hypothetical series land rover rebuild and DVLA registration

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
E

[email protected]

Guest
So, I've got a 1972 series 3 88. I decide to rebuild with-
Shortened range rover chassis
Range rover axles
Coil suspension
Engine conversion of some sort.
Some panels replaced, some sourced from a 90 and modified to fit.
New bulkhead
etc
etc
Okay, a little low on detail but you get the general idea...


As I understand it the new vehicle would be required to pass the SVA
and given a Q plate? Although perhaps careful selection of parts may
enable the original range rover registration to be used? And the tax
exception status would be lost?

I've not carried out anything like this but it seems to me that there's
a lot of modified land rovers out there that are potentially registered
incorrectly and probably with invalid insurance cover as a result? (and
exposing the owner to possible prosecution)?

 
During stardate 5 Oct 2005 11:41:49 -0700, [email protected] uttered
the imortal words:

>I've not carried out anything like this but it seems to me that there's
>a lot of modified land rovers out there that are potentially registered
>incorrectly and probably with invalid insurance cover as a result? (and
>exposing the owner to possible prosecution)?

Yes , you just about hit the nail on the head. If it's got coils it's
highly unlikely to be a true tax exempt vehicle, unless it's an early
Rangie of course.

Lee D
--
www.lrproject.com
'76 101 Camper
'64 88" IIa V8 Auto
'97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd
'01 Laguna
 
Hi,
I bought a replacement galvanised chassis for my '69 lightweight from
Designa. It was modified, before galvanizing, to take R/R axles and coils
etc.
They assured me it would still count towards the points as a new replacement
chassis, obviously dropping points on the suspension etc.
Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
Also to get the rest of the points, it will need a 2A engine and box. Do
these need to be the original ones, or just from the same period?

Cheers,

Tony.


"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> During stardate 5 Oct 2005 11:41:49 -0700, [email protected] uttered
> the imortal words:
>
>>I've not carried out anything like this but it seems to me that there's
>>a lot of modified land rovers out there that are potentially registered
>>incorrectly and probably with invalid insurance cover as a result? (and
>>exposing the owner to possible prosecution)?
>
> Yes , you just about hit the nail on the head. If it's got coils it's
> highly unlikely to be a true tax exempt vehicle, unless it's an early
> Rangie of course.
>
> Lee D
> --
> www.lrproject.com
> '76 101 Camper
> '64 88" IIa V8 Auto
> '97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd
> '01 Laguna


 
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Tony" wrote:

> Hi,
> I bought a replacement galvanised chassis for my '69 lightweight from
> Designa. It was modified, before galvanizing, to take R/R axles and coils
> etc.
> They assured me it would still count towards the points as a new replacement
> chassis, obviously dropping points on the suspension etc.
> Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
> Also to get the rest of the points, it will need a 2A engine and box. Do
> these need to be the original ones, or just from the same period?

I suspect Designa are wrong about the chassis, if the key phrase is
"manufacturer's original specification". My own understanding of the
system is that the points total is on a same-vehicle basis, with the
chassis as a specific exception.

I'm not sure what the situation might be if a vehicle has a replacement
engine a few years before a major rebuild. Would a one piece at a time
rebuild eventually trigger a Q-plate requirement?

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
 
In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] ("David G. Bell") wrote:

> On Wednesday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Tony" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I bought a replacement galvanised chassis for my '69 lightweight from
> > Designa. It was modified, before galvanizing, to take R/R axles and coils
> > etc.
> > They assured me it would still count towards the points as a new replacement
> > chassis, obviously dropping points on the suspension etc.
> > Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
> > Also to get the rest of the points, it will need a 2A engine and box. Do
> > these need to be the original ones, or just from the same period?
>
> I suspect Designa are wrong about the chassis, if the key phrase is
> "manufacturer's original specification". My own understanding of the
> system is that the points total is on a same-vehicle basis, with the
> chassis as a specific exception.
>
> I'm not sure what the situation might be if a vehicle has a replacement
> engine a few years before a major rebuild. Would a one piece at a time
> rebuild eventually trigger a Q-plate requirement?
>

You don't *score* points, you *retain* points.

