# CARB compliant or not?



## KenJax Tree (Mar 24, 2013)

What is the difference between a CARB compliant saw and one that isn't? Less power,more power,equal,more choked up....


----------



## KenJax Tree (Mar 24, 2013)

Anyone?


----------



## PJF1313 (Mar 24, 2013)

KenJax Tree said:


> What is the difference between a CARB compliant saw and one that isn't? Less power,more power,equal,more choked up....



CARB Compliant = 

C lean
A ir
R esource
B oard

more EPA BS IMHO.


----------



## zogger (Mar 24, 2013)

California legal to be sold complient. They are more strict than other places

California Air Resources Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

small snip from wiki entry

California is the only state that is permitted to have such a regulatory agency, since it is the only state that had one before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states are permitted to follow CARB standards, or use the federal ones, but not set their own.


----------



## KenJax Tree (Mar 24, 2013)

I know what it means. I guess my question is how are they different? is a CARB compliant saw more choked up (different muffler? CAT?) or have less power and will it need more work done to it when modding it versus one that isn't CARB compliant.


----------



## c5rulz (Mar 24, 2013)

As I understand it, CARB regulations are stricly about emissions and no consideration is made regarding how well the engine will run or last. It is just bureacratic regulations. Here is a long read on The EPA and CARB regs on chainsaws and water pumps. It appears some products are just being discontinued due to regs.
EPA and CARB Emission Standards To Control Nonroad Exhaust Emissions of Fire Pumps and Chain Saws

This is troubling:

Tampering with an Emission-Certified Engine
Tampering with an emission-certified engine may reduce the life span and performance of the engine. Tampering, which is against the law and subject to a civil penalty/fine, includes the following: 

Knowingly disabling an emission control component of a certified saw, 
Adjusting the fuel or exhaust system, 
Changing the engine’s performance so it no longer meets the engine specifications, 
Improperly venting crankcase emissions, 
Installing a replacement part of a different configuration, or 
Adding a part that was not originally certified with the engine. 
Some manufacturers have equipped engines with special caps or plugs that limit or prevent adjusting the fuel mixture or engine timing. Removal of these special plugs and adjustments beyond the manufacturers’ specified limits is considered tampering.

In servicing an engine that has been tampered with, the EPA encourages repair technicians to restore the engine to the original certified configuration. This is required only if the repair is specific to the tampered with component/system.


----------



## zogger (Mar 24, 2013)

KenJax Tree said:


> I know what it means. I guess my question is how are they different? is a CARB compliant saw more choked up (different muffler? CAT?) or have less power and will it need more work done to it when modding it versus one that isn't CARB compliant.



Most likely, yes, more choked up, with all of the above. Example, a really restrictive opening cat muffler will just not make as much power as an opened up non cat. Sealled carbs versus easy to adjust, etc. There are so many engines out there though, no hard or fast rule other than cal requirements are pretty strict, so expect more work with modding.


----------



## KenJax Tree (Mar 24, 2013)

Ok thanks guys. I ordered an Echo 355T for $449 but the CARB compliant one was $399 and i was wonder what was so different about it making it $50 cheaper.


----------



## zogger (Mar 24, 2013)

c5rulz said:


> As I understand it, CARB regulations are stricly about emissions and no consideration is made regarding how well the engine will run or last. It is just bureacratic regulations. Here is a long read on The EPA and CARB regs on chainsaws and water pumps. It appears some products are just being discontinued due to regs.
> EPA and CARB Emission Standards To Control Nonroad Exhaust Emissions of Fire Pumps and Chain Saws
> 
> This is troubling:
> ...



Yes, it is troubling because they are full of it.

Its hilarious really, it is so blatant!!! Their own lame policies cause entire cubic miles of wildlands to burn up! Then when they burn, and it finally rains, it silts up the streams and kills off the endangered whatevers that lived there. How enlightened! Closing off access roads, limiting firewood harvest and timber harvest, letting one buhzillion pine beetle killed trees sit there and dry up so the next lightning bolt can set them off! How many chainsaws or the trash water pumps have to run dirty to equate ONE big major western fire? All of them ever built wouldnt even do it is my guess. How many choked up compliant small engine tools out there get trashed and have to be replaced, way ahead of a normal product lifespan, because of these policies? Whats the environmental cost of having to make new ones by the millions? How many trashed engines from their crap monsanto lobby ethanol contaminated fuel requirements? 

and questions and observations like that there....

and this is from the page there at the link

New engine technology has focused more on lightweight, miniaturized 4-cycle engines, or “mini” 4-cycle engines, for smaller displacement chain saws and pumps. 

