Monkey Boy 1

And that, Brian, is exactly as I am going to play it.

Just a quick update, Only a few more days until the court date. I have been sent through the Witness statement from the other PC who was at the scene when my car was noise checked. His statement has the wrong car colour(says it is green) and incorrect vehicle reg.( HUV not HVV) Good start isn't it? Also I was sent through a bundle of photos which they took of the exhaust system. I'm actually quite looking forward to Wednesday now. It's dragged on now since August last year, but has given me plenty of time to read through and see what mistakes they (Norfolk police) have made Will keep you all informed of the result For those that don't know what my exhaust looks like here a pic. They "look really loud" don't they ?

ooh, I may be able to do this one.... if I'm quick. Will give me a change to drooooool over the bikes

Bryan, do you have them in both Hi & Low beam, or just Low ?

A set of stainless brake lines for the 6. One day this car will stop.... efficiently, maybe one day :rolleyes:

A pair of front twin pot front calipers for the brake system rebuild. Now let the fun begin.

Something interesting from Pistonheads web site http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=27632 http://www.youtube.com/embed/JF5Zw_0TWCE?rel=0

After reading a post by Arizona about a chat with a fellow celica owner who had his car from new, it got me thinking 'How many club members have had their car since new? The one & only owner of their beloved car.' I for one have never been in the situation to afford to buy new, but there are others who would have been. Just wonder how many are CCUK members.

AMP are the manufacturer, you may be able to find if they have a web site (can't search for it at work due to their search engine rules) 94 could well be the year of manufacture, I have a similar problem with my wheels, they are manufactured by BSA, a Malaysian wheel manufacturing company and my wheels were only made for about a year to 18 months. Took me ages to track down the I.D. no. for the wheels. That is the biggest downfall on aftermarket things.

Nice work, I have HID's fitted and my MOT station said that it should be OK with them fitted. (I asked the question before I purchased them). Worst case scenario is to swap them for my std bulbs before the MOT & swap them back after (as the guys do with their CAT by-pass tubes)

I had a fob that was apparently knackered, In a moment of madness (more like boredom) I changed the battery for about the 10th time but used a duracell CR2032 one rather than the Fleabay ones and 'Hey presto' it sprun to life. Went out to the car, stood by the drivers door, pressed both buttons at the same time, held for 10 seconds and Bingo, it locked and unlocked the car. Now every now and again it loses itself, so I go through the procedure as above and it always comes back in line.

Found an interesting read from a paper written by the Transport Reserarch Laboratory with help from Devon & Cornwall Plod (Apparently the most active force in the UK on Exhaust noise checks back in 2010) back in 2010 about proposals for in-service exhause noise checks on cars, They even say that the ISO5130, is flawed in the checking of some vehicles. They even have a chart on about 320 cars checked with the age, mileage engine size, fuel type etc of the vehicle. The loudest was an Evo 8 in at 106 dB, Impreza's seem to come in at between 92 & 104dB, Lotus Elise 93dB and a Gen 5 Celica at 99dB (it had a performance pipe on). They also show that there was a +2.8dB change between checking a car at the specified 3750 RPM and 4000RPM. (they checked mine 1500RPM higher than 3750), OK the graph isn't linear, but it shows the difference you can get in incorrect set up. Even a 10cm change in microphone position can add 2dB to the results even at the correct rev range. They also state that the maximum power isn't neccessarily where the red line is (but we all know that anyway) Another interesting point is that type approval test denote a 74dB(A) limit for new cars, but that is on a drive by test. The other noise test conducted at type aproval is the stationary test as laid out in ISO5130, however there is currently no limit with regard to this test for cars manufactured in the UK must meet. VOSA enforce a 99dB(A) limit on cars improted from outside the UK / EU as part of their IVA (individual Vehicle Approval) They also state that "There can be large differences in noise levels between different makes of car."

I only use stainless steel fasteners for non-stressed or low torque areas, (ie for holding things in place) plastic undertray, numberplate screws, battery bracket etc. I also NEVER fit them dry. I always use an anti-seize compound like copper-slip. St/St bolts & fasteners can friction-weld themselves together if assembled dry and can be almost impossible or at best a real pig to drill out if you snap a bolt off in a blind hole. Some mild steel bolts are designed to stretch and yeild when assembled to a certain torque. you may find that the St/St bolts may break at a much lower torque especially if they are more decorative and have no markings on them because they've been either machined or polished off. Not all things shiny are good.

That was almost the exact comments from the Police back in August last year when I was stopped. "The reason we are stopping you Sir is that your exhausts look loud, will you accompany us back to the station so we can do a noise check" ORC got stopped a month earlier, probably within a mile or two from where i was stopped and apparently they told him that the force had a new piece of kit Even on the PC's written statement it says they stopped me because I had four tail pipes, two each side.and looked louder than a standard Toyota Celica.

