R35 GT-R Testing at ford facilities???

[flappist]

Originally Posted by TE50 056

You always have to put people down dont you, make you feel big?

When some one has had the same thing explained to them several times by several people but still comes out with the same arguement and questions it is probably because they do not get the point.

So how do you say to someone "You do not get it" without saying "You do not get it"?

Or do you just repeat yourself and then allow them to not understand the point and continue on not understanding in case you might offend them?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by flappist

When some one has had the same thing explained to them several times by several people but still comes out with the same arguement and questions it is probably because they do not get the point.

So how do you say to someone "You do not get it" without saying "You do not get it"?

Or do you just repeat yourself and then allow them to not understand the point and continue on not understanding in case you might offend them?

There was NEVER the same thing explained to him twice, he put up afew things and they were corrected. THE reasons why the car was tested here were never explained twice, Nor were the rules/regs of Japan/Austalia either.

[Dave_au]

Please continue, please flappist, im dying to hear the results of the next corolla meeting emissions laws at youyangs

[Nikked]

Lol, any car released in australia has to pass our rules, it simple, you dont join an AFL game playing NRL rules...

[Dave_au]

So tell me why the car would have to be retested here if the rules or evidence from japan suggest the car would exceed our adrs? What if the japanese tested it on 91 ron?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

So tell me why the car would have to be retested here if the rules or evidence from japan suggest the car would exceed our adrs? What if the japanese tested it on 91 ron?

Dave, you can't be serious? why should Australia adopt or accept results from a foreign country? how do we know they're done to our standards, using our test methods calibrated to our tollerences or level of competency?
ANY vehicle imported to Australia should pass our ADR's tested by OUR people using our equipment, methods and calibration standards, thankfully they are.

[Dave_au]

Well can someone show me proof that we dont accept japanese emission law testing, which is more stringent than our own? Im happy to be wrong, but i need proof

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Well can someone show me proof that we dont accept japanese emission law testing, which is more stringent than our own? Im happy to be wrong, but i need proof

They're called ADR's for a reason, AUSTRALIAN DESIGN RULES.. to pass an ADR requirement you must submit a car to testing by the prescribed test method, which includes using NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) certified testing equipment, callibrated to our stds, using OUR test methods, unless its tested under these conditions you leave the door open for variations in interpretation of results.
I personally know of one current vehicle to be released here that theoretically passed our ADR's on paper yet failed the emmisions test done using our testing method....

[Dave_au]

Well why do we accept foreign ncap testing? Please, i need to see proof that we force foreign manufacturers to retest their cars here if their domestic design rules exceed our own and are generally recognised to exceed our own.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Well can someone show me proof that we dont accept japanese emission law testing, which is more stringent than our own? Im happy to be wrong, but i need proof

Whilst not in relation to the GT-R, we get the EJ25 engines in our Subaru cars because the EJ20 does not meet emissions.

The JDM market still uses the EJ20 engine which says to me that our laws might be tighter than the Japanese. I may be wrong but that is what I can conclude.

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Seeing as Nissan were so slow R35 will be available for import including street registerable, which the first steps have already been taken to have them complied. yes you can already import one for race use and there are a few already here for the Donut King targa car etc.

This is from a japanese importer

"#1. The new Nissan R35 GTR has now been released in Japan. Unfortunately it will be 18 months (from October 24 2007) before it is eligible for import under the RAWS scheme unless Nissan provide a letter that they will not be importing it to Australia (unlikely I think). The word is that Nissan are trying for Full Volume approval for some time late 2008. (This 'word' comes from an engineer we know)

Bringing in a Vehicle for market evaluation is a big risk at this stage as it may never get to the stage of being eligible for compliance. (I.E. there has to be a period of 18 months where Nissan doesn't bring it in themselves, or else it will never be eligible)

#2. On top of that the new sevs emissions laws are making it so tight that no new raws vehicles to date have passed an emission test. This could be how the government is trying to squeeze out importers.

That's about it, really....we'd love to be wrong about this stuff, so please start the flame war now. I realize that everyone's quite excited about this car....but if you're bringing in test cars, I'd recommend having a backup plan or at least thinking about the issues I've outlined above.

cheers!"

So that means no importer can get road compliance until Nissan makes their decision. If you want one for road/rally use, go for your life!

