WA Licensing department and the wheel saga
#1 _434LX_
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:08 PM
Step 1 is to fit a 350 crate engine and satisfy the WA licensing department.
I carefully wrote out my application paperwork and sat back and waited for five weeks for a reply.
Last week my application returned with a long list of "Approved" 350 chev, TH350, 9", 290mm hoppers kit, suspension, extractors
and then a big "rejected" for 15" wheels !
So who knows the legalities of running 15's in WA ?
Looks like I will have to run HQ front rotors and 14's to get it over the pits....
#2
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:34 PM
I have approval for 235/40/17 on a 17x8 rim.
You may have got knocked back for width, overall diameter or the wrong rim size for the tyre.
#3
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:44 PM
#4 _Herne_
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:46 PM
I also got approved & licensed with 17x8's all round, 245/40 fronts & 255/40 rears. I think it was 40's, might be 45's. Will have to check. What original tyre size did you use?
40's on the rear sounds right, it was what I was instructed to get. 45's on the front yeah.
Cheers
Herne
#5 _434LX_
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:58 PM
Was knocked back on overall diameter
I think I put 175 60R 13 as original and applied for 205 45 15's
#6
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:03 PM
#7
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:12 PM
#8
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:25 PM
When I did mine I also did TINKERS and she was going for 15's
I think her restrictions were more than mine... but I don't have that paperwork handy
I asked for 350 and hers was 308 too
I would call them and clarify why
#9
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:31 PM
Thanks for the replies,
Was knocked back on overall diameter
I think I put 175 60R 13 as original and applied for 205 45 15's
If you want 205/45/15 then use the LX S & SL tyre 175SR13 (175/70/13) as the reference tyre. Just ring them and tell them you got the reference tyre wrong on the application.
175/70/13 give the following acceptable tyre specifications.
Max Width (1.3) 228 mm
Dia (-26 to +15) 549 mm - 590 mm
The 205/45/15 with a diameter of 566 mm will then be within the specified diameter range.
Using the 175/60/13 the diameter was a problem.
Max Width (1.3) 228 mm
Dia (-26 to +15) 514 mm - 555 mm
You will find the NCOP rules on page 23 of the NCOP11 Section LS Suspension and Steering V2 01Jan2011
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 17 May 2011 - 09:37 PM.
#10 _434LX_
Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:57 PM
Thanks for the replies,
Was knocked back on overall diameter
I think I put 175 60R 13 as original and applied for 205 45 15's
If you want 205/45/15 then use the LX S & SL tyre 175SR13 (175/70/13) as the reference tyre. Just ring them and tell them you got the reference tyre wrong on the application.
175/70/13 give the following acceptable tyre specifications.
Max Width (1.3) 228 mm
Dia (-26 to +15) 549 mm - 590 mm
The 205/45/15 with a diameter of 566 mm will then be within the specified diameter range.
Using the 175/60/13 the diameter was a problem.
Max Width (1.3) 228 mm
Dia (-26 to +15) 514 mm - 555 mm
You will find the NCOP rules on page 23 of the NCOP11 Section LS Suspension and Steering V2 01Jan2011
Thanks for the input everyone, that clears that issue up.
and ls2lxhatch
Cheers
Andrew
#11
Posted 18 May 2011 - 03:12 AM
If you use the SL/R & SS tyre CR70H13 (200/70/13) as the refernce tyre then you will have more options should you change your mind on tyre size. A 205/50/15 will be ok but the 205/45/15 would be under size.
Width (1.3) 260
Dia (-26 to +15) 584 � 625
There is also the L34/A9X DR70H14 (205/70/14) if you need larger diameter.
Width (1.3) 266
Dia (-26 to +15) 617 � 658
#12 _brakefabwa_
Posted 18 May 2011 - 11:01 AM
#13
Posted 18 May 2011 - 11:19 AM
See page 11 of the NCOP3 Section LA Engine V2 01Jan2011
In WA they typically use 1204 kg for LH/LX/UC sedan and hatch which gives 1204 x 5 = 6020 cc (367 ci).
In theory you should be able to get them to use the A9X sedan tare which is 1306 kg but that still limits you to 1306 * 5 = 6530 cc (398 ci).
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 18 May 2011 - 11:23 AM.
#14
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:26 PM
#15 _434LX_
Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:07 PM
why not try for the big block from the start you will still need to do the strenghting on the car 2 cars im involed with have had or have big blocks in them one is well known and has the chassis mods the other was a drag/street car and it tore it a new venting
Its a 434 Small block, so the 350 rego is fine
and will be putting a chassis kit on it.
#16
Posted 19 May 2011 - 12:09 AM
Legally you can not stroke any engine beyond the NCOP maximum. Whether anyone will know or care is another debate.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 19 May 2011 - 12:14 AM.
#17 _brakefabwa_
Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:36 PM
slr 454 if built today parts would be able to be rego'd but not all of it in its currant format
#18 _Herne_
Posted 19 May 2011 - 04:02 PM
Read the NCOP and then go check with a proper engineer. The engineer that says you can reg a big block has it all wrong.sorry to say but you can fit a big block legally just depends on how far you want to go and get a engineer involed atthe start i have just spoken to mine and said yeah but you have to do this etc
slr 454 if built today parts would be able to be rego'd but not all of it in its currant format
Herne
#19 _434LX_
Posted 21 May 2011 - 10:10 AM
Did you put the chassis kit on the application? If not then you would be better off fitting it after registration.
Legally you can not stroke any engine beyond the NCOP maximum. Whether anyone will know or care is another debate.
Chassis kit is going on at a later stage, when the 350 comes out and the car goes in for a lick of paint.
#20
Posted 21 May 2011 - 06:20 PM
Big blocks are a thing of the past in Torana's! Bodgy engineers are apparently not LOL...The NCOP is definitely adopted in WA and there are no exceptions to the rules....
#21 _brakefabwa_
Posted 24 May 2011 - 06:59 PM
we have worked on a 427 stroker with twin turbos that is in a commodore ute this vehicle is a icv and has had the money spent the combo in this car far exceeds the ncop and has been signed off by 2 engineers one of
being the head of the tech section over here
#22
Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:40 PM
#23
Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:50 PM
we have worked on a 427 stroker with twin turbos that is in a commodore ute this vehicle is a icv and has had the money spent the combo in this car far exceeds the ncop and has been signed off by 2 engineers one of being the head of the tech section over here"
An ICV is a different kettle of fish. Would mean that a Torana would have to comply with most modern day ADRs. Very difficult to do nowadays. The NCOP is administered here in ACT and there are no allowances outside of the code for increase in engine displacement. Maximum in ACT is is 6.3L. Big bloody engine anyway.
Good luck if your engineer says you can do it over there. Goes against the grain of the NCOP but every state is different in the way they interpret things.
Cheers, Gerry.
#24 _fatlh5000_
Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:51 PM
if you re read my post it does say depends on how far you want to go.Any car fitted with a big has to under go testing for it the extra testing involed for a icv is not that much harder
we have worked on a 427 stroker with twin turbos that is in a commodore ute this vehicle is a icv and has had the money spent the combo in this car far exceeds the ncop and has been signed off by 2 engineers one of
being the head of the tech section over here
How or why does a car get signed off by 2 engineers..... dont you require ONE engineers certificate ?
Or did both engineers sign the same engineers certificate, or did they each issue an engineers certificate for the same vehicle, for the same mods ?
Just trying to make sense of what has been said.
#25 _brakefabwa_
Posted 25 May 2011 - 10:18 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users