Air care, diesels, and full time 4wd
- Thread starter Enigma
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Just went through Air Care today. Idle test only. Max opacity allowed = 30. My reading: 0.82 (Yes the decimal is in the right spot!)
I've been doing some mods to my truck lately, so I'm going to reapply for Collector status (my truck currently has collector plates). I highly doubt it will re-qualify due to the suspension lift, but you never know!
Nice,
I'm interested to hear if the "period correct" type mods will be allowed to pass. Stuff like the paint, winch, brushgaurd, lift, sidepipe exhaust, etc.
It sure would be cheaper if I could insure mine as a collector, but there's not much on it that was there when it was loaded out of Japan 43 years ago.
On the whole aircare thing, sure wish it was as easy to get non-emissions gas engines through as it is with diesels. The fawkers at aircare forced my renault off the road this year. So instead of driving a tiny gas sipping econo car now I drive a big thirsty company work truck. Burn more than double the fuel every day but it passes the sniffer, makes so much sense.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Threads
- 164
- Messages
- 1,226
- Location
- Ladner, BC, Canada
- Website
- www.lentelconstruction.com
Martin, you could always see what the requirements are for a 'modified' plate. They introduced it a couple of years ago. A lot of the hot rodders get these plates. Not as expensive as insuring a daily driver, but not as cheap as a collector.
I tried that with the '55. It looks 100% "period correct" but it has the 3B. No dice on collector status.
Tell me more about the "modified" status. What exactly is that?
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Threads
- 514
- Messages
- 4,700
- Location
- Fraser Valley, British Columbia
- Website
- www.ajae.ca
Modified is for 1948 and older vehicles (i.e. custom rods) and these would get the lower insurance premiums like a collector. There is also a Modified class for vehicles that are essentially 'kit-bashed', i.e. frame from a 90's chevy truck under a older Ford for example but I don't think these qualify for the lower insurance premiums.
Unfortunately, LC's don't qualify for these.
More info here:
ICBC | Collector vehicles
Unfortunately, LC's don't qualify for these.
More info here:
ICBC | Collector vehicles
- Thread starter
- #26
Well that was laughably quick and easy. 1/4 left of B50, overdue for oil and filters change, and with only the idle test "because Landcruisers are too underpowered to keep up on the dyno" I scored a 1.6 out of 30. The average passing reading is apparently 9.
So why do they always do a drive test with my over powered
TD4.2? Let's see what happens in the next 30 day. I have to go in for air care too.
- Thread starter
- #30
So why do they always do a drive test with my over powered
Well the one thing Air Care has been is consistent.....;p
I've often wondered what it would take to fall into the "less then 1500 manufactured for that model year" clause. How many BJ42's were manufactured with 12V lights, on a 24V spec truck, and is that enough to tip the scale(Only for the Cdn market I understand, but no proof in writing). Also, does this mean manufactured for the world market, or just the North American market.
Another year of the fraud called Aircare is passed. But, the Aircare drivers strike out again! 
To be fair, the lady who had the first go at it was probably one of the smoothest shifters - until she missed a shift. Perhaps me telling her that no one has ever been able to drive my truck through the test in one go had something to do with it. I also gave her a lecture not to rev it out over 3000 rpm. Previous times they have reved the snot out of it. Anyways, after she blew the shift she had a couple short goes at it before running away and getting another person to drive it - who of course reved the snot out of it to get it through. 
BTW, Aircare has a new form which lists economy and CO2 emmisions for the vehicle at the bottom of the form. It was interesting to see that according to Aircare, my vehicle is a fuel hog and a major CO2 polluter. It has the economy listed at 18L/100kms. OEM lists it at 10L/100km. Real world can be anywhere from 9.6 to 14 L / 100 kms. I think Aircare's got a problem with their data.
To be fair, the lady who had the first go at it was probably one of the smoothest shifters - until she missed a shift. Perhaps me telling her that no one has ever been able to drive my truck through the test in one go had something to do with it. I also gave her a lecture not to rev it out over 3000 rpm. Previous times they have reved the snot out of it. Anyways, after she blew the shift she had a couple short goes at it before running away and getting another person to drive it - who of course reved the snot out of it to get it through. BTW, Aircare has a new form which lists economy and CO2 emmisions for the vehicle at the bottom of the form. It was interesting to see that according to Aircare, my vehicle is a fuel hog and a major CO2 polluter. It has the economy listed at 18L/100kms. OEM lists it at 10L/100km. Real world can be anywhere from 9.6 to 14 L / 100 kms. I think Aircare's got a problem with their data.
