Every vehicle in Australia is categorised according to its purpose, but some seem to be in the wrong category. That’s important for offroaders.

YOUR 4X4 WAGON will be officially categorised as either MA, which is not an offroader, or MC, which definitely is. Here’s why that’s important.

What the vehicle classifications are

Every vehicle in Australia needs to comply with ADRs, or Australian Design Rules. This is a list of categories:

  • L—Category Vehicles—Two and Three Wheeled Vehicles
  • M—Category Vehicles—Passenger Vehicles
  • N—Category Vehicles—Goods Vehicles
  • T—Category Vehicles—Trailers  

The specific category we’re interested in is M, and within that there’s MA – passenger vehicles, MB – forward control passenger vehicles (peoplemovers) and MC which is offroaders. MD and ME are small buses. Utes are classed as goods vehicles which is N, and within that, NA for light goods vehicle.

The difference between MA and MC categories

The official definitions of MA and MC are:  

4.3.1 PASSENGER CAR (MA) A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle or a forward-control passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.  


A passenger vehicle having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver and being designed with special features for off-road operation. A vehicle with special features for off-road operation is a vehicle that:

(a)     Unless otherwise ‘Approved‘ has 4 wheel drive; and

(b)     has at least 4 of the following 5 characteristics calculated when the vehicle is at its ‘Unladen Mass‘ on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal centreline, and the tyres inflated to the ‘Manufacturer‘s’ recommended pressure:

(i)      ‘Approach Angle‘ of not less than 28 degrees;

(ii)     ‘Breakover Angle‘ of not less than 14 degrees;

(iii)    ‘Departure Angle‘ of not less than 20 degrees;

(iv)    ‘Running Clearance‘ of not less than 200 mm;

(v)     ‘Front Axle Clearance‘, ‘Rear Axle Clearance‘ or ‘Suspension Clearance‘ of not less than 175 mm each.

Alternatively, a vehicle that meets the definition of CATEGORY G – OFF-ROAD VEHICLES under Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and is in category M1.  

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00326  

The “not…” above is our highlight. It’s very clear that the rules make a distinction between offroad capable and non-offroad capable vehicles, and that’s what this article is about. So, here is a list of MC and MA classified offroad vehicles, as at the date of this post.  

MC and MA categorised 4X4 vehicles in Australia (October 2016)

Note that the list is subject to change without notice, and that there may be older or newer variants of the same vehicle that are rated differently. You can look up the latest on this link:  


MC categorised vehicles

  • Audi Q5
  • Bentley Bentayga
  • BMW X3
  • Holden Trailblazer
  • Infiniti QX80
  • Isuzu MU-X (also available in 2WD which is MA)
  • Jeep Wrangler
  • Land Rover Discovery
  • Land Rover Discovery Sport
  • Lexus LX570
  • Mazda CX-9 (also available in 2WD which is MA)
  • Mercedes-Benz G-Class
  • Nissan Dualis
  • Nissan Y62 Patrol
  • Mitsubishi Pajero
  • Mitsubishi Pajero Sport
  • Porsche Cayenne
  • Range Rover Sport
  • Range Rover
  • Ssangyong Rexton
  • Subaru Forester
  • Subaru Outback
  • Suzuki Jimny
  • Suzuki Grand Vitara (also available in 2WD)
  • Toyota FJ Cruiser
  • Toyota Fortuner
  • Toyota Prado
  • Toyota LC200
  • Volvo XC60
  • Volvo XC70
  • Volvo XC90
  • VW Touraeg

Some surprises there. Lovely that Mazda made the CX-9 an MC, but it didn’t really need to be. Same deal for Volvos. But pat on the back to Nissan and Subaru for their good work.

Notable MA vehicles

These vehicles are categorised MA but arguably should be MC because all have low range, for example, so are clearly offroad-focused (again, this is based off the most current certifications for the vehicles. Older models may have different categorisations):

  • Jeep Grand Cherokee (also available in 2WD)
  • Jeep Renegade Trailhawk (versions also available in 2WD, full offroad test here)
  • Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk (versions also available in 2WD)
  • Ford Everest (also available in 2WD, test here)
  • HAVAL H9 (full offroad test here)

Note: as we said above, this is for current versions only. For example, the Grand Cherokee used to be MC, but vehicles after January 2015 are MA. The old classification number for the Grand Cherokee MC was 34419 and that has been surrendered by Jeep.