Some interesting question there Daytona, and some good advice too. i will pop down to my local Powerflow distributor (who produce very similar systems to the one I have fitted) and ask them if they have any C & U compliant accreditation. The more ammo I have, the better, but I feel it's getting quite complicated now. I am trying to keep it simple and to the point. Even the guys at work are totally confused by the Police's stance on this. The type approval guys say that the test is an invalid test, No car of the age of mine should be revved to 3/4 power in an unloaded condition.

In answer to the above. Relevant points 1.I have the test report from the police. 2.Test paperwork shows the RPM at which they tested it. (5250RPM) 3. I have a copy of ISO5130 which is quoted on the police form 4.My car, max power is delivered at 6850RPM, Red line is 7000RPM ISO5130 Shows that a car with max power of between 5000 & 7500RPM should be tested at 3750RPM. (NOT 5250 as Plod did it at) There are no figures for dB(A) output in the ISO5130 test procedure. The Road Traffic Construction & use Reg 1986 refers to a different test, that of which is a drive by test. NOT as static test. Also to point out some errors in the paperwork: Police statements has incorrect colour of my vehicle Police statement has incorrect registration mark of my vehicle (court papers have correct Veh.Reg) Police test cert states different RPM target to the quoted ISO5130 test. Police form states dB on their form, it should state the correct dB(A) - There is a difference, believe me The initial Police ticket was given out as "A vehicle exhaust making excessive noise", The Court papers say "Use of a motor vehicle with an altered silencer / exhaust" as in Construction & use regs 54 (2) Every exhaust system and silencer shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not be altered so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases. Now that last bit is the only thing that is bugging me. I know i have a sports exhaust fitted to my car, so in theory it has been altered to increase noise. BUT it was fitted to increase power, the byproduct of more power is louder noise. Iwon't mention that bit in court as it will only confuse them even more. Hopefully they will see the amount of holes in the case and throw it out.

Just to add confusion to the case, remembering that I am questioning the way in which my car was checked and the interpretation of the results not the fact that it has an aftermarket exhaust. I have just re-read the "Road vehicles Construction & use regulations 1986" Yes it states an 82dB(A) limit, but then you have to then hunt for the method of measurement for this test. Now this is hidden away on Commission Directive 81/334/EEC Paragraph 5.2.2.4. Basically the 82dB(A) test as quotes in the Construction & use regs can only be attained in a drive by test, not a static test. This has to be done on an approved Test track. The static test as used by the Police as laid out in ISO5130 does not have a results table, so the figures the Police are using are cobbled together from various different sources to make their own standard up. The plot thickens

The number plate issue is only on the officers statement, they have it down correctly on other paperwork, but could still be a nail in their side for not proof reading their statements. I have also found amendments to the 'Construction & use act' 1996 which states a higher dB reading to the ones the police quote. and also the Police paperwork does not state the';weighting' on the dB meter, should read (A) for the human ear. which records a different frequency banding than other dB readings. It's all getting quite in depth now.

The latest update on this Got a letter through from the court today asking if I wanted the two Police officers to attend the court to give evidence? Of course I do, I know that they dislike going to court for people who argue over £30 FPN's Also been doing a little more digging on the legislation and have found some more figures that contradict their statement Road Vehicle construction & use act 1996, states that vehicle with over 75Kw output should be 86dB(A), not 82 as they quoted. Also reading through a copy of their statement I found a couple of errors, It may only be small errors, but it's a technicality. The have my car down as Green and have an incorrect letter in the Reg. No. of my car. Here's looking forward to May 29th

No probs

Oil flows from the outside to inner core

Window tints are acceptable on the windows rear of the 'B' pillar ie The windscreen and the front side windows to either side of the drivers’ head. Found this on the VOSA web site Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 as amended specify the minimum levels of light that must pass through the windscreen and front side windows. The limits are: Motor Vehicles first used before 1 April 1985: The windscreen and front side windows must allow at least 70% of light to be transmitted through them. Motor Vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1985: The light transmitted through the windscreen must be at least 75%. The front side windows must allow at least 70% of light to be transmitted through them. If the glass is tinted to a point whereby it lets through less light,then the vehicle does not meet legal requirements. Also take a look at the Road Vehicles construction & use act website. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/chapter/E/made

I asked the question about the light pattern, and he said that it should be the dame 'if' the bulb has the correct fitment. If you say that the bulbs are longer, then it may be that the light pattern is altered because of this. Are all the HID bulbs the same length ? I certainly don't know.

Hmm, interesting conversation with my local MOT tester today. I asked him about the legality of the HID bulbs in a normal reflector headlight and he said that the light pattern will be the same as with a normal bulb, the only issue that you may have is will the reflector part of the headlight withstand the heat of the HID bulb ? He added that there shouldn't be a problem with it. so long as the bulbs are fitted correctly.

I think TomTom also have a Gen 7, but no other Celicas in their download list