Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user. If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Athol wrote:I saw a photo today of a Pajero with 44" tyres, which was presented to a blue slip station complete with an engineering certificate. The RTA were not impressed, and I think that the engineer concerned might be in a little trouble...
was this local? newy?
just wondering if it was the black SWB that competed at tuff truck a couple of times.
surely nobody engineered 44s?
Yes, it was local, and apparently there was a certificate covering the 44s.
It was a black or dark coloured SWB Pajero. No mudflaps and about half the width of the tyres were sticking out past the guards.
The green multivalve TD 80 that Exclusive Tyres (?) used to have as a demo car was certed on 44's.
The cert used to be up online somewhere.
It was funny. Stock brakes, stock bearings, stock axles.
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
Just to add to this Ive reread my cert it says unladen mass 1245kg and my gvm is 1390kg So me and a tank of petrol?? I,ll have to talk to the engineer again!
Nik
NIK wrote:Just to add to this Ive reread my cert it says unladen mass 1245kg and my gvm is 1390kg So me and a tank of petrol?? I,ll have to talk to the engineer again!
Nik
hahahahahahaha
Josh
This is where it's at...
http://auszookers.com/index.php
[url=http://auszookers.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5220]The Big Dumb LWB[/url]
NIK wrote:Just to add to this Ive reread my cert it says unladen mass 1245kg and my gvm is 1390kg So me and a tank of petrol?? I,ll have to talk to the engineer again!
Nik
yes, you will.
i use custom zook diffs and i have a gvm of 1550kg's.(but i have modified bearing arrangements.)
lwb 1.6efi,4sp auto,f&r airlockers,dual t/cases.custom coils.builder of ROAD LEGAL custom suzukis...and other stuff.
CAD modelling-TECH drawings-DXF preparation.
http://www.auszookers.com/index.php
All that extra weight is in the hilux diffs and 35s because other than that I only have a rear bar with tyre carrier and a 6 point cage!
How do you raise your gvm? Surely hilux diffs could bear a little more load than stock zook diffs?
Nik
NIK wrote:Just to add to this Ive reread my cert it says unladen mass 1245kg and my gvm is 1390kg So me and a tank of petrol?? I,ll have to talk to the engineer again!
Nik
lets settle for half a tank
Pretty sure he should upgrade more due to the diffs NIK.
mattsluxtruck wrote:My Maverick is a DX model which come factory fitted with the 7.50 / 16 split rims , which are real close to a 33" in rolling diameter. So does that mean by adding the 50mm allowed the 35's are actually legal?
I still have the tyre placard for the splits on the car and have used the argument successfully in the past , but Im thinking it might well be time to get them signed off now.
I like you thinking but no. The largest Dia tyre fitted to a GQ going by the book that Vicroads accept is 827mm. Which with a 50mm increase gives 877mm or 34.5". So no 35".
mattsluxtruck wrote:My Maverick is a DX model which come factory fitted with the 7.50 / 16 split rims , which are real close to a 33" in rolling diameter. So does that mean by adding the 50mm allowed the 35's are actually legal?
I still have the tyre placard for the splits on the car and have used the argument successfully in the past , but Im thinking it might well be time to get them signed off now.
I like you thinking but no. The largest Dia tyre fitted to a GQ going by the book that Vicroads accept is 827mm. Which with a 50mm increase gives 877mm or 34.5". So no 35".
I was just looking at the maxxis website and they quote the 35/12.5/15 buckshot (which is what im running) as being 34.7 inch so with the wear they have id say they would be under 34.5 inch so can they get engineered now
GU ZD30#2 , 4 inch T/D lift, 33inch MT/Rs, 35 inch buckshots, sliders, snorkel, dents and scratches.Now with front locker and rockhoppers.......GO THE NISSAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Vic at the moment they go by what is on the sidewall and then look in the Tyre Assoc. manual for the nominal O.D. listed for that size and you get to add 50mm to that. The actual physical size is irrelevant. I was less than 1mm out from a desired tyre size and no matter what case I put to VicRoads they weren't interested.
[quote="4WD Stuff"]
I haven't quoted Grimbo because nobody takes him seriously :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: [/quote]
Siggi was a guy from another world. Iceland actually, where if you didn`t drive a 4x4 on 44" tyres then you`re just not local enough to be local. Thought why not build one of his homeland creatures in Oz, testing local RTA authorites to their wits end. I remember him well and he pushed on through at any cost, well I don`t think it actually cost himself anything, the rig was fully sponsored.
DIRTY ROCK STAR wrote:can you confirm, once a vehicle is engineered and rego'd etc.
then if the ADRs or other specs change. is the vehicle legal because it was done prior? or is this not the case?
If the vehicle complied with the regulations applicable at the time of certification and the applicable ADRs, it continues to be legal.
If it was certified but is subsequently found to not have complied when it was certified, it's a timebomb regardless of subsequent rule changes, and is likely to have later rules applied when it has to be re-certified after being defected.
The ADRs are not retrospective. A vehicle only has to meet the ADRs applicable to it or its components. If you fit a later engine, you have to meet that engine's pollution rule but the rest of the vehicle is generally only required to comply with its original year ADRs.
