New Wa Emmissions Laws

[Nic_A31]

Mine still has stock exhaust.

Good point though, I've seen maybe 10 tops out of the hundreds of imports I see on the roads.

[Mayuri Krab]

Ive never once seen an import that doesnt get that black soot on the back of their car.

My car doesn't have that black spot.

It has some unknown brand fart canon & the rest is pretty stock.

[Pal]

mate just got a sticker on his commondore. went to the pits today, didnt pass and needs a emission test done. had normal stuff (tint, 2 big a wheels, 2 low, and a big cam) will be interesting to see how he goes. mine didn't have black spot disease until i put the bigger injectors in.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Pal

[br3ndan]

my r33 which is white... doesnt have a spot of black carbon on the back...

[R32 Driver]

mate just got a sticker on his commondore. went to the pits today, didnt pass and needs a emission test done. had normal stuff (tint, 2 big a wheels, 2 low, and a big cam) will be interesting to see how he goes. mine didn't have black spot disease until i put the bigger injectors in.

wouldnt it be wise to return the car back to stock before attempting pits? well everything but the cams i guess?

[Nic_A31]

You mean just the cams, right??

[Pal]

he did, everything but the cam. he was hoping to get away with it, guess he did'nt

[joelah501]

Orbital Engineering don't conduct the IM240 test, only Kostecki do for the time being.

[Guest]

The key board warriors need to get there facts straight before they get people worked up over nothing....

Below is some info about the IM240 testing, causes of failures and general info, some may be covered else were some isn't. The answers are out there as any problem you might come across has happened a long time ago some were else.

The test is about 15 years old and is not an easy way to make money if people think that is what it is about.

The ADR which would be relevant when having an IM240 test done is the year of manufacture of the engine not the car so be very care full there.

It isn't hard to get hold of equipment to test a car before going in for a IM240, the hard bit is finding someone who knows how to use the data.

A key feature of the I/M 240 test procedure is the use of a special inertia dynamometer to simulate vehicle loads at various speeds during a 240-second drive cycle that includes acceleration, deceleration and cruise modes. The test can catch emission problems that often escape notice during a simple idle emissions test, but it requires a trained operator to "drive" the vehicle while it is on the dyno, and the special dyno that is required is very expensive. A single I/M 240 test lane can cost upwards of $400,000! Again the $400,000 cost is not an assumption or personal opinion but a fact.

The test isn't hard to pass just look at what the guys in SAU NSW have to say via link below.

I passed another car through the IM240 Emission's test today, this one was road tuned around a industrial area in cardiff and went on to pass the test the next day!Goes to show if you build a car and tune it properly you can make your car legal and get it engineered.This car has 300rwkw.

Basic breakdown on IM240 test from bulletin DPI put out but the idea seems to be we can get you on a little thing if we want........ But if you do the right thing there wont be any problems, it isn't about some copper pulling you over and going "I think this needs and emissions test" unless it is some shitter of a Magna blowing so much smoke you think it is on fire.

The following applications will require an IM240 test after 20 April 2009:

o Engines modified by the fitment of a supercharger or turbocharger; So a DE to DET type of conversion on any car IM240 test will be required, I know of a JZA Supra which was 2JZ-GE and now fitted with a Super Charger requires a IM240 to be registered.

o Individually constructed vehicles (ICVs).; The one off cars like a Cobra when they fit older 302's or 350's will require a IM240, a new motor fitted in a Cobra as per a friend used if the OEM computer and Cat's are fitted you "might" get a waver.

o Engines that have been significantly modified to enhance performance (eg: with the fitment of a high performance camshaft).; CAMS can screw up emissions big time which is why a little thing like them get a mention.

o When there is evidence of reprogramming of the electronic control unit (ECU, the engine management computer), or a chip swap.; How may cars don't have the ECU modified or replaced then it is tuned rich because the programmer does not know what they are doing.

The following applications will require an IM240 test from 1 Aug 2009:

o Major modifications to the exhaust systems - where the catalytic converter has been replaced with one not OEM or where the operation of the catalytic converter has been affected by aftermarket modifications (such as extractors). The Cat's sold these days may have a high flow rate but do shit all when it comes to emissions.

Link to Summary of Emission Requirements for New Petrol Passenger Cars In Australia 1972 - 2010.

These are general guidelines only to most Common Causes of Failures?

* Inoperative/missing catalytic converter

* O2 sensor malfunction

* Internal engine problem

* Vacuum leaks (hoses, vacuum operated devices, intake manifold, carburetor)

* Ignition system malfunction (plugs, plug wires, points, dwell, etc.)

