Is this LEGAL? [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums - Automotive Enthusiasts Community

Zero102

02-25-2011, 08:31 AM

To answer the real question here, no. There is a law stating a minimum and maximum height of your bumpers, headlights and tail lights. This vehicle would violate all of those and is a danger to everybody else on the roads.

Sure he may have been courteous when he was witnessed driving, but if he ever slips up and t-bones another vehicle, the consequences could be deadly at far lower speeds than with a non-lifted truck.

Rat Fink

02-25-2011, 08:50 AM

Redlyne_mr2

02-25-2011, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Rat Fink
I don't get why a truck gets lifted that high. He still has fuck all for ground clearance.

:werd:

His diff. and major suspension components are no where near as high off the ground.

Ricer

ercchry

02-25-2011, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Zero102
To answer the real question here, no. There is a law stating a minimum and maximum height of your bumpers, headlights and tail lights. This vehicle would violate all of those and is a danger to everybody else on the roads.

Sure he may have been courteous when he was witnessed driving, but if he ever slips up and t-bones another vehicle, the consequences could be deadly at far lower speeds than with a non-lifted truck.

we already have a thread on this mr. lawyer and i believe your stance was proven wrong :thumbsup:

EDIT... oh... and repost :repost:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/309147/is-this-even-legal/

Dave P

02-25-2011, 09:03 AM

JnSEQx9wkvE

Cos

02-25-2011, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2

:werd:

His diff. and major suspension components are no where near as high off the ground.

Ricer

He is the ricer of the truck world. Zero use. Shit mine is lifted 3" with 35's and I find it is more than I need. Next set of tires will be 33's and it will work just fine off road and on lease roads.

mr2mike

02-25-2011, 09:27 AM

The bed of the truck is pretty much useless. I'd love to see him move a fridge or something.

Twin_Cam_Turbo

02-25-2011, 09:34 AM

I hate it when you can see between the frame and the bed of a truck, I dont know why but it bugs the hell out of me.

supe

02-25-2011, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by mr2mike
The bed of the truck is pretty much useless. I'd love to see him move a fridge or something.

Thats what ramps are for.
That thing does have a 20 ft ramp that slides out right?

Anomaly

02-25-2011, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Rat Fink
I don't get why a truck gets lifted that high. He still has fuck all for ground clearance.

When I saw this thing on Stoney I thought the same thing. A high clearance 6 inch lift has the same amount of front clearance and doesn't look terrible. :thumbsdow

Sugarphreak

02-25-2011, 10:44 AM

...

FraserB

02-25-2011, 11:34 AM

Aside from needing a set of mudflaps and assuming is lights are no higher than 54" from the ground, he is legal. Lots of wasted money on that rig though.

J-hop

02-25-2011, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Rat Fink
I don't get why a truck gets lifted that high. He still has fuck all for ground clearance.

no kidding, funny how on a primarily car oriented site this is readily apparent to people. But from examples on the street it is apparent this idea hasn't caught on in a significant portion of the "4x4" community (and by "4x4" i mean wannabees- no insult intended to guys actually into 4xing).

Who wants to bet he has some sick pinion angle too.

Zero102

02-25-2011, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by ercchry

we already have a thread on this mr. lawyer and i believe your stance was proven wrong :thumbsup:

EDIT... oh... and repost :repost:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/309147/is-this-even-legal/

I dont see where in that thread I was proven anything but right, and that many people agree with my opinion. Unless you were talking about the law, where I was also proven right:

