Jump to content
SAU Community

Front Mount Defect Question

NRV155

By NRV155,
in New South Wales

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Scottie Community Regular

Scottie

Posted
Posted

Thats intresting i think the rta are stuffed in the head. I got defected with a pod but they didn't touch my quite large front mount. I rang the rta to find the legal reason why pods are legal right. They said it effects emissions right. Well far as i know the Air measureing device ie air flow meter as long as the pod is before the sensor the sensor will change the injection rate to suit the amount of air therefore not effecting emissions. Well the rta said i would need to get a engineer to engineer it. Well i asked them if a 3 gas print out for a NSW Blue slip station saying it meets the RDA that would be sufficant and they said no. Well WTF the blue slip stations are ment to have 3 gas annaliser there for rego purposes. But thats not good enough. So i rang the Australian design rule office and they said if i have a 3 gas read out saying it meets the RDA emisson level thats fine. But once again i rang the rta and that wasn't good enough. So i said to they so any air filter that is not a factory one they can defect you it. I think its plain wrong but the RTA needs there revonue.

NRV155 Proficient

NRV155

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just changed back to my standard filter cauze i just put an exhaust on. If i get pulled over now they can only really do me for exhaust and possibly frontmount and not pod filter. Last time i got pulled up with my pod, they wanted to send me to EPA but i never ended up getting the letter. I dont wanna run that risk again. Exhaust is easy to change to clear defect but a front mount cooler is a pain in the ass to take off and put back on.

dead32 Mentor

dead32

Posted
Posted
Thats intresting i think the rta are stuffed in the head. I got defected with a pod but they didn't touch my quite large front mount. I rang the rta to find the legal reason why pods are legal right. They said it effects emissions right. Well far as i know the Air measureing device ie air flow meter as long as the pod is before the sensor the sensor will change the injection rate to suit the amount of air therefore not effecting emissions. Well the rta said i would need to get a engineer to engineer it. Well i asked them if a 3 gas print out for a NSW Blue slip station saying it meets the RDA that would be sufficant and they said no. Well WTF the blue slip stations are ment to have 3 gas annaliser there for rego purposes. But thats not good enough. So i rang the Australian design rule office and they said if i have a 3 gas read out saying it meets the RDA emisson level thats fine. But once again i rang the rta and that wasn't good enough. So i said to they so any air filter that is not a factory one they can defect you it. I think its plain wrong but the RTA needs there revonue.

yup sounds about right, bottom line is they way they see it, any induction of exhaust mod change's the emission level's of the car, therefore possibly no meeting emission's... i got done for an adjustable plumbback bov when i went to clear my e.p.a bullshit, because the inspector said i could adjust it therefore change the emission's......

on a side note, the pod filter thing is also not just about what it would do to the exhaust emission's, theyre also worried about the excessive noise emission's caused by the pod filter, as it no longer has induction silencer's like the std airbox does.

turbo_brian Community Regular

turbo_brian

Posted
Posted
the pod filter thing is also not just about what it would do to the exhaust emission's, theyre also worried about the excessive noise emission's caused by the pod filter, as it no longer has induction silencer's like the std airbox does.

Yep, the 'Emissions' for a POD filter are not gas emissions, but noise emissions, as they change quite dramatically, even with only a POD change.

I have twin PODS on the GTR, and they are LOUD compared to a stock box.

I am in the process of creating a custom box for around the PODs, but we will see how that goes at a later stage :nyaanyaa:

B.

ignuz Mentor

ignuz

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering.. You see all those plastic covers on newer model cars these days.. What's the go say if you got one of those fabricated to cover your engine bay, venting in required areas where needed.. What's a cop going to say or do?

Edge Proficient

Edge

Posted
Posted
I'm wondering.. You see all those plastic covers on newer model cars these days.. What's the go say if you got one of those fabricated to cover your engine bay, venting in required areas where needed.. What's a cop going to say or do?

Seems like more work than making a good quality air box for less performance gain. Isn't that why you got a pod in the first place?

The requirement is that there are pipes entering the air box, not just holes for vents because that would just be an open box. So there must be perpendicular surrounding tube connected to any vents. It is best to pipe to the outside of the engine bay to get the cold dense air in anyway. So you end up with more efficiency than standard.

Bonkers Rising Star

Bonkers

Posted
Posted

I just went through all this last week.

I recieved a notice in the mail that I had 3 weeks to have my car checked at an approved DECC station. (one at Granville, one at Campeltown)

My car was apparently reported by an DECC officer who made the assessment by looking at the car that it may exceed noise limits. (5inch canon) I had it tested by my local exhaust shop where it recorded 99db. The limit is 90db at 4800rpm. The shop made me up a nice quiet cat back system that came in at 87db while I waited.