Note: the original version of this article did not differentiate between 4X2 and 4X4 Grand Vitaras – that has been fixed.

Grand Cherokee - MC and MA placards.
Thanks to an industry friend who happened to have two Grand Cherokees in the workshop at the same time! The photo on the rightd does not say “Grand” Cherokee, but it definitely is a Grand as can be see by the use of the WK series.

So yes, you read this right. The Ford Everest and three of Jeep’s finest are categorised as non-offroad vehicles, but the BMX X3, Nissan Dualis and Mazda CX-9 are categorised officially as offroaders. You may comment below.

Why aren’t the offroaders in MA classed as MC?

Because the manufacturer decided not to apply for MC, not because the authorities knocked them back. The two standouts above are the Everest and Grand Cherokee, so we asked both manufacturers why their vehicles aren’t MC. Ford said:

“The Ford Everest was certified to a MA vehicle category for Australia due the product strategy, keeping all variants under the same ADR compliance plate approval. MA allows a 4×4 and 4×2, however a MC only allows 4×4 variants.” 

UPDATE 20/10/2016: We also asked Ford if they had any plans to change to MC and they said: “We have no plans at this stage to change the classification of the Everest.”

UPDATE 08/11/2016: After some delay, Ford have come back to us and said:

“The Ford Everest has been thoroughly designed and engineered, with extensive testing throughout Australia, as a fully-capable, off-road vehicle. Driving the Everest off-road will not void its warranty. We stand by the off-road capabilities that the Everest has been built to handle, and has been awarded for by numerous publications since its launch.

Everest 4×4 has been developed to meet, and does meet, the requirements* of an ‘MC’ off-road’ passenger vehicle. These requirements specify parameters for running clearance, suspension and axle clearances, as well as approach angle, breakover and departure angle. The Everest’s ‘MA’ homologation allows us to introduce the Everest 4×2 to showrooms under a common government approval, which we’re excited to bring to consumers as we expand our SUV offering.

Only 4×4 vehicles can qualify for the ‘MC’ off-road classification, and as we respond to consumer demands for more SUV choice, we’re delighted to be able to offer the ruggedness and capability of the Everest not only in 4×4 form, but also as a 4×2 and the availability of seven-seat and five-seat versions in the near future.”

This is exactly the same response sent to anyone who asks via social media. At least Ford are now not blaming the road authorities for choosing MA, and admit it was their idea.

We also asked Jeep why their vehicles are MA, not MC. Their response was:

“Firstly, the benefit which used to exist for off-road (MC) category vehicles was a lower duty rate for parts on an MC category vehicle – this no longer exists.

“Secondly, the requirement to have 4WD would automatically eliminate the Laredo 4×2, meaning we would need to certify the Grand Cherokee as two approvals (one MA and one MC category). Given there is no longer any advantage to certify as an MC category vehicle and the applicable ADRs for a vehicle of this type are largely identical, it does not make any sense to certify the one model under two vehicle categories.

The same applies to Cherokee Trailhawk & Renegade Trailhawk variants.”

We pointed out that while there may be no advantage to the manufacturer, there is to the owner and invited further comment from Jeep. None had been received at the time of publication.

So let’s cut to the chase. The answer appears to be that it’s cheaper and easier for the manufacturer to put both 4X4 and 4X2 under MA than it is to split out the 4X4 versions to MC.

Jeep do make a fair point; back in the day there was a significant tax exemption for 4X4 vehicles, which is why Australia never had any 2WD SUVs until several years ago because they didn’t get the tax break. Once that exemption was phased out we began to see lots of 2WD SUVs. However, while MA makes sense from the manufacturer’s perspective, it doesn’t help the offroading driver-owner. The desire to minimise costs is understandable, but if Isuzu, Suzuki and even Mazda can manage to get 4X4 versions of their 2WD vehicles MC-categorised surely Ford and Jeep could make the effort, particularly as both brands heavily promote their offroad credentials.

