The thorny interpretation issue in the above are the words "performance levels". The springs in my Bilstein kit have different spring rates from stock (higher) and the dampers have different damping rates from stock ( better valving) and my muffler, though not obnoxious, is louder than stock. (and so is a stock muffler with baffles rusted out internally)
|
|
|
New safety regulations start July 1st?!?
- Thread starter johnscruiser
- Start date
Understandable; Though I suspect should it be called a fail if you tried to obtain a safety, an inspection by the MTO would overturn this. Moreover, different valving and spring rates are not noticeable on visual inspection; a small adjustable coil-over dropped onto a standard mcpherson strut would be (yes, I've seen this)
Being an old geezer this is the assumed problem before even reading the new regs. In any industry and every area of law the onus is always pushed further on to the end user. We've seen this in the construction industry forever. Everybody values safe practices but the regs are written in a lowest common denominator way that you're always skirting non-compliance. But they want the job done. Everybody understands the game, if you want a job, you play cat and mouse. And you never forget who holds the upper hand. Now I can work a 9 hr. shift and in my free time I'll chase the MTO inspector with my new to me hand held durometer? Bushings, we need new bushings?
Anyway, say the regs are written mostly in stone but interpretations can be levied by individuals on both sides and subject to conflicting agendas. Thats just another level of BS I don't want to deal with. If it was proven that broken old cars were an ongoing problem I might change my opinion in the interest of the greater public good. Should everybody be inconvenienced because of a small problem? Where does it stop? Home inspections?
Last edited:
I don't agree with much of the new reg, but I do think the level of creative interpretation will be lower, thought it may take some time and clarification before that takes hold. As for the part about broken old cars being a problem, may I suggest maybe it's not a problem because of the regulation we've had for the last 30 years? Much like you don't often see cars billowing smoke like you did before the emission testing came along.. Anyway, be slightly thankful a yearly inspection hasn't been tabled, as right now this only applies for ownership transfers (and occasionally insurance company request).. unfortunately, that may not be that far down the road as griff2 suggested. Proximity to LRT might not be so bad after all
daught
Well-known member
With reasonable guidelines I would not mind a 2-year mandatory inspection. Every country in the EU has that. Cars are kept in better condition and you don't see POSes everywhere. The resale value of a well kept car is higher. Just try to buy a car on kijiji. Most of the cars over 10 years old are junk. Most people with older cars have some loose suspension components. They have no idea what's going on. Then again this is ON, so the guv will find a way to fudge it.
"Safeties" have been around as long as I can remember. I realize there are holes in that process what with leaving due diligence to the motorist over long term ownership. Still cars have gotten better over the years due to foreign competition. Probably foreign countries were ahead in safety standards and that carried over to cars sold here. So I'm not sure how much mechanical fails contributed to road carnage here.
Emissions were continually being cleaned up before the Ontario Drive Clean ever came into effect. There was public outcry, accusations hurled, and sure enough look at all the grief Drive Clean generated.
But here's the biggy: scope creep, annual safeties and what ever else they can think of. I know I'm just ranting now but there is a pattern, we should all see it. As pointed out earlier, always need to add more rules. Stagnation is regression. Politicos need to justify their existence. Even if I agreed with every new regulation I would argue it's implementation purely on principle. We're going to hell in a very safe and clean hand cart, we are.
Oh I see it.. and I don't disagree
As for junkers v road carnage, when I was in a less high end facility I could count on seeing at least 5-10 a month towed in with ball-joints; there's still plenty of junk out there.
What I have are adjustable coil-overs ... that's what the kit consists of. (front ride height is near stock, rear lowered about 20mm, this is within the bounds of what the kit allows for ... and it is TuV approved for this vehicle model in Germany)
Might not be an issue any more ... my clutch has been acting up for a while and on the way home today it has finally gotten to the point where it is really getting hard to drive. Time to pull the transmission in my driveway and see what's going on in there and decide whether it's worth putting a clutch into it. (car is worth nothing and owes me nothing)
The indecent I was referring to involved a 2004 civic. The coil over was half the length of the original spring and was just dropped onto the original strut. As you lifted the vehicle and the strut decompressed, you could grab hold of the spring and move it vertically at least 10cm. When you lowered it back to the ground, loud clunks and pops could be heard as the springs "settled back into position" // I put that in quotes because that's how the owner explained it to me when I voiced my concerns lol
Lead tech at an independent
LOL Improper spring for the application ... sounds like a butchered attempt to lower the car by too much and without using springs and dampers that properly match!
I agree that something of that nature should be grounds for a fail, but not all aftermarket parts should be automatically assumed to be bad. Not even all home-made parts/repairs should automatically be assumed to be bad. The butcher jobs are another matter ...
I agree that something of that nature should be grounds for a fail, but not all aftermarket parts should be automatically assumed to be bad. Not even all home-made parts/repairs should automatically be assumed to be bad. The butcher jobs are another matter ...
Guess my car would fail based on non OEM wiper attachment. 
If a cop saw something that he/she thought suspicious could they order you to have the vehicle checked out? Consider that they aren't licenced mechanics.
I saw a cambered ricer today and the tires didn't have the required clearance IMO. Could a cop pull it over and force some form of action?
I saw a cambered ricer today and the tires didn't have the required clearance IMO. Could a cop pull it over and force some form of action?
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
I didn't read through all the posts or the links, but will this bring an end to lifted vehicles like modified trucks or jeeps?
AFAIK, if there's a legit safety concern, yes, they can demand that the vehicle be subject to an inspection. However, given the amount of rice junk out there as well as this new "stance" fad (that I just don't understand), and how little attention much of it seems to garner from the the police, I don't think it's something that's enacted very regularly.
There's a kid with an old BMW that I see driving around Oshawa fairly regularly with one of these retarded looking things. Someone tell me how that's safe.
Much of this only comes into play when the vehicles change hands, but yes, it would seem that under these rules pretty much any vehicle that has been modified from stock even moderately will have little hope in hell of ever passing a safety anymore.
Cops are already doing it with current safety test, what makes you they wont with this new test.
The 4x4 community will not like this. There are a couple fundamental differences between going lower (slightly, of course) and going higher. Lower reduces roll-over tendency, higher raises it and that's bad. Either direction affects bumper and crash structure compatibility but lowering mostly affects the vehicle's own driver (and the inch or two that it's usually safe to do isn't enough to make an appreciable difference) but raising increases the risk to others. Headlight height is another issue. I work with auto industry suppliers and the whole crash structure issue would be a whole lot easier if all vehicles had crash structures at compatible heights.
They're finally getting around to banning stinger bumpers. Took a few people getting their heads turned to mush in side impact street collisions for them to clue in.
|
|
|
|
|