Gotta be a ringer? Anyone on here know it before or after?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
WoodyJon said:
This is a bit like my hybrid.

I think you'll find its a series three body that's been fixed on top of an early Range Rover chassis. If it's a SWB (it looks like it) you need to check whether the chassis has been cut & shut and whether it's been properly done and it's straight. There were quiet a few done like this pre-1995 when early RRs were cheap and readily available.

I suspect the engine is the original V8 that was fitted in the RR, which made it a simple job to create, though—as well as the chassis chop—it's important to check how the body has been attached to the chassis. Also check that the steering has been put together properly, as there's probably been welding needed to the steering column. Like mine, the grill is from a later Defender, but that's a very simple swap of a few superficial components which provides more room in front of the engine.

The bottom line is that it could be OK provided the conversion was done pre-'95 and it's been done properly and all the changes are correct on the V5.

A question: does the DVLA provide a list of changes and when they were recorded? If so, the seller would be wise to get that list to show to potential customers.
Click to expand...
There is #### all hybrid about that vehicle. Everything on it is from a 90" Defender. That chassis is not a cut down RR chassis or a coil converted Series chassis, it is a Defender chassis.
 
WoodyJon said:
This is a bit like my hybrid.

I think you'll find its a series three body that's been fixed on top of an early Range Rover chassis. If it's a SWB (it looks like it) you need to check whether the chassis has been cut & shut and whether it's been properly done and it's straight. There were quiet a few done like this pre-1995 when early RRs were cheap and readily available.

I suspect the engine is the original V8 that was fitted in the RR, which made it a simple job to create, though—as well as the chassis chop—it's important to check how the body has been attached to the chassis. Also check that the steering has been put together properly, as there's probably been welding needed to the steering column. Like mine, the grill is from a later Defender, but that's a very simple swap of a few superficial components which provides more room in front of the engine.

The bottom line is that it could be OK provided the conversion was done pre-'95 and it's been done properly and all the changes are correct on the V5.

A question: does the DVLA provide a list of changes and when they were recorded? If so, the seller would be wise to get that list to show to potential customers.
Click to expand...

So the V5 would show a RR with S3 body then - as the ID stays with the chassis, not the body... but... the V5 on this one shows it is a Series, so, sadly, unlikely to be a RR conversion.

I agree people do forget the pre-95 ruling, but, they are few and far between in the grand scheme of things :mad:
 
Spacemonkey... said:
Saw this:

HYBRID LAND ROVER SERIES 3 | eBay


While firstly wondering exactly which bits are actually off a Series 3, I began wondering if anyone might recognise it....

The seller might be innocent but I can't see myself how this could possibly be registered legally as an S3. :(

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
This vehicle in my opinion is a 90". All the visible parts are correct for a 90". The windscreen dummy hinges look strange, but you can't see clearly what they are. Could be a series bulkhead with the windscreen hinge brackets cut off and plates bolted on in their place to join the screen frame to the bulkhead. Looking inside, shows the 90" central fusebox fitted to the bulkhead. The R/H side photo shows an early 90" fuel tank not a series one. If it was an 88" chassis the roof would be too long. I can't see how this could be registered as a series III 1975 as it has not got enough of the original major units to even retain the original registration plate. The DVLA should take a good long look at it.
My own hybrid 88" coil sprung Defender that I started building in 2000 or 2001 has a Designa chassis that is as per 90" from the rear to the front of the tub and from there to the front bumper it is as per Series III except for the coil spring mounts and the links from the chassis to the axle. So it looks like a 90"... even has the 90" roof but I had to cut a section about 4" out of it so it would fit the series III tub that I fitted. I had to have a specially build fuel tank to fit under the seat.
 
This is very strange. I bow to superior knowledge that many of components on the vehicle pictured in the ad are Defender 90.

A V5 asks for (a direct quote...) "VIN/Chassis/Frame No". When I've taken my hybrid to be MOT'd the garage looks for the number on the bulkhead; and that ties up with the one recorded on the DVLA computer system and the one recorded on the V5. The separate chassis number, which is stamped on the offside chassis frame behind the front wheel close to the steering box, is never looked at -- and it wouldn't be of any use anyway because it's not recorded on the V5 or computer.