Bumpers
62(1) A passenger car shall be equipped with a front and rear
bumper.
(2) No person shall install or alter a bumper on a passenger car
unless the design of the bumper is equivalent to, and the bumper is
mounted in substantially the same manner as, the bumper installed
by the manufacturer of the passenger car.
RSA 1980 cH-7 s62
Height of bumpers
63(1) No person shall alter a passenger car so that the main
structural component of a bumper is more than 50 centimetres or
less than 40 centimetres above ground level when the passenger car
is unloaded.
(2) A bumper that has at least 6.25 centimetres of projected
vertical facing within the height restriction referred to in subsection
(1) when viewed in elevation is deemed to comply with that
subsection.
(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2), components that are
commonly known as bumperettes or overriders are not part of the
main structural component of a bumper or of the projected vertical
facing.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to passenger cars manufactured
before April 1, 1976 but no person shall alter such a car so that the
bumper is more than 10 centimetres higher or lower than it was at
the time the car was manufactured.

chkolny541

02-25-2011, 12:58 PM

legal or illegal, that thing is gay, he will roll that thing 5 or 6 times one day

Type_S1

02-25-2011, 01:09 PM

Anybody that does that is a complete dbag. Imagine the windows he breaks with all the rocks that come off that piece of shit. If I saw that in person I would bitch the guy out about mudflaps. I don't understand why cops don't ticket fucking retards like this for the 3 or 4 tickets he can get but instead run around giving tickets to civics or bmw's with tinted windows.

Kloubek

02-25-2011, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Type_S1
Anybody that does that is a complete dbag. Imagine the windows he breaks with all the rocks that come off that piece of shit. If I saw that in person I would bitch the guy out about mudflaps. I don't understand why cops don't ticket fucking retards like this for the 3 or 4 tickets he can get but instead run around giving tickets to civics or bmw's with tinted windows.

Woah. Anger management.

FraserB

02-25-2011, 01:25 PM

He could have made his point in a less angry way but he does have a point. Mudflaps on a jacked up truck that expose a massive amount of tire should be a common courtesy. I subscribe to the school of though where I'll mod my truck but if I get a ticket for something I did to it, it is the cost of having a rig I enjoy driving.

That being said, winter tires are actually really bad for flinging rocks as well.

Kloubek

02-25-2011, 01:35 PM

Oh, I don't deny that this guy's setup seems over the top and perhaps dangerous to some degree... and it is worth mentioning. But I just don't get why people get *so* personally angry about things which in the scope of life, are pretty mild issues.

Mind you, I'm also the one who feels that there is no reason to yell at each other in a relationship situation; a philosophy my wife has yet to adopt.

I guess I just think it is better to deal with issues with a clear head; I think if this guy was calmly spoken to regarding the dangers his vehicle creates as opposed to being yelled at - he would be more apt to listen.

ercchry

02-25-2011, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero102

I dont see where in that thread I was proven anything but right, and that many people agree with my opinion. Unless you were talking about the law, where I was also proven right:

Originally posted by FraserB
Aside from needing a set of mudflaps and assuming is lights are no higher than 54" from the ground, he is legal. Lots of wasted money on that rig though.

Tik-Tok

02-25-2011, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero102

I dont see where in that thread I was proven anything but right, and that many people agree with my opinion. Unless you were talking about the law, where I was also proven right:

I thought the same, until I further researched it. The quote you gave is correct, BUT...

Under Vehicle Equipment Regulation Interpretation,

(n) “passenger car” means a passenger car as defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada);

And under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations Interpretation...

“passenger car” means a vehicle having a designated seating capacity of 10 or less, but does not include an all-terrain vehicle, a competition vehicle, a low-speed vehicle, a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, an antique reproduction vehicle, a motorcycle, a truck, a trailer, a vehicle imported temporarily for special purposes or a three-wheeled vehicle;

“truck” means a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special-purpose equipment, but does not include a competition vehicle, a crawler-mounted vehicle, a three-wheeled vehicle, a trailer, a work vehicle, a vehicle imported temporarily for special purposes, a vehicle designed for operation exclusively off-road or a low-speed vehicle;

So those lifted trucks ARE legal (for bumpers)

Type_S1

02-25-2011, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Kloubek
Oh, I don't deny that this guy's setup seems over the top and perhaps dangerous to some degree... and it is worth mentioning. But I just don't get why people get *so* personally angry about things which in the scope of life, are pretty mild issues.

