The 'Certed' Column of Performance Cars Magazine

Old Hoon

Sorry D., but exhausts are required to be directed away from the perimeter of the vehicle's passenger compartment. The intention behind that rule is to prevent exhaust gases from being able to come inside the passenger compartment and send you to sleep. Exiting your exhaust gases at the front of your car will enable them to come back over, under, and around the car while you are driving, and enter the passenger compartment through the ventilation system, side windows, or any small gaps. Your exhaust gases need to exit at the rear, or at least behind the rear-most passengers' seating positions. Provided the latter is achieved, they can dump out the side or under the car. So, one spare hole, huh? Photograph of your Mother, maybe...?

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Norm,

In principle, yes, it can probably be done, however what you have to do (in a nutshell) is to replace the structural strength and integrity lost by the removal of the roof, with some other means of stiffening the car's structure up again. In our old separate body/chassis cars (like Chevy Impalas for example) this was much easier, but modern unitary constructed cars rely on the roof of the vehicle to keep the whole vehicle from collapsing in a heap.

There's different ways of doing this; a roll-cage structure is one way, closing the doors up (structurally) to form a 'tub' is another, or strengthening the floor-pan by incorporating a perimeter chassis is probably the most expensive and difficult but the best way.

Hi Lincoln,

What an outstanding idea - VTEC power and RWD all at once! - should be an awesome car. It's definitely wise to discuss your project at an early stage with a local Category 1D LVV certifier. He'll identify things that you'll need to do to ensure that you get through the certification process at the end of the build-up without any hassles or re-work. He'll also let you know when he wants to inspect progress. Send me an e-mail to tonylvvta@xtra.co.nz telling me where you live, and I'll give you the name and contact details of the best certifier for the job.

Generally speaking, people who (a) have good practical skills and a positive approach, and (b) use the right LVV certifier, really don't have any LVV certification problems at all, even with a major project like yours. The horror stories about LVV certification are either third-hand & exaggerated, or they come from people who didn't find out the facts before they started and/or didn't use an appropriately experienced LVV certifier.

Hi MW,

Sorry dude - no good news at all. We agree - there's a mountain of great stuff (even if most of it is short of 4 cylinders) sitting around in Japan going cheap, but LTSA's Frontal Impact Rule generally means pre '96 stuff can't be brought in (it's not quite that simple but that's a rough overview).

Forget the exemption form; LTSA hardly ever look at applications for exemptions on frontal impact - the only ones that stand a chance are complicated immigrant 'baggage vehicle' cases, but even that hardly ever happens now.

Also forget the scratch-built loop-hole - essentially a production vehicle such as a 1990's import can never be a scratch-built, no matter how much you modify it. LVVTA is actually pretty touchy about the scratch-built scenario being used as a 'back-door' method of putting a car on the road that LTSA have already banned through other legislation - you can understand if that were to happen; it could bugger things up for all of us.

Please don't see us as unsympathetic - that's not the case at all - I'd be keen on one of these cheap early '90's Type-R Integras or R32 Skylines myself (but don't tell any of my hot-rod mates that).

The only possible way (which I'm sure you've thought of) is to bring in the car, and transfer all the good gear over to a cheap RX7 here, then sell off the RX7 (imported) shell to someone wanting to build up a Series 5 for the new motorsport class currently under development. Do some homework - it could work out.

Good luck!

Old Hoon

Dear Certed,

I was reading last month's column and someone asked about importing a car that doesn't meet the LTSA frontal impact requirements. I know a bit about this, as I recently (and unfortunately) imported an S14 that wasn't allowed to be registered. Some of the S14s don't comply, but I didn't know because I didn't do my homework! Doh!

Anyway, I have a couple of questions for you while we're on that topic, the first one about RPS13 Nissan 180SX's. I have been checking out the LTSA website as to which cars you can import, and which you can't (yes, yes, I know!). When it comes to the S13 platform, there's a big NO from LTSA, but I don't think they are entirely correct. Obviously unbeknown to them, Nissan kept on producing the RPS13 in 180SX form from 1989 right up until 1998!

Because the NZ-new 200SX's (the local version of the JDM-spec 180SX's) stop being sold before the S14 200SX (Silvia K'S in Japan) came out, I think the LTSA have got that in their heads!