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Well why do we accept foreign ncap testing? Please, i need to see proof that we force foreign manufacturers to retest their cars here if their domestic design rules exceed our own and are generally recognised to exceed our own.

Dave_au, here is an article (2006) about popular cars not meeting our emission testing.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25714E000A38FF

[HEMI POWER]

Originally Posted by TE50 056

You always have to put people down dont you, make you feel big?

I think Flappist gets hammered at work then gets on here and takes it out on poor Dave. . Getting back to the topic, nice car that GTR something to really think about :

[Dave_au]

Okay from the Mellor article:

AUSTRALIAN Design Rule 79/01 (Emissions Control for Light Vehicles) was introduced for new-model petrol and LPG-powered light vehicles (under 3500kg) from January 1, 2005, and for all petrol/LPG light vehicles from January 1, 2006.

The same emissions standard will come into effect for diesel-powered light vehicles from 2007, which will also require vehicles to comply for a period of up to 80,000km.

Bringing Australian emissions regulations fully in line with Europe for the first time, ADR 79/01 is equivalent to the United Nations-developed Stage Three emissions standard – commonly referred to as Euro III – which came into effect in Europe in 2000.

ADR 79/01, which roughly mirrors emissions laws introduced in the US in 2001 and in Japan in 2000, restricts hydrocarbon emissions to 0.2gm/km, oxides of nitrogen to 0.15gm/km and carbon monoxide to 2.3gm/km, as well as introducing new restrictions on fuel evaporation. New testing procedures also mean engines must now comply from "start-up" as well as at -7 degrees C, while a new on-board diagnostics system will reveal if emissions exceed their designated outputs.

So ADR 79/01 roughly mirros what the Yanks and the Japanese already have. My entire argument is why on earth would the Japanese?French/Germans etc not be able to provide data for the Australian ADRs based on information they had gained while testing the emissions of the vehicle overseas.

I would have thought testing the same car again with the same results in another country would be completely pointless. NCAP for instance share safety testing results between Australia, The UK, The US, Japan and Europe - with their testing being ISO compliant - there is no point in writing off numerous cars for the same results.

So why invent the wheel and re-test the car for data they would probably already have?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by HEMI POWER

I think Flappist gets hammered at work then gets on here and takes it out on poor Dave. . Getting back to the topic, nice car that GTR something to really think about :

Could be something in that. At work I have several young employees who sometimes have difficulty in actualy grasping concepts and I have found the best way is to just tell them "YOU DONT GET IT".

Of course sometimes they just cannot or prefer not to understand.
Dave you look like you are in the latter group so I will no longer attempt to help you

It is also interesting to note throughout this thread that the only ones who have not agreed with me have just made a personal attack and not actually contributed anything to the subject of the thread. But then that is not all that unusual really......

[Dave_au]

That's alright flappist, you have no knowledge worth bestowing.

But please Flappist, prove me wrong. You could actually start with the ADR here http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/89F4AEE9F12468CECA2570D70016A66C/$file/ADR+79.01+FRLI+Dec+05.pdf

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by flappist

At work I have several young employees who sometimes have difficulty in actualy grasping concepts and I have found the best way is to just tell them "YOU DONT GET IT".

Of course sometimes they just cannot or prefer not to understand.
Dave you look like you are in the latter group so I will no longer attempt to help you

I think if your employees don't get it then it's usually the fault of the teacher.

Seriously, all you have been doing is throwing mud at me for weeks with no support or facts to back up your claims. You haven't even attempted to explain anything, or support your argument with any facts. So please, make a start.

[austyphoon]

I think you answered your own question Dave_au, you said our ADR's 'roughly' meet other countries..

Another example...

Subaru Australia bought in 4 (maybe 5, can't remember) wrx sti 22B's into this country but because they didn't go through ADR's they COULD NOT be driven on our roads legally. After some protesting by owners Subaru spent some money on getting them to past our ADR's and only then could they be driven legally.

What you need to do is ring a car manufacturer and ask what they have to do to be allowed to bring a car built overseas and sell it here.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

I think if your employees don't get it then it's usually the fault of the teacher.

Seriously, all you have been doing is throwing mud at me for weeks with no support or facts to back up your claims. You haven't even attempted to explain anything, or support your argument with any facts. So please, make a start.

