Hicap phill
Well-Known Member
- Posts
- 15,420
- Location
- Wiltshire
I could bend a frame & make 1 for less than that.the problems I encountered on a 101 conversion was remote linkages for gear box & steering coloum angles.
This was for a trails motor.
Classic historic vehicle rebuild
- Thread starter andy46
- Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
This was for a trails motor.
I can see that from mine steering is rarther crude as for gearbox linkage I would go auto....
Bloody Hell! thats steep I didnt get as far as checking price....
andy46
Member
- Posts
- 42
- Location
- Northamptonshire
This is very true and might cause me to alter my plans - I have two discos that would yield a useable body and the engine/gearbox between them. Although I have done a considerable amount of reconstruction of discovery bodies in the past this also means that I have an idea of the work involved. Starting with a more structurally sound body of any type might be a better option - finding one is an obvious problem.
You obviously have some experience of building "specials" and some knowledge of regs. I don't need the 3 points that a standard engine and gearbox would give me for keeping the vehicles registration number as I have sufficient with a new chassis(5), original axles(2), standard steering(2) and suspension(2) - a total of 11 of 8 required.
The guidance on what constitutes a "substantial change" for claiming MOT exemption doesn't mention transmission at all. In respect of engines it says:
"Alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines are not considered to be a substantial change.
If the number of cylinders in an engine is different from the original it’s likely to be, but not necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment."
That would certainly rule out any other engine than the V8 petrol - I believe this was the only option in 1980 (tho alternative cc would be OK). However it then goes on to say:
"It does not count as a ‘substantial change’ if:
they are changes of a type which can be demonstrated to have been made when vehicles of the type were in production or within 10 years of the end of production."
This opens up quite a wide choice of engines as it appears to include not only any engine Land Rover fitted during production of the RRC but also any popular "garden shed" conversions but only those which were popular before 2008/9.
Land Rover fitted the 300Tdi in the RRC during production so I interpret that to mean such an engine does not count as a substantial change. It may be that you are not familiar with the very latest regs or it may be that you interpret this differently to me. If you do interpret them differently please could you explain why?
Please be aware that I am not trying to score points in an argument here, I am trying to gain a full understanding of these regs as they may apply to me and I sincerely thank you for your comments.
I am aware that this subject might be a cause of irritation to some, although it may also be entertaining for others (personally as a long term Series 2 owner I dislike Defender bodies being put on a Series chassis, I'm convinced it's legal tho - just not the other way round if the vehicle continues to use the series ID). I have to keep "banging on about it" because I'm about to spend over 2K on a chassis and I need to be clear about what I'm doing with it before I commit to that amount of cash on a hobby/toy.
Hicap phill
Well-Known Member
- Posts
- 15,420
- Location
- Wiltshire
No matter what engine you put into it the only the dvla will be able to resolve the plate issue.some times they were fine & other time not helpful.
1 time they tried to fail an IVA as the bloke could not fit in the seat, now I had an extra wide bucket seat fitted to the passenger side & asked him can he sit in that?
Once confirmed I asked if I could swap it over to continue the test or get a slimmer person
As for mot. IF it was built they would see it on the computer & do all the relevant test.
I have taken full blown RRC off road racers for MOT and not had any problems.
Now as most RRC & discos have bad sills why not shorten the body to a cab & flat bed it? You will need the rear bumper of the motor as you are not allowed to change to a LR crossmember.
Good luck with the project
to Most people on here you are trying to do the same as putting a S3 body on a coils.
1 time they tried to fail an IVA as the bloke could not fit in the seat, now I had an extra wide bucket seat fitted to the passenger side & asked him can he sit in that?
Once confirmed I asked if I could swap it over to continue the test or get a slimmer person
As for mot. IF it was built they would see it on the computer & do all the relevant test.
I have taken full blown RRC off road racers for MOT and not had any problems.
Now as most RRC & discos have bad sills why not shorten the body to a cab & flat bed it? You will need the rear bumper of the motor as you are not allowed to change to a LR crossmember.
