Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

haha thanks heaps Jeff...ye that was me who bought that one. Ive got a stock cat and an airbox. ill put that in soon. Ill try and go to cambelltown too. Do they give you an option? also do you think my fuel pump will get done..its an external one and quite whiny?

Cheers,

Anton

lucky you found one, just remember that the gtst muffler will be quieter! (will need some cutting and rewelding to make it fit though, no biggie)

if you havent already, these mob do great prices on shipping things over (www.transdirect.com.au)

I went to granville so not sure how strict the campbelltown one is but its up to you where you take it

Edited by jeff
went to the one in penrith. to clear the defects was another thing i only had to choices the mechanics in cambelltown or granville i think it was. went to cambelltown as ive heard stories about the other mob being real pricks

Yea the Campbeltown is not too bad.

  • 4 weeks later...
wtf :S is that even possible?

yep sure is

public can complain about the noise, enough complaints results to a notice being sent out to you.

or a cop can note your rego down and send one out.

sucks but thats life nowadays

that sucks, so any asshair off the street can ring up and complain about a car and force the owner to get this test done, just cos they think its noisy? its basically a bill for at least $60 and a lot of fking around

that sucks, so any asshair off the street can ring up and complain about a car and force the owner to get this test done, just cos they think its noisy? its basically a bill for at least $60 and a lot of fking around

yes

i think thats how i got mine a while back. i leave for work early in the morning (7am) and while warming the car up, it wouldve certainly woken up a few people in our building and next door's from the rumbling and moan of the rb26

imagine getting that every weekday

or a cop can note your rego down and send one out.

This is how I was given one.

You can actually find out where the complaint came from by calling the DECC officer on your notice....

And I personally went to campbelltown. Very fair.

Still a massive pain in the backside though!!

I was also given a DECC notice for exhaust loudness and emissions test but no defect when I was pulled over at 7am driving to work :bunny:

I am changing my exhaust back to stock and have already changed the pod back to the original box.

Sorry to hijack but I have a few questions as well and though i would post it in here.

My questions are:

- Do I need a snorkel fitted as well?

- Do I need to remove the front mount intercooler and put the stock sidemount on?

- Do I need to remove my Apexi AVCR solenoid?

- Do they check other things on the car such as ride height of the car etc?

- I'm thinking of going to the inspection place at Rosebay in North Sydney, has anyone been there? What are the people there like?

Thanks guys

- Yep

- Yep

- Yep, i would

- just the exhaust noise level (must be under 90db at 4800rpm) and emissions gear (charcoal canister, stock cat, stock bov, stock smic/piping, stock airbox/snorkel)

- I went to the campbelltown one, they seemed pretty good

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...