Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So register, n00b.............

for those who are too lazy, here is a small extract of the thread:

There are other bits and pieces but this is the general jist of it:

You are correct in quoting the code of practice , as long as the airfilter/pod is fitted and secure and emmission requirements for that make and model are complied with, you should have no problems when intercepted.

It is up the owner of the vehicle of the vehicle to ensure that all emmission requirements are met. (This can be achieved with a letter from the manufacturer)I do know that there is new testing equipment being trialed in Brisbane to measure emmissions, after this trial they will be used state wide.

From my experiance most infringement notices issued, are not from emmissions or fittment of accessories but due to they way the vehicle was being operated. ie undue noise by mannor of operation.Usually resulting as a complaint from the public.

I notice that you have quoted sect 291 of torums, another act/ regulation that may be useful is the vehicle standards act and regulations .Hope this has answered your enquirey, if you require more info drop in to the qld transport inspection centre and I will be happy to go into it in more depth if you want.

Sif you would! Hey please do, then we could turn the "correctional facilities" carpark into a skid pan.

Honestly I really dont know why that place needs a 100+ car spot carpark.......

Anyway, back on topic, the way I understood the QLD transport inspector's reply was that QLD Police cant issue a defect notice purely on the fact that there is an aftermarket air filter installed, PROVDING it is fitted and secured, and that the emmission requirements for that make and model are complied with and that it does not produce any undue, irregular or loud noise.

The undue noise is then covered by another section of torum(s)

The Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Road Rules) Regulation 1999 raises issues in relation to devices fitted to motor vehicles and excessive noise emitted from motor vehicles, and is as follows:

Making unnecessary noise or smoke

S 291 (1) A person must not:

(a) start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke; or

(b) wilfully start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke.

Example of subsection (1)(a):

Driving a vehicle in a way that causes noise or smoke because of:

(a) disrepair of the vehicle; or

(b) the way the vehicle is loaded; or

© the condition, construction or adjustment of the vehicle’s engine or other equipment.

Example of subsection (1)(b):

Driving a vehicle in a way that causes noise or smoke by wilfully and unnecessarily causing the wheels of the vehicle to lose traction and spin on the road surface.

S 291 (2) A person must not drive a vehicle to which a noisy instrument

is attached or on which a noisy instrument is used.

S 291 (3) The driver of a vehicle or a passenger in or on the vehicle must

not:

(a) ring a bell or sound a horn, except a horn or similar warning device under section 224; or

(b) play or use a noisy instrument.

It would seem appropriate that the Road Rules legislation is relevant to vehicles equipped with these devices and which are modified to allow excessive noise to be emitted. The Queensland Police Service should be utilizing the Road Rules to enforce the issue, and, the owner would need to remove the device to avoid continually being issued with infringement notices.

Also if you resgister for that site you can ask QLD transport questions about modifications and the like and they will be answered officially by QLD transport.

God this country has to much rules, why cant there be one simple rule for one simple piece of equipment. for every piece of equipent there are 30 different rules and 30 different loop holes i mean honestly unless you work at the inspection place how can u keep up with all these rules.

Venting to atmo falls under the same rules as above.

Technially you are altering your stock setup, in a fasion that produces more noise than what a stock setup would make, and that can be defected because you have modified it to make more noise.

SO TO NOT GET DEFECTED FOR A POD FILTER YOU HAVE:

1. It has to be secure.

2. It can't be a foam filter (fire hazard)

3. Can't make any more noise

4. All emmission requirements have to be met.

Have I got it all ??

What the hell do they class as a noisy instrument?

Exhaust brake on trucks?

air bag suspension on buses?

Louder than stock exhaust?

Exactly but they arnt defaults, my pod makes noise, and i have no intention of changing it

Yeah I agree, but would not know why Harley's and wannabe harleys arent defected, might be a question to ask QLD transport on the link I posted.

Once you register, anything you ask QLD transport will be officially answered.

I was always told that if you have a pod, it must be secured properly. Please note: ZIPTIES do not count on this one fellas! :cheers:

I was also told that they must be boxed, due to them being a 'potential fire hazard'.

i think the cops and qld transport guys value their lives a bit more than that, and figure the possible outcomes of getting in the bikies bad books outways the noise factor.

and you can't vent a wastegate to the atmo because of the fact that exhaust gases aren't being put through the cat converter. exhaust noise is a secondary reason. i'm not 100% sure, but i think the fine could be similar to the fine for not having a cat (which is huge) but someone who has been booked for it could say for sure.

and a pod must have a mounting bracket. my mate got pulled over by the boondal hoon squad and they didn't book him for it (he had a bracket) so he asked them what the ruling was and they said that as long as it has a fixed bracket it is fine. but they didn't book him for cutting the front bar when he put the cooler in.

another mate got done for having a steering wheel that was too small.

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

    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...