The way i read it Flappist has explained and been backed by others including a link.
How about you provide evidence to disprove the status quo instead going on a one man crusade of guessing.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

The way i read it Flappist has explained and been backed by others including a link.
How about you provide evidence to disprove the status quo instead going on a one man crusade of guessing.

Yes.. its a bit like looking for trees but you're unable to see them because there is a forest blocking the view....

[HEMI POWER]

Originally Posted by flappist

Could be something in that. At work I have several young employees who sometimes have difficulty in actualy grasping concepts and I have found the best way is to just tell them "YOU DONT GET IT".

Of course sometimes they just cannot or prefer not to understand.
Dave you look like you are in the latter group so I will no longer attempt to help you

It is also interesting to note throughout this thread that the only ones who have not agreed with me have just made a personal attack and not actually contributed anything to the subject of the thread. But then that is not all that unusual really......

Oh well, its how life goes, not every-one gets sucked in. :

[deesun]

My intuition says why would we believe a load of data suplied to us by a car manufacturer? We ourselves want to see the proof and there is only one way to do that and thats to supply the vehicle and test it here. As to the NCAP figures we can't possibly share some of those as we are comparing left and right hand drive cars. If I was a government department I would want to see every piece of proven relevant data I could get my hands on. And if that means crunching up a few more cars at the manufacturers expense then so be it. You want to sell a car here you do so under our rules and our conditions and show us physical proof not just a few bits of paper/data.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

The way i read it Flappist has explained and been backed by others including a link.
How about you provide evidence to disprove the status quo instead going on a one man crusade of guessing.

I can prove it, it's written in the standard. Here it is:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/89F4AEE9F12468CECA2570D70016A66C/$file/ADR+79.01+FRLI+Dec+05.pdf

Originally Posted by ADR79/01

ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.
Subject to clause 6.2.1, for vehicles which operate on petrol, liquefied
petroleum gas and natural gas, the technical requirements of United Nations
– Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 83 Uniform Provisions
Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Emissions of
Pollutants According to Engine Fuel Requirements......are deemed to be equivalent to the technical requirements of this vehicle standard.

[woodsy109]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Okay from the Mellor article:



So ADR 79/01 roughly mirros what the Yanks and the Japanese already have. My entire argument is why on earth would the Japanese?French/Germans etc not be able to provide data for the Australian ADRs based on information they had gained while testing the emissions of the vehicle overseas.

I would have thought testing the same car again with the same results in another country would be completely pointless. NCAP for instance share safety testing results between Australia, The UK, The US, Japan and Europe - with their testing being ISO compliant - there is no point in writing off numerous cars for the same results.

So why invent the wheel and re-test the car for data they would probably already have?

Man you really are thick aren't you? All testing is going to get slightly different results depending on who does it, and that is the reason why it is important for Australia to have their own benchmarks for testing. This includes strict guidelines on testing equipment being NATA certified (not ISO which is different). Emissions standards are just one of many things tested and even though Californian laws are in fact stricter than our emmision laws, this doesn't mean there is not going to be other tests that are stricter in Australia than other parts of the world. Ultimately ADR's just make sure that every vehicle in Australia meets the same test requirements using the same equipment. This could NOT be achieved if auto manufacturers were allowed to use their own data or data from another country. With importation of cars all over the globe getting more common recently, it does warrant looking into a international standard of testing. However getting every country to agree on one set of standards would be near impossible.

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

I can prove it, it's written in the standard. Here it is:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/89F4AEE9F12468CECA2570D70016A66C/$file/ADR+79.01+FRLI+Dec+05.pdf

This is from the government website http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ion/index.aspx

Before a road vehicle can be registered for the first time in Australia it must meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (the Act), which applies to new and used imported vehicles and locally manufactured vehicles. The Act requires vehicles to meet the national standards covering safety and emission requirements known as the Australian Design Rules (ADRs). When a new vehicle has been certified as meeting the ADRs it can be fitted with a compliance plate. The fitment of a compliance plate is mandatory under the Act, and it indicates to the registering authority that the vehicle meets all the required ADRs.

and here

The manufacturer can conduct those tests wherever is convenient to the manufacturer providing, of course, that the tests are conducted properly. In order to demonstrate compliance with all the applicable ADRs several test vehicles are usually required, especially for passenger cars and light commercials.

