Maximum legal lift and tyre/wheel sizes in Oz

^ Exactly Stilson.

We can't choose this, it is chosen for us. I think there is even something on the complainant/vin plate that specifies what class the vehicle is in.. I'm not 100% sure on this though. We are definitely passenger vehicles which I am sure of.

Personally if you want to lift your car and keep it legal. 2" lift with slightly bigger tyres would be fine in my opinion, in any state. It wouldn't look out of the ordinary and 99% of cops wouldn't even know it has been lifted! Hell I go past cops or drive next to them on the freeway, I'm usually looking down at them in their Commodores and they just wave or smile at me ;)
 
i have been looking into it. it appears that the ratbag is correct. 15mm is the legal limit (in vic) for soft roaders. the change that i mentioned for the increase to 50mm was for 4wd vehicles only
 
taza said:
Hell I go past cops or drive next to them on the freeway, I'm usually looking down at them in their Commodores and they just wave or smile at me ;)
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon to see Vic police in Foresters, particularly in rural areas. Marked ones are used as general duty vehicles, plus there is also a fleet of unmarked ones in the city.

050728-rh_forester_01.jpg
 
Gidday Thunder

thunder039 said:
i have been looking into it. it appears that the ratbag is correct. 15mm is the legal limit (in vic) for soft roaders. the change that i mentioned for the increase to 50mm was for 4wd vehicles only
Click to expand...

Vehicles that are "truck" derivatives have different ADRs applying to them all the way down the line AFAICS.

They are also not required to have all the safety features that are a characteristic of modern, passenger based vehicles. Different roll over angles being one biggie, but there are many others.

This essentially means that these vehicles might "win" in a contest of sheer mass, but they are nowhere near as safe at a population statistical level. Nor generally as comfortable to ride in or drive. Far less stable, worse handling (a LOT worse handling ... ), nothing like the stability under heavy braking, etc, etc. Both primary and secondary safety are very much worse than most passenger based vehicles.

Effectively, the finesse of design that characterises almost all modern passenger vehicles is lacking in many or all respects.

This makes it far easier to upset the balance of passenger based vehicles, and very hard to muck up something that basically doesn't exist anyway in truck derived vehicles. This is the factor in real life that the differing laws applying to each class recognises.
 
Prado's which are one of these "Truck based" vehicles have a 5 star ancap same as the foz.
 
Gidday Biesel

ANCAP rating does not in any way have to do with the primary safety characteristics of a vehicle.

ANCAP is measuring the secondary safety of vehicles (to a still limited extent); i.e. how safe is the vehicle after you have already hit something.

Where the truck type vehicles fall down badly is in primary safety - the ability to avoid having that accident in the first place.
 
I was referencing this comment you made.

"Both primary and secondary safety are very much worse than most passenger based vehicles."
 
I may be incorrect, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that a 'proper' offroader has a differential that can do a 4x4 lock.

AWD systems are considered soft-road.
 
OK checked this morning, my SH foz has MC stamped on it'c compliance plate. i just googled MC ADR to find out if this is standard for passenger cars or what this is what the ADR classify MC as.

MC (Off-road passenger vehicle)

class-mc.gif

A passenger vehicle, designed with special features for off-road operation, that has not more than nine seating positions (including the driver's seating position), and that:
  • has four-wheel drive; and
  • has at least four of the following characteristics when the vehicle is unladen on a level surface and the front wheels are parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centre-line and the tyres are inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's recommended pressure:
    • an approach angle of not less than 28 degrees;
    • a breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees;
    • a departure angle of not less than 20 degrees;
    • a running clearance of not less than 200mm;
    • a front-axle clearance, rear-axle clearance or suspension clearance of not less than 175mm.
 
Biesel

So does my SG Fox.

They are still passenger car derivatives ...

You are taking whole lots of things out of context of the relevant Acts and Regulations, of which VSB14 is merely one of many.

May I suggest that you read and consider the information in
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP11_Section_LS_Tyres_Suspension_Steering_V2_1Ja n_2011%20v3.pdf

at pages 15-17, in particular?

You may also wish to follow up on the ADRs that are binding on "MC" classified motor vehicles here:
https://rvcs.dotars.gov.au/Applicability/MC Current.htm

And perhaps check out the information here about the compliance certificates issued for the later model Foresters:
https://rvcs-prodweb.dot.gov.au/pls...p_details?sCertID=38798&sMakeModel=SUBARU+S-3

Even if you are a specialist researcher, or a qualified legal practitioner, I think that it is very dangerous to rely solely on the results of an Internet search when there are such important legal issues at stake.

Note that the document here regarding MC:
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/pdf/ADR_Applicability_Summary_M_Group.pdf

specifically applies to "passenger vehicles".

If one were to argue any of your positions after an event has occurred, one would want to be on very solid legal ground, just IMNSHO.

Please bear in mind that NONE of this info is intended to be the last word on the subject. If you really have a problem with what appears to be the clear meaning of the regulations as expressed in VSB14, then may I suggest that you contact VicRoads on 131171?
 
OK.

Speak to the RTA, or whatever they are called in NSW. I would have thought that was pretty obvious in the context of my post ... I also thought you lived in Vic and didn't check. Sorry for the confusion.

The ADRs etc apply Australia wide ... Your local motor registration department will inform you as to whether I am right or not. If I am not, I would appreciate the correction, but I do not think that I am (obviously). That conviction probably comes from doing around 3 majors in law (1x undergraduate, 1x post graduate, 1x post-post graduate) one way or another, even though I am not a lawyer ...
 
I would like to pose a question on tyre alternatives and a potential interpretation on technicality:

- The standards and regulations allow a 15mm bigger tyre,
- The biggest offered on a Forester SG9 was a 215/55R17 - 668mm dia,
- The mot common off-road alternative is a 215/65R16, which is 686mm in diameter, or 18mm.

The question: If I have worn the tyre tread by 1.5mm, reducing diameter in 3mm, does that make the tyres legal?? I guess it does!

Interested to hear other people's opinions as I see this as a matter of interpretation.

Pedro.
 
Last edited:
It would be worth arguing if the need arised. However if the vehicle wasn't the variant fitted with 17"s, I seem to remember the regulations stating all suspension components must be of the same spec as the variant the wheels come from.

You can be sure an insurance company will twist a vague reg in their favour every time.
 
I agree completely with ratbag. I rang all the road authorities and read all the laws, no matter how far you read into it the forester is a soft roader and therefore has a 15mm increase in OD limit. The option of wearing a mil or two off of your tyres is sketchy as they will go off the measurements of the stamped tyre size new.
 
Hunter said:
The option of wearing a mil or two off of your tyres is sketchy as they will go off the measurements of the stamped tyre size new.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe this is the root of the question, what really counts at the end of the day: the declared measurement or the actual measurement?

A lawyer would probably say the declared, or stamped measurement. While an engineer would say the actual measurement...

Same principle applies to lifted springs, if they are stamped to be 55mm taller, but sagged 5mm for example, are they legal or not?

Pedro.
 
I guess someone needs to stamp tyres 215/60/R16 but make them larger. Stamp 75mm lift kits with 50mm. Give the lawyers what they want - they can't have it both ways.
 
Gidday ST

stilson said:
What about retreading 60 profile tyres with massive lugs?
Click to expand...

Good luck, they only make the retreading molds so that they satisfy the original legal requirements for the tyre carcass ... :iconwink: :ebiggrin: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top