Two Jeep Cherokee Trailhawks, one Jeep Wrangler, one Subaru Outback and an Isuzu MU-X. Two of these vehicles are MA categorised, and clue - they aren't Japanese...
Two Jeep Cherokee Trailhawks, one Jeep Wrangler, one Subaru Outback and an Isuzu MU-X. Two of these vehicles are MA categorised, and clue – they aren’t Japanese…

What are the implications of an MA classed offroad vehicle?

This is Australia, and we have some of the most opaque road regulations in the world, and even worse, they’re all slightly different from state to state. So what follows is general guidance, and there’s three main things to consider:

  • Warranty;
  • Insurance; and
  • Modifications.

Warranty: A grey area, but in order to have any warranty claim approved you must be operating the vehicle within its design limits and for its designed purpose. If you drive an MC categorised vehicle offroad and have issues, then that is an easier case to prove than if the vehicle was MA categorised.

Insurance: Two aspects here – first, any modifications must be legal (more on that below), and that’s definitely easier with an MC than an MA for your typical offroad mods. Second, appropriate use of the vehicle. Insurance companies require the vehicle to be used as designed, and as per the warranty example above, that’s an easier conversation if your vehicle is classed MC instead of MA.  

We asked Affinity Insurance Brokers, which specialises in offroad insurance, for their view and a spokesperson told us: “With the policies that Affinity provide there are no implications of the rating of the vehicle in response to claims.

“In many policies there will be exclusions worded in a variety of ways, this could mean that in some cases the rating could be used to deny a claim.

“If the vehicle has any modifications these would need to be declared to the insurer but this would be the case irrespective of its classification.”

The summary is that MA vehicles can be used for offroad purposes, but modification, insurance and warranty become easier if it classed as MC. There’s enough red tape in the Australian automotive world as it is and the last thing owners need is another complication when dealing with a difficult situation. Therefore, the advice has to be to preference MC classed vehicles over MA.  

Modifications: The road regulations permit limited modifications to any vehicle. The extent of the modifications permitted is greater for MC than it is for MA, and there are two areas in particular that are of importance:  

  • Tyres and wheels
  • Suspension lifts  

Below are some representative excerpts from various state road authorities. You will note that many cover the same ground using slightly different words because that’s just the way Australia rolls, life isn’t meant to be easy for those law-abiding owners who want a legal, safe vehicle. But I digress, so read on:

The original speed rating of the tyre casing must be at least:

For vehicles with a GVM of 4.5 tonnes or less with four or more wheels, the lesser of:

  • 140km/h for a passenger car with special features for off-road use such as 4WD;
  • 180km/h for any other passenger car;
  • 120km/h for any other motor vehicle not descrbed above; and
  • the vehicle’s top speed.

[ Source: Vicroads VSI 26 ]


The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to:

  • a 4WD passenger vehicle specifically designed for off-road use (MC ADR category other than a ‘soft roader’);
  • a 4WD goods vehicle and its 2WD equivalent if the chassis and running gear are essentially the same as the 4WD version (N ADR category); or
  • medium weight goods vehicle (NA2, NB ADR category);

must not be more than 50mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that vehicle. Tyre diameters of a vehicle fitted with Electronic Stability Control (ESC) may be modified without certification provided it is not combined with any other lift (i.e tyre and suspension, tyre and body block, etc).

[ Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads, G19.6 released March 2014, updated Feb 2016 ]


4.2.4 Overall Nominal Diameter The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to a passenger car or passenger car derivative must not be more than 15mm larger or 26mm smaller than that of any tyre designated by the vehicle manufacturer for that model. The overall diameter of any tyre fitted to:

  • 4WD passenger vehicles specifically designed for off-road use (typically MC ADR category). All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles including those AWD vehicles that may be certified as MC ADR category, (also commonly known as soft roaders) are not included in this category;

[ Source: Section LS, Tyres, Rims, Suspension and Steering, VSB 14, NCOP Version 2.1 Nov 2015 ]

4.2.11 Off-Road and Goods Vehicle Wheel Track The wheel track of off-road four wheel drive vehicles and goods vehicles (MC, NA, NB ADR category) must not be increased by more than 50mm beyond the maximum specified by the vehicle manufacturer for the particular model. If a solid axle from another manufacturer is used, the wheel track may be increased by 50mm beyond the maximum specified by the vehicle manufacturer for that particular axle, provided all other requirements such as clearances and the tyres do not protruding outside of the vehicle bodywork. Note: This clause does not apply to passenger vehicles that are four wheel drive or all wheel drive and certified as MA ADR category.

