classic car forum header
Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
How To Register     Posting Photographs     Privacy Policy     F/book facebook.com/oldclassiccar

Ford Popular 103e new to me
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Ford
Author Message
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1086
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admit, if one knows little or nothing about the old vehicle one has just bought, then having access to a skilled person is essential. But, remember, the MoT is a pretty worthless check of integrity, right from the day after the test is passed.

Better to simply have one's old vehicle checked over now & again...but don't place too much faith on the 'expert's ability to identify ongoing, or up-coming, problems..

[In Law, that is the driver's responsibility.]

Of course, as a way-of-life, owning and using an old vehicle should, IMHO, at the very least, engender a degree of owner education as to the why & wherefore of running such vehicle......after all, that was the very least expected of an owner, 'back-in-the-day', by the manufacturer?

We all miss little things......my own Dellow was bereft of more than one essential split pin on first examination after it arrived.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Replaced the rear lights on my popular as I couldn't remove the lamp ( bulb to those who call them that )
Fitted Model A rear lights but not happy with the angle of them not facing square to the back of the car and in my haste positioned them where the old lights were and then realised the nearside which has been fitted to a glassfibre wing is not the same level, so some sorting to do
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
I admit, if one knows little or nothing about the old vehicle one has just bought, then having access to a skilled person is essential. But, remember, the MoT is a pretty worthless check of integrity, right from the day after the test is passed.

Better to simply have one's old vehicle checked over now & again...but don't place too much faith on the 'expert's ability to identify ongoing, or up-coming, problems..

[In Law, that is the driver's responsibility.]

Of course, as a way-of-life, owning and using an old vehicle should, IMHO, at the very least, engender a degree of owner education as to the why & wherefore of running such vehicle......after all, that was the very least expected of an owner, 'back-in-the-day', by the manufacturer?

We all miss little things......my own Dellow was bereft of more than one essential split pin on first examination after it arrived.
i don't think vosa would consider the mot worthless and as some have advised an mot is at least an endorsement of the roadworthiness of a vehicle for the insurance company. I am qualified in several things, have built race cars but am not a qualified mechanic so unless I am in possession of receipts from a qualified mechanic for work carried out the mot is the only official document I have.
As I become familiar with the car I am finding many things that need and get attention.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1086
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If VOSA are so convinced a one-off [once a year] road-worthiness test is so important, why is it that the Law places the onus on a driver to ensure their vehicle always meets more than the limited standards VOSA insist on?

For example, structural integrity?

Because of the limitations imposed on a tester to check for structural integrity, and vehicle can be deemed to have passed its MoT test one week, yet a week later, after a more thorough examination, can fail the test criteria due to excessive corrosion within the [very limited] specified limits?

Tyres can be changed, bulbs can blow, a million things can be correct at the time of test, yet, even a short time later, can be defected, changed or whatever.

Complaining that a tester failed to uncover faults isn't going to get much of a response, if the vehicle was tickety-boo....at the time of test.

The point I am making is...the Test itself, whilst fine & dandy for being administratively road legal, isn't itself any sort of guarantee as to the roadworthiness of a vehicle, subsequently.

Roadworthiness at any given time is purely down to the driver, on the day.

I believe much of a driver's assessment of roadworthiness will be, an assessment of what the driver 'can get away with'...

Of that I think its fairly safe to assume, we have all been guilty of, at some point or another?

The mot, as you say, is the only 'official' document.....the point I make is, it seems too much emphasis is paced on that document being a guarantee of roadworthiness.

I have never come across any insurer who has demanded a valid MoT for the vehicle to be insured.

Come a claim, that is the point when an insurance assessor/loss adjuster may check the roadworthiness of a vehicle, regardless of what the official bit of paper may say. Especially with an eye for mitigating their company's losses?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alastairq



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1086
Location: East Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul fairall wrote:


Replaced the rear lights on my popular as I couldn't remove the lamp ( bulb to those who call them that )
Fitted Model A rear lights but not happy with the angle of them not facing square to the back of the car and in my haste positioned them where the old lights were and then realised the nearside which has been fitted to a glassfibre wing is not the same level, so some sorting to do


Ford Pop-type rear light units are quite easy to source....or replaced with standard Lucas types....Lucas marketed standard light units which makers bought -in.

Plastic or glass.

[If one's lenses are becoming discoloured, then glass paint of the sort used by stained-lass window enthusiasts is good stuff.]

I have found all the base units, which house the bulb[s] really do need the best of earths, regardless of what material the body is made from.

I, too, have a pair of Model A rear light units, bought years ago for another project entirely, and never used. They're much more awkward to find a decent fitment, than I would have liked. So now, they sit on my spares shelf...along with such esoterica as SAAB 900 harmonic balancer.....or a Granada waterpump!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
If VOSA are so convinced a one-off [once a year] road-worthiness test is so important, why is it that the Law places the onus on a driver to ensure their vehicle always meets more than the limited standards VOSA insist on?

For example, structural integrity?

Because of the limitations imposed on a tester to check for structural integrity, and vehicle can be deemed to have passed its MoT test one week, yet a week later, after a more thorough examination, can fail the test criteria due to excessive corrosion within the [very limited] specified limits?

