NSW RTA Engine Modifications now VSB 14

[prasac]

after a discussion on another thread about the formula for calculating maximum engine capacity for a vehicle modifcation. i made a call to the RTA and to a Certified RTA accredited engineer. the RTA Technical Enquiry Line confirmed the new RTA laws being VSB 14 (changed from VSI 6) a more detailed look at the engine rules can be seen here http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...jan2011_v3.pdf

i then rang an RTA certified engineer, who confirmed the rule change although some exceptions may be considered (ones that won't bring too much attention to the engineer ) he was saying the majority of the engineers will follow the rules to the letter. he said, if you were to do a high HP car to try and keep it low-profile as he was aware of the RTA inspecting many cars that have been featured in magazines..

i recorded the phone call with the RTA (click on the picture, starts at 30-sec, volume may be a little low) the picture shows the table and how it is calculated.

[noflac52]

This has been around for a while and the vehicle weight used is the heaviest sedan variant for that particular model.

This one weight is used for utes, wagons, panelvans etc

[350125GO]

Last time I checked (the other day) they had different ones up - body on frame was allowed a higher displacement than unibody? Still, 4200LBS roughly * 5 = 9.5 litres.

[prasac]

Originally Posted by 350125GO

Last time I checked (the other day) they had different ones up - body on frame was allowed a higher displacement than unibody? Still, 4200LBS roughly * 5 = 9.5 litres.

that was the old VSI 6, i believe from 1st November 2012 these new rules come into place.

yeah, still big cube NA, from what the engineer was telling me alot of the guys are steering away from forced induction and just engineering NA cars.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by prasac

that was the old VSI 6, i believe from 1st November 2012 these new rules come into place.

yeah, still big cube NA, from what the engineer was telling me alot of the guys are steering away from forced induction and just engineering NA cars.

Yeah, this is exactly what i've run into with my XM Ute when I was making phone calls between March-June 2012. The RTA/RMS weren't sure when the VSB14 were coming in. (I've been too busy owner-building to make any progress on it unfortunately. But I knew that before I started.)

Effectively if I want a turbo six, then i'm allowed 1175kg x 3cc = 3.5L. Obviously I want to use an AU 4.0L. So, I either destroke at considerable cost and add spool h-beam rods and CP pistons. Or use a midmount / tray mount turbo system (smaller turbine A/R etc) that can be bolted / unbolted with ease for track use. Last option is to run N/A.

The RTA/RMS and the standards board have realised
* that boosting gives a considerable power advantage over N/A.
* previously a higher percentage of boosted cars were supercharged
* turbocharging can often give higher outputs
* technology / availability / price have improved

We should probably be thankful that the old capacity rules lasted as long as they did if you were looking to boost. Although the new rules give added capacity for N/A applications IIRC.

[prasac]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Yeah, this is exactly what i've run into with my XM Ute when I was making phone calls between March-June 2012. The RTA/RMS weren't sure when the VSB14 were coming in. (I've been too busy owner-building to make any progress on it unfortunately. But I knew that before I started.)

Effectively if I want a turbo six, then i'm allowed 1175kg x 3cc = 3.5L. Obviously I want to use an AU 4.0L. So, I either destroke at considerable cost and add spool h-beam rods and CP pistons. Or use a midmount / tray mount turbo system (smaller turbine A/R etc) that can be bolted / unbolted with ease for track use. Last option is to run N/A.

The RTA/RMS and the standards board have realised
* that boosting gives a considerable power advantage over N/A.
* previously a higher percentage of boosted cars were supercharged
* turbocharging can often give higher outputs
* technology / availability / price have improved

We should probably be thankful that the old capacity rules lasted as long as they did if you were looking to boost. Although the new rules give added capacity for N/A applications IIRC.

it's definitely put alot of projects to bed for alot of people. if you have an engineer's report dated pre-Nov 2012.

with the de-stroking you will need to sign a stat-dec and get info from whoever done it that the cubic capacity is that. i asked about putting in a destroked 4.6L into the Capri (4.2L largest) those were the requirements from the engineer. it wasn't worth it to destroke.

i like the idea about the removeable turbo. Ford ECOBOOST 3.5L V6 from US, Toyota 2JZ 3L or Nissan V6 are very good options for turboing.

[350125GO]

Sort of off topic

Originally Posted by RTA

Because of the difficulty in identifying the year of manufacture of some replacement engines or the
unavailability of replacement emission control equipment for ADR 27 engines, it is recommended
that a replacement engine designed for use with unleaded fuel and complying with ADR 37 be
used where possible. Where this is impractical the following alternative is acceptable for
replacement engines for pre-1986 passenger vehicles:
 Convert the replacement engine to run on unleaded fuel (now a necessity);
 Fit new catalytic converter(s) where appropriate;

What is appropriate? My car was built before cat converters... and unleaded petrol. If I am looking at swapping a 460 in am I in need of a cat or?