At the noise test the mechanic took photos of the airbox, exhaust and intercooler. As the intercooler was not standard my options were to have it tested by the RTA emissions people or return it to standard. I figured that it was easier to put the standard intercooler back on than have the test done and run the risk of having to remove boost controllers, APEXi and the like.

Pain in the backside considering I seldom drive the car but it is actually nicer to drive with the standard intercooler (less hesitation) and I can actually hear the radio now when I'm driving.

BTW I took my car to the Campbelltown testing place after speaking to the dropkicks at Granville. The Campbelltown bloke was really helpful despite having to ensure compliance.

Details can be viewed here http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/vehiclenoise.htm

DRD-00F Grand Master

DRD-00F

Posted
Posted

^^ thats... awesome...

I'm also going through most of this, I'm trying to find the actual WRITTEN law or rule that pertains to pod filters, and what they have to be shielded from, and why... If anyone has it, or can get it, PLEASE let me know...

NRV155 Proficient

NRV155

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"Using a refrigeration unit on a vehicle, after a warning has been given, between 8 pm and 8 am on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, or between 8 pm and 7 am on any other day (clause 15)"

What the hell does this mean?

Sheng Grand Master

Sheng

Posted
Posted
^^ thats... awesome...

I'm also going through most of this, I'm trying to find the actual WRITTEN law or rule that pertains to pod filters, and what they have to be shielded from, and why... If anyone has it, or can get it, PLEASE let me know...

I'll get it for you Doof ;)

Kane_R32 Experienced

Kane_R32

Posted
Posted
^^ thats... awesome...

I'm also going through most of this, I'm trying to find the actual WRITTEN law or rule that pertains to pod filters, and what they have to be shielded from, and why... If anyone has it, or can get it, PLEASE let me know...

Its my understanding a standard airbox is there to stop back fires "igniting/sparking" a fire within the engine bay.

I also believe standard boxes keep the induction noise to a minimum.

And from what I've read around the forums/internet. Adding a pod filter changes the amount of air the engine sees. Although the ecu compensates for this with extra fuel, I believe it would still change the emissions, as its all happening at a different time rather then factory settings.

So I would imagine you would have to build and prove that a pod "box" is capable of fulfilling the above while meeting epa/emission standards.

DRD-00F Grand Master

DRD-00F

Posted
Posted

I believes and I have read and I heards no longer interest me... I'm looking for the written information only so we can put an end to the myths once and for all...

But thanks anyway :wub:

I have some ideas about what to do, I just need to know if what I am doing will at all work... I'll wrtie up my findings if the law is ever found ;)

OnAhigh Experienced

OnAhigh

Posted
Posted

So you guys recommend the guys at cambertown? i to recieved my letter other day. Do we have to pay when we take the car in? also im not to keen on putting standard intercooler back on, how high are the chances of the fmic failing the emissions test?

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      R33 GTR lift points for hoist

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I mean, if you were to move the jacking points away from the original location, that is, away from the wheels and closer to the centreline of the car, then it will be more likely to overbalance and tip off the supports. Same as we talked about before. I was talking about moving for-aft. If the sill is bent outward or inward, then the car would obviously look unstraight from the outside. Hopefully that hasn't happened either. Again, you can do comparative measurements from the chassis rails to see if there is much deflection.
    • sunsetR33
      R33 GTR lift points for hoist

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      Can you elaborate what you mean with your first sentence? I meant move as in the bulge kinda seemed like it got pulled "outward" meaning it got pulled down and to the side with the jacking rail itself, so the load bearing bulge now sits lower than usual and is not level with the sill on the other side of the jack point. Either that or the jacking rail just got pushed in a good bit.
    • GTSBoy
      R33 GTR lift points for hoist

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      As well as being risky WRT tipping off anyway. Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to move. Just measure from the rear one to the front one on the good side, then measure that same length on the wrecked side. You will find the notches in the pinchweld, and the jacking pad. Just spray a spot of marker paint or something there.
    • sunsetR33
      R33 GTR lift points for hoist

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      but any other area than the bulge you are talking about will just cave in then? The front driver side is pretty bent so I don't know if that will work the way it is now. I can still kinda make out where that bulge is/was but it looks like the position of it also changed due to all the mistreatment? Hard to tell
    • GTSBoy
      R33 GTR lift points for hoist

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Absolutely. Look very closely at the photo (of yours) that I took my second snip of. See how the sill is thicker material right behind the pinchweld, where the two notches are? That is the factory reinforced area for lifting. That pad is supposed to carry the weight. The factory jack (go look at it, and how it interfaces with the car at the pinchweld) shows you exactly how the load is carried from the car to the jack to the ground.
×
×
  • Create New...