[swanee]

Originally Posted by Bermo

obviously doesn't need premium unleaded since shell doesn't have any!

[Dave_au]

Okay I think we're jumping around on the arguments a bit. My argument is solely on ADR 79/01, which relates to Emissions laws, not necessarily ADRs in compliance with seat belts etc.

Our Emission Laws are largely harmonized with those of Europe and the UN ECE emissions standards, commonly refered to as Euro 4. My argument is, if the manufacturer can prove that the particular engine & car that they wish to import into Australia already complies with Euro 4/ECE by relying on overseas tests, then why would further Euro 4 or UN ECE testing be required in Australia.

The legislation seems to point out that the UN ECE are alternate standards, and are deemed to be equivalent to the technical standards of the Australian ADR 79/01.

Furthermore:

Originally Posted by EPHC.gov.au

3.1. Vehicle Emissions Standards in Australia
Australian vehicle emissions standards have always been based on overseas standards.
Globalisation of the motor vehicle industry, and the small size of the vehicle market in
Australia make the development of unique Australian standards undesirable from both a
government and manufacturing perspective.
As a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Australia has
undertaken to adopt international standards rather than develop unique standards, unless there
are compelling reasons to do otherwise. Such reasons may include peculiar environmental or
social conditions that could not be addressed by international standards. The Australian
Government strongly supports the international harmonisation of vehicle standards.
In terms of the vehicle emissions standards, Australia gave effect to its intention to harmonise
with the UN ECE regulations with the gazettal of the ADR emissions package in 1999 (see
Appendix A). The current heavy vehicle standards rely principally on the UN ECE standards,
but allow alternative compliance with the US EPA standards, in recognition of the stringency
of the US standards and the adverse financial, emissions and fuel consumption impacts that
would arise from requiring US engines to comply with the ECE standards.

[Ghiadude]

Dave - although it is an internationally recognised standard the car still has to pass THAT standard while being tested in australia by australians as a matter of law. What has happened overseas is irrelevant. It hasnt passed the same regs IN AUSTRALIA

[MrEL]

Dave you are not real clued up on things are you?
Of course emissions testing is going to have to be carried out on Australian soil for one reason. Difference in fuels!
There are that many different grades of fuel in the world , made of that many different types of chemicals that they all have a different running effect. It is a well known fact that many cars which are tuned in Japan on their fuel will not run in Australian correctly due to fuel differences. The tune has to be done to the fuel it is going to run on.
You are correct that yes we are introducing the later emmission laws that in fact do mirror a lot of countries. But because the fuels used are different the emmission particles are going to be totally different. For example the GTR being a High Performance vehicle would be required to run on 102 octane in Japan. 102 octane is like tap water over there , but here anything like that is labeled a racing fuel only and is banned for street use.
One of the emmissions test is fuel load running. A GTR would be tuned in Japan with the appropriate timing curve , injector pulse width ect to deliver maximum performance and meet emissions in Japan. Bring it to Australia and run it on the goats p!ss we call premium unleaded here. Under full load it will ping its head off. The ECU will pull timing and boost out of the motor to stop in from detonating.
But it is still delivering the same fuel supply rate as it is at full throttle. With reduced timing the fuel is not burning correctly. Also the fuel is not burning correctly when it is pinging as pinging is uncontrolled detonation. The fuel not burning correct will throw all the emmissions out of the window.
It is like baking a cake. Use normal flour in one , self raising in the other , but other wise follow the recipe exactly the same. Will the 2 cakes come out identical? No way in the world. One will be flat and hard the other light and fluffy.
Why did it happen? They were both done the same.
The flour was differnt thats why! In the case of emmissions testing the flour is the fuel.
To add proof to my theory look out for a Diesel Toyota 4 runner and a Toyota surf. One was australian delivered , the other a grey import from japan. The Australian delivered one will not blow a huge amount of diesel smoke. the surf will punch out rich black smoke. It is because of different fuel grades. Japan has high sulpher diesel. We only have low sulphur diesel.
This is why they have to prove the R35 complies with australian standards over here , even though in theory the car is cleaner in Japan and America. The ECU tune between the 2 models will be vastly different thus totally different emmission levels!

[WindsorXR]

Yes we are testing an R35 GTR, but it is for a private importer not for Nissan Australia.