You heard it from the source. GLENN TAYLOR !UPDATE!

[WRick]

my eyes are burning from reading all these pages...

So, whats the short term solution for skyline owners ?

keep 'em registered ?
Keep 'em insurred ?

I quite frankly have no clue what to do, and it would be a shame if such a law were to be adopted.

Glen mentionned 'grandfathering' actually registered vehicles, but again, this quote means nothing unless it's posted on TC's website.

I'm confused, plus my eyes now officially burn.

I think my signature takes more and more signification with time.

FTW.

[crushers]

gentlemen,
this is my take on the situation, from what i have read and posted both on mud and now here:
Glen's job is to delay approving the headlight issue this is to give BC TC time to move the 15 year deadline to a 25 year importation restriction. BC TC does NOT want RHD units on their highways. they have written this many times and after dealing with the government i have watched how they confuse issues to carry on their private agendas behind the scenes.
they know they have you by the short hairs when it comes to the head light issue. every solution you come up with will be shot down, i do not say this to stir up trouble but to show you reality. Glen is not the top dog and because of this he MUST play by the rules put forth by his superiors. His superiors do not want RHD on "their" roads. the rest of canada does not have an issue with this, just BC.
i will be VERY surprised if Glen will help in any way practicle since his hands are tied and his job is on the line.
BC TC does not want Skylines and Cefiros on the road, period.
this is not a dig towards Glen at all, he is just repeating what he has been told to say...
the only way you "might" win is to install a headlight that conforms to the SAE/DOT requirement and go to court over it. let the judge decide whether " the CVSE interpret 'equivalent' in only ONE way and that ONE way includes the equivalence in the SIZE and SHAPE of the lamp NOT just its equivalence in FUNCTION." is true or not. a judge can over rule TC decisions and make it law...

[BMXER]

[below originally posted by Glenn

Having said that though, they may meet CMVSS standards. What would need to happen is an engineer would have to test them to CMVSS standards (I think 108 covers lights). If you guys read my posts you will see I included two links to bulletins from our webpage. It says right in there that only one model for each year need be tested for approval. The recommendations would then apply to everyone with the same model. I can't believe no one has done this yet.????

It isn't going to change anything for the OEM equipped RHD headlights, although it could very well give approval for the non-marked rear tailights (providing they meet the standard however).

I think it was a Landcruiser that was done by an engineer down on the coast. Obviously the headlights failed (not so obvious to rockcrete :roll: ) but the unmarked rear lamps passed. The vehicle had to install DRl's and third brake lights and side marker/reflectors.

Is there anybody out there??? :?[/quote]



Glenn,

I'm curious if you know where we in the Skyline community could find a engineer in the lower mainland to test a Skyline for CMVSS standards.
I have an 89 & would be willing to submit my car for testing ,aslong is it is in the same condition when I get it back.

Also from reading previous posts since my car is not registered yet & was built (first registered in japan) in Nov/89 I will be required
1. change headlights
2. install high mount brake lights
3. install rear markers
4. install front markers (unless deemed by engineer)
5. get taillights certified
as for neutral safety switch it is a manual transmission & did not have an oem one so it does not require one & because of it being a nov/89 car it just gets in without having to have dtrl's. The glass is good I checked & the cat converter is there. Am I correct in what I've listed above.

Thanks

Jason

[rockcrete]

That's the whole problem dealing with government, everyone there is more or less independant, you can't complain about anyone, and you can't try and tell anyone they're wrong.


edited by L6 - let's keep a level head here

[psilosin]

Equivalent can be interpreted in a lot of ways..... in our case we have a projector low beam, a seperate high beam, and a marker light, it's not like anyone is replacing an OEM headlamp with a DOT fog lamp or anything and trying to say that is equivalent. As long as you maintain the correct seperate functions, they can't really argue.

If you read my ongoing discussions with Glenn both here in this thread and on ih8mud.com back last feb/march you will see that, according to GT, the CVSE interpret 'equivalent' in only ONE way and that ONE way includes the equivalence in the SIZE and SHAPE of the lamp NOT just its equivalence in FUNCTION.