Mind you, I'm also the one who feels that there is no reason to yell at each other in a relationship situation; a philosophy my wife has yet to adopt.

I guess I just think it is better to deal with issues with a clear head; I think if this guy was calmly spoken to regarding the dangers his vehicle creates as opposed to being yelled at - he would be more apt to listen.

Personally I had my windowed chipped twice this winter by dumbasses with lifted trucks and no mudflaps...so yes it pisses me off. Any jackass that does this should be fined but the police are too worried about people in civic's with tinted windows because they "can't" see them instead of something that can actually cause harm on the road.

kvg

02-25-2011, 02:37 PM

I'm with Type_S1 on this one. Big truck with no mud flaps should get a crazy fine. If a truck like that ever T-boned my I'd be dead, no question.

FraserB

02-25-2011, 02:53 PM

Interestingly enough, the fine for no mud flaps and for tint is the same.

btimbit

02-25-2011, 02:54 PM

badatusrnames

02-25-2011, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Kloubek
But I just don't get why people get *so* personally angry about things which in the scope of life, are pretty mild issues.

Maybe because personally, they don't want to get his bumper through their forehead.

Sugarphreak

02-25-2011, 03:11 PM

...

badatusrnames

02-25-2011, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I am pretty sure there are at least 100 other type of commercial trucks that would kill you if they T-boned you... and there is no guarantee that a BMW sedan wouldn't kill you either

Yes but, commercial trucks have lower, properly designed bumpers. With the position of this guys' bumper, the first point of impact is going to decapitate someone, you have a higher chance of injury than if you got hit by a commercial truck that's been properly designed for the roads.

Sugarphreak

02-25-2011, 03:22 PM

...

Type_S1

02-25-2011, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I have to disagree, if you want to make the case that this truck is dangerous by nature, there is far more proof to show that commercial vehicles are even more dangerous due to the heavy weight and substantially more rigid construction for hauling that weight.

Honestly I would be more concerned about the state and experience of drivers than the trucks (or cars) they drive.

A VW golf driven by somebody who is an idiot is much more likely to colide with your car & kill you than a giant super lifted truck driven by somebody who is an experienced and courteous driver.

For some reason do you love lifted obnoxious trucks without mudflaps?

He is super gay for it and yes it is dangerous. I care about the damn mudflaps though that break my windshield. I want to become a cop just so I can sit there and give every truck without mudflaps a ticket. Every single one...

Kloubek

02-25-2011, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by badatusrnames

Maybe because personally, they don't want to get his bumper through their forehead.

haha!

I don't think I expressed myself properly. It isn't that I don't think this is unsafe, or that laws shouldn't be followed, or even that the guy is being inconsiterate. I'm not too keen of a bumper lined up with my head either.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't keep themselves up at night worrying about it. I'm much more concerned about inexperienced or elderly drivers out there than I am with some hick with an overly jacked truck.

badatusrnames

02-25-2011, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Honestly I would be more concerned about the state and experience of drivers than the trucks (or cars) they drive.

A VW golf driven by somebody who is an idiot is much more likely to colide with your car & kill you than a giant super lifted truck driven by somebody who is an experienced and courteous driver.

So? You're ignoring the actual debate, it's about whether a vehicle is inherently unsafe, not about who is driving it.

All things being equal, he's taken a vehicle, and modified it for no good reason that I can see and made it more unsafe. Driver skill aside.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I have to disagree, if you want to make the case that this truck is dangerous by nature, there is far more proof to show that commercial vehicles are even more dangerous due to the heavy weight and substantially more rigid construction for hauling that weight.

I'd like to see this proof. Regardless, commercial vehicles are designed the way they are to serve a function. They are also designed to be as safe on the road as they possibly can, manufacturers position the bumpers where they are so as to mitigate injury to other drivers in the event of a collision.

This guy has taken a vehicle that was designed properly for the road and made it less safe for those around him to satisfy his poor tastes, I don't see what there is to keep arguing about.