Oh ya, where are all these normal rear handle mini 4 stroke chainsaws hiding at? Thats an older page, I guess their predictions didnt come true, they went to strato charging and computer controlled and cat mufflers, but even then, it is clear from the tone the bureaucrats who dont really live in the real world just want to kill off two strokes in general just because.

hecks windchimes, a few job jacking china cargo ships bringing in china made crap have WAY more pollution to them from burning bunker fuel. And how many of those cargo ships dock in the US every year, thousands? But thats OK, gotta keep them NYC big wall street traders rolling in the dough! And how about where that stuff is made, how is the pollution control there? Same dang air, floats over here eventually....oh, we are not supposed to be aware of that...

Just hilarious, the obvious hypocrisy and big huge money payoff cronyism. I am all for clean air, and there are some better common sense ways to go about it, to get the most clean for the buck, I just dont appreciate mandated junk science that is easily debunked.

EPA, good idea, horrid implementation in some areas.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 24, 2013)

c5rulz said:


> As I understand it, CARB regulations are stricly about emissions and no consideration is made regarding how well the engine will run or last. It is just bureacratic regulations.


Which is exactly how it should be - emissions standards should be just that and only that. It is the job of the manufacturer to make sure they sell quality products that work and last, or if they don't then they deserve to go out of business. So don't blame the regulations for things like carbs adjusted too lean and screws covered with epoxy, and choked up cat mufflers - that's just a flashing neon sign that says "We didn't spend squat on product development, but thanks for the money sucker".


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 24, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> Which is exactly how it should be - emissions standards should be just that and only that. It is the job of the manufacturer to make sure they sell quality products that work and last, or if they don't then they deserve to go out of business. So don't blame the regulations for things like carbs adjusted too lean and screws covered with epoxy, and choked up cat mufflers - that's just a flashing neon sign that says "We didn't spend squat on product development, but thanks for the money sucker".



regulations suck have never fixed anything only hurts end user .


----------



## naturelover (Mar 24, 2013)

My 441C would beg to differ.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 24, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> regulations suck have never fixed anything only hurts end user .


Bull. Corporations have never fixed or done anything that did not make them a profit. If polluting the air we breathe is profitable then they will do that. 

Traditional 2 stroke engines pump a significant portion of the fuel out the exhaust unburned. Chainsaw carbs run so rich that they misfire with even a slight reduction of load, to the point that at WOT no load they won't rev any higher. This was fine with chainsaw manufacturers, so they had to be forced into doing product development to fix it, and they cried big crocodile tears about it. But low and behold, it turns out it was quite possible to fix these problems after all, and we have better products now because of it. The manufacturers would never have developed that otherwise, they would have given the money to managers as bonuses for the fantastic job they were doing.

The exact same scenario played out in the automobile industry over and over, with both emissions and safety regulations. Heck, how many saws would have chain brakes or A/V systems if regulations somewhere had not required their development?


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 24, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> Bull. Corporations have never fixed or done anything that did not make them a profit. If polluting the air we breathe is profitable then they will do that.
> 
> Traditional 2 stroke engines pump a significant portion of the fuel out the exhaust unburned. Chainsaw carbs run so rich that they misfire with even a slight reduction of load, to the point that at WOT no load they won't rev any higher. This was fine with chainsaw manufacturers, so they had to be forced into doing product development to fix it, and they cried big crocodile tears about it. But low and behold, it turns out it was quite possible to fix these problems after all, and we have better products now because of it. The manufacturers would never have developed that otherwise, they would have given the money to managers as bonuses for the fantastic job they were doing.
> 
> The exact same scenario played out in the automobile industry over and over, with both emissions and safety regulations. Heck, how many saws would have chain brakes or A/V systems if regulations somewhere had not required their development?



I'm a victim or their tampering ok truth is the epa's regulations cost me many thousands of dollars your not supposed to choke a diesel truck to the point they don't run. I wish I had known they did it prior to buying the 3 50k pos's but now they are sold and I went back to old fashioned work horses. My 1965 is five times the truck in dependability. and my 372 xpw will be continuously rebuilt till I die and I ain't drinking the koolaid regulations have ruined the Automobiles and small engines .