The info is at:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/regrebil.htm

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 
On or around 5 Oct 2005 11:41:49 -0700, [email protected] enlightened us
thusly:

>So, I've got a 1972 series 3 88. I decide to rebuild with-
>Shortened range rover chassis
>Range rover axles
>Coil suspension
>Engine conversion of some sort.
>Some panels replaced, some sourced from a 90 and modified to fit.
>New bulkhead
>etc
>etc
>Okay, a little low on detail but you get the general idea...
>
>
>As I understand it the new vehicle would be required to pass the SVA
>and given a Q plate? Although perhaps careful selection of parts may
>enable the original range rover registration to be used? And the tax
>exception status would be lost?
>
>I've not carried out anything like this but it seems to me that there's
>a lot of modified land rovers out there that are potentially registered
>incorrectly and probably with invalid insurance cover as a result? (and
>exposing the owner to possible prosecution)?

Seen one for sale today: Series III, on an A-suffix number, "tax exempt".
Hmmm. A-suffix numbers are 1963, series III not built until 1971. Yeah,
right.

Most likely it's a ringer - possibly, it's a series III body on a 1963
chassis, which I imagine is possible - if you had a decent chassis and a
rotten SIII it would be an option.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b5f81b54d%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> [email protected] ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, in article
>> <[email protected]>
>> [email protected] "Tony" wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> > I bought a replacement galvanised chassis for my '69 lightweight
>> > from
>> > Designa. It was modified, before galvanizing, to take R/R axles and
>> > coils
>> > etc.
>> > They assured me it would still count towards the points as a new
>> > replacement
>> > chassis, obviously dropping points on the suspension etc.
>> > Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
>> > Also to get the rest of the points, it will need a 2A engine and box.
>> > Do
>> > these need to be the original ones, or just from the same period?
>>
>> I suspect Designa are wrong about the chassis, if the key phrase is
>> "manufacturer's original specification". My own understanding of the
>> system is that the points total is on a same-vehicle basis, with the
>> chassis as a specific exception.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the situation might be if a vehicle has a replacement
>> engine a few years before a major rebuild. Would a one piece at a time
>> rebuild eventually trigger a Q-plate requirement?
>>
>
> You don't *score* points, you *retain* points.

Hi,
I wasn't talking about building a new Lightweight from scratch, then
claiming it to be tax exempt. I have actualy got the original one, (rotting
slowly into my back garden).
Part of the trouble is that the engine was swapped for a V8 by a previous
owner.

When it looked like time to give up on the rotting chassis, it seemed like a
good time to change to coils/ disks etc.
Its starting to look like I may have to Q plate the new one, (if I ever get
it finished). Then start repairing the old one, rather than scrap the bits,
as intended.

There is still enough left of the first one to retain the identity, i.e.
chassis, steering, suspension, axles. I just dont want to be still
rebuilding it into my old age!

Are the DVLA saying that the use of a chassis other than a genuine Land
Rover replacement, such as Designa, Marsland or Richard's, will cause the
recieving vehicle to loose its identity?

Cheers folks,

Tony.



 
>
> Are the DVLA saying that the use of a chassis other than a genuine Land Rover replacement, such as Designa,
> Marsland or Richard's, will cause the recieving vehicle to loose its identity?
>

Not if it's to the original specification

--
Andy

SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green


 
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:27 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around 5 Oct 2005 11:41:49 -0700, [email protected] enlightened us
>thusly:
>
>>So, I've got a 1972 series 3 88. I decide to rebuild with-
>>Shortened range rover chassis
>>Range rover axles
>>Coil suspension
>>Engine conversion of some sort.
>>Some panels replaced, some sourced from a 90 and modified to fit.
>>New bulkhead
>>etc
>>etc
>>Okay, a little low on detail but you get the general idea...
>>
>>
>>As I understand it the new vehicle would be required to pass the SVA
>>and given a Q plate? Although perhaps careful selection of parts may
>>enable the original range rover registration to be used? And the tax
>>exception status would be lost?
>>
>>I've not carried out anything like this but it seems to me that there's
>>a lot of modified land rovers out there that are potentially registered
>>incorrectly and probably with invalid insurance cover as a result? (and
>>exposing the owner to possible prosecution)?
>
>Seen one for sale today: Series III, on an A-suffix number, "tax exempt".
>Hmmm. A-suffix numbers are 1963, series III not built until 1971. Yeah,
>right.
>
>Most likely it's a ringer - possibly, it's a series III body on a 1963
>chassis, which I imagine is possible - if you had a decent chassis and a
>rotten SIII it would be an option.

