A Failed WOF.

[*Glenn* 854]

I've heard of people passing warrants at VTNZ that have had engine swaps.

??

[Venatus 2]

Im guessing that was in relation to a non-certed engine swap that wouldnt have been legal otherwise? If it was a stock to stock engine swap I dont think it would matter at all?

[*Glenn* 854]

Im guessing that was in relation to a non-certed engine swap that wouldnt have been legal otherwise? If it was a stock to stock engine swap I dont think it would matter at all?

It's only necessary if there is more than a 25% increase in HP. Then there is also the question of other mods.

[sascha 17]

It's only necessary if there is more than a 25% increase in HP. Then there is also the question of other mods.

Really? Do you have a link confirming that?

I'm sure you need a cert for increased engine displacement, regardless of HP, and technically you're meant to have one for any different engine that's not what your car had from standard.

EDIT: Heres what I'm talking about:

LVV Certifcation is not required provided that: (refer to lvv certifier if beyond the threshold below)

•when compared with the OE engine , the replacement engine:

•is of the same or less cubic capacity; and

•has equal or less weight: and

•has the same or less power output; and

•uses the same fuel (petrol, diesel, LPG, CNG); and

•uses the same unmodified attachment points and system (ie bolts-in); and

•uses the same ancillary equipment (accelerator linkages etc); and

•uses the same family of block and cylinder head from the same vehicle manufacturer; and

•is of the same configuration.

Edit again, just found this too, on the AA website:

The following illustrate significant modifications that require LVV Certification:

1.An engine that is not of the same type and specification as fitted when the vehicle was manufactured

2.An engine modification that significantly increases the engine's horsepower (i.e., in excess of 20%)

Edited May 21, 2011 by sascha

[*Glenn* 854]

Both your quotes are correct (law) I thought it was 25%

[kiwi535 538]

I find it quite amusing you guys KNOW your cars are not safe yet take the pass as some kind of WIN.Who is losing again?.

The only time i failed a warrant for tyres was similar to this..some kind of difference on the same axle,cant quite rember now,i just swapped the spare in

[kingkarl 136]

I find it quite amusing you guys KNOW your cars are not safe yet take the pass as some kind of WIN.Who is losing again?.

The only time i failed a warrant for tyres was similar to this..some kind of difference on the same axle,cant quite rember now,i just swapped the spare in

When you don't have a cent to your name spending $600 on a set of half decent tyres/replacement CVs isn't really an option.

[Greg111 13]

When you don't have a cent to your name spending $600 on a set of half decent tyres/replacement CVs isn't really an option.

Buy a cheap car that has cheap parts etc.

[kingkarl 136]

Buy a cheap car that has cheap parts etc.

80s toyota... doesn't get much cheaper than that.

[antil33t 90]

I've heard of people passing warrants at VTNZ that have had engine swaps.

Me, all the time.

[kiwi535 538]

When you don't have a cent to your name spending $600 on a set of half decent tyres/replacement CVs isn't really an option.

you dont have to buy a whole set of new tyres for the example The OP posted.Its a fact of life that owning a car can be an expensive business.However an unsafe car is a unsafe car and i would hope that most of us here know whats up without being told by a man in a pair of overalls every six months

[Greg111 13]

you dont have to buy a whole set of new tyres for the example The OP posted.Its a fact of life that owning a car can be an expensive business.However an unsafe car is a unsafe car and i would hope that most of us here know whats up without being told by a man in a pair of overalls every six months

You would hope so wouldn't you. Unfortunatly that's not the case, the amount of times i've condemed a car for tyres is crazy, mostly X5s due to their suspension setup, i know they're not Bimmersporters but still car people all the same.

People don't realise if they have a car accidant, their fault or not they won't be covered due to worn tyres, half the time the said people don't realise the condition of these tyres until the asseser denys the claim.

[Top Secret 2]

Me, all the time.

Well, to be fair there is no real discernible difference between a B20 and a B25.

Hondas with B18c swaps never seem to be picked up. I managed to get wofs with my civic with a B18c swap and coil-overs.

I don't like being failed for petty things at wofs, but if they fail me for something that is blatantly reducing the safety of my car then fair enough.

[kiwi535 538]

You would hope so wouldn't you. Unfortunatly that's not the case, the amount of times i've condemed a car for tyres is crazy, mostly X5s due to their suspension setup, i know they're not Bimmersporters but still car people all the same.

People don't realise if they have a car accidant, their fault or not they won't be covered due to worn tyres, half the time the said people don't realise the condition of these tyres until the asseser denys the claim.

yes i did get caught out once not long after i bought the 535 i got a puncture in the left rear and when I removed the wheel i found that tihe inside of the tyre was nearly down to the cords.The other rear was the same.I then kept an eye on the rear and never rotated the tyres from front left to right rear etc,the tyres always stayed on the same side,cos the fronts wore the outside and the rears tended to wear the inside.I dont know if this s why BMW recomend NOT to rotate tyres.

Edited May 22, 2011 by kiwi535

[Yankus 0]

And so it should be. I remember a few years back, a mate of mine's Legacy had a CV joint implode while he was driving - gave him a hell of a fright - almost threw him of the road, which when I drove the car - I could imagine. Phoned me thinking his car had fallen apart, I went & rescued him & car - to find the drivers front CV had imploded. This was at that stage a well maintained car albeit with a split boot.

No, torn C.V boots aren't a fail yet and all our cars go to VTNZ.

Also all Subaru's are CHRONIC for boots tearing and c.v. joints disintegrating. Not always in that order either.

They are common as mud repair to suby's.

[polley 916]

??

Yeah I mean non certed engine swaps.

A place also passed my friends E30 318i with M52 swap, well they failed it on the bucket seats and missing rear seats but they passed it on the re inspection with standard seats reinstalled.

Does anyone know what the deal is with removing the rear seats? I was under the impression it was fine as long as the seatbelts were also removed. (car is a coupe with non reclinable bucket seats, so no point in having back seats)

Edited May 23, 2011 by polley