[ Source: Section LS, Tyres, Rims, Suspension and Steering, VSB 14, NCOP Version 2.1 Nov 2015 ]


The overall tyre diameter can be increased to allow an increase of 7.5mm in vehicle height for passenger vehicles and no more than 25mm in vehicle height for four wheel drive vehicles (typically MC ADR category).

[ Source: Section LS, Tyres, Rims, Suspension and Steering, VSB 14, NCOP Version 2.1 Nov 2015 ]


13.3 Raising of Four Wheel Drive Vehicles – Alternative to VSB 14 Modification Code LS

In the case of raising the height of an offroad type 4WD of ADR Categor NA, NB1, MC or MD, and only in this case, the following two options apply as alternatives to meeting the requirements of Section LS of VSB 14.

(the options are 75mm total lift, tyres and suspension, or 1/3 of suspenction travel and restrictions on tyre diameter)

[ Source: VSI 8 Guide to Modifications for Motor Vehicles ]

UPDATE 15/11/16: To draw attention to this clause – this is of particular note as it clearly states MC vehicles may be lifted 75mm in Victoria.  It does not say MA vehicles may be so lifted, so you cannot lift a MA vehicle as you would an MC.


Speed and load ratings The speed rating of all tyres must be at least:

  • for an off-road passenger vehicle – 140km/h
  • for another car (sedan, station wagon, etc.) with up to nine adult seating positions or a car derivative – 180km/h
  • for another motor vehicle – 120km/h
  • the vehicle’s top speed, if lower than the speeds referred to above

[ Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads, G19.6 released March 2014, updated Feb 2016 ]


As you can see, there is specific mention of MC category vehicles, but also the regulations do leave a bit of wiggle room…in some instances. But, there’s no question life would be easier with an MC classed vehicle.

The tyre issue is perhaps the most important. Let’s use the Everest as an example. Ford told us the Everest can do 175km/h, so naturally they fit tyres rated to above that speed to the vehicle – T and H rated, 190km/h and 210km/h, respectively. This is very sensible, the right thing to do and in line with every other manufacturer.

However, offroad tyres are stronger (thicker) construction and are not typically rated for high speeds. Therefore, as 4WDs were developed a problem arose where 4WDs had top speeds the offroad tyres couldn’t handle, and the higher speed rated tyres became increasingly offroad-weak as they had to handle greater and greater heat dissipation. That is why every Australian road authority permits offroad vehicles (usually defined as MC category) to run N rated tyres, irrespective of the placard, in a very rare example of actual government thought and intelligent design on behalf of real-world users. So while the Everest’s top speed is 175km/h according to Ford, the road authorities allow you to fit N-rated tyres which are good only for 140km/h. Or would do, if it was a MC/offroad vehicle.

Some of the text in the excerpts above says that “typically” an offroader is MC, so again there may be some wiggle room. However, wouldn’t it be nice to just have one less bit of red tape to worry about?

Offroad tyre
This is the sort of tyre you’d fit to your 4X4 if you want it to work in the bush. Light-truck (LT) construction, and an offroad pattern. The speed rating is Q, or 160km/h. That’s plenty, but if the placard on the car says T (190km/h) then you must run T, unless the vehicle is classified as an offroader.

What about utes?

Utes are classed as NA or light commercial, not MA or MC. There is nothing in the N categories about whether a vehicle is offroad capable or not, i.e. there is no equivalent of the MC category in the Nx category. Remember, the MA category specifically says the vehicle is *not* an offroader. The NA category does not have any such exclusion. Some of the text excerpts above mention N category vehicles with offroad features.

So what do I do?

  1. If you buy a 4X4 for offroad use, preference an MC class vehicle for the reasons listed above.
  2. If you just want to tow or don’t intend to drive offroad, then either MA or MC will work.
  3. If you already own an MA vehicle that you use offroad, then be careful with modifications and ensure your insurance company is aware of what you do; good practice anyway, but even more so with MA.

Further reading

We will update this post as more MC vehicles come on the market, and also list any MA vehicles that should be MC. We’re also investigating further with the road authorities.