It's not about this truck being ok on the road just because there are totally different classes of vehicles on the road that may cause more harm in a collision, that's some pretty backwards logic.

Sugarphreak

02-25-2011, 03:53 PM

...

anschutz_92

02-25-2011, 04:08 PM

All you guys bitching about how this kind of lift has no merit obviously haven't driven on anything other than standard trails which could be done in a stock Nissan x-trail. When you are going over stumps and branches they often come up and smack your body. I would much rather spend $4500 on a lift similar to this than have my truck written off from landing on a stump wrong and taking out your door + rocker or box. I don't even wheel and I know this.

Haters going to hate. It's not my style and this truck would be sketchy on road, useless at towing and doesn't look visually appealing but if the owner likes it all the more power to him.

Sugarphreak

02-25-2011, 04:12 PM

...

J-hop

02-25-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by anschutz_92
All you guys bitching about how this kind of lift has no merit obviously haven't driven on anything other than standard trails which could be done in a stock Nissan x-trail. When you are going over stumps and branches they often come up and smack your body. I would much rather spend $4500 on a lift similar to this than have my truck written off from landing on a stump wrong and taking out your door + rocker or box. I don't even wheel and I know this.

Haters going to hate. It's not my style and this truck would be sketchy on road, useless at towing and doesn't look visually appealing but if the owner likes it all the more power to him.

yes you do have a point, however as previously discussed in order for this obnoxious lift to be of much use the owner should have mated it with sufficiently larger tires such that his lowest point (the differential) would actually have significantly more clearance over stock. The total lift on this truck is probably a couple ft at least but I bet his differential clearance has only increased a couple inches. That truck would be great for river fording but as far as doing "extreme" (OMFGBBQ) off-roading, this truck wouldn't be much use.

Kavy

02-25-2011, 04:35 PM

We live in Calgary, shit gets icey.

If I get rear ended at 15km by a sliding civic my bumper gets fucked to the tune of around 4k, my neck might hurt a bit after but otherwise I walk away.

If i get rear ended at 15km by this truck, I'm lucky if my child in the back seat isn't impaled by glass and me and my wife are not decapitated.

No one can convince me otherwise.

ercchry

02-25-2011, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Kavy

No one can convince me otherwise.

really? so safety glass is not something bmw uses on their cars? do they make their cars out of tin as well?

big A

02-25-2011, 05:00 PM

I don't know if it's legal or not but I do know that its awesome!

Zero102

02-25-2011, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

I thought the same, until I further researched it. The quote you gave is correct, BUT...

Under Vehicle Equipment Regulation Interpretation,

And under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations Interpretation...

So those lifted trucks ARE legal (for bumpers)

I disagree for 2 reasons:
1) I believe that pickup trucks still count as passenger vehicles. If they counted as trucks under this law then their registration requirements would be different.

2) Even if they dont, simply proving that the passenger car rules do not apply does not mean that anything goes for them, this vehicle would still have to comply with the rules for whatever class of vehicle it does fall within, and they all have very similar requirements when it comes to brake light height, headlight height and bumper heights (not to mention, he is altogether missing his rear bumper which is another issue). Also, 54 inches does not sound like the correct height requirement for headlights. I cant look up the rules right now due to internet restrictions but that sounds ridiculously high to me.

(My apostrophe key is not working today or my spelling would be slightly better)

kvg

02-25-2011, 05:15 PM

With his bumper height he's gonna hit window glass not metal. When I have pulled up to commercial trucks the bumpers are longer and would hit a body panels. I would love to see a crack down by the cops on bumper height and mud flaps. I don't give a fuck mud flaps don't look good or your front tires rub them, use them on the rear. Hell my car with 3-4 inches clearance has a set of mud flaps.

HHURICANE1

02-25-2011, 05:41 PM

From the Alberta Vehicle Equipment Regulations.