* Improper fuel injector operation

* Incorrect ignition timing and/or idle speed

* Incorrect carburetor air/fuel mixture

* Defective EGR valve or air injection system failure

High CO Emissions

* Excessively rich air/fuel mixture

* O2 sensor malfunction

* Faulty computer control(s)

* Malfunctioning fuel injection system

* Inoperative/missing catalytic converter

* Carburetor float level maladjusted

* Air cleaner, choke or carburetor

* Defective canister purge system

High NOx Emissions

* Inoperative/ineffective Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) System

* Excessively lean air/fuel mixture

* O2 sensor malfunction

* Engine deposits or mechanical defect

* Malfunctioning or missing catalytic converter (three-way catalyst only)

* Excessive spark advance

* Faulty Thermostatic Air Cleaner (TAC) system

* Defective air flow meter

Possible Causes of High Hydrocarbon (HC) Emissions

Hydrocarbons relate to unburned fuel. You may logically think that must mean that the engine is getting too much fuel. However, that is only one of many possibilities ranging from fuel problems, to electrical problems, to internal engine problems such as piston rings that can cause HC emissions to be excessive.

In order to pinpoint the cause of excessive HC emissions, the following systems (if applicable) will need to be checked, usually in the order shown below:

Lean or Rich Air-Fuel Ratio

For an engine to operate as designed, the correct ratio of fuel to air must be delivered to the cylinders. If the fuel system is delivering a leaner than ideal air-fuel ratio, it may result in lean misfire and cause high hydrocarbons. If the fuel system is too rich, it also may result in high HC but will be accompanied by high CO as well.

Inadequate Catalytic Converter Efficiency

For vehicles that are 1988 model year or newer, it is very important that the catalytic converter be operating at 90% efficiency or better. That means that the emissions that come out of the tailpipe must be no more than 10% of what goes in.

There are many aspects of the engine's air induction system (hoses, intake runners, intake manifold, vacuum-controlled devices) that can cause disruption in the air and fuel getting to the cylinders and result in high HC. Incorrect PCV valve/orifice flow rate can also cause similar symptoms. Leaking EGR valves also may cause excessive HC emissions.

Ignition defects including dirty spark plugs, leaking or open-circuited spark plugs or wires, or defective ignition coils can all result in a shortage of spark energy. Any shortage of spark energy may cause high HC emissions.

If the spark occurs at the wrong time, incomplete combustion and high hydrocarbons may result. Too much spark advance could be due to an incorrect adjustment or a defect in mechanical or vacuum advance mechanisms.

Possible Causes of High Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions

High CO means too much fuel. Fuel can only come from three sources: the crankcase vapor control system, the evaporative control system, or the actual fuel delivery system.

The fuel delivery system is certainly the most likely culprit but in most cases it is very quick and easy to eliminate the other two possibilities first. However, if it is problematic to check the evaporative system purging, it is probably wise to go straight to fuel delivery system diagnosis.

In order to pinpoint the cause of excessive CO emissions, the following systems and possible defects will need to be checked, usually (but not always) in this order:

Excessive Crankcase Blowby or PCV Flow

If oil vapours in the engine's crankcase are excessive, or the oil is dirty or contaminated, excessive CO emissions can result. Dirty or contaminated oil is easily rectified by an oil change. Excess crankcase vapour flow can be caused by an incorrect PCV valve or by serious internal engine damage such as worn-out piston rings.

The charcoal canister stores fuel system vapors until they can be withdrawn and burned in the engine. Under normal circumstances, this should never result in excessive CO for more than a few seconds. It is possible for charcoal canisters to become saturated with fuel. This essentially means that they can never be cleared of HC vapors and need to be replaced.

There are many aspects of the engine's fuel delivery system that may need to be checked when diagnosing a rich air/fuel mixture. That is the main reason that this is listed behind crankcase vapor and evaporative emission control systems-even though they are less likely causes of the problem, they are much easier and quicker to check.

When diagnosing a rich air-fuel mixture, it is important to keep in mind the possibility of a defect in an entirely different area affecting the operation of the fuel delivery system. For example, certain mechanical engine defects may cause abnormally low engine vacuum and result in the fuel system delivering more fuel than is actually needed by the engine. The symptom of excess CO may lead one to think that the defect lies with the fuel system but the problem actually lies elsewhere.