I have argueed against the size/shape with GT thing to no avail. Maybe you can find someone higher in the CVSE food chain than GT than will interpret it different and give that in writting. That would be most excellent. Good luck.

[rockcrete]

Here is an excellent website about lighting standards. This company is in Toronto and is a consultant on the new DOT lighting standards the US is drafting. I have contacted him for possible help.

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/home.html

[LHD-GTR]

Please post them up Danno...

[Danno]

IMO, wouldnt headlights from a 240sx work better?

S14 Zenki headlights fit, but with modification. They're wider than R32 headlights and to make them fit you need to cut off about half inch of the outer side of the housing, and the mounts don't line up perfectly. It's doable, and looks better than corsica lights when finished, but modification is required.

That being said, what are Glenn's thoughts on replacing Skyline headlights with these headlights as they're fairly close in fitting (probably the closest out of ALL vehicles out there in Canada), and are from USDM vehicles? From what I understand these still would not pass according to the 'book' and also due to the fact that the shape has changed from slight modification?



EDIT: I remembered I had a thread a while back with detailed pictures of these headlights installed on a Skyline: http://forums.gtrcanada.com/viewtopi...=7010&start=15 The mounting is kinda ghetto rigged, but wiring was a piece of cake and they fit great. I don't have any pictures of them on though.

[rockcrete]

Equivalent can be interpreted in a lot of ways..... in our case we have a projector low beam, a seperate high beam, and a marker light, it's not like anyone is replacing an OEM headlamp with a DOT fog lamp or anything and trying to say that is equivalent. As long as you maintain the correct seperate functions, they can't really argue.

[Stinky_1]

so if I was an engineer, could I not sign off my own lights after I modify them?

[psilosin]

Installing DOT lights from another car is not enough?

Thats right. If the 'equivalent to OEM' clause is interpreted as GT has stated, then the replacement lights hane to be almost identical in shape/size as the original AS WELL as meet SAE/DOT specs for function (ie beam pattern). As such, neither Maximum Overdrive's custom headlamp or swapping in a Corsica headlamp would be considered acceptable EVEN THOUGH the beam pattern emmitted from the replacement headlights meets all SAE functional specs (assuming they are installed and aimed correctly).

Personally I think it is a retarded component of the lighting laws since the size/shape of a lamp is irrelevant to its function (ie one lamps SAE approved beam should equal another lamps SAE approved beam) and thats what point I have unsuccesfully been trying to make to GT. Although I guess even if GT accepted my logic, it still wouldn't matter since that clause is in the MVA and that is how it is apparently interpreted.

However, from GT's latest response what I gather is that if the replacement lighting is not 'equivalent to OEM' in size/shape but is SAE compliant, it will still be acceptable but ONLY if accomplanied by an engineering certficate. Is that right GT?

And some of you guys said I was making an issue out of nothing... :roll:

[Touring240]

Installing DOT lights from another car is not enough?

[rockcrete]

The BCMVA clearly spells out an acceptable beam pattern for un-marked headlamps, if they are unacceptable, why does the MVA list an acceptable beam pattern for them? Also the CMVSS accepts headlights that meet ECE requirements, which a JDM headlamp with a European spec cutout shield does, and further on, the CMVSS adds the caveat that no "E" marking is required on these headlamps, go check, I have read the Euro standards, and the CMVSS.

[Stinky_1]

It seems to me that we are required to put an OEM equal in there that has the proper beam direction and throw pattern to a LHD car. So to get a "different" headlight that is NOT original is "not allowed".

it seems to me at least, that this is going to be the issue, no matter what we come up with we are not being given a chance to "make" our cars compliant, they want them to "be" complaint or not imported. And since there is no USDM or CDM counterpart with EXACT replacement headlights there is no way we could ever become compliant.

And this does not make sense to me. Our cars do not come with DRL's, but we are allowed to add those for compliance, they do not come with side markers but we can "add" those to make it compliant. We can even add the 3rd brake light and be fine. But as soon as we add a different headlight that is DOT stamped or have one made, then thats "not allowed" because it was not original.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong here, but thats what I get from reading this.

[Boyscout]

these are corsica headlights:




IMO, wouldnt headlights from a 240sx work better?