Outer Limits 4x4 Board

im engineering it with 31's and thats what it will run...

i believe it was the AU falcon that failed the test too.

alien wrote:im engineering it with 31's and thats what it will run...

i believe it was the AU falcon that failed the test too.

So if you're worried about it failing, why not lower it a little?

Stiff shocks will help in one way (roll stiffness) but will hinder overall traction if too firmly valved. A sway bar (easy to put mounts back on) will aid you in controlling body roll.

i cant lower it... lol

the springs are running nearly flat SPOA - that plus the tyres is all my lift...

Swaybar sounds interesting - im going to look into that for sure!

The shocks in there are stiff as, and the zuk has very little bodyroll that i've found as it is.

Its not that im worried as such - i just want every possible advantage i can get...

So far things that i know i can do:
-35psi in tyres
-possibly re-attach swaybar

Im also going to run it with the soft-top off and windows down to lower COG even if its just a fraction =P

i found i had less drag at 100k in my coily with the roof on so im not sure if removing the top will make it better!!

I believe the "moose test" aka "the Scandiivavian flick" is a manouevre that was pioneered by rally drivers in that part of the world, to steer around big four-legged things at high speed.

Since I was taught it back in 1985, I have used it only twice - once to avoid a 'roo, and once to avoid a numbskull who had started to turn across my lane at an intersection and stopped halfway when he finally saw me about to plough into him. It was highly successful both times, but in modern cars, not my Zuke.

It became part of the safety testing program when Volvo insisted its cars be able to do it, and everyone had to follow along. I know I could safely do it in my wife's Camry, but hope I never need to ask Zuke to do it!!

Best of luck Alien, and top marks for going legal!

Cheers - Longbaser.

Buy 50 or so of those weighted velcro wristbands that some joggers or aerobics fanatics use. You could wrap them around your axles to try lower the COG.

Buy the black ones… (Not the fluorescent ones, I think the Engineers might notice them)

Who do these tests in WA? Is this something the Dept of Planning and Infrastructure request to be done with SPOA's or any kind of lift.

Good Luck (Please video the test and post it).

I don't think you're quite right there Longbaser. The moose test is a straightforward 'out in out" lane change performed at speed. It may well have been developed by Volvo, but I don't think there is anything unusual about it.

The "Scandinavian flick" is a specialised rally technique for changing direction on low traction surfaces. It's the practice of turning the car "away" from the corner briefly on the entry of the corner to unsettle the car and allow the car to change direction very quickly at the point where it goes "light" in transition. It was developed by the scandinavians due to the fact large lateral loads can't be developed on snow so the car has to change direction quickly,and be set up at the "correct" angle to travel through the corner in one smooth motion without relying on lateral grip to move the car around.

In relation to the lane change - there's lots of "I've heared" about it. an AU falcon unable to pass? A Navara unable to pass? What's the source for this information. Certainly, credible information that a recent model road car could not pass this test would seriously discredit it.

I can offer some speculation about the application of this test to a Sierra though.

If it's a 4 seater Sierra (as 99% of soft tops are) then it is classified as a passenger vehicle, and the rules applying to a passenger vehicle will apply.

A 2 seater sierra, with a commercial registration (like a JU hardtop or a trayback) may not have to meet the same standards in a number of areas. This might explain why it's not unrealistic to expect a Navara to be unable to pass.

Steve.

Here's a video of a Scandinavian flick. Starts about 1/2 way though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqmZFhI0co

Gwagensteve wrote:Here's a video of a Scandinavian flick. Starts about 1/2 way though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqmZFhI0co

i think this is more like it steve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRAPQW4ZW8&NR=1

This all sounds like to much effort to me so much easyer to get a car trailer and tow it, that way you have no limits on the mods you do, if you break it you already have a trailer with you to tow it, dont have to worry about police, right it costs more but you save money not having to pay for a engineer and these stupid swerve tests, I know you have to own another car/4x4 to tow it but atleast you will have another car to get around when you break it, i also looked at doing this awhile ago and what put me off was when i was told that i can get eng reports and do the swerve test then the pit inspector can still knock me back for pretty much no reason other than he feels like it. Just my thoughts

Wesley, driving in your back yard gets old.

If you want to drive in a state forest, any public land, or any public road, your car needs to be as legal as if you drove it work every day. One day, there will be a cop at the end of your favourite track and you'll be asked the question. It's happened.