An additional consideration if your vehicle failed with very high CO emissions is the possibility that it may also have a NOx problem that was masked by the high CO. Sometimes restoring the air/fuel ratio to the proper range uncovers a NOx problem. The NOx defect may have existed previously but wasn't evident because of the lack of oxygen that accompanies a rich mixture.

At any rate, you should be aware that it is possible that a NOx problem may become evident after a CO problem is repaired.

Possible Causes of High Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emissions

In order to pinpoint the cause of excessive NOx emissions, the following systems (if applicable) and possible defects will need to be checked, usually in this order:

Over-Advanced Ignition Timing

Older vehicles have ignition timing systems that are adjustable and, unfortunately, anything that is adjustable is also mal-adjustable.

Fortunately, ignition timing is usually quick and easy to check.

Inadequate Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Flow

Operation of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system should be checked completely. To do this there are three areas that you must check:

* the EGR valve

* the EGR exhaust passage(s)

* the EGR control system

Lean Air-Fuel Ratio

Check to ensure that there is not an excessively lean mixture being burned. Depending on the vehicle, its fuel system, and its emissions control systems, this may involve simply looking at the VIR, measuring engine-out emission levels, and O2 sensor testing.

Defective Catalytic Converter

Test the catalyst by performing a converter efficiency test. Note that this only applies if the vehicle is equipped with a three-way catalytic converter (some 1980-87 vehicles and all 1988 and newer vehicles have three-way catalytic converters).

Combustion Chamber Deposits

If the above possibilities have been conclusively checked and no problems found, it is reasonable to conclude that combustion chamber deposits are contributing to excessive NOx emissions.

[StealthX]

Thanks for all that info mate. Much appreciated.

I just got off the phone with kosteckis and they quoted me $450 for the test plus $135p/h labor charge.

benchmark time is 3 hours, so $855.

I think if anyone is angry at kosteckis, they should re-think.

They are just providing a service, remember they are the ones who forked out almost HALF A MILLION DOLLARS for the testing equipment.

Blame our poor excuse of a government. In NSW the RTA will fund the tests for the clients, all the clients have to do is prepare the car to pass the test. Why doesn't the WA government follow suit? Who knows, but it would DEFINITELY make everyone's lives easier...

As for the rumor of the mystery $3000 dollar 2nd test (I must add that I miss understood @ first), that is complete BS. The test costs $450 + $135p/h every time, BUT if you fail the first time and employ KEC to engineer your car to pass (re-tune, install different cats, replace old/damaged parts) and then re-test, yes, it can come close to $3000.

When I spoke to Dave from kostekis, he said they has a supercharged VE commodore putting down 900HP AT THE TREADS that passed.

if a dirty big, old fashioned GM V8 can pass emissions (first time i might add), then I highly doubt that a jap RB engine in good condition with a solid state of tune and working cat converter, will fail. I think the focus should be put on passing the test first time, not getting around it, like mentioned above by DRIFTT.

Does anyone think a petition to the government would do anything?

I know for a fact that there are dozens of angry WA car enthusiasts out there, I'm prepared to take a few hours out to fully research and come up with something to put to consumer affairs. I've got some fairly extensive contacts in the motorsport industry from uni and my personal endeavors in racing, so I don't doubt a large volume of people could be gathered.

I can tell ya for a fact that the sole reason why the IM240 test was made mandatory in WA, was so the govmnt can shut a group of people up. The general public sees a modified car driving past, and immediately stereotypes: the driver must be dangerous, the car must be illegal, and the car must contribute to global warming somehow. The latter of which has been hyped up so much (similar to swine flu!) that just mentioning it, causes the dumb, unwashed masses to squirm, complaining that performance cars ARE THE SOLE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING... Unfortunately, the bulk of us, the (for the most part) law abiding, tax paying, harmless car enthusiasts, have to pay. It's not the first time citizen Jane and citizen Joe have been unfairly disadvantaged due to the government. Think of it from the government's point of view, they aren't making money from this, so its clearly just an effort to win votes. The solution: Give the government another large group of people to quieten - US.

Cam.

[urtwhistle]

my car doesn't get any........... oh waits its on LPG

[Brockas]

Jash, have you actually inquired about becoming a registered IM240 testing facility? I personally haven't, but a good friend of mine (who will remain nameless for the time being, but I'll refer to him as Bill) has. He had a rather long rant to me today about the corruption in this Kostecki agreement. Obviously I would love for him to reply to this thread, but he's not much of a forum person, so unfortunately I will just have to relay the main points he outlined....