Tyres can be changed, bulbs can blow, a million things can be correct at the time of test, yet, even a short time later, can be defected, changed or whatever.

Complaining that a tester failed to uncover faults isn't going to get much of a response, if the vehicle was tickety-boo....at the time of test.

The point I am making is...the Test itself, whilst fine & dandy for being administratively road legal, isn't itself any sort of guarantee as to the roadworthiness of a vehicle, subsequently.

Roadworthiness at any given time is purely down to the driver, on the day.

I believe much of a driver's assessment of roadworthiness will be, an assessment of what the driver 'can get away with'...

Of that I think its fairly safe to assume, we have all been guilty of, at some point or another?

The mot, as you say, is the only 'official' document.....the point I make is, it seems too much emphasis is paced on that document being a guarantee of roadworthiness.

I have never come across any insurer who has demanded a valid MoT for the vehicle to be insured.

Come a claim, that is the point when an insurance assessor/loss adjuster may check the roadworthiness of a vehicle, regardless of what the official bit of paper may say. Especially with an eye for mitigating their company's losses?
you're preaching to the converted
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alastairq wrote:
Paul fairall wrote:


Replaced the rear lights on my popular as I couldn't remove the lamp ( bulb to those who call them that )
Fitted Model A rear lights but not happy with the angle of them not facing square to the back of the car and in my haste positioned them where the old lights were and then realised the nearside which has been fitted to a glassfibre wing is not the same level, so some sorting to do


Ford Pop-type rear light units are quite easy to source....or replaced with standard Lucas types....Lucas marketed standard light units which makers bought -in.

Plastic or glass.

[If one's lenses are becoming discoloured, then glass paint of the sort used by stained-lass window enthusiasts is good stuff.]

I have found all the base units, which house the bulb[s] really do need the best of earths, regardless of what material the body is made from.

I, too, have a pair of Model A rear light units, bought years ago for another project entirely, and never used. They're much more awkward to find a decent fitment, than I would have liked. So now, they sit on my spares shelf...along with such esoterica as SAAB 900 harmonic balancer.....or a Granada waterpump!!
ford sidevalve owners club sell rear lights, base plates, rubbers and lenses, over 90 a pair and they look awful and it's not possible to see both lights at an angle due to the boot obscuring them. One way or another the model A lights are staying
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GARAGE HERMIT



Joined: 20 Mar 2017
Posts: 186
Location: stockton upon tees, cleveland,

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PAUL,

i've bought some too, been thinking the best way to mount them, seen a pop with them bolted to the boot lid, remember seeing an old car with D type rear light's on the bootlid, did'nt look too bad, but i'm trying to figure out some kind of bracket or maybe like the std fitment on a stalk, off the rear wing,

these were 40.00 inc p&p a pair, from china, glass lenses too,


_________________
1957 - 103e - popular,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm removing the bumper from mine so could mount them on the rear valance. I'm phoning pop Browns tomorrow to ask about the mounting posts they sold me. Assuming they are meant to fit a pop the angle of the plate that bolts to the wing is wrong. If they are meant for the pop I may send the chrome ones back and get the black ones and cut and weld them to suit, then paint black. Chrome and black are the same cost. Will keep you posted mr hermit.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GARAGE HERMIT wrote:
PAUL,

i've bought some too, been thinking the best way to mount them, seen a pop with them bolted to the boot lid, remember seeing an old car with D type rear light's on the bootlid, did'nt look too bad, but i'm trying to figure out some kind of bracket or maybe like the std fitment on a stalk, off the rear wing,

these were 40.00 inc p&p a pair, from china, glass lenses too,

the lights I bought have an amber glass at the top for an indicator and red at the bottom for stop and tail but came with bulb holders for single filament bulbs. I changed the bottom for a twin filament holder to do stop/tail.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GARAGE HERMIT



Joined: 20 Mar 2017
Posts: 186
Location: stockton upon tees, cleveland,

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i bought the stop type as i'm keeping the semaphore's, but with a flasher relay in the circuit,

didnt know pop brown's did a bracket for the A light's, i'll have a look,
_________________
1957 - 103e - popular,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GARAGE HERMIT wrote:
i bought the stop type as i'm keeping the semaphore's, but with a flasher relay in the circuit,

didnt know pop brown's did a bracket for the A light's, i'll have a look,

Not easy to find but maybe easier to phone them, great people, sent out straight away and got next day.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GARAGE HERMIT



Joined: 20 Mar 2017
Posts: 186
Location: stockton upon tees, cleveland,

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you could mount them on the bumper,


_________________
1957 - 103e - popular,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yesterday I do just that, a temporary plate bolted to the bumper bolt behind the bumper.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul fairall



Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 431
Location: North west Kent

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thought I should say the model A rear light posts don't fit the pop, they angle outwards and look awful. I was told they are meant for model A which would make sense if pop Browns made that clear as I assumed they sold pop parts.
_________________
1957 ford popular
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration. Forum Index -> Ford All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum T&C


php BB powered © php BB Grp.