Athol
Athol, where does this leave us in that case if we have a vehicle that is say for example 1960 which was designed under a totally different set of guidelines in the context of having it engineer approved today. Will that need to have abridged brake testing done on it as now required? There are a number of inconsistencies between what is now acceptable compared to what was acceptable.
eg, today track increases are limited to 50mm with or without approval, back then you could increase the track of a LandRover by 80mm - does this mean a 1960 LandRover can run an 80mm increase in track still. Today the max rim width is 8", back then the max unapproved rim width was 8" etc. Does this mean that the vehicle is still able to be engineered with 10" rims or only those fitted and engineered with 10" rims in 1960 can maintain them?
NIK wrote:I have a engineered zuk on hilux diffs with 33, I spoke to the origanal engineer about getting 35s and was given the ok providing I made sure there was no interference with body/steering/suspension.
I did this then presented the vehicle to him, after a check over I was given the ok and the certificate will be ready in a week....that was around june last year and so after lots of calls by me and promises by him I went elsewhere.
This new engineer gave me alot more things to do to pass it which I did ending with the speed varifacation that I did today.
So heres the dilema in the few weeks since I spoke to the 2nd engineer the laws have changed to state anything over 2" bigger than standard CANNOT be passed without an abridged?? brake certificate.
Ive spoke to the powers that be in the rta and they confermed this and once the explained how complex and costly this test was (proply more than the tires) and that newer cruisers and patrols cant pass this test on 35s I now cant use my 35s.
Rant over now get back to your beers
Nik
Patrols and Cruisers cant pass the braking test on 35's?!!! That bloke who built up that 80 series with huge fiberglass flares and 44" tyres had it engineered and it passed the brake test on the factory brakes! Siigy is his name, the engineering tests and details by the engineer were put up on 4wd Action forum a couple of days ago.
Bordertrek 4X4 & Fabrication
0400 250 734 Bordertown SA
I love terra firma-the less firma the more terra
sudso wrote:Patrols and Cruisers cant pass the braking test on 35's?!!! That bloke who built up that 80 series with huge fiberglass flares and 44" tyres had it engineered and it passed the brake test on the factory brakes! Siigy is his name, the engineering tests and details by the engineer were put up on 4wd Action forum a couple of days ago.
Thanks for that. It was posted on this page of this thread 2 weeks ago.
NIK wrote:I have a engineered zuk on hilux diffs with 33, I spoke to the origanal engineer about getting 35s and was given the ok providing I made sure there was no interference with body/steering/suspension.
I did this then presented the vehicle to him, after a check over I was given the ok and the certificate will be ready in a week....that was around june last year and so after lots of calls by me and promises by him I went elsewhere.
This new engineer gave me alot more things to do to pass it which I did ending with the speed varifacation that I did today.
So heres the dilema in the few weeks since I spoke to the 2nd engineer the laws have changed to state anything over 2" bigger than standard CANNOT be passed without an abridged?? brake certificate.
Ive spoke to the powers that be in the rta and they confermed this and once the explained how complex and costly this test was (proply more than the tires) and that newer cruisers and patrols cant pass this test on 35s I now cant use my 35s.
Rant over now get back to your beers
Nik
Patrols and Cruisers cant pass the braking test on 35's?!!! That bloke who built up that 80 series with huge fiberglass flares and 44" tyres had it engineered and it passed the brake test on the factory brakes! Siigy is his name, the engineering tests and details by the engineer were put up on 4wd Action forum a couple of days ago.
but he had that passed many years ago, not recently like NIK is talking about
Slunnie wrote:Athol, where does this leave us in that case if we have a vehicle that is say for example 1960 which was designed under a totally different set of guidelines in the context of having it engineer approved today. Will that need to have abridged brake testing done on it as now required? There are a number of inconsistencies between what is now acceptable compared to what was acceptable.
eg, today track increases are limited to 50mm with or without approval, back then you could increase the track of a LandRover by 80mm - does this mean a 1960 LandRover can run an 80mm increase in track still. Today the max rim width is 8", back then the max unapproved rim width was 8" etc. Does this mean that the vehicle is still able to be engineered with 10" rims or only those fitted and engineered with 10" rims in 1960 can maintain them?
The abridged brake test is to prove continued ADR compliance. If the vehicle pre-dates ADR 35 (July 1979 for most 4WDs), there's no reason to need the test... Vehicle year is based on the chassis. Did the price of pre-'79 4WDs just go up?
NSW RTA current rules limit track increase to 25mm with or without certification, not 50mm. That limit is relative to the standard rims for the axle, allowing for widening or narrowing of axles and for the installation of different axles.
For pre-ADR 24 vehicles (before tyre placards), the rim width for engineering is based on vehicle weight and 8" rims are legal on any such vehicle weighing over 1000kg. Without a certificate, that same vehicle is allowed only 1" wider rims than stock, and 15mm tyre diameter increase.
In the past, few owners got to keep a copy of the engineering certificate, so proving that the vehicle was engineered for 10" rims in 1970 is likely to be very, very difficult.
Last edited by Athol on Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
