Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys,

im planning to get the r32.4 front conversion put on my 32 GTR, but i was wondering, is anything about it illegal? The front conversion comes with :

- fibreglass front bar,

- fibreglass conversion fenders,

- genuine R34 xenon headlights

- R34 genuine amber indicators

- carbon fibre vented bonnet (vents will be blocked as they face the windscreen :O )

Its all gonna be painted black, except the CF hood.. Any heads up would be appreciated :O

post-39434-1192967336_thumb.jpg

post-39434-1192967288_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190159-r324-front-only-conversion/
Share on other sites

any glass panels are illegal.... so are cat backs come jan2008 (new EPA/adr compliance rules)..... who cares.

lol.. i care coz i dont wanna get a defect and have to take it off after installing it and selling my old front :P

i guess there are alot of cars around with fibreglass bodykits.. cops dont force em to take their kits off..

Trent how can they change the epa rules for older cars thou?? i though all the emmissions laws are for current model cars and not back dated. Also what would that do for the non-gen stuff that are copies of the gen stuff wouldnt that still be classed as a cat back?

technically fibreglass body panels are illegal unless they show similar crumple and crash absorption properties to the original metal... but you'll only have to deal with that if you are getting it engineered.

R34 xenon headlights are non auto levelling, so are illegal.

CF bonnet is just a fibreglass bonnet with a layer of CF on top to make you look cool, so other than running the risk of getting the wrong attention, its the same as having a fibreglass bonnet. There is a transition year (which I can't remember) after which its illegal to have fibreglass (or fake CF) bonnets but R32's should be before that date so you should be OK. Have fun trying to explain to the copper that pulls you over that your "CF look" bonnet's not real 100% CF, and therefore semi legal though.

technically fibreglass body panels are illegal unless they show similar crumple and crash absorption properties to the original metal... but you'll only have to deal with that if you are getting it engineered.

R34 xenon headlights are non auto levelling, so are illegal.

CF bonnet is just a fibreglass bonnet with a layer of CF on top to make you look cool, so other than running the risk of getting the wrong attention, its the same as having a fibreglass bonnet. There is a transition year (which I can't remember) after which its illegal to have fibreglass (or fake CF) bonnets but R32's should be before that date so you should be OK. Have fun trying to explain to the copper that pulls you over that your "CF look" bonnet's not real 100% CF, and therefore semi legal though.

ok cool, so the body panels wont be too big a deal..

the headlights should be ok, since so many ricers have it.. Is it possible to change the headlights to non xenon without selling my pair and buying another?

as for the "CF" bonnet, it should be ok, as long as the officer is understanding :P lol

thanks for all the help guys :rolleyes:

  • 2 weeks later...

the headlights should be ok, since so many ricers have it..

they came standard with xenons so quite a few people have them if they didnt get complied properly not just ricers

and im pretty sure (not 100%) that fiberglass bonnets and guards are illegal, there is one place in Queensland that has just gotten their fibreglass bonnets approved in their state (artical in the last hot 4's) as said before, to o with crumple zones

just keep your H1 bulbs and trim the housing down to suit the D2S housing of the HID lights :ninja:

put the H1 bulbs into the HID housing, it'll look ok still, they do it all the time when compliancing, make sure you keep the ballasts and HID bulbs with you though, or the compliancer has every right to destroy them

Get the cert, then put the lights back in at home :D

Not sure about the guards/bonnet though, i mean your whole car will be fibreglass at the front, there must be a way round it though, maybe borrow an R34 bonnet in steel for the compliancing? I'm sure someone won't mind driving with your CF bonnet for a weekend :P while you use theirs :)

certainly would look hot! i want to do this in the near future as well but its pointless getting the full kit as i have a 4dr :)

one thing i dont like about this kit is the front bar!!!!!! god damn its ugly.

perhaps a BN kit or something would look nice.

Edited by whyte

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...