Daryl Walford

Athol wrote:
> Daryl Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> Since we are speaking about engineering certificates do we need one for
>> fitting a 4AGZE into a AE86?
>> The replacement engine is the same capacity as the original and bolts
>> straight in although the original engine had 58kw and the new one has 123kw.
>
> But it is also supercharged and may be designed to comply with a different
> emissions rule (either Australian or overseas). Even bolting a turbo or
> supercharger onto an original engine (eg a gutless Toyota 3L diesel engine
> with a turbo that takes it from totally gutless to boringly slow :-) ) is
> required to be certified. In all cases, unless the exhaust system is the
> original system for the new engine, which is known to comply with the right
> noise ADR for the year of the vehicle, it'll need a noise test.
>
You confirmed what I already thought, the car is a 1983 and the engine
is a 1992 or 1993 so I assume we have to comply with the emission rules
that applied at the time the engine was built.

> With a known emission complying engine being dropped into a car, it still
> has to be engineered but doesn't need emission testing (or smoke testing,
> in the case of filthy pre-emission diesels).
>
>> It also has a T series rear axle with a TRD LSD and disc brakes.
>
> If they weren't an original option on that model in Australia, they need
> to be certified.
>
> That's the case for NSW at least. Your mileage may vary. :-)
>

AFAIK the rules are much the same.


Daryl

Athol

Daryl Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Athol wrote:

> You confirmed what I already thought, the car is a 1983 and the engine
> is a 1992 or 1993 so I assume we have to comply with the emission rules
> that applied at the time the engine was built.

Yep.

> AFAIK the rules are much the same.

AFAIK, NSW, QLD and VIC have all not adopted the national code of
practice (AKA dogs breakfast). The older separate rule books, although
clearly separately written, are more consistent with each other than
with the new NCOP that was written by taking chunks from the various
state and territory rules and trying to fit them together...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

RogerM

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:g98923$16l$1@aioe.org...
> jackbadger56 <castle56@gmail.com> wrote:
>> gregori <gregori.3ev...@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> I was travelling along Gardeners Rd at Kingsford yesterday.
>>> Its 3 lanes wide and the police had 2 of the lanes blocked forcing
>>> everyone to pass them in a single lane.
>>> as I approached the unmarked cop car (dark tinted windows) in the
>>> centre lane
>>> mounted on a tripod beside the car was what looked similar to a small
>>> radar device. Cylindrical in shape and was pointed down wards at an
>>> angle towards
>>> the front engine compartment of each car that passed by.
>
>>> As we were only travelling at a few KMs/hr it was obviously not a speed
>>> check.
>>> The driver in front of me was pulled over and there was probably 3 or 4
>>> other vehicles being booked at the time.
>>> Probably 5 cop cars and twice as many police.
>
>>> Any ideas what they were doing/checking?
>
>> Might have been this new-fangled plate-reader in action; booking
>> unregistered cars.
>
> The description fits perfectly.
>
> The camera takes a photo of the front of the vehicle and, using software
> similar to that used on the safe-t-(s)cam system, the system locates and
> reads the number plate. It is then automatically looked up on the police
> system and the RTA DRIVES registration system.
>
> The camera only covers one lane of traffic at a time. It is not able to
> do multiple lanes, so the funnelling makes sense for its operation even
> if it doesn't make sense from a traffic flow POV.
>
> The computer search will flag more than just unregistered and stolen
> vehicles. It will also flag intelligence on likely occupants of the
> vehicle
> in relation to all sorts of stuff including outstanding warrants, drug
> posession, drug or alcohol use whilst driving (DUI), posess stolen goods,
> etc..
>
> When the computer tells the cops to stop a particular vehicle in the
> traffic stream, it also tells them all of the details of why...
>
> While I don't like the fact that they're using it in a way that ****s up
> traffic flow, I do like the fact that the cops are using this targetted
> approach rather than randomly picking on people for speeding.
>
> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

LOL, you have the cart b4 the horse again Athol. The camera is designed to
read number plates for a variety of reasons.
1. Too many fines from photographed offending vehicles are not displaying
the plates clearly, thus resulting in many infringement notices being sent
to the wrong address.
2. There has been an increase in the number of motorists spraying their
plates to avoid detection. This camera can also pick up these plates.

Roger

OzOne

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:42:32 +1000, gregori
<gregori.3evvr2@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote:

>
>I was travelling along Gardeners Rd at Kingsford yesterday.
>Its 3 lanes wide and the police had 2 of the lanes blocked forcing
>everyone to pass them in a single lane.
>as I approached the unmarked cop car (dark tinted windows) in the
>centre lane
>mounted on a tripod beside the car was what looked similar to a small
>radar device. Cylindrical in shape and was pointed down wards at an
>angle towards
>the front engine compartment of each car that passed by.
>
>As we were only travelling at a few KMs/hr it was obviously not a speed
>check.
>The driver in front of me was pulled over and there was probably 3 or 4
>other vehicles being booked at the time.
>Probably 5 cop cars and twice as many police.
>
>Any ideas what they were doing/checking?
>Thanks
>Greg

Number plate scanning.
Getting both unregistered cars and cars registered to drivers with
suspended licences to see who's driving it




