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

[Maverick]

I am not picking a fight but this is the part that I wish I can get some clarification from official:

I think (ok, let assume) Max Overdrive made that hosing then put two DOT/SAE lights in there. I know the lights themselves are different in shape as rectangle vs circle but the hosings are the same. They are rectangle and fit right in the OEM location. If that's the case, which part in this scenario is having/causing problems?


Thanks

Maverick

[Stinky_1]

Those look like the corsica headlights on that GTR. They look pretty rectangular to me.

So if I understand GT right, we could get corsica headlights on a car from each year, have an engineer check them to see if they meet the standards and once passed everyone with that same model year would get an auto pass provided they had done the same thing?

Or is this JUST on the stock car passing the "stock" lights?

[GT]

The Max Overdrive headlights might be DOT approved but they might not meet the 'equivalent to OEM' clause I have been argueing about with Glenn for a looooong time....

Glenn I posted some side by side pics of the original vs Max Overdrive headlamps in my earlier post in this thread. Can you please make a call on them in your opinion whether they would be approved or not.

[and thanks for posting a reply regarding flatbed truck lights...if they are in fact illegal on a homemade flatbed and only legal on company installed kits that include a compliance decal then that takes the some wind out of my argument . Although I dought any get trucks with homemade flatbeds get taken off the road because of it...]

From the picture I would have to say no, as they are nowhere near "equivalent'".

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??? :?

[dah_hunter]

I personaly know the inspector that does Grants cars. and he goes by the book..
Good on Grant for the Mods..

[GT]

I'd like to clear something up.

If I had a 1988 skyline, would it be required to have:

-Daytime running lights.

-Third brake light.

-Neutral safety switch.


JDM QUEBEC, you say no...do you, or anyone for the matter, know this for sure?

Glen?

Good questions. As far as whoever posted that these items are not needed as the regs say "may", you might want to re-read all the posts as this has been covered. The inspection manual has no "mays" or "mights" in it.

Daytime running lamps are required on all vehicles manufactured on and after Dec.1 1989. So no to that one.

A third brake light is required on cars built on and after Jan. 1, 1987. so yes to that one.

Neutral safety switch is required where OEM or if the vehicle is equipped with an automatic tranny. If manual tranny (and not OEM equipped) it is only need if it has a remote start.

A catylytic convertor is needed on all 1988 models and newer.

Side markers and reflectors are also needed on all four corners. A marker/reflector can be optically combined in the same unit.

[mwracing]

looks compliant to me


Although they look like stickers and do not produce any light.. just a reflector?
do i see it right... lop sided too? lol

[mwracing]

grant from tyeeimports.com has a new skyline gtr on his webpage with different headlights, no grille, front side markers, rear side markers, and a third brake light in almost the same spot as an r34.

looks decent in a TC kinda way :!:

Good for him to find a replacement i hope he can share his secret.

[crushers]

ALL units nov 1989 and newer MUST have DTRL...come on it is a $25 part from CTire.
ALL cars must have a third brake light after 1987?? (i don't have the time to look it up right now) you can rig up an aftermarket for fairly cheap. so what is the big deal? you have good money already invested so go the extra step and get TC off your back.
We are not looking at fighting the letter of the law, BC TC is anal about this, the rest of the provinces are cool with just the basics. the Skylines and Cefiro have the head light issue which, if enforced to the letter of the law, would pull every JDM Skyline/Cefiro off the road till someone found a SAE/DOT replacement...
Shadao has the right idea, just do it to shut the big boys up and to set the right example so we can keep getting these cool cars into Canada.
TC is going to be looking for any stats they can to "prove" that 15-year old cars are unsafe and should be off the road or not allowed in to Canada. What's a couple bucks vs loosing your car or feeding their fire?

I do agree though that it is the importers responsibility to see to it he has the units DOT/SAE compliant before he sells a unit (or at least infoms the customer about how to make it compliant). that is what you pay an importer for, peace of mind.
cheers

[Shadao]

none of that matters we need to stay on topic, DTRLs are not an issue....

as for the 3rd brake light, it is also a non-issue as there are fixes for it as well, you can always add in one, my dad did this to an older car, because you could barely see the rear lights, there are kits out there, they may not look all that sexy but with a lil work they could....

so please find info from reliable sources, with proof of it to back it up, like from TC or from Stats Canada, hell see if we can get some numbers from icbc, we need to show that the imported cars are safe, and that its not the vehicle that isnt unsafe but the driver, and from the info ive seen from TC they have shown that people driving imported vehicles 15yr or older are safer drivers operating better maintained machines....

[Trace]

Third brakelight isn't an issue for the GTS series as that brake light is on the spoiler. Out here that's legally a third brakelight.

But I see a lot of 89-93 model cars that don't have a 3rd brake light that were built for north american roads.

Also, Daytime running lights weren't introduced until after 91 were they not? It's almost oblivious after the fact...

That would be my opinion....

[Caithness]

...so for a 1988 Skyline...what would be the final say?

[dah_hunter]

Those Items are Gray Area's..

Third Break Light.

DTRL

It says you May have them..


And its 91 when they you "May" have them,..

[crushers]

you must have DTRL, third brake light, DOT or SAE approved head lights and ase1 or 3 glass all around. most provinces are accepting "E" stamped lights now as long as the head lights are re-aimed not to shine in on coming traffice eyes.
neutral safety is not required.
HTHs
cheers

[E34 M5]

i think drl and high mount brake light became manditory equipment in 1990, as for a nuetral safety switch it is not required by law unless your vehicle came equiped from the factory with one. One example is my friends 1995 Audi S6, sold in Canada brand new, no nuetral safety switch. Skylines do not have to have a nuetral safety switch, there is a switch on the clutch pedal but i think it is for ecu fuel control, not nuetral safety starting. can some1 please verify the function of the switch on the clutch pedal for me?

[Caithness]

I'd like to clear something up.

If I had a 1988 skyline, would it be required to have:

-Daytime running lights.

-Third brake light.

-Neutral safety switch.


JDM QUEBEC, you say no...do you, or anyone for the matter, know this for sure?

Glen?