(2) A headlamp must be mounted so that the centre of the
headlamp is not more than 1.4 metres and not less than 560
millimetres above ground level when the motor vehicle is not
loaded.

(5) The centre of a tail lamp must not be less than 380 millimetres
or more than 2 metres above ground level when the vehicle is not
loaded.

Mudguards
64(1) A motor vehicle or trailer must have a part of its body, a
fender or a mudguard that covers the width of each tire.
(2) The body part, fender or mudguard referred to in subsection (1)
must be above each wheel and
(a) extend downwards at the rear of each axle or axle group to
at least the centre line of the axle, or
(b) be a distance away from the ground equivalent to at least
1/3 of the horizontal distance from the bottom edge of the
mudguard to the centre line of the axle, but not closer to
the ground than 150 millimetres when the vehicle is
loaded.

Bumpers
79(1) A passenger car must have both a front and a rear bumper.
(2) A person shall not install or alter a bumper on a passenger car
unless the design of the bumper is equivalent to, and the bumper is
mounted in substantially the same manner as, the bumper installed
by the manufacturer of the passenger car
(3) A person shall not alter a passenger car in such a way that the
main structural component of a bumper is more than 500
millimetres or less than 400 millimetres above ground level when
the passenger car is not loaded.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), components that are
commonly known as bumperettes or overriders are not part of the
main structural component of a bumper or of the projected vertical
facing of a bumper.
(5) Subsection (3) does not apply to passenger cars manufactured
before April 1, 1976.
(6) A person shall not alter a car manufactured before April 1,
1976 in such a way that the bumper is more than 100 millimetres
higher or lower than it was at the time the car was manufactured.

So no, that truck is not legal. It's a raft load of tickets for the cop who wants to be bothered.

Tik-Tok

02-25-2011, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Zero102

I disagree for 2 reasons:
1) I believe that pickup trucks still count as passenger vehicles. If they counted as trucks under this law then their registration requirements would be different.

2) Even if they dont, simply proving that the passenger car rules do not apply does not mean that anything goes for them, this vehicle would still have to comply with the rules for whatever class of vehicle it does fall within, and they all have very similar requirements when it comes to brake light height, headlight height and bumper heights (not to mention, he is altogether missing his rear bumper which is another issue)

1) Registration falls under the Alberta Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation, not under Federal guidelines

2) You're correct, and under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, Schedule III, the requirements for Passenger Car VS. Truck are almost identical EXCEPT for 2 things. Interior Trunk Release, and... Bumpers.

The fact is, the Vehicle Equipment Regulation specifically says the definition of "Passenger Car" is to be found under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regs., and the Regs have two different definitions for Passenger Car and Truck.

You could call it a loophole, or it could be an outdated error (ie passenger car under MVSR may have considered a light truck to be a passenger car at some point int he past, but not now). Either way, anyone (doesn't even have to be a lawyer) could bring this information to court and have the ticket thrown out, so why should the police bother?

I fully concur that it should be changed, so the bumper height of ALL vehicles on the road, would match each other (in law), but for now, it's legal.

Zewind

02-25-2011, 06:01 PM

That picture look close to my place - was it near 17th Ave & 37 st?

I could drive my car under that

Tik-Tok

02-25-2011, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by HHURICANE1
"paragraph of stuff already posted"

So no, that truck is not legal. It's a raft load of tickets for the cop who wants to be bothered.

:facepalm:

Did you even read the thread? Go scroll up a little, maybe to page 2 and read my previous posts... go ahead... I'll wait...

Trucks, by definition, are NOT "Passenger Cars" and therefore have NO bumper height restrictions.

calgarydub

02-25-2011, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Zewind
That picture look close to my place - was it near 17th Ave & 37 st?

I could drive my car under that

Outside the rusty cage. I was going to wendy's drive through from the walmart parking lot and cut through.

I had to take a shot of that, I've never seen one bigger on the road.

