Jump to content
SAU Community

What Can I Modify Without Approval?.... And Im240 Update.


Recommended Posts

And the list is out on what mods you can make without DPI approval including SUNVISORS and STEREO SYSTEMS.

One thing though the part just on exhausts is actually quite easy to understand, so more thought has been put into this. LINK to Modified exhaust systems

LINK to What can I modify without approval?

Many minor vehicle modifications can be carried out without specific approval. However, they are still subject to compliance with the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002, Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 2002 and the Australian Design Rules (for date of manufacture and vehicle category).

Please note: This isn't an exhaustive list of modifications that don't require approval. Please contact us to check the status of your particular modification.

LINK TO Visit our When Is Approval Required? section for details on other common modifications which do require approval.

Modifications you can make without approval include:

* Tyre size and aspect ratio

* Additional lighting

* Single tone air horns

* Air conditioners

* Air shock absorbers

* Alarm systems

* Badge bars

* Gearbox (pre 1976)

* Mud spats and pebble guards

* mesh stone shields for wind screens and lamps

* Body markings and speed striping

* Rear-view mirrors

* Roof racks

* Radio and stereo systems

* Sunvisors

* Optional manufacturer seating

* seat belts for pre 1969 cars (no full harness types)

* Stabilise bars

* Torque rods and traction bars (not semi-tramp types)

* Venetian blinds and other internal screening systems are allowed subject to a clear view to the rear

Remember, generally, no modification may be carried out if it :

* reduces the strength of the vehicle body

* reduces the controllability of the vehicle

* reduces the safety of the vehicle

LINK TO Emission Testing of Light Vehicles in WA.

The Department of Transport has introduced a moratorium on IM240 emissions testing. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow existing requirements to be reviewed to address industry stakeholder concerns. During this period, a temporary modification permit, valid for six months, will be issued for vehicles that may require IM240 testing under the revised policy.

Vehicles with modifications likely to affect emissions will need to be assessed by the Transport's Vehicle Safety and Standards Section (VSSS).

Engineering reports, other information and checklists that demonstrate the vehicle complies with standards will still be requested.

Until the new IM240 testing policy is introduced, the requirement to submit evidence of emission testing will be deferred for a limited period of six (6) months only. The Department may require a five gas analyser test as assurance that the vehicle does not have extremely high levels of emissions.

Providing all other criteria are met, a modification permit valid for six (6) months will be issued.

A second, permanent modification permit will be issued after the six month period expires, provided that the vehicle passes any emission testing required under the new policy.

Which modifications are affected?

In general, the following modifications are likely to have an effect on emissions and are dealt with under this policy:

o

Engines modified by the fitment of a supercharger or turbocharger

o

Individually constructed vehicles (ICVs)

o

Engines that have been significantly modified to enhance performance (e.g. with the fitment of a high performance camshaft)

o

When there is reprogramming of the electronic control unit (ECU, the engine management computer), or a chip swap

o

Major modifications to the exhaust systems - where the catalytic converter has been replaced with one that may not be fit for purpose or where the operation of the catalytic converter may be affected by aftermarket modifications (such as extractors) or significant relocation from the original position

NB: Certain minor modifications of the exhaust system may be deemed unlikely to impact significantly upon vehicle emissions. In this case, the owner will be issued with a permanent modification permit and will not be required to undertake future IM240 testing for the modification(s) in question.

IMPORTANT

The IM240 emission test is still a valid test. Should you choose to undertake the test and consequently pass it, then you will satisfy the policy requirements.

I'm doing coil-overs, POD, and 'zaust at the moment.

My instinct is to 'fcuk it' and not bother with permit BS and the costly emissions test.

I'm worried I'll void my insurance though?

Im sure as long as u mention all your mods to insurance its all valid

Mmm im pretty sure for insurance to be valid, the mods need to be legal, as they may claim it was your modification that caused the car to crash or sustain or inflict heavy damage. Permits will counter any claims the insurance may have that your mods are not safe. If it were me i would rather know they were legal, pits and engineers will not usually give you a hard time as long as your mods are actually safe and legal. Cops on the other hand would love you to not have permits

Im pretty sure coilovers, pod and exhaust wont affect insurance

almost all skylines have pod and exhaust and if they didnt cause the accident

insurance has no excuse to not pay out

It would be pretty hard for insurance to prove a pod or exhaust casued the accident (why not call your insurnace up and asK?)

Yes permits would serve a better piece of mind

but its not like an engine conversion or a huge f**k off T88 turbo

Im pretty sure coilovers, pod and exhaust wont affect insurance

almost all skylines have pod and exhaust and if they didnt cause the accident

insurance has no excuse to not pay out

It would be pretty hard for insurance to prove a pod or exhaust casued the accident (why not call your insurnace up and asK?)

Yes permits would serve a better piece of mind

but its not like an engine conversion or a huge f**k off T88 turbo

Yeh no, fair call, i wasn't really being specific to his mods, was just saying insurance will require legal mods. Those mods won't have any dramas, just saying that if you were to be doing a mod that may be considered illegal, then you had best get it done legally to avoid trouble

my tein super streets jap specs on my 32 are permitted, also my bride brix II seats are too.

what about gauges, always getting told off because obstucting view (when its on the A piller), have you seen other peeps with their big arse gps right in the middle of the windscreen

also why do cops say you need permits for just about everything you have changed in your car where only a small percentage of the mods need permits

on my 32 on my form i filled it out for, rb26, brides, coilovers, pods, oil cooler, front mount, strut braces, steering wheel, exhaust.

and all that need appoval was, the rb26, seats and coilovers well thats all that was said on my permits.

what about gauges, always getting told off because obstucting view (when its on the A piller), have you seen other peeps with their big arse gps right in the middle of the windscreen

The other explanation I got was aftermarket boost gauges can distract u from driving but a GPS won't... some how :P

mate went over today and just passed, kosteci's said that the test is being trialed for the next 6 months as is, then they will do improvements to it :)

cost him 750 the first time and 850 the second time through. he put the car back to stock (vy commo) and only just passed. and get this, one of the costs was to tie down to the dyno and warm up his car, cost *** $230***. WTF :D

mate went over today and just passed, kosteci's said that the test is being trialed for the next 6 months as is, then they will do improvements to it :down:

cost him 750 the first time and 850 the second time through. he put the car back to stock (vy commo) and only just passed. and get this, one of the costs was to tie down to the dyno and warm up his car, cost *** $230***. WTF :P

So in other words Kosteci is still running the monopoly? :down:

mate went over today and just passed, kosteci's said that the test is being trialed for the next 6 months as is, then they will do improvements to it ;)

cost him 750 the first time and 850 the second time through. he put the car back to stock (vy commo) and only just passed. and get this, one of the costs was to tie down to the dyno and warm up his car, cost *** $230***. WTF :P

Wait, what!? Didnt the first post of this thread detail there was a moratorium on this bullshit IM240 test for six months? Why is your mate bothering to get the test at Kosteci's, and why are they still charging like wounded bulls when their practices are obviously under the microscope??

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...