I have rung them a couple of times regarding whether or not I can import one of the latter RPS13 180SX's and been told 'NO' on both occasions. The trouble I have with this is that I personally know two people who have successfully imported and registered these cars in the past year.

I guess we also have to remember that front impact requirements, although we're only being hit with them now, meant changes for them around 1996 too, which is why I guess all the latter RPS13's were SRS air bag equipped! If someone could help me with a definite answer I would be much appreciated! I don't really want to go through the same trouble again as I did with the 14!

Cheers,

Mike W - Auckland

(I'm also curious to find out why some models that have been okayed by DOTARS in Australia as 'compliable' aren't enjoying the same status in New Zealand? The Register of Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicles allows the importation of many popular performance cars that do not comply in New Zealand such as the BG-series Mazda Familias, Pulsar Gti-Rs, Toyota AE101 Corolla Levin/Sprinter Trueno, EP82 Starlet GT, most of the R32-series Skylines (including GT-R) and all of the S13 Silvias. These cars are obviously safe enough to be complied in Australia which also follows frontal impact laws - but not in this country! Is there more to this story than we're led to believe? - Ed)

Hi Mike,

Your questions were way too hard - remember you're talking to someone who thinks that more than two valves for every cylinder and camshafts sitting on top of the heads are just passing fads...

So, I spoke to a contact inside LTSA, (can't be named because he's a young hoon, which makes him sort of like a double-agent, but he's a good bloke and knows his stuff with performance imports) and he's come back with a bunch of useful information.

Just before we talk about specific vehicles, we should point out that LTSA's website contains 'Frontal Impact Compliance Lists', which shows what vehicles comply and don't comply to NZ frontal Impact standards. The vehicle manufacturers supply this information, so if there's a mistake, it's not necessarily the LTSA's fault. They just set the standard and the vehicle manufacturers inform LTSA what is compliant and what isn't under that standard. 'Compliant' meaning (without getting into exact Standards) what has been built and tested to frontal impact standards in NZ.

The LTSA Double agent said that if you go and check the frontal impact compliance lists again, you will find that the S13 no longer appears. This means that since it's not on the list, to determine frontal impact compliance (as instructed by the Frontal Impact flowcharts on infosheet 2.10) you need to use the secondary method, which is.... if the vehicle is 'made for the Japanese domestic market' and is 'made in Japan after the 1st of January 1996' or 'outside Japan after the 1st of April 1999' then the car is ok as far as Frontal Impact goes. So this also means that all S13's built for Japan, in Japan before 1/1/96 are non-compliant! As they say, Bugger.

Mike, the matter of the vehicles you believe to have got through the system even though they aren't compliant, could just be a case of vehicles slipping through the cracks, which sometimes happens, though less and less as time goes by. Just a word of warning here; - if any vehicle is found to have been non-compliant and incorrectly registered, LTSA say it could be de-registered.

As for your query Editor Brad, we're going to look into this Register of Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicles system and see what we can find out about it. Double-agent and I both suspect it's not quite as simple as that, because Australia is notoriously protective of its industry, and make it tough to bring vehicles in from overseas. However, we have some problems here with special performance vehicles made by some successful manufacturers that, because they're built in such small numbers, it's not economic for them to be tested for compliance with frontal impact standards. TVR sports cars from the UK is one example; TVR manufacture more than 200 vehicles each year, so their high-end factory hot rods like the Tuscan and the Griffith can't come in as a high-volume vehicle, and can't be treated as a Low Volume Vehicle. LVVTA are pushing LTSA for a change in some definitions within the rules to allow small quantities of specialist and performance vehicles to be imported, so we all have a common problem. We'll keep you posted.

Hi Mike,

You're right about removing the parts of the cage forward of the main hoop, so that now you're effectively left with a 'roll-bar' as opposed to a 'roll-cage'. There are two things I'm not sure about from your letter; firstly whether or not you want to have rear seat passengers, and secondly whether or not you want to compete in motor-sport events.

I'll assume you're not interested in the competition side of things; if you are, contact MotorSport NZ on (04) 801-9559, and they'll provide you with the information you need on what competition roll-cages have to comply with.

