Modern engines in old cars generally means that emissions testing must comply with the regulations for that ENGINE not with the BODY it is installed in which means there is absolutely no advantage in having a pre ADR27A shell.
 
The advantage was for putting twin carbies etc on a Kent or Pinto

Modifying the brakes is part of it too. You need something built before adr 31 as the testing is way more involved after that adr came into affect. Pretty sure adr 31 was introduced in Jan 77.

fordsy

Modifying the brakes is part of it too. You need something built before adr 31 as the testing is way more involved after that adr came into affect. Pretty sure adr 31 was introduced in Jan 77.

Interesting. That's good info fordsy. Do you know what's invovled?
My 08/78 has ADR 31 listed on compliance plate, and the 04/76 doesn't.

I spoke to an engineer 18months ago in melb about my cosworth engine into my 75 mk2 and he was fine to sign it off with no cat converter! He said as long as its pre adr27a its heaps easier to engineer. Theres plenty of reasons to own an early one in my opinion.

As mentioned above the debate is over is there any advantage of having a pre ADR27 shell and a late modern engine rather than modifying the originally fitted engine or a similar "period engine".

I think the general concensus is that there is no advantage to a pre ADR27 shell when planning a late model engine conversion. Although it may be interpreted differently depending on your state but general legislation requires the car meets the emission standards of either the shell or the engine - which ever is the most recent build date.
 
Regarding the emissions report on a modern engine with a non OEM ECU - I think you'd need to prove that the engine is still complient which would require the full IM240 emission test. Sure it may be easier to achieve the emission levels with a standard engine but I would have thought there is the requirement to prove compliance non the less.
 

As I said earlier, A heavily modified engine (custom everything,big cams etc etc) modern or not will NOT pass IM240. However in pre 77 shells it has been done as im240 was NOT requested, hell you can have raw fuel coming out the back and still pass it. To me this is a huge advantage if you were thinking of heavy mods to the engine and wanted your car 100% legal.
 
Cheers

KIZZA

I spoke to an engineer 18months ago in melb about my cosworth engine into my 75 mk2 and he was fine to sign it off with no cat converter!
 

That cannot possibly be correct, and it would be illegal would it not???
Remember reading somewhere a case where a pre 27a MK1 Escort with a Zetec was passed by engineer with aftermarket ECU and no catalytic converter. Owner got busted somehow and the argument that followed resulted in the engineer losing his licence and a hefty fine for the owner. Was a QLD car if I'm not mistaken.
 
If the car is passed by a dodgy engineer not following the book 100%, and the state registration authority doesn't pick it during the final inspection, can the owner can still get in the ****??

Yeah well thats the story I got from him 18 or so months ago. Now things have changed this might have too? Not sure. As for the brakes debate that seems very easy to get passed.

It isn't difficult to get brake mods passed if they're done correctly. The pre adr31 thing is more of a cost issue than anything else. When we worked out just how many hours of setup, transport and testing were needed on an adr 31 car, it worked out cheaper to buy a pre adr31 shell. The testing consisted of failng the front circuit, failing the rear circuit and failing the booster then seeing if the car still passed the predetermined limits. Pre adr31 was basically a check to see that the brakes worked and that was it. 5 minutes max. No messing around with boosters and circuits and no setup times or testing costs.

my old Escort was 2 litre with mods , all adr complied and engineered here in nsw yet i still got done for it. is a joke that one states rules are different to the next