Hamann

02-25-2011, 07:00 PM

Alot of "What If" going on in this thread, in all honesty for how absolutely deadly you guys are making this out to be I sure haven't seen much proof. We live in Alberta, some people want to have jacked up trucks for whatever reason. I love the look of a jacked up truck, that one is alittle high for my personal taste but whatever. With the number of Big trucks with huge lift's on them driving around the City you would think maybe we would of heard about all the death's and horrible accidents by now if they truly were as dangerous as some of you believe.

There are much more important issues to worry about then what someone else does with their fucking money. :whocares:

Unknown303

02-25-2011, 07:21 PM

Is everyone in this thread high??

That truck has mud flaps on it. You can't see them easily from the side, but I kid you not they are on there and they do go down to the center point of the axle.

And in my time the biggest rock chips I've had have always been from small cars. I kid you not, after driving for months on end on logging roads one day in town and a honda nearly blows out my window with the rock that hits it.

Sure the truck is beyond use at that size but other than the bumper he's really taken everything into account. And on those big back chevy's you always have massive diff in the center that will probably act quite well as a bumper.

Type_S1

02-25-2011, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Hamann
Alot of "What If" going on in this thread, in all honesty for how absolutely deadly you guys are making this out to be I sure haven't seen much proof. We live in Alberta, some people want to have jacked up trucks for whatever reason. I love the look of a jacked up truck, that one is alittle high for my personal taste but whatever. With the number of Big trucks with huge lift's on them driving around the City you would think maybe we would of heard about all the death's and horrible accidents by now if they truly were as dangerous as some of you believe.

There are much more important issues to worry about then what someone else does with their fucking money. :whocares:

It is a issue when a FUCKING IDIOT spends what... 4000-5000 to make his truck look that shitty and can't put 50$ into mudflaps so he doesn't cause $5,000 in broken windows a year? On second look this guy does look like he might have mudflaps...

But Let me ask you...do you have mudflaps? How about I come and throw a nice sized rock at your truck and see how happy you are. Instead how about I throw about 50 considering you probably shoot that many at other vehicles if you don't have mudflaps. How pissed would you be? You would be pissed because I am damaging your property...so that is why I am pissed at FUCKING IDIOTS that do this. Get your lift....lift it as high as the law allows...but put mudflaps on so you don't damage other people's property. :banghead:

Unknown303

02-25-2011, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Type_S1

It is a issue when a FUCKING IDIOT spends what... 4000-5000 to make his truck look that shitty and can't put 50$ into mudflaps so he doesn't cause $5,000 in broken windows a year? On second look this guy does look like he might have mudflaps...

But Let me ask you...do you have mudflaps? How about I come and throw a nice sized rock at your truck and see how happy you are. Instead how about I throw about 50 considering you probably shoot that many at other vehicles if you don't have mudflaps. How pissed would you be? You would be pissed because I am damaging your property...so that is why I am pissed at FUCKING IDIOTS that do this. Get your lift....lift it as high as the law allows...but put mudflaps on so you don't damage other people's property. :banghead:

His truck has mudflaps. Pay attention to the pictures in all the threads. :banghead: Reason he had to put those huge ass mudflaps on was to keep people like you from bitching and to make it legal.

ddduke

02-25-2011, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Type_S1

Personally I had my windowed chipped twice this winter by dumbasses with lifted trucks and no mudflaps...so yes it pisses me off. Any jackass that does this should be fined but the police are too worried about people in civic's with tinted windows because they "can't" see them instead of something that can actually cause harm on the road.

Actually, I'm going to say police are worried about trucks with tinted windows also, not just civics. I personally don't like the sound of shitty civics ripping by my house, but I don't say I'm going to come up to every idiot with a fart can and bitch him out. You should get out more bro, you seem a bit too angry.

I'm also sure you would come up to this guy and bitch him out. You're just another guy talking shit on the internet.

btw, before you say something about me driving a big truck. I hate this thing and think it's an eye sore, I see it on my sites all the time and think it's disgusting. My truck is also 100% legal, I have fender flares, mud flaps, no tint on the front windows, etc.