NSW Police gets a brand new Audi S7 Sportback


  1. Hmm, my 2014 Grand Cherokee has Category MC on the compliance sticker, perhaps it is just the 2WD versions that are MA?

    1. Hi Benn0, all Grand Cherokees built and sold before 30 January 2015 are classified as MC. Anything built and sold after that date, including both 4×2 and 4×4 variants are classified as MA for the reasons Jeep explained in our article. – Isaac

      1. Thanks for the follow up, and good work on this article, no one seems to have picked up on it, even in the jeep forums. It is a crazy decision by FCA, they trade on an offroad capable product, that isn’t complianced for offroad use. And particularly for the trailhawk models, it is just madness. I feel sorry for any owners who have been caught out.

  2. Robert,

    Thanks for a good summary article. Clears up some of the issues.

    The one important issue, when looking to purchase a 4WD vehicle (Everest in my case, moving from a Territory as my requirements changed) there was no mention of MA v MC in the literature, nor of the dealer when purchasing the vehicle. Ford says “Everest isn’t a Territory replacement, it is a proper 4WD capable vehicle” so I took them at their word and traded in and purchased the Everest. Six months later (when after market accessories are being released for the Everest), queries to Ford on fitting different sized wheel/tyres (of the same size as other model in Everest) was answered as “talk to your dealer” who basically said “can’t be done” (factually incorrect) and only after much research, questions did the MC / MA issue arise in this publication.

    For me, I had planned to modify my Everest under the MC rules prior to undertaking a road trip around Australia, nothing extreme but challenging enough that the standard the passenger car is in now is insufficient or without the safety margin required. Now with this outcome Everest looks like it will be sold/traded in (at very considerable expense to myself) to a 4WD vehicle (not a passenger car) that is fit for purpose and MC rated. Toyota here I come, Ford really is by slang reference Found on Rubbish Dump.

    1. So if the Everest is sold to you as a fully capable 4wd, but then only classed MA, doesn’t that make it unfit for the purpose of a 4wd as understood by customers and the 4wd community? If so then under consumer law if a product sold is unfit for purpose it can be returned for a full refund.

        1. Hi Robert
          Actually I found out the Ford Dealer has a duty of care to disclose any information that may affect my decision to purchase a vehicle. As the classification specifically affects my insurance they should have disclosed the classification and it’s possible ramifications. By not doing so I now have grounds to return the vehicle.

          As you have pointed out in your research there is only a very small minority of 4wd vehicles classified MA. This demonstrates that any reasonable person or manufacturer would expect a 4wd to be classified MC. This also highlights the duty of the manufacturer to make customers aware and goes to liability in the event of a denied warranty or insurance claim.

          1. Good point. Also, the Jeep only recently changed classification. Yes, I think that any reasonable person would have assumed it was MC, and there’s no question that MC/MA would influence buying decisions – look at the Facebook discussion and response here as proof.

            Hoping to hear more from Ford and Jeep.

        2. I’m no legal expert, but Ford have pitched the Everest against the Prado in all their marketing, and specifically market it as an offroad vehicle….surely this must be taken into account in any legal action as well…

          I realise that the information about the Everest’s classification is publicly available online as per your link in the article, but I can’t find anywhere in the literature that Ford provide on their website that says that….

    2. Hi EverestOwner

      Firstly, I very much feel your pain. To people like us, the car is more than just an appliance; there is not only a lot of money invested in its purchase, but also its modifications. Then there’s the hours spent selecting a vehicle and setting it up for purpose. And then you rely on the vehicle for your happiness on holiday with your family. So, to find out something like this is quite disconcerting to say the least. 4WD touring vehicles are not like fridges which can be swapped in and out and you don’t notice.

      The sad part is that this more affects the owners who want to do the right thing and ensure their modifications and insurance are legal.

      I hope it works out for you as best it can now. Any further updates will be posted here on PM.

  3. You list Nissan X-Trail as classified as MC, but this is only for the old T31 model, The latest T32 model is classified as MA

  4. Great article as always Robert.
    As you posted in the opening paragraphs;

    “4.3.1 PASSENGER CAR (MA) A passenger vehicle, not being an off-road passenger vehicle or a forward-control passenger vehicle, having up to 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.”

