Jump to content
SAU Community

Golgo fails EPA noise test with flying colours!


Recommended Posts

OK - so if I had read 91dB, I would have been cross, so to prepare, I fitted a CAT (thanks Gerald) and prayed to JASMA hoping for a legal pass...

97.8dB @ 5400 rpm!

Worth doing, worth doing properly :)

I think that's something like 6x louder than it should be?

The tester liked my titanium system, didn't charge me for the test - and said come back with a stock system for a big tick.

So... does a GTST stock system fit on an R?

Anyone got a stock R system lying around?

BTW: Sounds sucky with a cat. I know what will be going back on when the test is passed. Can't take away Godzilla's fire breathing ability :(

Don't think I just smart ass, but wouldn't it be better sense to make your own and keep it. If you have been pinged for noise once and you plan on going back to original after testing, surely you can see the possibility of getting done again. So! it would make sense to have your own spare stock system hanging around.

My system finished will be 3.5 inch from wategate entry back. 3 inch dump, 1.75 from ext wastegate, then 3.5 all the way including the cat. I'm sure I won't pass noise levels with this, so I will have a 2.75 press bent system on hand for just these occassions.

Guest RedLineGTR

Yah thats cool i know what you mean but honestly 90% of the GTRs i have seen in vic have come of the boat with a aftermarket exhuast...and most people keep it on as long as they can if they get EPA'd then they will look for a stock one. OH well i'm sure it will get sorted out soon.

Also just wondering why would a importer import a container or stock exhaust they make the money with aftermarket parts thats why its sometimes hard to track them down..and with the new importing scheme less stock parts are avaliable. My 2 Cents :)

On the strength of the imports having a/mkt systems, maybe the go would be to strangle the sh1t out of the system at the end.

make up a bolt on for the rear muffler.

Drop the big 4/5 inch canon and put on a restrictive stock muffler, just for testing.

Let's be honwst, for testing nobody care about performance, just limit the noise.

Would be a lot easier than changing the whole system.

James, I understand you have a cat replacement pipe. Why not get another made with some mesh welded in and put steel wool in front of it. Will strangle hell out of it and make it quiet as hell but will be no fun to drive.

Do the testers check the system for cat etc?

Would even a basic restrictor such as this work? even out of just sheet metal.

---

| o |

---

You could just bolt in behind the cat, if it wasn't visible doubt they could tell, and it *should* quieten down the noise. Most silencers I have seen are little different that just reducing the diameter of the pipe.

Jamez..

i have the stock GTS-T system for rainy days :P and what i suggest is that you take your rear muffler out and have a pipe made up to fit the stock muffler to your existing system....

i kept my 3 1/2 inch system, simply took off the rear muffler, had an 'S' pipe made to fit the stock muffler to the 3 1/2 inch sytem, 100+ db reduced to 83db... :mad:

it takes two bolts to undo to replace the beast muffler back on...:(

and you are welcome to borrow my stock exhaust/muffler...

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


  • 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...