New safety regulations start July 1st?!?

[inreb]

Forum Sponsor

Couple quick thoughts. I read thru the op link. How did we ever survive without these regulations? And. Can I take my just safetied vehicle to another safety inspection centre and have them do a second safety inspection then cross reference them for any inconsistencies? And take action if found? I think we're getting into some serious time and money with these new regs and I feel everybody needs to play fair. I get that nobody actually does the 59 point inspections that come advertised with the $29.95 lube job but this is a whole different level of smoke and mirrors.

 

[Brian P]

Skimming ... There are lots of things that could be open to interpretation.

Page 11 of the PDF. Hose type 1. "Wear or damage is visible on the outside." What about a little tiny insignificant scuff mark?

Page 13. How different can a muffler be from the OEM muffler before it is a "deficient part that does not meet OEM standard"?

Page 16. Is an aftermarket urethane bushing (one properly selected for the application, but not stock) which replaces an OEM engine mount, a "mount or part of a mount is replaced with a product or material that is not OEM standard"?

Page 24. The wear conditions that are ground for failing on the grounds of "arm, rod, strut/shock suspension, control arm" are incredibly open for interpretation.

Page 25. My (model year 2014) van fails because, since I don't use anywhere near the rated load capacity, I removed a leaf from the spring stack to soften the ride and lower the rear ride height a little. (This reverts the suspension to the standard configuration on the corresponding model sold in europe, which has roughly the load capacity that I actually need.) Fortunately it's about 30 minutes of work to put it back.

Page 47 (concerning the requirement to have 25mm clearance through the full steering angle). I am pretty sure the original configuration of my car with the original wheels and tires fails this test. I know it fails it with the wheels and tires that are on it now. There's clearance ... but not 25mm.

Page 56 (clearance and identification lamps required on vehicles more than 2.05m (80.7") wide. See the following: http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/transitcommercial/2016/specifications/trc16_specs.jpg Based on this, a brand new Ford Transit on the showroom floor fails because it doesn't have these lamps and it's wider than that!

Haven't got through the rest of it

 

[Neil_V]

Couple quick thoughts. I read thru the op link. How did we ever survive without these regulations? And. Can I take my just safetied vehicle to another safety inspection centre and have them do a second safety inspection then cross reference them for any inconsistencies? And take action if found? I think we're getting into some serious time and money with these new regs and I feel everybody needs to play fair. I get that nobody actually does the 59 point inspections that come advertised with the $29.95 lube job but this is a whole different level of smoke and mirrors.

It's funny, if the car leaves from a lube job, and say a hose blows up or a belt starts making noise, customer usually won't have issue coming right back with all sorts of issue // but when services or repairs are recommended by the shop during said 59-point, many cries of scam or extra money generators for the shop can be heard far and wide. It's tough out there

 

[inreb]

It's funny, if the car leaves from a lube job, and say a hose blows up or a belt starts making noise, customer usually won't have issue coming right back with all sorts of issue // but when services or repairs are recommended by the shop during said 59-point, many cries of scam or extra money generators for the shop can be heard far and wide. It's tough out there

I always refuse the multi point inspections. This is never noted on the work order. This is either very careless or not a problem.

 

[Neil_V]

Skimming ... There are lots of things that could be open to interpretation.

Page 11 of the PDF. Hose type 1. "Wear or damage is visible on the outside." What about a little tiny insignificant scuff mark?

Same as today, we'll be relying on some application of common sense.. I know, I know

Page 13. How different can a muffler be from the OEM muffler before it is a "deficient part that does not meet OEM standard"?

I won't be passing any universal fart cans thats for sure.. Nice quality magnaflow or whatever, designed for that application, not going to be an issue imo (we'll see if the MTO shows up one day and tells me otherwise)

Page 16. Is an aftermarket urethane bushing (one properly selected for the application, but not stock) which replaces an OEM engine mount, a "mount or part of a mount is replaced with a product or material that is not OEM standard"?

Urethane exhibits qualities that are "equivalent" or better than many stock rubber mounts. They will be fine.

Page 24. The wear conditions that are ground for failing on the grounds of "arm, rod, strut/shock suspension, control arm" are incredibly open for interpretation.

Actually worded the same as it is now

Page 25. My (model year 2014) van fails because, since I don't use anywhere near the rated load capacity, I removed a leaf from the spring stack to soften the ride and lower the rear ride height a little. (This reverts the suspension to the standard configuration on the corresponding model sold in europe, which has roughly the load capacity that I actually need.) Fortunately it's about 30 minutes of work to put it back.