J-hop

02-25-2011, 10:04 PM

personally, I can deal with the rock chips, generally that means i just need to back off a bit.

But until someone can prove to me that having a guy hit me whos bumper sits at my head height is just as safe as if their bumper sat at my trunk level I will continue to think these guys are a menace on the road.

I don't care what you say there is no logical evidence that proves someone that drives a lifted truck is LESS likely to get in an accident than someone that drives a normal height truck. Therefore you have to look at it from a safety in the event of a collision perspective.

Can you imagine this guy t-boning you at an intersection. bumper to head =dead you

calgarydub

02-25-2011, 10:08 PM

I can confirm that the truck does have mudflaps.

How effective they are, I can't say for sure.

FraserB

02-26-2011, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by anschutz_92
All you guys bitching about how this kind of lift has no merit obviously haven't driven on anything other than standard trails which could be done in a stock Nissan x-trail. When you are going over stumps and branches they often come up and smack your body. I would much rather spend $4500 on a lift similar to this than have my truck written off from landing on a stump wrong and taking out your door + rocker or box. I don't even wheel and I know this.

Haters going to hate. It's not my style and this truck would be sketchy on road, useless at towing and doesn't look visually appealing but if the owner likes it all the more power to him.

The people saying that there is little merit to this other than a mudding rug actually do offroad. If you would like you can come out with us on the 6th with a stock X-Trail.
For what you think is "serious" offroading, higher is often worse than lower. Go take a look at the rigs doing the Rubicon or wheeling in South Dakota.

whiskas

02-26-2011, 03:24 AM

He should not even have been able to get his vehicle registered.

Traffic Safety Act
62(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or a motor vehicle document, the Registrar may on receiving an application issue a permit doing one or more of the following:
(iii) authorizing a person to operate a vehicle on a highway when that vehicle does not comply with the equipment standards applicable to that vehicle;

65(1) Except as otherwise permitted under this Act, a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) drive or operate a vehicle on a highway unless that vehicle complies with the vehicle and equipment standards set out in the regulations in respect of that vehicle;

Vehicle Equipment Regulation
79 (3) A person shall not alter a passenger car in such a way that the main structural component of a bumper is more than 500 millimetres or less than 400 millimetres above ground level when the passenger car is not loaded.

6 (2) A headlamp must be mounted so that the centre of the headlamp is not more than 1.4 metres and not less than 560 millimetres above ground level when the motor vehicle is not loaded.

64 (1) A motor vehicle or trailer must have a part of its body, a fender or a mudguard that covers the width of each tire.
64 (2) The body part, fender or mudguard referred to in subsection (1) must be above each wheel and
(a) extend downwards at the rear of each axle or axle group to at least the centre line of the axle, or
(b) be a distance away from the ground equivalent to at least 1/3 of the horizontal distance from the bottom edge of the mudguard to the centre line of the axle, but not closer to the ground than 150 millimetres when the vehicle is loaded.

Unknown303

02-26-2011, 03:27 AM

Not sure why you quoted the mudflaps portion, he obviously has that in check.

whiskas

02-26-2011, 03:58 AM

64 (2) The body part, fender or mudguard referred to in subsection (1) must be above each wheel and

Tik-Tok

02-26-2011, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by whiskas

79 (3) A person shall not alter a passenger car in such a way that the main structural component of a bumper is more than 500 millimetres or less than 400 millimetres above ground level when the passenger car is not loaded.
[/B]

Not sure why you quoted the bumper, that vehicle by legal definition is clearly not a passenger car.

