My partner bought a Toyota Vitz a few weeks ago, just imported from Japan.Seems pretty good but on checking it over, I noticed the brake pads are about half worn. I was under the impression that compliance rules stated that if the pads were anything less that practically new, they needed to be replaced. Have had 4 imports before (first owner in NZ) and my partner has had one, and all have had new brake pads fitted as a condition of compliance. Have the rules changed lately! Compliance was done by VTNZ.
phillip.weston,
Nov 12, 2:20am
I think they just need to have the appropriate standards markings, rather than pad wear remaining. I had to replace the pads in a Legnum I re-registered because there were no markings on the pad. I had to supply a declaration from the parts supplier that the pads are up to current NZ standards for the pads I had fitted.
sandypheet,
Nov 12, 2:23am
Minimum 3mm and approved brand of pad as laid down by LTNZ.
fordcrzy,
Nov 12, 2:23am
i bought a new import and had to replace the front pads aweek later as they were shagged.i didnt think much of the compliance place or the F wits who did the pre purchase inspection on it.
rpvr,
Nov 12, 2:36am
They would comply with the 3mm but how would they know what brand they are! From what I can see nothing has been disassembled, it all looks pretty much untouched for a long time. Perhaps I should contact VTNZ and ask them to confirm they are of the appropriate type.
vtecnet,
Nov 12, 2:42am
Probably easier to spend $40 and get some new ones and install them. saves messing around
phillip.weston,
Nov 12, 2:43am
I think it's not worth the effort. Just buy some new pads and fit them.
unbeatabull,
Nov 12, 2:46am
Last time I dealt with compliance I had to have 3mm of thickness and proof it is an approved catalogue part (factory or aftermarket).
Was easier to just chuck in some aftermarket pads and show them the receipts that had the part numbers on them
rpvr,
Nov 12, 2:59am
Agreed, but I just get annoyed if the compliance people, who can be so pedantic when it suits them, don't do their job. So when I do replace them, I will probably still ask the question of VTNZ, just for the hell of it.
mgmad,
Nov 12, 3:57am
We brought in a car last year, had the discs machined as it had been sitting for a while, however pads were fine, no comments made on them and I know they were pulled out and inspected. I believe those pads were the original ones fitted at the factory.
sandypheet,
Nov 12, 12:19pm
The pads will have brand name or marking on them,its part of the inspection.
kazbanz,
Nov 12, 4:37pm
I do about 20 compliances a month. pads are often failed for beng non compliant brand or below minimum thickness. Op in all honestyHalf worn pads have at least 20000km left unless you are a maniac driver. $40 in around 15 months aint so bad. MY bugbear is that snow tyres are still legal at all
franc123,
Nov 12, 4:58pm
All of this begs the question if cheap or unbranded pads are allegedly non compliant (I mean do they still stop the car properly in a straight line and/or get the required readings on the brake rollers) why do they need replacing unless they are worn below minimum recommended thickness!Indeed why are parts suppliers allowed to sell them at all if they aren't up to compliance standard!How do they know by visually inspecting a noname pad that it isn't made by a recognised manufacturer and is otherwise identical in manufacture to a more expensive one or is simply an old spec one!It smacks of NZTA once again pretending to be some sort of world authority standard setting "we know best brigade" who's opinion on such matters in a global sense means nothing and is ignored (or even laughed at) by just about everybody, including car and car component manufacturers.
kazbanz,
Nov 12, 5:06pm
Franc. Its another one of those rules that makes sense but either doesn't apply beyond the border check OR simply isn't enforced. The arguement is really nothing to do with actual BRAND. Its about the pads haveing PROVEN safety standards. Ie they have been tested and dont fly to bits and actually do stop the car etc. The same principle applies to tyres. AT COMPLIANCE they must have an international standards mark on them. The idiotic part isthat 30 seconds after compliance an owner could arguably100% legally fit padsand tyres with no safety standards. This is a point I'vebeen arguing for a very loing time. Consistancy in NZ safety standards.
franc123,
Nov 12, 5:19pm
For sure but If they are going to pick on brake pads then why not brake rotors!Replacement balljoints and suspension bushes! brake hoses!wheel cylinders!steering rack ends!Headlights!Some taiwanese made headlights for example have beam patterns that are not nearly as good as an OE Stanley, Bosch or Hella lamp but probably register OK on a beam setter.Are those all up to their standards too!
kazbanz,
Nov 12, 5:54pm
franc the trouble is this is seriously dangerous territory. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of your thinkingjust that the cost of motoring for people who are driving an appliance will skyrocket. remove the inexpensive no name parts supplies and a lot of cars wont be able to be repaired economically
franc123,
Nov 12, 6:03pm
It won't happen across the board because NZTA cannot prove that aftermarket parts that are not made by the manufacturer themselves or else an approved OE supplier are unsafe, in the same way that they cannot prove that an unmarked and unbranded brake pad is unsafe either.Someone like yourself and other people in your trade Kaz should be taking them to task over this.Ordering a car importer to replace a set of pads just for that reason instead of because the part is genuinely worn or does not perform satisfactorily under normal road or roller brake tests is a waste of money and resources.
ptda,
Nov 12, 6:08pm
If I was driving in the mountains down south and had snow tyres on my car I would thnk my lucky stars. Better to have snow tyres on than street slicks
ptda,
Nov 12, 6:10pm
In the Mountains with big heavy snow or ice conditions I meant to say.That is when I would rather have snow tyres on than street slicks, so they have their place, If you had a 4WD and when onto a muddy track, again the Mud & Snow Tyres are the best for the job, So why make them illegal !
kazbanz,
Nov 12, 7:29pm
ptda. Being totally honest dude How often are you driving in NZ in those conditions! Not coulda/woulda shouldabut ACTUAL driving. On THAT basis I feel they should be illegal. OR they are illegal if used for anything except their intended purposeas is the law elsewhere in the world. Clearly they are the best option for driving desert road during may.june,julybut far from it in the height of summer
kazbanz,
Nov 12, 7:48pm
No mate I'm keeping my mouth shut due to the entire pandora's box theory. I can tell you 100% for definite what stance the NZTA will take. It wont be what you suggest it will be. "If the supplier can't provide an international standard for the part then it can't be fitted" If you want proof then just look at the emmission law about to happen. Ieits not about how that specific car performs emission wise its about an international standard (so we don't have to do any work)
rpvr,
Nov 12, 8:45pm
I accept that it's part of the inspection.What I am trying to say is, I wonder if they have even been inspected apart from someone looking at the thickness without any further disassembly. Certainly no spanner marks on the caliper bolts and a nice even road film over everything. Compliance was supposedly carried out about 3 weeks ago.
sandypheet,
Nov 13, 12:12am
There should be still spanner/socket marks on the caliper sliders,ummm,sorta makes you suspect that it may not have been done.Same goes for the rears,should be some evidence that pads or shoes have been looked at.Go to vtnz and ask if it is possible to see the compliance sheet.Think they might be under pressure with short staff,end of year fast approaching and a lot of vehicles have to be completed by years end.
peek_a_boo1,
Nov 13, 3:19pm
parents brought a cedia wagon from car yard (nz new) and it had snow tyres but we didnt know until went for warrent nearly a year later that we shouldnt have them.makes you think how some cars get through compliance.
kazbanz,
Nov 13, 4:06pm
Frankly IMO none of that matters -If in fact the calipers were not removed it asks the question as to what other "shorcuts" were taken. Mind you-VERY important question --how many KM have been travelled since it was complied!.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.