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> I'm a victim or their tampering ok truth is the epa's regulations cost me many thousands of dollars your not supposed to choke a diesel truck to the point they don't run. I wish I had known they did it prior to buying the 3 50k pos's but now they are sold and I went back to old fashioned work horses. My 1965 is five times the truck in dependability. and my 372 xpw will be continuously rebuilt till I die and I ain't drinking the koolaid regulations have ruined the Automobiles and small engines .


The EPA did not make your truck. You gave good money to a company in return for a truck you are not satisfied with (3 times?). I'd be pi$$ed at the company that ripped me off.


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> The EPA did not make your truck. You gave good money to a company in return for a truck you are not satisfied with (3 times?). I'd be pi$$ed at the company that ripped me off.



Well that same company made perfect vehicles before government control and if I could buy this brand new just as they were made i would be doing so but regulations ruined dependability period I'm sorry if you can't accept that some witnessed the decline since 65!


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

Of course I'm still irked at the dumb arses for messing up a perfect fuel can.

View attachment 286696


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

So tell Me how their regulations have helped me again? I would like you to include what happened to our manufacturing jobs while your at it


----------



## Redoakranch (Mar 25, 2013)

The old mechanical pump diesel pickup trucks used to get up to 21mpg 20 years ago, now with all the smog stuff on them they get about 12-13mpg. Big rigs in CA are a joke too with big $10000 exhaust filters and computer motors our trucks tend to overheat much more. My kids school just got a free bus from the state for crushing the old bus and the new pos breaks weekly(computer stuff) and gets 4mpg instead of 6-7 mpg like the old one. Love clean air! I do like more efficient and powerful motors of all kinds but not if it comprimises durability. BTW commercial jets dump tens of thousands of gallons of jet-a fuel into the air everyday so I wouldn't worry about these little 2 stroke motors. All that being said I do want a 562xp badly, I think it's a step in the right direction, not sealed carb adjustments.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> Well that same company made perfect vehicles before government control and if I could buy this brand new just as they were made i would be doing so but regulations ruined dependability period I'm sorry if you can't accept that some witnessed the decline since 65!


It's perfectly reasonable for a country to limit how much crap a company's products can pump into the air. Of course some companies that have not spent any money on product development will whine and cry, and then produce garbage. And hopefully lose their business and go under. Other companies will do a better job and get that business making better products. That's a good thing. It's a good reason to buy on the merits of the product rather than brand loyalty. 

The products I design have to meet a lot of US and international standards for safety and electromagnetic interference and susceptibility. The standards are tough, and I don't agree with the ideas in all of them. But we meet them, through careful design and understanding of the rules. I've seen the crap other companies try to get away with, and usually it shows they didn't understand it and didn't put in the effort. There's no excuse for a poorly done job.


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

Redoakranch said:


> The old mechanical pump diesel pickup trucks used to get up to 21mpg 20 years ago, now with all the smog stuff on them they get about 12-13mpg. Big rigs in CA are a joke too with big $10000 exhaust filters and computer motors our trucks tend to overheat much more. My kids school just got a free bus from the state for crushing the old bus and the new pos breaks weekly(computer stuff) and gets 4mpg instead of 6-7 mpg like the old one. Love clean air! I do like more efficient and powerful motors of all kinds but not if it comprimises durability. BTW commercial jets dump tens of thousands of gallons of jet-a fuel into the air everyday so I wouldn't worry about these little 2 stroke motors. All that being said I do want a 562xp badly, I think it's a step in the right direction, not sealed carb adjustments.



Yeah well when yellow stone blows I hope they see that disabling the workforce of America was a bad idea even if founded on good intentions. I'm not saying they are all bad just seem to pick wrong areas to do their bidding I know why don't they start by cleaning up nuclear waste instead of messing with the work force


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> So tell Me how their regulations have helped me again? I would like you to include what happened to our manufacturing jobs while your at it


Our manufacturing jobs went away because the US peaked in oil production in the early 1970's (that was the peak in per capita income too). After that we ran up more and more debt to keep the more expensive oil flowing from foreign sources, and with the servicing of that debt manufacturing no longer provided the return that investors expected. So the jobs were sent to places where the wages were much lower in an attempt to get the returns back up. 