If you don't want rear seats, that eliminates another problem; all you need to do is have it LVV certified (as a 2-seater) to make sure everything is positioned far enough away from occupants and appropriately padded. You'll need to 'plug' the rear seat and seatbelt anchorage holes so that it can't become an unsafe 4-seater 10 minutes after the LVV plate goes on.

If you do want rear seats, all parts of the roll-bar will have to be outside the 'A-zone'. This is an area that swings forward in an arc from the 'h-point' (sit in the normal seated position and put your finger on your hip-bone) out 900 mm, or 700 mm if you have web-clamp retractor seatbelts, covering an area (width-wise) of 320 mm. Check out the diagram out of the LVVTA Interior Impact Low Volume Vehicle Standard which shows the A-zone, and although the drawing is of a pair of front seats, the same applies to the rear seats.

This is like a safety area you need around you in the event of a frontal collision, to protect your head and chest from solid or sharp objects as your body is catapulted forward and downward during a collision. Even with seatbelts, because of seatbelt 'spooling' out of the seatbelt retractor reel, seatbelt fabric stretch, and body contortion, a human body moves an truly unbelievable amount in a crash.

In nearly all cases, rearward bars intrude into the rear seat A-zone unless they are tucked up tight along the cant rail (the roof section that runs along the top of the side windows) and runs down tight beside the rear pillar. If that doesn't knock your roll-bar out, the diagonal certainly will. One point to remember with roll-bars is that if you run the rearward bars tight along the roof-line and then tight down the pillar (so as to comply with road-going legal requirements), it almost certainly won't meet Motorsport NZ's requirements for racing because a huge amount of the structure's strength is lost by the inclusion of a bend. Take a look at roll-bars and roll-cages next time you're at the race-track, and you'll see that all the bars from the main hoop back toward the rear of the car are all straight.

So, to your point about the position of the main hoop - simply put, it can't be positioned within the A-zone, and from how you've described it, I suspect that it would be. The A-zone has to be measured with the seatback in its normal driving position, and the seat base in its mid-point position if it is (fore-aft) adjustable. Could you shift the main hoop back to behind the front seats and out of the way of the A-zone?

Best of luck with it,

Old Hoon.

Hi Tim,

Might be OK, and might not be. There's two rules of thumb that kick in here. Firstly, never ever weld up the holes from one set of studs in a casting, which in nearly all cases a hub is (gets all very scientific and complicated as to why not - just take our word for it that it shouldn't be done); and secondly don't re-pitch a 4-stud hub to a 5-stud, or any other odd combination. A 4 onto 4 like what you want to do is usually OK, especially if the PCDs are only slightly different, because there's tons of room for you to simply re-drill your new PCD in between the old one. Having said that however, that will only work if it's not a situation where the rotor is a separate item to the hub, because in this case the area between the wheel studs is usually used to attach the rotor to the hub.

Make sure you use someone who really knows what they're doing though - if you don't know anyone suitable, ask your LVV certifier.

In a perfect world, every wheel would locate snugly over the hub centre spigot, so that the hub is supporting the weight of the wheel, and the wheel nuts or bolts (bolts like RX2 Mazda etc) are only clamping the wheel against the hub. In reality, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of fitments every day where this doesn't happen, so the wheel nuts or bolts both clamp and support the weight of the wheel, but, provided everything else is right, history tells us it shouldn't be a problem, and it can be LVV certified like it. LVVTA certainly recommends having that spigot support, and reputable wheel manufacturers actually provide spacer rings that fill lots of common gap sizes so that this can be achieved. If your wheel shop can't supply these, ring the guys at BG Marketing in East Tamaki Auckland - they'll probably have something to solve the problem.

Re the caliper bracket; it depends if you're talking about welding two or more pieces of a fabricated caliper bracket, or welding a caliper bracket to the suspension hub or stub axle. If it's the former, it can be done, but you'll need to be dealing with a seriously specialised, competent, and reputable expert, with NDT (crack-testing) carried out afterwards. If I knew where you live I could recommend someone (to all readers who write in, let us know what area you're from, and we can direct you through this column to a good specialist engineer, and the most appropriate LVV certifier). If it's the latter however, welding to a hub or stub axle is an absolutely no-way, no-can-do, forget-it scenario, because of the problems associated with welding a forging or a casting.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Steve,

Sounds to me like someone bought cold coffee and stale donuts that day... There is no defined amount specified in the regulations for bits sticking out the front or back. The relevant piece of legislation says A protruding object or fitting that has a functional purpose must be installed so that the risk of the object or fitting causing injury to a person is minimised.

