[haurp00ned]

hi all, on the weekend i got my 92 soft top sierra defected. apparently they think that it is too high and the tires on it are too big, now when i got the zook the person i bough it off told me that it had a 2" suspension lift in it and that is all. I now have two weeks too sort it out and have to go and get a inspection done on vehicle to insure that all is legal and what not. and i was wondering how can i measure or tell what size lift it has on it? cheers all.

[jimny_timmy]

What size tyres are you running?

[reeceh]

Best thing to do would be to take a photo of it. Next to something like a wheelie bin or even a standard car or better yet a tape measure. The Suzuki gods will be able to tell straight away if it's too high.

[zooky08]

your in qld, thats your problem id say your tyres brought on the defect more then being to high.
what size tyres you running

[haurp00ned]

im running 31"x10.5"x15's and okay will do ill measure it tomorrow? would i measure from ground to top off flare or what? thanks

[Bruce]

Tyres are way too big for RWC.

[buzbox]

Any lift over 50mm would need to be engineered, But generally most lifts are about 40mm once settled, So the lift if any you have in it is / should be legal. As for tyre size, chuck some stockers or close to and you should get away with it.

[Reubs]

You will need a set of standard tyres.

Get rid of any extended shackles if fitted also. Lifted springs and standard shackles will be fine.

Do you have a bodylift as well?

[haurp00ned]

what will happen if i dont take off the extended shackles do you think they will pick up on them?
and no i do not have a bodylift

[Bruce]

haurp00ned wrote:

what will happen if i dont take off the extended shackles do you think they will pick up on them?
and no i do not have a bodylift

Yes I'm betting they will pick you for it.

[2stroker]

As Reubs says, your springs will not be the problem it will be your shackles and your tyres, where did you get done, they have been grabing cars getting on and off the Noosa North Shore barge.

Go back to standard shackles, and 215/75 tyres, make sure all the little roadworthy items are up to scratch as well.

Please post a pic so we can see if there is anything else that stands out.

[Hybrid]

2stroker wrote:

...and 215/75 tyres...

Technically even they're oversize! That's if my recollection is right that the stockers are 205/70's

[jimny_timmy]

Hybrid wrote:

2stroker wrote:

...and 215/75 tyres...

Technically even they're oversize! That's if my recollection is right that the stockers are 205/70's

Yeah they are oversized, but still within the legal side of things.

[JrZook]

15mm..

[Hybrid]

JrZook wrote:

15mm..

Yep they're outside the 15mm diam increase unfortunately, they're 35mm bigger.

[Jackson]

Are you allowed to base your increase on the largest option? Sierra utes had 600-16's which are 28-ish" diameter.

[tanshi]

no, because they werent an option on softops

its only the biggest option on the particular model

and to be exact i believe utes had a 6.50-16 option

[Reubs]

tanshi wrote:

no, because they werent an option on softops
its only the biggest option on the particular model
and to be exact i believe utes had a 6.50-16 option

Here is the tyre placard for a factory 2 seat '86 Holden Drover. It was a regular soft-top shape with factory half-doors as well.

Only the 2 seat models had the 6.00-16 option.

[Blakey]

im pretty sure the law in qld is 15mm of the largest size avalable to the chassis not model.

[JrZook]

Blakey wrote:

im pretty sure the law in qld is 15mm of the largest size avalable to the chassis not model.

That would make more sense...

You got that in writing?

[whincup]

mine passed a RWC with a 2" suspension lift on 215/75R15's with extended shackles (TSOR shackles with the suzuki 'S' in it so they look standard!" and nowhere does it actually say a legal lift limit anyway, they only specify that the wheel travel cannot be increased by more than 2/3's of standard travel. so to pin you on that, they would need to know exactly how much travel a stock sierra had.

[tanshi]

there is a big difference between RWC and going over the pits after a defect.

i agree with you on the lift however. extended shackles are gonna get you nailed if QT see them. end of story

[Hybrid]

I actually got my second sierra RWC'd. They picked oil leaks etc, completely ignoring the 31's and body lift. They're not worth the paper they're written on with regard to legalities. I'm with you on the suspension lift thing. I read that the other day and thought it dumb. Whats to stop people just jacking it right up and adding extended bump stops to stay within the limits of additional travel.

[sideways]

tanshi wrote:

no, because they werent an option on softops

16x6 bar treads were optional on all 1l models (inc SWB), FR78-15 was the standard size which AFIAK works out at just over 27".

I can't speak for 1.3l Sierras however, but I'm certain I read 303zuke saying that the FR78-15s were standard on 1.3l NTs too. EDIT: reading the above Drover tyre placard confirms that I guess!