This ones interesting... I don't have a definitive answer for you, but I will say if the install is done in a professional manor, I don't foresee you having issue

Page 47 (concerning the requirement to have 25mm clearance through the full steering angle). I am pretty sure the original configuration of my car with the original wheels and tires fails this test. I know it fails it with the wheels and tires that are on it now. There's clearance ... but not 25mm.

Vehicle? I would imagine this measurement comes from a CMVSS requirement

Page 56 (clearance and identification lamps required on vehicles more than 2.05m (80.7") wide. See the following: http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/transitcommercial/2016/specifications/trc16_specs.jpg Based on this, a brand new Ford Transit on the showroom floor fails because it doesn't have these lamps and it's wider than that!

Haven't looked at the link but I wouldn't doubt teething issues haha

Edit: just looked at the link, it is possible the corner ambers in the front headlights are the clearance lamps. Same world apply in the rear. Again I would imagine this requirement is derived from a CMVSS standard, chances of a new vehicle not complying are slim

Anyway most of what you're bringing up in regards to interpretation is no different than where we stand now.

 

[mmmnaked]

I, for one, believe that this is a mechanics lobby at work. Collusion with the government to milk us for everything we've got.

I'm going underground

 

[crankcall]

I'll loan you the shovel

 

[PrivatePilot]

I won't be passing any universal fart cans thats for sure.. Nice quality magnaflow or whatever, designed for that application, not going to be an issue imo (we'll see if the MTO shows up one day and tells me otherwise)

Now, to start, I'm NO fan of the fart-can mufflers either, but....why is one better than the other, aside from the sound that comes out of it? The sound generated, so long as it's not running afoul of noise bylaws (which, in another interesting twist, are also open to a lot of interpretation) shouldn't matter so far as "Safety" (looking at it purely from that perspective) is concerned. I'm sure I could find a muffler that makes my Hemi Magnum sound absolutely terrible, but still quiet, just tonally all wrong. Why would that be a fail, but a "nice quality magnaflow" would be a pass?

The subjectiveness of some of this is where the issues are going to begin IMHO....and if the owner of a car takes issue with something that has failed due to a subjective decision on behalf of the guy doing the inspection, who does he file an objection with? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this will lead to people just taking the car elsewhere and getting a different opinion on the same issue that might have failed them at the last shop, and suddenly the subjectiveness goes the other way and the vehicle passes.

The best thing anyone could do when these new standards come into play is avoid the big chain shops like the plague. Taking any car older than a few years to a place like Canadian Tire or such is a recipe for everything being held to such ridiculous standards that anything short of a 1 or 2 year old car that has never had an ounce of work done to it will likely never pass without a massive laundry list of "repairs", using the term loosely. Hell, at Canadian Tire even that "nice quality magnaflow" would probably fail since, in their totally subjective decision that will no doubt be held to ridiculous standards, it doesn't meet "OEM standard".

Hopefully the mom and pop shops will be a lot more understanding when it comes to the subjectiveness issues.

 

[inreb]

Now, to start, I'm NO fan of the fart-can mufflers either, but....why is one better than the other, aside from the sound that comes out of it? The sound generated, so long as it's not running afoul of noise bylaws (which, in another interesting twist, are also open to a lot of interpretation) shouldn't matter so far as "Safety" (looking at it purely from that perspective) is concerned. I'm sure I could find a muffler that makes my Hemi Magnum sound absolutely terrible, but still quiet, just tonally all wrong. Why would that be a fail, but a "nice quality magnaflow" would be a pass?

The subjectiveness of some of this is where the issues are going to begin IMHO....and if the owner of a car takes issue with something that has failed due to a subjective decision on behalf of the guy doing the inspection, who does he file an objection with? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this will lead to people just taking the car elsewhere and getting a different opinion on the same issue that might have failed them at the last shop, and suddenly the subjectiveness goes the other way and the vehicle passes.

The best thing anyone could do when these new standards come into play is avoid the big chain shops like the plague. Taking any car older than a few years to a place like Canadian Tire or such is a recipe for everything being held to such ridiculous standards that anything short of a 1 or 2 year old car that has never had an ounce of work done to it will likely never pass without a massive laundry list of "repairs", using the term loosely. Hell, at Canadian Tire even that "nice quality magnaflow" would probably fail since, in their totally subjective decision that will no doubt be held to ridiculous standards, it doesn't meet "OEM standard".

Hopefully the mom and pop shops will be a lot more understanding when it comes to the subjectiveness issues.