Without seeing a picture, it's hard to say, but my guess is that most people (provided their coffee and donuts were OK) wouldn't view your tow-hook as being in breach of that requirement.

There's still a lot of those Sentras about - they were part of a one-make series that lots of our successful racing drivers took part in, including Scott Dixon, and they're still a neat little car and go well in clubman's racing at Pukekohe, Taupo, and Manfeild.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Dale,

Good question - I've seen it myself too - usually on old 50's sports cars like the D-type Jaguars where there's nothing to mount a licence plate on the front.

I checked this out with the LTSA's Transport Registry Centre, and they confirmed that it is an offence to display a plate that is re-manufactured, bent to fit or otherwise made up of stickers, etc. The plate must be displayed as it was originally supplied and there are no exemptions allowed.

No-one could give a good reason why such a hard line is taken so it's up to your imagination - something to do with making sure the speed camera gets you maybe...?

Peace to you too, dude.

Old Hoon

Hi Josh,

The low volume system requires that a lvv certifier inspects and makes sure that the vehicle is safe in its entirety, so basically, all the mods you carry out must be thoroughly checked out by the lvv certifier. Whether or not the lvv certifier will want to see the vehicle during the modification process depends largely on the extent of modifications, and the level of the certifier's familiarity with your type of vehicle. If it's a bolt-up conversion, you'll probably only need to present the vehicle when it's finished, but that's really for the lvv certifier to say, not me. There's 3 lvv certifiers in the Palmerston region, who are both good at their job and qualified for this type of modification, all of whom are familiar with your type of vehicle; Danny McKenna (06) 358 6884, Marty Jones (06) 358 5570, and Dave Short (06) 323 4935. Decide who you're going to use, follow their lead, and you'll be right.

Cheers,

Old Hoon.

Hi Tony,

The law of the land says that if you modify any part of a vehicle in a way that could affect any safety-related legal requirement, it must be low volume certified. Door retention systems are covered by safety-related legal requirements (LTSA have a whole Rule about them), so yes, what you are doing does need to be certified.

LVVTA's low volume vehicle standard allows shaved exterior door handles, and for electric solenoid systems to be installed.

To follow are the relevant clauses from LVVTA Low Volume Standard 155-20(01) Door Retention Systems:

2.6(3)	An exterior door handle or other opening device may be positioned in a hidden location on a low volume vehicle, provided that either:
	(a)  the location is such that the handle or opening device is shielded or protected to prevent unintentional activation by contact from road debris; or
	(b)  the handle or opening device is positioned in such a way so as not to be able to be unintentionally activated.
2.6(4)	A door fitted to a low volume vehicle may be opened from outside the vehicle, if fitted with:
	(a)  a fixed electrically-operated unlatching device; or
	(b)  a remotely operated and electrically operated unlatching device, provided that a fail-safe inter-lock system is incorporated to prevent unlatching of the doors unless:     (i)  the ignition system is switched off; and     (ii)  a gearbox inhibitor switch operating only in neutral and park, is engaged.

The main thrust of these regs are:

Hi David,

Your situation is exactly the reason the whole exhaust industry, together with LVVTA, have lobbied the LTSA to work toward implementing a system that is reasonable, achievable, and importantly, measurable and repeatable - to stop the many instances of just this type of wasted time and money that are going on around the country. LVVTA is part way through developing an emissions standard that will cover noise issues, which, although developed for scratch-built hot rods and sports cars, may help provide adjudication at times like this.

Must say though, life's obviously not all bad for you if your Dad loans you the family Evo 7 - when I was a young hoon I got a crusty old Rover 90 - you probably don't know what they look like, but don't bother looking it up; you'd probably go into cardiac arrest from laughing so hard.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Michael,

Good question. No, there isn't a cut-off point that says bigger brakes have to be fitted. As you can imagine the number of potential vehicles/conversions is almost infinite, so it would be near impossible to regulate. Then add to that the fact that some cars come out from the factory with useless brakes (VN Commodore for example) whilst other cars have such awesome braking systems that you can throw gobs more power at them and they're still just fine (Honda VTiR/SiR etc). As you rightly mention, decent performance brake pads on the front can make a huge difference (cures the Commodores), likewise direct brake rotor replacements from an aftermarket supplier like DBA can give a great improvement also (through better material composition). Neither of these two mods require a LVV cert.