95teetee

02-26-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Cos

He is the ricer of the truck world. Zero use. Shit mine is lifted 3" with 35's and I find it is more than I need. Next set of tires will be 33's and it will work just fine off road and on lease roads. funny you would mention lease roads- there's a guy in town who used to operate in a truck done up about the same way. I couldn't imagine what a PITA it would be to get in and out of that thing the required number of times every day (not to mention in the winter, when you'd likely be wearing insulated coveralls).
Then again, he was also stupid enough to park at his buddy's restaurant/bar all day (while he was 'working') on a main road where all his bosses would drive by several times.
So he didn't operate in that truck very long anyways lol.

Cos

02-26-2011, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Type_S1

It is a issue when a FUCKING IDIOT spends what... 4000-5000 to make his truck look that shitty and can't put 50$ into mudflaps so he doesn't cause $5,000 in broken windows a year?

I have a feeling you are retarded. You think that guy breaks 20 peoples windshields a year? $5000.00? Come on.

Do you know who caused the big fucking rock chip on my truck this year? Douchebag in an Acura who swerved into the shoulder because he was texting. He didnt have mudflaps.

Maxt

02-26-2011, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by whiskas

64 (1) A motor vehicle or trailer must have a part of its body, a fender or a mudguard that covers the width of each tire.
64 (2) The body part, fender or mudguard referred to in subsection (1) must be above each wheel and
(a) extend downwards at the rear of each axle or axle group to at least the centre line of the axle, or
(b) be a distance away from the ground equivalent to at least 1/3 of the horizontal distance from the bottom edge of the mudguard to the centre line of the axle, but not closer to the ground than 150 millimetres when the vehicle is loaded.

I got charged with this long time ago.. Its easy to beat, as pickup trucks come with fenders. The wording and measurements are really for chassis cabs and semi trucks that are running trailerless. I took a few photos of my truck and the measurements along with unmodified trucks on the dealers lot showing the box not coming down to centreline and that (b) is not definable with a box on the truck. Do you measure from the back of the fender arch or the front? Thats with 7" lift and 35's. I don't have the ticket anymore but I think it was 64(1) I was charged under, and the trucks body did cover the tires, the ticket was withdrawn.

As for the mudflaps argument in general, the voids in mud tires are to large to pickup the average size stones that are on our roads. I live on an oiled road with loose stones, and my truck with mud terrains doesn't pick up any rocks on that road, my rx7 on the other hand spits a trail out behind, and you can hear them hitting the inner fender wells. I have all the chips in my work truck windshield from small cars.

Hounddog

02-26-2011, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Cos

Do you know who caused the big fucking rock chip on my truck this year? Douchebag in an Acura who swerved into the shoulder because he was texting. He didnt have mudflaps.

Me too! The 2 rock chips I've gotten this winter have both been by cars, not trucks. I guess really, any vehicle has the potential to spit a rock back at ya ...

Guillermo

02-26-2011, 12:21 PM

fuck, i would be embarrassed driving that thing around. and i wonder how many inches that thing added to his cock size.

Tik-Tok

02-26-2011, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Guillermo
fuck, i would be embarrassed driving that thing around. and i wonder how many inches that thing added to his cock size.

+5" in his eyes, -6" in everyone elses :rofl:

Hounddog

02-26-2011, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

... -6" in everyone elses :rofl:

like a turtle?

Guillermo

02-26-2011, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

+5" in his eyes, -6" in everyone elses :rofl:

Originally posted by Hounddog

like a turtle?

I LOLed :rofl:

anschutz_92

02-26-2011, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by FraserB

The people saying that there is little merit to this other than a mudding rug actually do offroad. If you would like you can come out with us on the 6th with a stock X-Trail.
For what you think is "serious" offroading, higher is often worse than lower. Go take a look at the rigs doing the Rubicon or wheeling in South Dakota.

It would be usesless in the mud. It's a heavy truck on bald Dick Cepek's and I agree it only has a couple of inches of clearance over stock on the front and rear differentials. I would also agree that a stock Jeep with decent tires would make it further into the bush than this thing would in most situations. But it is ridiculous to say that there is no reason to have a huge suspension and body lift when many cutlines have stumps cut off at 2' off the ground, and any time you cross a creek higher is better.