Now the world has peaked in the rate of oil production, energy costs are much higher yet, and the manufacturing will simply decline until it isn't done anymore. And the products will no longer be available. You can find whatever boogieman you want to blame - the EPA, the unions, the greedy rich, and they've all helped the process along - but it was always all about oil, and it still is.


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> It's perfectly reasonable for a country to limit how much crap a company's products can pump into the air. Of course some companies that have not spent any money on product development will whine and cry, and then produce garbage. And hopefully lose their business and go under. Other companies will do a better job and get that business making better products. That's a good thing. It's a good reason to buy on the merits of the product rather than brand loyalty.
> 
> The products I design have to meet a lot of US and international standards for safety and electromagnetic interference and susceptibility. The standards are tough, and I don't agree with the ideas in all of them. But we meet them, through careful design and understanding of the rules. I've seen the crap other companies try to get away with, and usually it shows they didn't understand it and didn't put in the effort. There's no excuse for a poorly done job.



Right maybe they should of seen their resulting mess of economy coming! I did 30 years ago now lets talk how we deal with real threats like nuclear waste leave them poor wood cutter alone most of them know how to use a real fuel can anyway


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> Right maybe they should of seen their resulting mess of economy coming! I did 30 years ago now lets talk how we deal with real threats like nuclear waste leave them poor wood cutter alone most of them know how to use a real fuel can anyway


I agree with you there - I regard dealing with nuclear waste as the most important issue we face. You see, even people who seem completely opposed often have things they agree on!


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> Our manufacturing jobs went away because the US peaked in oil production in the early 1970's (that was the peak in per capita income too). After that we ran up more and more debt to keep the more expensive oil flowing from foreign sources, and with the servicing of that debt manufacturing no longer provided the return that investors expected. So the jobs were sent to places where the wages were much lower in an attempt to get the returns back up.
> 
> Now the world has peaked in the rate of oil production, energy costs are much higher yet, and the manufacturing will simply decline until it isn't done anymore. And the products will no longer be available. You can find whatever boogieman you want to blame - the EPA, the unions, the greedy rich, and they've all helped the process along - but it was always all about oil, and it still is.



Jobs went to places the epa can't bankrupt. I know we need epa to a degree but they single handedly shut American jobs down sorry u can't see that.


----------



## KenJax Tree (Mar 25, 2013)

Whoa!!:arg:


----------



## casual cutter (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> Well that same company made perfect vehicles before government control and if I could buy this brand new just as they were made i would be doing so but regulations ruined dependability period I'm sorry if you can't accept that some witnessed the decline since 65!


Don't let nostalgia blur your vision... I love old vehicles also, but I have also owned them!

We can all talk about how nice the days of 57 Chevy's and 1970 Hemi Cuda's were, but let's be realistic!


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

casual cutter said:


> Don't let nostalgia blur your vision... I love old vehicles also, but I have also owned them!
> 
> We can all talk about how nice the days of 57 Chevy's and 1970 Hemi Cuda's were, but let's be realistic!



ok lets do that then best truck I ever owned was a 67 ford carbed with a 240 inline drove it 8 years two wrecks and sold it still driving. 

now fast forward 2006 50k truck stranded twice in 45k miles then 2007 different make 39k truck sold but before i could sell needed work.
the 67 was mint cost me 1k ok carry on tell me I'm silly and the new ones were better


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

ok and tell me which of these two cans if you have used them both you would rather use ?


View attachment 286700
View attachment 286701


----------



## casual cutter (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> ok lets do that then best truck I ever owned was a 67 ford carbed with a 240 inline drove it 8 years two wrecks and sold it still driving.
> 
> now fast forward 2006 50k truck stranded twice in 45k miles then 2007 different make 39k truck sold but before i could sell needed work.
> the 67 was mint cost me 1k ok carry on tell me I'm silly and the new ones were better


You have to admit, modern engine control management has allowed a modern engine to produce damn near twice the power from displacement, while benefiting from superior fuel mileage. And cleaner burning!

A bare bones V6 Mustang of today will literally run circles around even the best of the late 60's... And it can also stop and corner with grace.

And a heater and air conditioning are standard, as are seatbelts, doors that stay latched in the event of a collision, a roof that won't crush in like a piece of paper, and a metal dashboard that won't crack open your skull in a collision. Of course, you may just fly through the non-safety glass, and impale yourself on the hood ornament (which has actually happened)...