So to answer your question, the determination as to whether or not your brakes are man enough for their new job, is made by the LVV certifier as part of his inspection process. In the case of a power upgrade, he carries out not just a one-off performance test, but a cyclic brake-resistance fade test, slowing the car from 100 kph to 0 several times in immediate succession, which ensures that after repeated applications (simulating a hard twisty and hilly road work-out) you're not going to run out of stoppers. The LVV certifiers often find that the brakes are good once, maybe twice, but often on the third or fourth application the pedal's gone rock hard and car just keeps on going.

The best advice for those of you doing an engine upgrade or conversion, and wanting to retain the standard brakes, is before you take your car in for its cert, firstly make sure the brakes are all in good condition (fresh good quality fluid etc), and secondly, exactly what Michael suggests - talk to a specialist and fit a good quality set of aftermarket pads to the front. A final word of caution here - don't go too wild on the pads - the pads that serious race cars use require a lot of heat to build them up to a point where they work properly (some pads will need one or two hard-out laps around Pukekohe before they're fully in business - these are not suitable for road-going performance cars, they can be dangerous.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Ben,

Sounds like some confusion there. You can have your Recaro seats (yes, certainly a reputable brand!) without the need for a LVV cert provided that:

• they've been bolted in to unmodified seat anchorages;
• that the anchorage or operation of the seatbelts are not affected;
• that the belts are still correctly located in relation to your hip and shoulder;
• and that you have no airbag.

Mark, your understanding is dead right. What has probably occurred during the issue of your pink sticker is a simple misunderstanding of the law in relation to vehicle ground clearance. What has confused many people in relation to this subject, including members of the NZ Police, is the issue of an information sheet by the Land Transport Safety Authority referred to as LTSA Infosheet 1.76, issued June 1999, from LTSA's Safer Vehicles Policy Section. This infosheet sets out a threshold for warrant of fitness issuing agents, to enable them to readily identify those vehicles with suspension modifications that require low volume vehicle certification, from those that don't. One of the threshold criteria is the 100mm ground clearance guideline. This means that if a vehicle has suspension modifications that cause the available clearance between the underside of the vehicle and the ground to be reduced to less than 100mm, the vehicle must be referred to a low volume vehicle certifier for certification. If there is 100 mm of ground clearance (and provided all other criteria are met), no LVV certification is required.

LVVTA has recently attempted to clarify the situation in regard to what parts of the vehicle the minimum of 100mm ground clearance applies to. The LVV Certification Threshold Schedule (found in the LTSA Vehicle inspection Requirements Manual [In-service Certification]) says that:

'LVV certification is not required provided that a minimum of 100 mm ground clearance exists below any part of the vehicle structure, or any steering, braking, or suspension component.'

A footnote at the bottom of the page (page 9-1-4) states that:

'this does not include such items as exhaust pipes and exterior body panels that do not contribute to the structural strength of the vehicle'/.

This manual is what all Warrant of Fitness issuers use.

You shouldn't have to remove your front bumper and side skirts (provided all other criteria relating to frontal impact, external projections etc are met, and you should write to the Police pointing out that you believe the pink sticker was incorrectly issued. You should enclose a photocopy of this article so the person considering your application can refer to the appropriate legislation referred to above.

Good luck,

Old Hoon

Hi Dave,

Your windows may be OK. For Warrant of Fitness purposes, the windscreen must have a visible light transmittance (VLT) of 70% (70% looks really clear) and all the other windows on a car 35% (which is a reasonably heavy tint).

Four wheel drives, utes and vans can have any level of tint on the rear windows and rear side windows, as long as they've got two exterior rear view mirrors.

Sounds like you need to go and see a friendly WOF man, and ask him to do a check for you. These guys all have a VLT meter or other VLT measuring system.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Michael,

Mate, I'd love to give you good news on this one, but....