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

RogerM

"OzOne" wrote in message newsdihb4l2mfcka83qkkllefpn35rv37lj5p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:42:32 +1000, gregori
> <gregori.3evvr2@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>I was travelling along Gardeners Rd at Kingsford yesterday.
>>Its 3 lanes wide and the police had 2 of the lanes blocked forcing
>>everyone to pass them in a single lane.
>>as I approached the unmarked cop car (dark tinted windows) in the
>>centre lane
>>mounted on a tripod beside the car was what looked similar to a small
>>radar device. Cylindrical in shape and was pointed down wards at an
>>angle towards
>>the front engine compartment of each car that passed by.
>>
>>As we were only travelling at a few KMs/hr it was obviously not a speed
>>check.
>>The driver in front of me was pulled over and there was probably 3 or 4
>>other vehicles being booked at the time.
>>Probably 5 cop cars and twice as many police.
>>
>>Any ideas what they were doing/checking?
>>Thanks
>>Greg
>
> Number plate scanning.
> Getting both unregistered cars and cars registered to drivers with
> suspended licences to see who's driving it
>

No Oz it's as I said earlier, purely for readability for the cameras which
are increasing around the countryside. Great money spinners for them but
they are having trouble with reading some of the plates as wrongful notices
are being sent to the wrong owners, let alone the ones they can't read.

Also technology also has allowed some unscrupulous owners to "spray" their
plate to prevent cameras reading them but is undetectable to the naked eye.
This is what they are doing.

It would take too long for the scanning to read and process then transfer
that info for checking as you said. All the cars would have to stop to do it
and that would be mayhem.

Roger

OzOne

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:485 +1000, "RogerM" <rogerm@justrucks.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"OzOne" wrote in message newsdihb4l2mfcka83qkkllefpn35rv37lj5p@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:42:32 +1000, gregori
>> <gregori.3evvr2@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was travelling along Gardeners Rd at Kingsford yesterday.
>>>Its 3 lanes wide and the police had 2 of the lanes blocked forcing
>>>everyone to pass them in a single lane.
>>>as I approached the unmarked cop car (dark tinted windows) in the
>>>centre lane
>>>mounted on a tripod beside the car was what looked similar to a small
>>>radar device. Cylindrical in shape and was pointed down wards at an
>>>angle towards
>>>the front engine compartment of each car that passed by.
>>>
>>>As we were only travelling at a few KMs/hr it was obviously not a speed
>>>check.
>>>The driver in front of me was pulled over and there was probably 3 or 4
>>>other vehicles being booked at the time.
>>>Probably 5 cop cars and twice as many police.
>>>
>>>Any ideas what they were doing/checking?
>>>Thanks
>>>Greg
>>
>> Number plate scanning.
>> Getting both unregistered cars and cars registered to drivers with
>> suspended licences to see who's driving it
>>
>
>No Oz it's as I said earlier, purely for readability for the cameras which
>are increasing around the countryside. Great money spinners for them but
>they are having trouble with reading some of the plates as wrongful notices
>are being sent to the wrong owners, let alone the ones they can't read.
>
>Also technology also has allowed some unscrupulous owners to "spray" their
>plate to prevent cameras reading them but is undetectable to the naked eye.
>This is what they are doing.
>
>It would take too long for the scanning to read and process then transfer
>that info for checking as you said. All the cars would have to stop to do it
>and that would be mayhem.
>
>Roger

Is that so?
Damn, I wouldn't have thought that readability would be high on the
priority list.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Marty

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:485 +1000, RogerM wrote:

> It would take too long for the scanning to read and process then
> transfer that info for checking as you said. All the cars would have to
> stop to do it and that would be mayhem.
>
You are talking out of your arsehole as usual.

It takes just a few milliseconds to scan the plates and just a few
milliseconds to send the data. A database query is also exceptionally
fast. You would be looking at a latency for the whole show of a second or
less.

RogerM

"Marty" <martywoyzak@communitymail.com> wrote in message
news:g9b8sg$3g3$1@aioe.org...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:485 +1000, RogerM wrote:
>
>> It would take too long for the scanning to read and process then
>> transfer that info for checking as you said. All the cars would have to
>> stop to do it and that would be mayhem.
>>
> You are talking out of your arsehole as usual.
>
> It takes just a few milliseconds to scan the plates and just a few
> milliseconds to send the data. A database query is also exceptionally
> fast. You would be looking at a latency for the whole show of a second or
> less.
>
Bullshit! You have the audacity to tell me I'm talking out of my arsehole! I
don't give a **** whether you believe me or not. The question was asked by
the OP, I made a phone call and that's the info I received. Now go back to
dreaming, you idiot!

Roger

Marty

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:54:32 +1000, RogerM wrote:

> Bullshit! You have the audacity to tell me I'm talking out of my
> arsehole! I don't give a **** whether you believe me or not. The
> question was asked by the OP, I made a phone call and that's the info I
> received. Now go back to dreaming, you idiot!
>
> Roger

If you didn't give a ****, you wouldn't have responded in such a
defensive manner.

Who did you make a call to? The local village user car lot manager? Go
back to your dreams of self importance.

OzOne

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:34:26 +0200 (CEST), Marty
<martywoyzak@communitymail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:54:32 +1000, RogerM wrote:
>
>> Bullshit! You have the audacity to tell me I'm talking out of my
>> arsehole! I don't give a **** whether you believe me or not. The
>> question was asked by the OP, I made a phone call and that's the info I
>> received. Now go back to dreaming, you idiot!
>>
>> Roger
>
>If you didn't give a ****, you wouldn't have responded in such a
>defensive manner.

Defensive?
He walked up and smacked your face!




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **