. When I go to trial the officer should be there and he will see for himself that my muffler is legal and that they can’t do anything about it.

02civic wrote:
^find me the law...find me what the ontario db limits are for excessive muffler noise.......

he can issue a ticket for whatever he wants...if he says its a noise voilation and you take it to court...you're going to have some kind of proof that it's not too loud. the judge isnt gunna come outside and listen to it himself...and he's not gunna just throw it out cause the cop very well might of been right. He's gunna trust that the cops "discretion". what are people to do!!.... go through the hastle of getting a reading, then driving to court, missing work for the initial hearing...then another drive and a days work for the actual trial, just to avoid a $100 ticket ????!?!?!?!

but like i said..find me the law about noise limits relating to exhaust...and the law to what makes a muffler improper...and you'll see what i mean


Like I said earlier in this post. I will gladly take a day off work and drive to court or spend my own money to prove that I am not guilty. Take it to court if you believe you are not guilty. It’s what you should do…and it’s your right as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

4thgen wrote:
^ I talked to jonas about this one time because I figured the first passage screwed all of us. apparently technically the straight thru cannisters we all buy, like on my car, are still legal.

straight thru means absolutely no glass packing or muffling material of any kind. in which case your car would obviously sound like a harley


Straight through mufflers are legal. They were used as OEM equipment by Audi on all 1986 and 1991 5000CD and 200 Turbo vehicles, as well as the Saab 9000.

People have a misconception about glass packed mufflers. They automatically assume that they are loud. This is because of the old school glass pack mufflers. Technology has come a long way since then. The new Nissan Titan has a glass packed muffler as OE equipment. This information was taken from Automotive Engineering International which is magazine put out by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)


If performance mufflers are illegal, then why are performance shops, and places like Canadian Tire allowed to sell them? Do your homework……….Be careful what you buy, some mufflers state right on the box “for off road, or show use only”

I really want to be involved in this and have thought of contacting SEMA, the P.A.C.E.R. program, writing my MP, contact all local newspapers, and television stations. I think we need to raise public awareness and get people talking about it. The more people talk about it, the more they voice their concerns and the sooner action will take place. Educate police, the public, and car enthusiasts (of all kinds) because I feel it is a concern for all three. I’m pursing this as much as I can right now. I’m in my final semester of college so it‘s kind of hard at the moment. Funny enough………..I will be graduating from Automotive Product Design and I’m a licensed Automotive Service Technician.

A Message to 02Civic - If you want or need help I would be more than happy to do anything and everything I can.

I don’t want to drive something everyone else has, that‘s why I love this hobby. It allows me to express myself and make my car different from everyone else’s. I will always have a modified car because I like to be unique.

“The Chad”

here is the link : http://www.londonautoclub.org/web_fo...=asc&star t=0

Very nice read Bill, thanx for posting that!!

Originally Posted by neonSRT

WRONG!!! A straight through muffler is any muffler that DOES NOT have a baffle blocking/diverting the flow of exhaust gases. If you can put a meter stick right through the muffler its straight through, so guess what.... All those HKS/Ractive/OBXR/Vibrant/whatever mufflers are ALL straight through.

Straight through mufflers are illegal according the the HTA. Now for the SRT4, it has 2 resonators, both of which are straight through, and don't even have glass packing. By that definition, then its illegal as well, except that its stock, and passes all laws.

I want to get my godfathers S4(3" turbo back exhaust), and get a dB reading compared to an SRT4. The SRT4 is easily 10-15dB louder at WOT than the S4, at idle its even a bigger difference.

I'm sorry buddy but I got my information from an OPP officer who runs inspections from time to time, so its valid. who is giving you your information? straight thru, as referenced in the HTA like I said, refers to the older trick of clearing out baffled ones that have no other form of muffling, the way your average glasspacked ractive one does.

Like I said in bills quoted post above....... if you had a real straight thru muffler, your car would sound like a harley. thats all there is to it. most aftermarket fartcans are quieter than 95dbs no problem.

^^ NO, read the HTA again... A muffler with the baffles removed is a 'gutted muffler'.

Any muffler that does not have baffles to begin with is a straight through muffler. Thats what straight through means, there is no exhaust diversions(baffles).

Harley's don't have straight through mufflers, they have straight pipes with no muffler or resonators at all...

Sounds like you're confusing 'straight pipe' with 'straight through muffler' theres a BIG difference in sound, since most straight through mufflers have a good amount of glass packing to absorb sound.

For the record, I drove my car around the block with no muffler at all(when I was changing mufflers) and it was nowhere near as loud as a harley, the cat muffles a bit, and the extra length of piping dampens the noise quite a bit.

yea thats the thing i drove my car around with no muffler for a night not to mention pulled a u turn right beside a cop but if they were to be so worried wouldnt the cop have pulled me over for having no muffler at all

Originally Posted by neonSRT

^^ NO, read the HTA again... A muffler with the baffles removed is a 'gutted muffler'.

Any muffler that does not have baffles to begin with is a straight through muffler. Thats what straight through means, there is no exhaust diversions(baffles).

Harley's don't have straight through mufflers, they have straight pipes with no muffler or resonators at all...

Sounds like you're confusing 'straight pipe' with 'straight through muffler' theres a BIG difference in sound, since most straight through mufflers have a good amount of glass packing to absorb sound.

For the record, I drove my car around the block with no muffler at all(when I was changing mufflers) and it was nowhere near as loud as a harley, the cat muffles a bit, and the extra length of piping dampens the noise quite a bit.

ok i'll make this simpler for you: the SRT4 is legal, as is my straight thru glasspacked muffler. Source: the OPP AND the people who legalized the SRT.

my buddie's 72 nova with the baffles cut out is illegal.

harely straight pipes ( more often referred to as 50/50s ) are illegal.




there is no difference between a straightpipe and a muffler with the baffles cut out- its just wider diameter piping as far as sound is concerned.

now, I quit. call the OPP if you still dont understand something.

We're almost on the same page....

By the HTA straight through(glass packs) are legal, but in whats being enforced they aren't.

At the road side stops they stick a stick into the end of the muffler, if it makes it all the way through, the muffler is illegal.

To me that doesn't make sense because a straight through muffler isn't necessarily loud, but I'm not the one doing the testing...