Well said. Best to build a mutually beneficial relationship with independent mechanic/shop you trust. Stick with them. At least then there is some hope of being treated fairly. Nobody wants to drive an unsafe vehicle.

 

[Neil_V]

Now, to start, I'm NO fan of the fart-can mufflers either, but....why is one better than the other, aside from the sound that comes out of it? The sound generated, so long as it's not running afoul of noise bylaws (which, in another interesting twist, are also open to a lot of interpretation) shouldn't matter so far as "Safety" (looking at it purely from that perspective) is concerned. I'm sure I could find a muffler that makes my Hemi Magnum sound absolutely terrible, but still quiet, just tonally all wrong. Why would that be a fail, but a "nice quality magnaflow" would be a pass?

Most notably, installation. Too close to bodywork, lines, the ground etc; sometimes secured by nothing more than mechanics wire.. I've seen so ****. But I'm sure when I inevitably get challenged, anything sold as "offroad use only" is a fail will be the answer I receive from the MTO

The subjectiveness of some of this is where the issues are going to begin IMHO....and if the owner of a car takes issue with something that has failed due to a subjective decision on behalf of the guy doing the inspection, who does he file an objection with? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this will lead to people just taking the car elsewhere and getting a different opinion on the same issue that might have failed them at the last shop, and suddenly the subjectiveness goes the other way and the vehicle passes.

You call the MTO and request they be present for a re-inspection; same as now

The best thing anyone could do when these new standards come into play is avoid the big chain shops like the plague. Taking any car older than a few years to a place like Canadian Tire or such is a recipe for everything being held to such ridiculous standards that anything short of a 1 or 2 year old car that has never had an ounce of work done to it will likely never pass without a massive laundry list of "repairs", using the term loosely. Hell, at Canadian Tire even that "nice quality magnaflow" would probably fail since, in their totally subjective decision that will no doubt be held to ridiculous standards, it doesn't meet "OEM standard".

Hopefully the mom and pop shops will be a lot more understanding when it comes to the subjectiveness issues.

Don't disagree with much of this. But it's not necessarily what shop as to who is in the shop. Plenty of big places with a few damn good techs, problem is they have 13 more bays to fill.

 

[LePhillou]

ugh... i remember when i used to buy these replacement body parts, instead of having a cracked bumper repaired for $150 + paint id get a cheap one for $150 + paint...but then its a part that would be deemed "for offroad use only"

Lets just hope they never get that anal in finding issues with your vehicle's body.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Don't disagree with much of this. But it's not necessarily what shop as to who is in the shop. Plenty of big places with a few damn good techs, problem is they have 13 more bays to fill.

My beef with the big chains like Canadian Tire comes down to stupid "company policies" where an otherwise decent mechanic gets overridden by stupidity, so if (in this case for example) decide that "any muffler aside from the factory muffler is a fail", the mechanics need to adhere to that, even if it's completely stupid. A car where the factory muffler is 20x the cost of the properly mounted, quiet, perfectly equivalent and completely safe universal option shouldn't fail simply because a part didn't come from the factory.

What's next, my Hemi has Moog tie rod ends and sway bar links on it now - is that a fail simply because it's not "factory oem parts", despite the fact they suck compared to the Moogs? I know this is a stretch but I've seen and experienced this sort of stupidity - found a really great set of discontinued (and therefore drastically less expensive) LT truck tires that I wanted for my horse trailer 2 years ago. Canadian Tire techs refused to mount them since they first tried to tell me putting LT tires on a trailer was illegal (it's not, many RV manufacturers ship them from the factory with LT's now actually), and when I took issue with it and suggested they show me where the MTO or any standards made it illegal (which of course they couldn't find) they suddenly fell back on "company policy" and still refused. Yes, they were of sufficient weight carrying capacity, they were the right size, etc - there was no issue except they weren't "ST" tires (which suck donkey balls) in the end.

This is my issue with overzealousneas where stupidity gets in the way of common sense, and these new regs just seem like a bullseye for these sorts of things to start happening enmasse.

 

[Neil_V]

My beef with the big chains like Canadian Tire comes down to stupid "company policies" where an otherwise decent mechanic gets overridden by stupidity, so if (in this case for example) decide that "any muffler aside from the factory muffler is a fail", the mechanics need to adhere to that, even if it's completely stupid. A car where the factory muffler is 20x the cost of the properly mounted, quiet, perfectly equivalent and completely safe universal option shouldn't fail simply because a part didn't come from the factory.