If you can truthfully say it won't ever see a public road, then yeah, trailer everywhere, but I don't believe that's viable in this country - I even think the few off road parks there are often require registration.

sorry, that's just the way it is.

there's a different way to look at engineering. It's not all about what you can't do, it's all about what you can.

Example - you can't legally engineer above a 28" tyre on a sierra with sierra diffs in vic, but it doesn't mean you can't engineer all the work to run 35's, but cert on a smaller tyre. No, the car won't be legal on the bigger tyre, but odds are, you'll never be able to engineer the actual tyre you want anyway as it will still be too small. (31's on sierras are sooooo 1997)

narrowed fronts, Ruf, raised transfers for flat bellypan, power steer, autos, efi motor swaps, massively tubbed guards, shock mounts... it can all be certed and it all has nothing to do with tyre size and very little effect on COG.

no, my current car isn't certed, but I have built approved projects and it's no big deal.

how many of you spoke to the engineer [b[before you started the car[/b] to find out how you might be able to avoid the high speed test?

Steve.

in WA you HAVE to do the test is the vehicle is raised over 2" from stock - and that includes tyres... so really there is no choice =)

I consulted with my engineer on the project the whole way through and he made some very good observations and suggestions during the build that will increase durability of the mods. It was worth it for that alone.

The process for engineering is simple - submit a request to DPI for planned mods, wait 3 months for their approval letter (if you're lucky), send engineer paperwork on planned mods and DPI's approval letter, consult with engineer on how best to attack the mods and any requirements he might have, do the mods but before any painting get the engineer to inspect all welds and gussets etc, paint and complete the vehicle, take to engineer for final inspection (he looks at everything from brake lines to wiring as well as your mods), do lane change test, go over pits.... done.

yes, its a process, but its a simple one really.

the main reason i want it engineered is not cos i might get a yellow sticker, its for INSURANCE. if my zuk kills someone through whatever means and its not fit for road use, i have ZERO insurance, im personally liable for ALL damages etc. (imagine if you wrote off someone's ferarri and had to pay for it - you'd be paying it off the rest of your life!).

Gwagensteve wrote:Smart FourTwo's are fine in this maneuver. they have a very low COG as the motor is mounted very low, they're wide, run significant rear negative camber, and have stability control.

They are engineered specifically to pass it. Mercedes was very embarrassed by the original A class failing a similar maneuver (even though the fail was never able to be replicated) and would never release another car that would even look like failing it.

Steve.

I forgot about stability programs etc . But they still look unervingly short to me.

When I built my car I had a lot of input from guys who have been their and done that , always with the intention of it being fully engineered and registered , so , once built , after driving it there was no way I was going to drive it on the road the way it handled , it was dangerous not only to me but to other drivers , it had about 5 inchs body roll , so I did some research and again was led down the right path in the way of swaybars , onced fitted the car is very solid on the road and the engineer absolutely loved them , it brought the truck back to almost standard handling even with the height and tyre size. The engineer had no problem with the tyre's and rims , as the ratio's made it drivable with good pickup on acceleration , if there wasn't enough it make's it a road hazard when pulling out into traffic , so guy's you have to build your truck's properly , even trailer queens have to be safe , there is enough info on here to build a truck the safe way , Cheers Paul.


P.S. Put your swaybar back ON.

alien wrote:in WA you HAVE to do the test is the vehicle is raised over 2" from stock - and that includes tyres... so really there is no choice =)

Simple - 1" LOWERED springs, 31" tyres, guard cutting - bingo - a sierra legal on 31's with no lane change. Swap springs to an OME or something equivalent that's type approved mod within ADR's once certed, you'd never have a problem. wo cares about a stupid SPOA when you can cert 31's?

No, I'm not joking.

There's always a way.

If we had to do this to make a 31" tyre legal, we'd be doing it in droves. fact is, we can't get a 31 legal on sierra diffs anymore in vic regardless of lane changes etc which is why we're engineering heavily modded cars on stock tyres.

A car is being built here in Vic that's being certed on stockies but built to run 36" tyres with no body or spring lift. When certed, it will be EXACTLY the same height as a stock sierra. The owner wants to run Q78 swampers (which aren't legal for road use anyway) so there's no point trying to cert on a bigger tyre. The situation is the big tyres are for off road use and the little tyres are for road use. simple.