I can guess where this is going. We'll get taxed on distance driven and estimated fuel used based on Aircare numbers.
Wouldn't put it past them to tax based on emissions.
Was putting plates on the 60 today and was asked 'is it rhd'? I said no, but replied that was a weird question. She said I should be glad it's lhd otherwise I'd be facing a stiff surcharge. Then she pointed out that the truck is in a surprisingly high rate class for something 25 yrs old, and 'that's what you get for driving a specialty vehicle thats costly to icbc'.
Fawkers
.
Was putting plates on the 60 today and was asked 'is it rhd'? I said no, but replied that was a weird question. She said I should be glad it's lhd otherwise I'd be facing a stiff surcharge. Then she pointed out that the truck is in a surprisingly high rate class for something 25 yrs old, and 'that's what you get for driving a specialty vehicle thats costly to icbc'.
Fawkers
.
They have been usually asking if a vehicle is RHD for about 6-8 months now. We were told it was so the can better track RHD statistics. Funny, you'd think from the ICBC report slaming RHD that they had a handle on this. I was waiting for the question yesterday at BCAA. I think I had her so flustered giving me a rate difference quote that the poor lady forgot to ask. My rate had stayed the same. The year before, the class changed but I was told it had nothing to do with RHD after BCAA checked into it. She said that when it was first registeed it was put into somesort of catch all class because they had not history with Nissan Safaris. The new class put my insurance up a wopping $13 per year. You want to talk about insurance prejudice - it's young male new drivers who are getting screwed by ICBC's system. Even if you are not a testosterone maniac, you have to pay for all the others who are. Told my son he better start saving up now to pay for his insurance.
I was waiting for the question yesterday at BCAA. I think I had her so flustered giving me a rate difference quote that the poor lady forgot to ask. My rate had stayed the same. The year before, the class changed but I was told it had nothing to do with RHD after BCAA checked into it. She said that when it was first registeed it was put into somesort of catch all class because they had not history with Nissan Safaris. The new class put my insurance up a wopping $13 per year. You want to talk about insurance prejudice - it's young male new drivers who are getting screwed by ICBC's system. Even if you are not a testosterone maniac, you have to pay for all the others who are. Told my son he better start saving up now to pay for his insurance.
- Thread starter
- #37
Sorry Christian, no drama on this years Air Care inspection.
They adjusted the rollers to fit the wheelbase, and got it up to 80 kmh doing the opacity test. 5.09 out of 30=pass (average passing reading is 9.00). No idle test done.
I should email them as some of the vehicle statistics on the report are wrong. They have the engine size as 3.0 litre (should be 4.2) , and their fuel consumption calculation shows 18.1 litres/100 when it should be around 12-13 l/100 based on my records of 550 km per 70 litres each fill up.
They adjusted the rollers to fit the wheelbase, and got it up to 80 kmh doing the opacity test. 5.09 out of 30=pass (average passing reading is 9.00). No idle test done.
I should email them as some of the vehicle statistics on the report are wrong. They have the engine size as 3.0 litre (should be 4.2) , and their fuel consumption calculation shows 18.1 litres/100 when it should be around 12-13 l/100 based on my records of 550 km per 70 litres each fill up.
Maybe I will get you to take my truck in next time seeing as your have better luck than I have had over the past 2 years....
Mine was 2.49 with an average of 3.50, I guess the Average goes by station which is a little odd.
As for the Engine size it shows mine correct (4.2) and shows as 13.5 L/100Km... I wonder if you can get your auto plan agent to change it unless it has something to do with when its registered into BC when it got here.
- Thread starter
- #39
Well this years test was another easy A. The only difference being they actually were able to do a drive test on the dyno. Last years test it was bouncing all over the place and kept getting an error on the dyno.
I was informed they have "new software for these vehicles", and it was actually quite smooth.
So last years test, idle only, was 0.77 opacity out of 30 max allowable, 9 being an average.
This years driving test was 13.27 opacity, 30 max, 9 average.
On the C02 graph they have at the bottom; last years C02 reading was 6.5 at idle, this years driving was 2.6 (right on target apparently).
And zero wait on a rainy Friday morning.
I was informed they have "new software for these vehicles", and it was actually quite smooth.
So last years test, idle only, was 0.77 opacity out of 30 max allowable, 9 being an average.
This years driving test was 13.27 opacity, 30 max, 9 average.
On the C02 graph they have at the bottom; last years C02 reading was 6.5 at idle, this years driving was 2.6 (right on target apparently).
And zero wait on a rainy Friday morning.
Last edited:
If anyone has an issue passing, i have some cheap studded tires mounted on chrome steelies 