What's next, my Hemi has Moog tie rod ends and sway bar links on it now - is that a fail simply because it's not "factory oem parts", despite the fact they suck compared to the Moogs? I know this is a stretch but I've seen and experienced this sort of stupidity - found a really great set of discontinued (and therefore drastically less expensive) LT truck tires that I wanted for my horse trailer 2 years ago. Canadian Tire techs refused to mount them since they first tried to tell me putting LT tires on a trailer was illegal (it's not, many RV manufacturers ship them from the factory with LT's now actually), and when I took issue with it and suggested they show me where the MTO or any standards made it illegal (which of course they couldn't find) they suddenly fell back on "company policy" and still refused. Yes, they were of sufficient weight carrying capacity, they were the right size, etc - there was no issue except they weren't "ST" tires (which suck donkey balls) in the end.

This is my issue with overzealousneas where stupidity gets in the way of common sense, and these new regs just seem like a bullseye for these sorts of things to start happening enmasse.

Like I said, 13 bays to fill. No tech with half a brain is going to let the company decide what is legal or not; they are the trained professional.

On a side note, it's funny how one set of regs in the interest of public safety draw your ire, yet another is perfectly justified... just an observation. For the record, I don't think these were necessary either, just trying to dispel some of the doom and gloom... ie my rear main seal seep will be a fail; it won't

 

[-D-]

Just a thought...If these these new changes are as such then it seems that your insurance company can deny your claim due to improper parts...aftermarket brake pads and rotors would be the easiest to deny your claim for.

 

[Neil_V]

Just a thought...If these these new changes are as such then it seems that your insurance company can deny your claim due to improper parts...aftermarket brake pads and rotors would be the easiest to deny your claim for.

Not going to happen

 

[PrivatePilot]

Like I said, 13 bays to fill. No tech with half a brain is going to let the company decide what is legal or not; they are the trained professional.

My experience with regards to the LT tires on a trailer directly contravene that. The one tech even came out and talked to me in the parking lot and said he'd have installed them but but his boss was being a hard *** and then repeated the "company policy" line while rolling his eyes.

On a side note, it's funny how one set of regs in the interest of public safety draw your ire, yet another is perfectly justified... just an observation.

Says the guy who is defending the inspection laws here but thinks driving 200KPH on the highway in the middle of the night is OK?

Regardless, I'm all for safety, but "non OEM muffler" is but one prime example of something that has nothing to do with safety and all to do with overzealous rules. If safety was the primary concern it should be worded "Improperly attached, too loud, contacts body, too low", that sort of thing, not a blanket statement that non OEM is a fail.

 

[-D-]

Just a thought...If these these new changes are as such then it seems that your insurance company can deny your claim due to improper parts...aftermarket brake pads and rotors would be the easiest to deny your claim for.

Not going to happen

Actually I just remembered that insurance companies pay for aftermarket parts to be used via their approved repair shops too.
Seems like this will be a tricky one.

What about the impact to companies that provide quality aftermarket parts?
Do you have to use an OEM battery too? lol

 

[Neil_V]

My experience with regards to the LT tires on a trailer directly contravene that. The one tech even came out and talked to me in the parking lot and said he'd have installed them but but his boss was being a hard *** and then repeated the "company policy" line while rolling his eyes.

"half a brain" was the key to my statement.. don't let what I've said get in the way of your response. You could have just called the MTO if you thought you were in the right (which you were) that woulda been the smart thing to do

Says the guy who is defending the inspection laws here but thinks driving 200KPH on the highway in the middle of the night is OK?

Cute how you cut out the part where I said I didn't find them necessary Again not letting my actual statements define your replies; you're too cool

Carry on with your grossly misinformed grandstanding

 

[Neil_V]

Actually I just remembered that insurance companies pay for aftermarket parts to be used via their approved repair shops too.
Seems like this will be a tricky one.

What about the impact to companies that provide quality aftermarket parts?
Do you have to use an OEM battery too? lol

For all those worried about aftermarket; from the link I posted page two

“OEM standard” – means the manufacturing methods, component andassembly quality levels, and performance levels set by the manufacturer of avehicle or vehicle component to ensure a vehicle is able to perform safely asintended. It includes component quality, performance levels, repair methods,durability, safety and the service methods outlined in the warranty and serviceliterature provided for the use and maintenance of a vehicle. Parts supplied byOEM, and established aftermarket manufacturers of parts intended for directreplacement of OEM parts, are generally considered to meet OEM standard

 

[-D-]

For all those worried about aftermarket; from the link I posted page two

thx
that cleared it up

Forum Sponsor