Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[Rick]

Hi all,

I found the following two photos in an album this afternoon, and I'd forgotten that these pictures even existed. They show a Morris Minor that dad owned quite a few years ago. Made into a pickup, it started life as a Traveller. Therefore it didn't have a separate chassis as the factory vans and pickups do, but it was still a handy little vehicle and looked better than many of these pickup conversions do (IMO).

I wonder where FMB 427G is now?? It shows as being on SORN, and painted blue, so maybe it's still around somewhere.

Have you ever owned a "classic" vehicle that has undergone a significant conversion, either to its bodywork and/or running gear?




RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[alastairq]

http://fbhvc.co.uk/members-pages/newsletter-archive/

Above is a linky to FBHVC's latest newsletters.....inside is a n article from DVLA, concerning 'radically-altered vehicles'.....especially those where a monocoque-type construction has been altered. Current advice is , 'don't do it'....

Look at issue 3....plenty on VHI declarations, which ought to sort out any lack of knowledge on here...?

sorry, off-topic, but I thought it might fit in well with the OP topic? For now, that is?

[Rick]

Yep that's the case now, I had quite a chat with someone at the NEC who owns a Volvo 7-series that was converted into a pickup years ago, but would struggle to get the change of body style rubber-stamped by the offices of DVLA now.

RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[alastairq]

Sorry to divert...but..it seems DVLA will apply this rule retrospectively. In other words [their words?] vehicles that have been so modified in the past, will have their registrations revoked, and be re-issued with Q-plates...

However, I am assured that my Ford sidevalve chassis [with V5c] can be married with my Ashley 1172 bodyshell without too much issue [on their part]...as a re-body of a chassied vehicle [retaining the chassis, running gear,etc]...seems to raise no eyebrows.

I would hope so..however, worst case scenario, an MoT is no hassle.

[Bitumen Boy]

[ukdave2002]

[alastairq]

I have a Q-plater...made up out of mostly WW2 era running gear....a Cannon Trials special.

The chassis number issued was nearly a foot long..I had a problem finding enough clear chassis tube space to attach it to!!

The issue was, it has a Ford [Y-type] front axle, an Austin [8 or 10] rear axle [or, did have...replaced by a Suzuki van axle].....a BMC [Midget] A-series engine [but mounts for a Ford 8 or 10]...similar matching gearbox, etc....Inspecting Hossifer was at a loss to see which make of car it had most of.

I would have been better off simply obtaining a kernackered old kit car of sorts.....and swapping the identities. In reality, no one would have known..or cared...

Bugattis? What about Frazer Nashes? [Allegedly?]

[mikeC]

Surely a Cannon qualifies as a make in its own right?
_________________
in the garage: 1938 Talbot Ten Airline
Recently departed: 1953 Lancia Appia, 1931 Austin Seven, 1967 Singer Chamois, 1914 Saxon, 1930 Morris Cowley, 1936 BSA Scout, 1958 Lancia Appia coupe, 1922 Star 11.9 ... the list goes on!

[alastairq]

[llllmikellll]

[alastairq]

Most road-going [legal] Cannons are listed as 'Ford', or something similar....but they also carry registration plates hoicked from a 'donor' Ford...{Might have been bits of Escort engine & gearbox, maybe even axle? All ''joined together'' in/on a Cannon chassis..which may, or may not, consist of the original tubes used by Mike Cannon himself?}

Which leads me to think of a conundrum....if one replaces damaged or rotted tubes or steelwork on what was once a 'manufacturers' chassis.....at what point do we think the frame has ceased to be from that manufacturer? In other words, is it right to maintain the identity, if the chassis has become rather like the sailor's knife? {6 new blades, 4 new handles, but it's the ''same knife'']

Or should I not poke wasps' nests?

[lowdrag]

And I thought we had put all this nonsense to bed (groan)

The position of modified cars is quite clear.

1. If the modification was carried out over thirty years ago and the donor car is over 40 years old then the car will be MOT free for life.

2. If the car is already registered but the conversion was carried out less than 30 years ago the car will require an MOT until the 30 years is up. But if the donor car was first registered over forty years ago the car will qualify as a historic vehicle and be eligible for £0 VED.

3. The FBHVC article about the definition of a VHI was published last year and is basically the basis of the current position. The IVA applies to any new build based around a conversion of an historic car, and rule 2 will apply except that I am not sure if VED will be payable.

4. The Bugatti club were caught in a trap. The cars that we are talking about here were made by Pur Sang in Argentina, and so impressed the Bugatti club that they issued continuation chassis numbers to the owners, of whom I am led to believe there were three in the UK. Now a certain Colonel Blimp was enraged that his original Type 35 Bugatti was considered equal to the new cars so he fired off a vitriolic letter to the DVLA and the three cars had their registrations revoked. The problem was that, and in pure innocence, the cars got registered as 1931 cars as continuations. Ford GT40s make continuations with sequential chassis numbers too.

Alastair seems to keep harping on about Q plates and such. If the history of the vehicle and the conversion is clear none of this need apply. I have made previous mention of the original Rolls and Bentleys where the manufacturer sold the car in chassis form and the owner then had a body made by Barkers or whoever. These cars are not in question, and nor are all cars that were built in the time. An Austin 7 hill climb special is another example, as would be the two XK150 estate cars and so on.

My case is, as previously explained, a clear example of a converted car that qualifies under the new regulations. A 1967 Jaguar E-type 2+2 converted into a D-type with proof that the conversion was done more than 30 years ago. I had a long chat with the DVLA the week of the changeover, and she confirmed that I neither needed an MOT nor further proof to declare it eligible under the new rules. I went on line, ticked the box to confirm that the car had been converted over 30 years ago, and the car was taxed. No requirement for a V112 nor any other documentation.

[alastairq]

Nobody is questioning the issue, Lowdrag.....the thread got a bit sidetracked, that's all. Nothing really to do with proof or whatever of when a modification was conducted.

[llllmikellll]