Bill is willing to commit to as much money as required (I believe you stated $400,000, which is about half of what he has been told) to become a registered emissions testing workshop in WA.

He has been told that he must obtain one of the same $750,000 machine that Orbital has (in fact, Orbital have 4), have access to a "simulator" (which he already has), and also become registered with the government as an official (much harder than it sounds).

He wouldn't have a problem with this at all, but what he does have an issue with is that (to his knowledge) Kostecki's is not using the same machine as Orbital, nor are they listed on the official government register (I forget the acronym). Kostecki has been given concessions that are not available to anyone else.

The government official who Bill is dealing with, is going out of his way to protect the Kostecki monopoly, to the point now where Bill is preparing to lodge a formal complaint.

The issue Bill currently has is, if someone were to challenge the Kostecki ruling that their car failed the IM240 test, there is nowhere in WA that they can currently do this. This relies on Kostecki's being 100% honest (not implying they aren't, more so that it isn't regulated with any competition).

Taken from the DPI Information Bulletin March 09 (http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/lic_IB_124A_Changes_to_Emission_Testing_Light_Vehicles.pdf):

Until recently, WA needed to rely on 5-gas analyser tests, as IM240 and DT80 test facilities were not available in this State However, with the recent establishment of at least one IM240 test facility and the proposed opening of a DT80 test facility in the near future, WA will be able to specify testing procedures that are nationally accepted as a reasonable approximation to the ADR testing requirements used for new vehicles.

In other words, Kostecki's was not "doing everyone a favour by offering a service", the requirement of a service was created after Kostecki's became the SOLE provider of this service.

As you quite aptly pointed out, the law requiring emission testing has not changed for 15+ years. Considering they have apparently passed a 900hp car, it has nothing to do with the public's perception of modified cars, as this isn't a test requiring a car to be standard.

The test is about 15 years old and is not an easy way to make money if people think that is what it is about.

EVERYTHING is about money, sex, or power. Consider that Kostecki's apparently did close to 60 tests last month, with each averaging $1000, PLUS the increase in sales of their own products for "emissions purposes", that to me seems like a pretty decent motive for becoming the SOLE emissions tester in WA.

They are just providing a service, remember they are the ones who forked out almost HALF A MILLION DOLLARS for the testing equipment.

If they spent that much, it would be prudent to also buy a 4WD dyno, so they can test a large number of 4x4 cars in WA which will also require emissions testing. It surprises me that they haven't.

[Ehgriez]

Getting to a point where the discussions are above my paygrade.

However, keen to see how this rolls.

[StealthX]

If they spent that much, it would be prudent to also buy a 4WD dyno, so they can test a large number of 4x4 cars in WA which will also require emissions testing. It surprises me that they haven't.

they do have a 4wd dyno i thought...

cant find it anywhere, but im sure i read that they do...

if not, then there's a big loophole, cos my car cant be run in pure 2wd mode on a dyno without resulting in serious drivetrain damage. thus id be unable to undergo an im240 test. not to mention neither would all subarus, GTRs, most SUVs, some landcruisers, landrovers, the list goes on.

interesting: what if i put my car on their 2wheel dyno, and did the test, severely damaging the rear diff. would the government or kosteckis pay for the repair? i bet theyd run and hide...

[Pal]

so if there is only one company doing this test, what happens to the poor person in Esperance or way up north. does that mean they have to travel to Perth to do there testing. Thats going to go down well

[And]

But at the end of the day the police always have and always will abuse their powers. We just have to live with it i guess

Your choice.

Edited July 22, 2009 by And

[Char]

"employ KEC to engineer your car to pass (re-tune, install different cats, replace old/damaged parts) and then re-test, yes, it can come close to $3000."

sif i want them to tune my car, then i'd have to fork out another $350 to get it retuned.

..they dont have access to 4wd facilities?.. "seriously man, its GTS-4"

[ossie_21]

Paul you just about summed it up perfectly with all of that

Being the sole provider available to the public they can charge what they want, having the government forcing you to take the only option puts them in a very nice position from their point of view. Personally you can't blame them for that as anyone would like to be in as prosperous a position as that, but the fact other people/businesses are being held back by that is where corruption is f**ked. (for lack of a better word)

Just as already been mentioned over in the eastern states tests like this are a hell of a lot cheaper & a lot more openly available, almost to the point it seems they are trying to help provide the people with the test, not take advantage of them.

[Marco-R34GTT]

If it is a monopolisation/corruption issue, cannot the ACCC get involved???

[bubba]

ACCC Complaints & Inquiries