There's always a way.

Steve.

Steve does that mean he is planning on trailering his tyres wherever he goes, and even then what happens when he comes around the corner on a fire trail and hits a car/bike on the Q78s?

hahaha i can just imagine running on little cheesecutter tyres with gearing to suit 36's =)

I agree with you in theory, but in practice its really not the best option is it?

Its a hard thing to pass tip it over cause your springs too soft and you fail, lift a wheel because its too stiff and you fail. tyre pressures too high or low and slide and you fail,over half the cars on the road unmodified wont pass.
If you fail they wont sticker your car so you carn't drive it but the driver will tell you what changes could help you pass. Its a cost, but when its so high and sounds like never done before with a zuk you got to start somewhere.
Id keep the tyre pressures in the 20s so they have some give and give it a bash.

4130warrior wrote:Steve does that mean he is planning on trailering his tyres wherever he goes, and even then what happens when he comes around the corner on a fire trail and hits a car/bike on the Q78s?

I won't comment on that, I am not a legal expert, but if 28's are the legal limit on sierra diffs in vic then there's a lot in uninsured 4WD out there. There's no such thing as "sort of" illegal, even if they're 28.040" highway tyres.

Technically, if you have ANY modification on your car that the insurance company is unaware of, you are uninsured. Better hope you don't have seat covers, or a towbar, or spotties, or you've changed the stereo or fitre a cargo barrier and not told the insurance company. If they don't want to cover you, you're gone they will find a way.

By the same token I am aware of a car that was comp insured with beadlocks and 33's, even though a maximum tyre size was not stated on the cert. and beadlocks are obviously not road legal.(yes, I read the cert)

I claimed a replacement bullbar, 31" BFG muddy that were not listed on the policy as a part of a claim and they wer replaced without question as- they were not relevant or implicated in the cause of the accident.

The big problem in vic is a "notice to fix." Police can issue these without issuing a canary, but they often tick the box at the bottom of the sheet marked "RWC" so you have to present the car to a vicroads office within seven days with the issue fixed AND a RWC if specified. Obviously a heavily modified car requiring a RWC needs a cert on the mods. If the notice was only for tyres and the car is otherwise as certed, then it's easy fixed.

alien wrote: its really not the best option is it?

We think it is. Have you got a better one? I don't want a sierra with 28's on it.

Steve.

like i said, i agree in theory =) there is no better solution in your case. Unless the zuk is registered here in WA under a WA resisdent's name??? Then WA law would apply as its rego'd in WA... right? (just a theory).

so whats it costing u all up?

engineer consult at the scene of the crime was $300, followed by $300 again for a full inspection and several other consults in between...

Lane change test cost depends on how many drivers, but thats $700-900 which includes track hire for a day, the CAMS driver, the engineer's time and the repot to take to DPI for it to go over the pits.

So all in all, worst case scenario around $1500.... which is a hell of a lot, but at the same time its cheaper than being sued, or getting a yellow sticker and not getting over the pits and becomming a trailer rig.

PS: im poor.

Gwagensteve wrote:
fact is, we can't get a 31 legal on sierra diffs anymore in vic regardless of lane changes etc

Unless it is a Ute/Trayback 'cause they came out with 6.00-16's as an option and that allows 31's or 245/75R16's with the allowable +50mm increase in OD

Well yes, but they account for such small % of cars I didn't want to muddy the waters by adding them in.

I did (sort of) raise the issue of commercials having different requirements though.

Steve.

Gwagensteve wrote:A car is being built here in Vic that's being certed on stockies but built to run 36" tyres with no body or spring lift. When certed, it will be EXACTLY the same height as a stock sierra. The owner wants to run Q78 swampers (which aren't legal for road use anyway) so there's no point trying to cert on a bigger tyre. The situation is the big tyres are for off road use and the little tyres are for road use. simple.

There's always a way.

Steve.

more on this please?

Not my car, owner doesn't want to publicise the build. It's a 1.0 trayback, it's very very very low, and it's nearly finished.

Steve.

fair enough, no worries

link didn't work

w.a. sucks a.ss for modification laws, thats why the caliber of cars 4x4 and performance coming out of wa sucks when compared to other states