A lot of people, including us and MotorSport New Zealand, have put a lot of work into proposing a system that would enable a concession to the frontal impact rules for legitimate motor-sport vehicles. It was to be known as the 'Dedicated Motor-sport Vehicle' concession. Unfortunately, after a lot of discussion and consideration, LTNZ aren't willing to run with it, primarily because of the potential for the system to be abused by people who would seek to gain commercial advantage from it - in other words bring the vehicles in, meet the criteria to gain the concession, and then sell the vehicles, or give someone who doesn't meet the criteria the vehicle to drive. We thought we had things pretty water-tight with sufficient checks and balances, but LTNZ have to be super careful - once these things are switched on, they're sometimes very hard to switch off again. We'd like to keep chipping away quietly at this, but don't hold your breath!

Certainly don't import a non frontal impact compliant vehicle, as you'll hit a brick wall at the import compliance centre - they won't even be able to issue a VIN to get the road registration process started.

Cheers, Old Hoon

Hi Anton,

The simple answer is no, you can't have a full-harness belt in a road-going vehicle (yeah, yeah, I know it seems crazy too, but there are reasons why LTSA won't allow it, which I won't get into here).

There's only two ways you can have a full-harness seatbelt:

1. The Low Volume Standards allow for full-harness belts, but only in single-row seat scratch-built cars like custom-built sports cars, kit cars, and hot rods.

2. The only way to have a full-harness belt in a production road car is with a Motorsport NZ Authority Card. This doesn't provide for import drag cars though.

However, there is an alternative Authority Card system being developed for vehicles that compete in drag racing competition classes. It will solve the problem for many - it's just taking a while to get it to the top of the to-do pile. We'll give you that info when it's in place.

All the best, Old Hoon.

Hi Dale,

Fuzz, huh? Man, that's an old one - we used to call the Police 'the Fuzz' back in the '60s. How old are you?

This sure is a tricky one. There's no rule anywhere that says "every vehicle must be fitted with a bonnet", but the LTNZ (Used to be Land Transport Safety Authority, now Land Transport New Zealand) have things called 'general safety requirements' (GSR's) contained within their various rules.

In this case, there's a GSR relating to external projections (the rule that tries to minimise extra damage inflicted on a pedestrian by sharp pokey bits on the front of a vehicle), and this basically requires that a vehicle shouldn't be modified in such a way as to increase the likelihood or risk of injury to any person who might come into contact with the vehicle. A scenario might be that you bump a pedestrian at low speed, causing only a minor leg injury, but the person receives additional, or even worse injuries, as a result of making contact with the alternator belt, exposed cam-belt, battery clamp studs, or whatever.

This kind of thinking might sound a bit over-the-top, but it's surprising what proportion of total road accident injuries and deaths pedestrian hits make up.

What this means for you and me, is that the decision as to whether our car with no bonnet, or with a supercharger protruding through the bonnet, is in breach of that GSR, is very much up to the interpretation of the warrant of fitness issuer or Police Officer on the side of the road.

Not much help, I know. In the meantime, the main issue is that nothing is projecting such as a fan, uncovered drive belt or sharp object that might cause additional injury to someone you skittle.

Is a clear bonnet (polycarbonate or clear resin) an option for you guys?

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Tony,

Could need to be certed - depends on what's involved in the conversion. To follow is the relevant part of our Modification Threshold Schedule, (which is reproduced in the LTSA Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual - the document the WoF man uses to do his WoF inspection from).

You can do a gearbox conversion without a LVV Cert if:

• the OE gearbox cross-member has not been heated, cut, or welded; and
• the OE gearbox cross-member mounting to the OE body or chassis members is unchanged; and
• no replacement gearbox cross-member is used; and
• the OE drive-shaft(s) is un-modified; and
• no substantial modifications have occurred to the floor or gearbox tunnel area, other than provision for gear-shift mechanism.

Too early to give you detailed answers yet Tom, but yes, you're right, change is a-comin'. The Emission Rule at the moment only applies to 'entry' which means vehicles coming into the country and being registered here for the first time, but when the full Rule takes affect in (I'm guessing) somewhere between one year and two years, it will apply to 'in-service' as well, which means every vehicle already existing on the road.