Of course, these are all problems that can only exist if the fricken old car would just stop stalling on a damp day trying to back out of the driveway. And then stalls again at the stop sign at the end of the road...


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

casual cutter said:


> You have to admit, modern engine control management has allowed a modern engine to produce damn near twice the power from displacement, while benefiting from superior fuel mileage. And cleaner burning!
> 
> A bare bones V6 Mustang of today will literally run circles around even the best of the late 60's... And it can also stop and corner with grace.
> 
> ...



Burp I beg to differ put that v6 up against a gt 350 with 427 and the go baby go button! I will say electronics were improvements and some of the collision factors. My 69 chevelle ss would also stomp the v6 imo.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> ok and tell me which of these two cans if you have used them both you would rather use ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 286700
> View attachment 286701


The full one.....


----------



## Franny K (Mar 25, 2013)

KenJax Tree said:


> Ok thanks guys. I ordered an Echo 355T for $449 but the CARB compliant one was $399 and i was wonder what was so different about it making it $50 cheaper.



I am glad I didn't answer the first post as it was kind of general. This is interesting as one would think even if the two saws were identical and essentially one had to follow some certification process that would incur more cost. Would it be possible there is some government money redistribution of funds to make that price difference. I don't want to know bad enough to get and study the parts sheets though I would like it if someone could say why it is. Looking at the pictures of that saw apart with the skinny transfer passages and full circle or stuffed crank it probably gets different tweaks to meet those regulations than the more conventional designs, just a guess. It gets a 300 hour rating to start with doesn't it?


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodHeatWarrior said:


> The full one.....



well ones full of koolaid the other came with a metal spout flex tube filler and cost 1.99


----------



## deye223 (Mar 25, 2013)

casual cutter said:


> Of course, these are all problems that can only exist if the fricken old car would just stop stalling on a damp day trying to back out of the driveway. And then stalls again at the stop sign at the end of the road...



you need to learn how to drive a car insted of letting a computer do it :confuse:


----------



## RandyMac (Mar 25, 2013)

deye223 said:


> you need to learn how to drive a car insted of leting a computer do it :confuse:



Also shows a basic lack of understanding, old tech is very simple, keeping a vintage vehicle running well is a no brainer.
I did replace the points on the in-line with the Petronic system and kept the original ignition for the eventual failure of the electronics.
The only V6 that has the power to contest a big V8, are the old axle snappers that GMC used to make.


----------



## bplust (Mar 25, 2013)

Another great new product new truck owners get to (MUST) spend money on:

Diesel exhaust fluid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As tempting as it is, I'm gonna stick with my 89 Dodge mechanical diesel for now...


----------



## excess650 (Mar 25, 2013)

ropensaddle said:


> Burp I beg to differ put that v6 up against a gt 350 with 427 and the go baby go button! I will say electronics were improvements and some of the collision factors. My 69 chevelle ss would also stomp the v6 imo.



The GT350s were smallblock cars and the GT500s got the BB. The 427 side oiler .was a dealer installed option. There were GT350s with Webers and Paxton superchargers....

Ford's base engine in the F150 is a 300hp 3.7l V-6 and the Eco Boost is 370hp(?) twin turbo V-6. We'll have to see how long they hold up....


----------



## ropensaddle (Mar 25, 2013)

excess650 said:


> The GT350s were smallblock cars and the GT500s got the BB. The 427 side oiler .was a dealer installed option. There were GT350s with Webers and Paxton superchargers....
> 
> Ford's base engine in the F150 is a 300hp 3.7l V-6 and the Eco Boost is 370hp(?) twin turbo V-6. We'll have to see how long they hold up....



Yup my bad I always get the 350 and 500s crossed of course either would hang with the v6 imo. So would the super bee


----------



## pbilly (Feb 1, 2019)

so after all of the bs about blah blah blah......noone has answered the question what is the difference between the epa carb and the non epa carb.....minus the limiter caps


----------



## TBS (Feb 1, 2019)

There is no difference between a c.a.r.b. compliant carburetor and a non compliant one.
Its just matter paperwork and cash.


----------



## pbilly (Feb 2, 2019)

not carb compliant but within the actual carb what difference is there


----------