    Surely the responsibility must ultimately lie with the regulator that approved the application as the vehicles are clearly “an off-road a passenger vehicle”. What is to stop someone from registering a motorbike as a truck or visa versa. This is an error that the Regulator should fix up in my opinion, the only people that will win out of this situation will be the lawyers on both sides of the agrument.

    1. No, in this case it’s all Ford’s fault. They decided to place the Everest under MA when it could have gone under MC. Their recent Facebook responses to concerned users indicated it was the decision of the authorities – not the case. Seems to be a simple cost and admin saving exercise on behalf of Ford, and Jeep.

  5. I know the regulator can be quite slow to act but has the ACCC been asked to comment about this,, RE. Not fit for purpose.

  6. Unless things have changed a 2011 suzuki grand vitara 4×4 5 door 5 door i have. I just checked is MC not MA as listed rated according to compliance plate.

  7. Great article, learnt something new! An interesting observation is that Toyota has listed the ladder frame chassis of the Fortuna as MC, but the Hilux (which is the same car) is not listed as MC – and typically used for off road/4×4 activities. Any thoughts on why Toyota did this? Also the Triton isn’t listed either as MC.

  8. Really poor by Ford and Jeep considering a lot of the Japanese manufactures ensure that even their soft roaders are classified as MC – Who would have thought a Nissan Dualis is legally more of an offroad vehicle than a Ford Everest. Wow.

  9. 17 Comments


    Sort by Newest
    Join the discussion…


    Practical Motoring • 3 minutes ago
    Rob Pepper deserves the glory!

    Well done R/P!

    • Reply•Share ›

    1. Rob Pepper of Practical Motoring deserves the glory, he broke the story, ran with it and escalated if with FoMoCo, Mr.Pepper deserves the glory

      1. Hi Rob.
        I mentioned a year ago that my GLS Pajero is classified as MA has anything changed on that front?
        My son has a 2008 VRX Pajero and it is MC rated and these are basically the same vehicle.

  10. Where it says that ‘soft roaders” are not included in the category, does this mean that vehicles such as a Subaru Forester, though classified as MC would not be able to run 50mm larger tyres or have the suspension lifted 50MM?

    1. No, most softroaders are MA rated not MC. So if you gave a Forester that is rated at MC then you are under the MC rules for modifications. However when I had a forester there was no way I could fit 50mm larger tyres or a 50mm lift. I did fit a 30mm lift but that was as far as I was game with the CV’s.

  11. Hi guys, just found out that Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, Renegade BU Trailhawk and Grand Cherokees have had their MC status reinstated. The vehicles with an MA rating on the compliance sticker will not be issued a new compliance sticker but will instead “be recognized by the relevant authorities as MC”. New vehicles from somewhere in 2017 manufacture will have the correct MC rating on the compliance sticker. I am currently trying to get a letter confirming this from FCAA to keep in the glove box!

  12. G’day,
    My My14 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland and all of the same model, right up to current has options that are exclusively used for off road driving, and are specifically stated in the owner’s manual that using them on road will cause damage to the vehicle. Ok, mine may be an MC (I haven’t checked yet), but the later models with the same features suggest that the vehicles are designed as off road vehicles.
    Such features include:
    Height adjustable (Quadra Lift) airbag suspension.
    Terrain adjustable (Quadra Track).
    4×4 low range.
    As well as others, but those are a good example of a vehicle designed to be driven off road as well as on road.

    When I bought mine, it had a bullbar, winch, A/T tyres, and off road lights, and when I insured it, I listed all the mods, which were accepted by the insurance company.

    If in the future I decide to upgrade it, I would be sticking with the same car, just a newer model, and I will definitely be including the same accessories, even if it’s classified as MA. If the cops were to pull me over in relation to the accessories, I will argue that they are wrong, as what MA vehicle includes as standard the options that the Grand Cherokee Overland include.

    I think that the class of vehicles should take into account the included features, and providing that it has off road features to a particular degree, then it should be automatically classified as an MC class vehicle, despite what the manufacturer pays for. They are just cutting corners to save cash, rather than having multiple variants in multiple classes.

    Just my 2cents here.

  13. Can you please comment whether the information in this article is still current in Queensland as it relates to tyres and lifts on “soft roaders” such as the Subaru Forester

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also