My V5 records my hybrid in the class 'Historic Vehicle' (the reg is 'K,' i.e. 1971). Just for clarification the conversion for my hybrid to put the S111 body on the RR chassis was done pre-'95 when such swaps were legitimate. The body number when checked against factory records shows it as a 1971 SIII and this ties in with the description on the V5 (though that doesn't mention the model). There is nothing recorded against 'Suspension Type'. When I changed the Rover V8 engine for a Nissan SD33 diesel in 2005, the DVLA updated the V5 to show the correct Nissan engine number. I'm sure if there'd been any problems they would have questioned it at the time.
 
So how can this be reported to the DVLA or whoever?? It seems highly likely that this 90 was once someone's pride and joy. If it was a legitimately owned 90 then surely it would have been 'rung' on to a tax free ID. As it is not a tax free I can only assume it was a cheap knackered S3's ID that was just chopped up and the plates transferred to a stolen 90.
 
SteNova said:
so what does the stamped chassis number on yours relate to woodyjon?
Click to expand...

Apparently, nothing. Well, it certainly relates to nothing on the V5, which as I say, only has a space for a single 'VIN/Chassis/Frame No.', and that's the one on the bulkhead. How about anyone else? Is your chassis number, rather than the bulkhead number, included on the V5?

Incidentally, while the 'Make' of my hybrid is shown as 'Land Rover', the 'Type', 'Variant', 'Version' and 'Model' are all blank on the V5.
 
WoodyJon said:
This is very strange. I bow to superior knowledge that many of components on the vehicle pictured in the ad are Defender 90.

A V5 asks for (a direct quote...) "VIN/Chassis/Frame No". When I've taken my hybrid to be MOT'd the garage looks for the number on the bulkhead; and that ties up with the one recorded on the DVLA computer system and the one recorded on the V5. The separate chassis number, which is stamped on the offside chassis frame behind the front wheel close to the steering box, is never looked at -- and it wouldn't be of any use anyway because it's not recorded on the V5 or computer.

My V5 records my hybrid in the class 'Historic Vehicle' (the reg is 'K,' i.e. 1971). Just for clarification the conversion for my hybrid to put the S111 body on the RR chassis was done pre-'95 when such swaps were legitimate. The body number when checked against factory records shows it as a 1971 SIII and this ties in with the description on the V5 (though that doesn't mention the model). There is nothing recorded against 'Suspension Type'. When I changed the Rover V8 engine for a Nissan SD33 diesel in 2005, the DVLA updated the V5 to show the correct Nissan engine number. I'm sure if there'd been any problems they would have questioned it at the time.
Click to expand...

chassis no and bulkhead no or vin plate should be the same number
 
WHY is everbody assuming its a ringer??

i see SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many land rovers that are cobbled from parts its untrue!!

yes it looks like a 90...but "in the day" every bloody lr was updated with later parts to make them look cool!!
things have changed now and everybody wants them to look old!!, but not then...

dvla are crap. they dont care whay you do to a lr..ATLEAST that was the case...

now in MY OPPION it is proberly someones attempt at a "modern" 90 based on a series..I KNOW it may not be the case, BUT UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN you cant go around accusing people of being thieves or owning stolen property!you are not the police ..you are not in the know..AND BESIDES its abit late in the day if this one is dodgy..no proof now..SEE BELOW


IT WOULD FECKING HELP if you ..lr owners (i am ) PUT SOME FECKIN security on your pride and joy!..COS YOU DONT!!

how many defenders i see with feck all on them!!????99% i would say...people on here posting pics with reg numbers shown!!why not just give your address away???

so..rantin over...secure your vehicles please...alarm..2 indepentent immobilisers..trackin..proper locks etc..THEN prehaps this type of thread wont be happing so often...
 
zen said:
WHY is everbody assuming its a ringer??

i see SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many land rovers that are cobbled from parts its untrue!!