[Zook_Fan]

Hybrid wrote:

I actually got my second sierra RWC'd. They picked oil leaks etc, completely ignoring the 31's and body lift. They're not worth the paper they're written on with regard to legalities. I'm with you on the suspension lift thing. I read that the other day and thought it dumb. Whats to stop people just jacking it right up and adding extended bump stops to stay within the limits of additional travel.

Bumpstop extensions are classed as a chassis modification and are illegal.

[tanshi]

Zook_Fan wrote:

Hybrid wrote:

I actually got my second sierra RWC'd. They picked oil leaks etc, completely ignoring the 31's and body lift. They're not worth the paper they're written on with regard to legalities. I'm with you on the suspension lift thing. I read that the other day and thought it dumb. Whats to stop people just jacking it right up and adding extended bump stops to stay within the limits of additional travel.

Bumpstop extensions are classed as a chassis modification and are illegal.

I call bullshit. Chassis mods are not illegal other wise no one would be able to do anything.

They can be mod plated as can most chassis mods.

[Zook_Fan]

tanshi wrote:

Zook_Fan wrote:

Hybrid wrote:

I actually got my second sierra RWC'd. They picked oil leaks etc, completely ignoring the 31's and body lift. They're not worth the paper they're written on with regard to legalities. I'm with you on the suspension lift thing. I read that the other day and thought it dumb. Whats to stop people just jacking it right up and adding extended bump stops to stay within the limits of additional travel.

Bumpstop extensions are classed as a chassis modification and are illegal.

I call bullshit. Chassis mods are not illegal other wise no one would be able to do anything.

They can be mod plated as can most chassis mods.

From a couple of weeks ago:

want33s wrote:

Zook_Fan wrote:

want33s wrote:

bulladean_ wrote:

is there any legal problems if i lift my sierra 2 inchs using arb leaves. Commodore / hilux shocks and extend the bump stop

In QLD...
2" raised springs = LEGAL...
Non OEM fitment shocks = LEGAL...
Bumpstop extensions = ILLEGAL...

Where do you get that from? As far as I read from the DOT website the suspension can be changed a maximum of 1/3 of the factory travel at static height. It doesn't say anything about bumpstop extensions?

Ride height can be changed by raising or lowering but must retain a minimum of two thirds of the original travel.
Bumpstop extensions reduce the original or modified up travel and are illegal. They are considered to be a (chassis) modification.
Go talk to your local "friendly" compliance officer at your nearest Dept Transport.

Following want33s' advice, because I too did not see how it was classed as a chassis mod, I went into the DOT and had a chat to the guys in the inspection bay. Sure enough they said the exact same things.

[tanshi]

Bump stop extensions may or may not be illegal. I find it hard to believe. but surely the reason is not because they are a chassis mod. other wise how do you legally get new crossmembers for gearboxes mod plated.??

[Fatzook]

tanshi wrote:

Bump stop extensions may or may not be illegal. I find it hard to believe. but surely the reason is not because they are a chassis mod. other wise how do you legally get new crossmembers for gearboxes mod plated.??

Good points.

But don't assume QT employ a logic based thought process.

Just use bump extensions to set up your suspension, then once you are happy with it, make new OEM looking bump stop hangers that locate the OEM bump stop to the new 'correct' location. If done properly, QT would never notice.

[303zuke]

sideways wrote:

tanshi wrote:

no, because they werent an option on softops

16x6 bar treads were optional on all 1l models (inc SWB), FR78-15 was the standard size which AFIAK works out at just over 27".

I can't speak for 1.3l Sierras however, but I'm certain I read 303zuke saying that the FR78-15s were standard on 1.3l NTs too. EDIT: reading the above Drover tyre placard confirms that I guess!

Back in the day, Sierras came in two trim levels JA (basic) and JX (luxury). Depending on the body style, the quality of fitout varied, but for 1.3s with 3.9 diffs, FR78s were standard on both JA and JX, with the JA getting 5 spoke plain rims and the JX getting Sunraysia style. 6.00-16 bar treads were an option for ANY JA spec body (Soft top, hardtop, LWB or ute. Utes were JA trim only, Hi roof SWB was JX only).

The downside for quoting FR78 or 6.00-16 tyre sizes as a "Standard" size is that you MUST have a tyre placard on the car stating this as the original fitment. If your tyre placard says 205/70-15 (the stock size for a 1.3 with 3.7 diff ratios), then that is what Transport will work from. Good luck these days finding a new old stock 6/00-16/FR78 tyre placard sticker from Suzuki to replace yours with!