Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The other night was driving around bored as usual, when i noticed a friend of mine got pulled over I stoppped to see what the fuss was about.The cop pulled up a V8 commodore big lumpy cam exhuast dumpped at the diff you get the idea,my poor mate in a stock s14 with slight mod's got defected for as much as you could think of then the cop let the V8 go we asked what the go was his answer "Did you hear that thing i'm not going to spend all night going over it". What right do uninformed police have to defect cars when they dont even know what the car is half the time he thought the S14 was a R33. Anyway i thought it was a bit rude.

Edited by yup21t
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/265781-defects/
Share on other sites

Hehehe yeah I used to get off all the time in my V8, its like cops expect them to be loud or something.

If in VIC then I agree that the whole 'canary' thing is just another tool for police to use as harassment / revenue raising, like the unmarked civvy camera cars.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/265781-defects/#findComment-4538292
Share on other sites

Cool, another defect thread to add to the hundreds on this site.

1. Your friends stock s14 is not stock if it is modified

2. They have every right to defect any car regardless if they are qualified to do so or not.

They only need to have an opinion on the modification to determine if they should defect it or not. The person that clears the defect determines if it is a legal modification.

The RTA list what modifications are allowed to be carried out in their light vehicle modification guide. If in doubt, talk to an engineer to see if the modification is legal and to get an engineers report on the modification.

Not fuc king rocket science is it!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/265781-defects/#findComment-4538339
Share on other sites

Unfortunately true.

And yes this has been done before, however I've noticed that NSW cops tend to actually defect for unroadworthy things, whereas VIC cops if they want to defect you they just make up excuses about ride height, handbrake clicks, missing tyre placards etc etc. What annoys me the most though is that something that is in fact legal in NSW you can still get done in VIC for.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/265781-defects/#findComment-4538372
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • 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...