yes it looks like a 90...but "in the day" every bloody lr was updated with later parts to make them look cool!!
things have changed now and everybody wants them to look old!!, but not then...

dvla are crap. they dont care whay you do to a lr..ATLEAST that was the case...

now in MY OPPION it is proberly someones attempt at a "modern" 90 based on a series..I KNOW it may not be the case, BUT UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN you cant go around accusing people of being thieves or owning stolen property!you are not the police ..you are not in the know..AND BESIDES its abit late in the day if this one is dodgy..no proof now..SEE BELOW


IT WOULD FECKING HELP if you ..lr owners (i am ) PUT SOME FECKIN security on your pride and joy!..COS YOU DONT!!

how many defenders i see with feck all on them!!????99% i would say...people on here posting pics with reg numbers shown!!why not just give your address away???

so..rantin over...secure your vehicles please...alarm..2 indepentent immobilisers..trackin..proper locks etc..THEN prehaps this type of thread wont be happing so often...
Click to expand...
This is not "someones attempt at a modern 90 based on a series", for the simple reason, that it is not a series chassis it has been built on. As for proof, the seller has kindly posted pictures of the chassis that clearly show that it is a Defender chassis and not a Series chassis. They have also kindly provided pictures of the suspension, transmission and engine, that also show that it is not based on a series. :rolleyes:
 
Bump said:
Not defending the seller, i agree it looks like a ringer, but, never ever accept paypal when selling a motor - you open yourself up for too much fraud.

A few examples:

1. Person sells car, buyer pays by paypal, collects, opens paypal dispute saying they never received item, paypal ask seller for proof of postage, seller points out it was collection only, provides signed copy of V5 for evidence, Paypal refund the seller as buyer couldn't provide proof of postage :eek:

2. Private sales of cars don't come with warranty, buyer has a problem 2 months after buying car, buyer can open Paypal dispute, get full refund, return a car with several thousand more miles on the clock + broken. Car may have been bashed up and all sorts in that time, seller has nothing to stand on cus paypal just take the money off them.
Click to expand...

True, and to my knowledge (and experience) Paypal are ALWAYS on the buyers side.
I recently sold a Bose iPod adapter, sent it to the buyer, he said it was faulty, I told him to send it back and I'll refund his postage providing that it was faulty. Got it back and it worked perfectly and I have a video to prove it. He left bad feedback, I lost out on the final valuation fee and listing which was £8 and eBay/Paypal didn't want to know, not much of a loss but that's not the point...
 
Bump said:
So the V5 would show a RR with S3 body then - as the ID stays with the chassis, not the body... but... the V5 on this one shows it is a Series, so, sadly, unlikely to be a RR conversion.

I agree people do forget the pre-95 ruling, but, they are few and far between in the grand scheme of things :mad:
Click to expand...

Bump nope not correct.... pre sva you could have swopped the chassis for a secondhand chassis or wooden beams and still kept the series id... there was no points system and no restrictions,

your confusing it with the post SVA rules whereby rebuilding on a rangey / disco chassis would require it to have the rangey / disco reg if enough points... this is exactly the reason the sva was brought in.

I have a coiled series on a series id but on a replacement secondhand 110 chassis ... all perfectly legal as it was done in 1988... V5 even states registerd 1988 .. special instructions declared manafactured 196*... there is bugger all left from the original series but pre sva all legal...

kit cars were the same pre sva you could buy an old ford.. build a kit car and use the ford ID etc... no points system meant you didnt even need to actually keep set number of original parts.

Cheers Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
My love and joy stolen! Moving on and some questions about LEZ...
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dippypud
Dippypud
B
"Thank you Nurse, I think I'll be ok for a bit..."
Replies
12
Views
1K
banzai
B
onecelledcreature
Does anyone know this S2? PBF559J
Replies
16
Views
2K
Rattlegun
Rattlegun
ratty
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Hybrid or Ringer?????
Replies
0
Views
24K
ratty
ratty
M
freelander L-series my findings after a couple of months ownership.
Replies
4
Views
5K
hd3
hd3
Back
Top