Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone, its abit of a long boring one.

I've recently been pulled by one of the local police officers for the mods done to my car (engine related). The car is externally stock but has the usual goodies of pod, intercooler, exhaust, magic catalytic converter, power fc and aftermarket turbo. He told me if I don’t get the mods engineered and an air box for the car or he's going to fine/defect me.

So I called Terry Toomey, who is an engineering consultant. I asked about getting the mods engineered. He's basically told me;

- A programmable ECU can’t be engineered (anything that a laptop can be plugged into, although a chipped ECU is fine according to Terry)

- Air filter must be boxed because it’s a fire hazard and causes emissions issues.

- Exhaust under 92db@3000rpm(I think) and 100mm off the ground at the lowest point.

- The turbo and intercooler need an emissions test to be able to engineer them.

Any more that I don’t know about????

So I’ve booked myself in at Penrith RTA (BOTANY DONT DO THEM NO MORE) for the 10th of April for an emissions test.

Has anyone done one of these???

If I was to go out there with the mods I have but with the air box fixed and replace the cat converter with one which won’t pose any problems, will I pass the test???? Will they check the ECU??

I just want to know to what extent I have to go to pass the test.

Thanks in advanced.

George

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/107765-anyone-had-an-emisions-test-in-nsw/
Share on other sites

Adam,

what he explained to me was because you can drive out of the emissions test and change the maps. But on the flip side you can pretty much do that to all OEM R32 ECU's and many more, just takes abit longer.

I'm just relaying what Terry told me

George

I don't see how a programmable ECU is a defect or unengineerable as long as it passes the emmissions test.

yer i was reading in the new motor magazine with defects etc, aftermarket ecu's are engineerable as long as they pass all emissions test,

if u put a cai box around ur pod which u should anyway since it would be sucking in hot air then the intercooler mod would not need engineering (but still put it on there)

i need to go get mine engineered in a week or 2 as long as an emissions test also.

u can get ur car engineered with a nice exhaust not too loud then come home and wack some big mofo on there

ben...

whats the average price of engineering common mods such as exhaust, FMIC & pod?

most places will tell you around 400-500 to do the whole car, i know a guy who does them for 250.

his name is John, his number is 0412 253 973

I've had a read, as long as the car meets ADR 36&37 (emissions) and ADR 28 (exhaust noise) than I don't see why there would be an issue..

there may be particular rules that I haven't found.. e.g. you can't run a non oem ECU on your car.. but i'm not paying $30 for the current ADR's..

as long as your car passes.. than insurance companies should cover the car..

  • 1 month later...

Full Engineers Reports cost 800 and thats front bumper to back bumper and anything in between!!!. I had my car engineered last week, which included my exhaust, cooler, gauges, steering wheel, suspension, and a whole lot more other crap

yeah... what richard said... least with the pfc you can tune your car/play with the figures to pass the emissions test... thats what i did... i honestly think you have more of a chance passing if you can do that!!!

also from memory the exhaust reading needs to be 90db at 4800rpm... thats what i got tested on.. not sure if thats changed!

the emissions guys don't check ANYTHING on your car.. all they do is chuck it on a dyno... and then drive through a normal cruise scenario that they'll follow on the computer screen.. they don't even rev it past 4k that i can remember.. its all very sedate... the emissions guy is nice at penrith... he was very friendly and helpful...

anyways.. hope that helps.. let me know how it goes... good luck!!

Moanie

had my test today.

Seems that i had leaned it out alittle too much (via powerfc) as the NOx level were abit high, but the dyno operator at Penrith said it upto the engineer if its will pass now. The NOx was 0.09 above the norm.

we'll see how it goes

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...