Good luck with the project
to Most people on here you are trying to do the same as putting a S3 body on a coils.
andy46
Member
- Posts
- 42
- Location
- Northamptonshire
OK I may have failed to explain the situation fully or maybe I don't understand it.
The fact is that the vehicle is already registered - I have the V5 in my name, it is currently declared SORN and is in bits, scattered around my yard and workshop. I am under the impression that it is for me to decide once I have reassembled it, whether it complies with all regs, points systems etc. and if I decide it does I need not tell them anything other than fill in the appropriate section of the V5 to declare an engine change and then to submit a MOT exemption declaration when I tax it.
This system is obviously open to abuse and DVLA must be aware of that. I believe they carry out random inspections and there is always a good chance of attracting attention from DVSA while out and about. So not submitting it for a SVA if I believe it needs one (I don't, 11 points out of 8 required - looks good to me), or making any declaration that I know to be false, would be an extremely stupid thing to do.
I did see a tax/mot exempt disco on a RRC chassis/ID on ebay last week, whether it had been done properly or whether it was just a plate swap, i don't know, I couldn't tell from the pics and it was too far to go see, starting at 3.5K it got no bids, it was a rough looking thing.
The fact is that the vehicle is already registered - I have the V5 in my name, it is currently declared SORN and is in bits, scattered around my yard and workshop. I am under the impression that it is for me to decide once I have reassembled it, whether it complies with all regs, points systems etc. and if I decide it does I need not tell them anything other than fill in the appropriate section of the V5 to declare an engine change and then to submit a MOT exemption declaration when I tax it.
This system is obviously open to abuse and DVLA must be aware of that. I believe they carry out random inspections and there is always a good chance of attracting attention from DVSA while out and about. So not submitting it for a SVA if I believe it needs one (I don't, 11 points out of 8 required - looks good to me), or making any declaration that I know to be false, would be an extremely stupid thing to do.
Brilliant idea, was already considering it but didn't want to further complicate this discussion by mentioning it, I reckon a 130 Hicap body might fit the wheelbase.
Yes I'm aware of that and I have some sympathy for that point of view, I think that what I'm proposing is technically and legally different. Whether the rules that might permit it are good, well written ones is certainly debatable but if they do indeed permit it then I'm just the type if obstinate old bugger to actually do it.
I did see a tax/mot exempt disco on a RRC chassis/ID on ebay last week, whether it had been done properly or whether it was just a plate swap, i don't know, I couldn't tell from the pics and it was too far to go see, starting at 3.5K it got no bids, it was a rough looking thing.
Hicap phill
Well-Known Member
- Posts
- 15,420
- Location
- Wiltshire
A 130 double cab tub is about 10” shorter than a 110.
As for making the tub shorter .,,, it’s triple skinned in places tough to do but possible
your main problem is modifying the chassis is not really permitted.
As for making the tub shorter .,,, it’s triple skinned in places tough to do but possible
your main problem is modifying the chassis is not really permitted.
andy46
Member
- Posts
- 42
- Location
- Northamptonshire
Well I got a reply from the Federation of Historic British Vehicle Clubs (FHBVC) today - a lot quicker than I expected (in case anyone doesn't know, they are the "DVLA recognised expert body" asked by them to advise on MoT exemption.
The opinion of the individual who dealt with my enquiry is that, if this vehicle was actually in existence (my enquiry was made on the basis that it was already done) then it would qualify as a VHI (Vehicle of Historic Interest - as defined by DVLA - that does not mean that everyone should always find such a vehicle historic or interesting). The Discovery body is (as I thought) of no relevance as it is not a monocoque, although he does point out (as many other posters) that the difference in appearance could raise doubt, the 300tdi is in his opinion acceptable, although he does say that this is open to debate and that ultimately the decision is mine as the registered keeper.
I do not feel that it is appropriate to copy/paste the contents of a private email on a public forum but if anyone wants further details at any time PM me.
I should also point out that I am aware that FHBVC advise on MoT exemption - NOT vehicle registration or tax exemption.
andy46
Member
- Posts
- 42
- Location
- Northamptonshire
Yeah - any changes that have to involve chassis mods won't be happening