The Rule isn't in draft form yet, so I can't tell you what's in it, but the discussion paper has been out to the industry, and we've made our submissions on it. My understanding is that classics (that generally means older cars in predominantly standard form) won't be affected by the rule, as long as they're not old smokers, but the subject of removing emission control equipment such as 'cats' on late model vehicles that were originally manufactured to meet an emission standard, is a big question that the Ministry of Transport is looking into. All I can say at this stage is that we'll be involved in the consultation process all the way through, and we'll be influencing the direction that the Rule takes in relation to modified and classic vehicles as much as we're able to. Having said that, I should also say that our influence may not count for a great deal - the environment issue is huge - New Zealand is bound by its membership of, or participation in, the Kyoto Protocol to clean up it's air, so your and my opinion isn't going to count for a whole bunch in the face of all that, is it!?

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Here's your problem. You've got a limited slip diff (you are telling the truth, aren't you D?) which is completely legal. A locked diff (welded gears) or spool isn't legal. A super-tight limited slip diff (LSD) (which Nismo LSDs are notorious for being) can cause the same kind of low-speed tight-radius 'grabbing' that a spool or locked diff will. Because you can't easily pick the difference from outside, the solution to your problem is to avoid attracting attention to yourself. This isn't difficult according to diff expert Lee Marriner (Diffs"R"Us in Otahuhu), who says you can quickly and easily loosen the binding action by adding a quantity of friction modifier to your diff oil. That's a whole easier and cheaper than re-certification.

Cheers, old Hoon.

Hi Jeremy,

Yup, there is a problem with HIDs, but from what you're saying I think you're OK. There's no problem with installing a complete HID lamp set-up from another vehicle, as long as the lamps meet the Warrant of Fitness requirements. And you don't need to get them certed.

The legality issues come about when people want to fit an HID bulb into an existing lamp that isn't an original HID lamp. The HID bulbs need to work with a certain type of lens that is designed specifically for use with an HID bulb, as the light scatter an HID bulb gives is quite different to a halogen bulb. So short answer is, it's not legal to fit an HID bulb into a non-HID lamp housing and lens, but it's fine to fit a complete HID lamp.

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Not sure if I've seen them or not...???!! Bagboy, us old hoons have been using flame-throwers for 10 years or more!

The problem we have with flame-throwers is this. You and I see our cars (whether it's a STI WRX or a big-block Chev Impala) as things of beauty, things we cherish, and things which make our lives complete and fulfilled. The vast majority of the people who set the laws of the land within the government (and don't forget that although we write the standards for the low volume world, they still have to approve them) see a car as nothing more than a means of getting from home to work and back again, something that is noisy and smelly, and that presents a great deal of risk to their personal safety. These people would much rather not have cars at all, and in fact some don't. So, can you imagine me holding my hand on my heart and telling these guys that flame-throwers are good and we need to be allowed to have them?! I'm not even going there. The answer would be an emphatic NO, and I'd lose a little credibility for having even asked. So, sadly, flame-throwers will always be an 'outlaw' modification that will need to be well hidden, and not used in front of the local constabulary.

Us old guys have gotten away with it for all these years because we only use them late at night in the fairground or wherever the hot rod event is being held. So to avoid the 'pinkys', don't use them on the street!

Cheers, Old Hoon.

Hi Ryan,

Provided it is a professionally manufactured item, securely attached, and the outer ends of the wing do not extend beyond the widest part of the body, you shouldn't have been rejected. There seems to be a real problem out there with some WoF issuers taking what seems to be an unreasonably hard line on vehicles with modifications, and in some cases not even following the requirements set down in the documentation they are required to follow.

I know it is not much help to you right now, but all I can suggest is to try a different WoF outlet next time. Please understand that LVVTA does not advocate shopping around for WoFs that compromise safety, but I think it is most reasonable for you to look around and find someone who has got a good grasp of the LTSA VIRM, and in particular the Modification Threshold Schedule tables contained therein.

Just a thought, Performance Car Mag has a forum doesn't it? Is there any future in the idea of you guys collectively identifying the WoF issuers who do a good job for performance import enthusiasts and listing them for the benefit of others?

It's a real pain for all of us - we get calls every day from people who are being nailed at WoF time for things they shouldn't be.

Best of luck.

Old Hoon.