Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey.

just wondering wat peoples experinces are with insurance claims ie just car insurance and having a turbo timer on ur car.

will having a trubo timer void your insurance or something little like that they wouldnt really care less.

give us ur oppinions and experinces if anyone has had something like this happen to them,

cheers guys. Aaron

hey mate, im pretty sure turbo timers are all illegal, as if u have an accident and ur turbo timer stops the car from turning off for a min or so, can pose serious danger fro fire or explosions etc. There may be sum legal ones but i havnt heard of any. Sure others can verify if there are.

i would never use a turbo timer anyway

I have one, just not installed yet, but I do want to find out what the deal with them is. Here in WA the laws aren't the same, but I don't think there is a problem. Sometimes it would just be better to leave the car straight away instead of sitting in it a few minutes, it's really only when you are caning the car that you need to leave it for more than that.

You can listen to the noise being emanated from random people on the Internet, or you can ask the only entity that can give you an authorative answer.

Just call them up asking for a quote with a fake name, and mention that you've got one and what their policy is in regards to it.

People on here can say anything, but chances are they're not the one approving or denying any claims you may make in the future. And telling your insurer that some guy or girl on some Internet forum said they'd fork up is hardly going to sway them.

You can listen to the noise being emanated from random people on the Internet, or you can ask the only entity that can give you an authorative answer.

Just call them up asking for a quote with a fake name, and mention that you've got one and what their policy is in regards to it.

People on here can say anything, but chances are they're not the one approving or denying any claims you may make in the future. And telling your insurer that some guy or girl on some Internet forum said they'd fork up is hardly going to sway them.

when i insured my car, i said i had the following items, blah blah. they said they would cover all my items listed, but i had to make sure the items are roadworthy and legal.

ohhh i got a question aswell, can an "item" be legal but not roadworthy ? e.g, neon lights are legal to install but cannot be turned on in public places. how would just car deal with the situation ??

Edited by r34_skyline

Im sure someone is looking for insurance for their ride.

Find out what the deal is in regards to haveing non roadworthy parts on the car.Im sure the one answer should give the answer for all of our questions.Also,if the parts must be engineerd,why do they have those parts listed on their policy.

Edited by Trust33

I had insurance with JustCar before. I had a turbo timer installed in my skyline. I just declare it to justcar and they are fine with it. Someone crashed into my car a couple of months ago, the JustCar staff came down to look at the damage, spotted the turbo timer and everything was fine still. Got my claim and case solved.

As long as you declare them, you are fine.

Cheers

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...