[naddis01]

Have they introduced the whole vsb14? Does it extend to the wheel/tyre modification section?

[Thunder]

Is this new rule only applicable to vehicles that dont have original type engines?

Example: an XA falcon with a 351 cant have a blower/turbo fitted now? Or a previously registered(but now unregistered) XA 351 cant be re-registered with a new ower/turbo?

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by 350125GO

Sort of off topic


What is appropriate? My car was built before cat converters... and unleaded petrol. If I am looking at swapping a 460 in am I in need of a cat or?

The ADRs apply to the vehicle the engine came out of. If your car is pre ADRs and the engine block is from a pre emissions car there is no requirement to have cats and if a 460 is ok for the weight of your car then you are sweet.

[JOESBOSS]

and my perception from GTP370's build thread is that it is NOT ILLEGAL to have a larger capacity engine in a vehicle, it just has to be engineered. which if you find a good one will be more than happy to do so, its only .3 to .8L larger than current GUIDELINES state for the falcon.
if it wasn't possible why are there quite a few road registered vehicles with 400 plus cid engine either N/A or Forced induction, it i still possible and not uncommon.

[prasac]

Originally Posted by JOESBOSS

and my perception from GTP370's build thread is that it is NOT ILLEGAL to have a larger capacity engine in a vehicle, it just has to be engineered. which if you find a good one will be more than happy to do so, its only .3 to .8L larger than current GUIDELINES state for the falcon.
if it wasn't possible why are there quite a few road registered vehicles with 400 plus cid engine either N/A or Forced induction, it i still possible and not uncommon.

ring up an engineer and ask if you can get an engineer to sign off on it, well done. 99% of engineers, especially now with how the RTA is will not sign off on it even if it is 5cc over the maximum capacity. you are more likely to get away with it on a naturally aspirated car, engineers are not stupid they know what turbo's can do to a car, the words from the engineers i spoke to, they don't want 1000hp cars on the street, an NA motor can make enough power.

there was a very well known engineer a few years back allowing 13B Turbo's etc into light Corolla's/Datto utes etc. he came under RTA inspection, i think something like 30 of the cars he engineered lost their rego.

ask to see those cars engineers reports, either the cars were done a long time ago or the engineer's reports are very vague. i know 2 Torana's who's engineer's reports read ''Big Block CHev motor installed'' no mention of cubes or anything, those people can put a 632ci in it if they wanted

alot of people also are driving around with bigger cube than what is written on the report, i can name at least 20 people i personally know who's cars have been engineered as 302ci/351ci etc but they have stroker's in them.

a mate of mine couldn't even get away with .2L the maximum limit in his car was 388ci Forced Induction, he had a 400ci motor in it, engineer didn't sign off on it, signed off on 388ci.

don't assume just because the car is on the street that the engineer's report is right. i know more people than less driving on more cubes than the engineer's report says. as long as they are sensible and responsible on the street, it's that person's car they can do as they wish in my eyes.

[prasac]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Is this new rule only applicable to vehicles that dont have original type engines?

Example: an XA falcon with a 351 cant have a blower/turbo fitted now? Or a previously registered(but now unregistered) XA 351 cant be re-registered with a new ower/turbo?

no, the engineer's report will go off the new date. a turbo/blower is a completely new modification and a new report must be done for those things. if it exceeds the maximum capacity i don't like your chances.

[FGII-XR6]

good news for me, I can put an 8.25L N/A in my Fairlane ;)

[Olbucko]

So I can put a 10.6 litre motor in my Territory?

[Psi-Pop]

Mountain motors for all.

[noflac52]

If you do it as an ICV individually constructed vehicle you can do a lot more and engine size is determined by the quality of the build.
Things such as chassis strength, suspension geometry, welding, braking and other things are subject to thorough testing to determine that they will stand up to the stresses of large supercharged engines with high output.

These cars can still be built legally but instead of assuming that for example, a uniconstruction body with a subframe from a manufacturer will be ok, a cut off point has been determined as to what they can safely handle without major strengthing. Hence the weight limits! If you want to put a full chassis under it and jump through the ADR hoops associated with such a build you can still do it.

[prasac]

ICV is the way to go it's a big headache and costly. a mate did that with his kit car, it was all to ADR, engineers reports and testing alone cost over $10k.

[noflac52]

Yeah it certainly adds a bit to the end cost but if you can afford to build a $100,000 car you can usuallt afford to pay the extra $10,000 to make sure its safe.
After all blokes are putting $25,000 stereos in their cars lol!