Or just had new front wings - that's the most obvious thing to
distinguish a 2 and a 3. Front panel's different as well, but the S2
front panel is pretty hard to find, so again, it's a likely swap.

Could also be a '71-'73 Series 3, but with an older plate on it (less
likely)


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
 
During stardate Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:19:41 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> uttered the imortal words:

>
>Or just had new front wings - that's the most obvious thing to
>distinguish a 2 and a 3. Front panel's different as well, but the S2
>front panel is pretty hard to find, so again, it's a likely swap.
>
>Could also be a '71-'73 Series 3, but with an older plate on it (less
>likely)

I recall one of the two has webbing on the gearbox cross member and
the other doesn't. Should sort the ringers from the rebodied ones.

Other things to look for..

rear lights location, steering wheel, dashboard (big give away), door
hinges, smaller wheel nuts on early II's and II a's.

Percy had a centre IIa grill with later wings fitted when I got him,
fortunatey everything else was IIa sytlie including the smaller wheel
nuts. (Then - now got stage 1 axles.... amoungst a couple of other
minor mods :0))

Lee D
--
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiam.
Winston Churchill

www.lrproject.com
'76 101 Camper
'64 88" IIa V8 Auto
'97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd
'01 Laguna
 
In message <[email protected]>, Lee_D
<[email protected]> writes
>I recall one of the two has webbing on the gearbox cross member and
>the other doesn't. Should sort the ringers from the rebodied ones.

Ah but a replacement chassis can be identical for 2a's and series 3's :)
>
>Other things to look for..
>
>rear lights location, steering wheel, dashboard (big give away), door
>hinges,

A series 3 body doesn't make it a ringer.

> smaller wheel nuts on early II's and II a's.

My May 1972 has small wheel nuts, did any 2a's have big nuts?


--
Mark Roberts
 
On or around Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:19:41 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:08:27 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Most likely it's a ringer - possibly, it's a series III body on a 1963
>>chassis, which I imagine is possible - if you had a decent chassis and a
>>rotten SIII it would be an option.
>
>Or just had new front wings - that's the most obvious thing to
>distinguish a 2 and a 3. Front panel's different as well, but the S2
>front panel is pretty hard to find, so again, it's a likely swap.
>
>Could also be a '71-'73 Series 3, but with an older plate on it (less
>likely)

it looks like about an early 80s S3 to me in the picture.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'
 
On or around Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:38:37 +0100, mark <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>A series 3 body doesn't make it a ringer.

no, putting 1963 plates on a series 3 makes it a ringer. If ICBA (which is
unlikely) I'd go and look at it and see what sort of chassis number plate it
has...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of
a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane
complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to
obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science.
Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is
available to anyone. - Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid, 1986
 
During stardate Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:38:37 +0100, mark
<[email protected]> uttered the imortal words:

>Ah but a replacement chassis can be identical for 2a's and series 3's :)

True , I was refering to supposed genunie tax exempt early landies
which are in fact sIII's which have been rung, I failed to mention
that though.

>A series 3 body doesn't make it a ringer.

No true but the first thing I would look for is a shell that doesn't
shout II or IIa if I was looking to knock some one off for deception,
like if I was having a real vindictive day. Then you have reasonable
grounds to get real nosey for the finer detail under a real good exam
under seizure of the vehicle. Any way this all sounds far too much
like a canteen conversation. I was hoping that my pointers my help
others less clued up from being fleeced by some evil landrover doode.
>
>> smaller wheel nuts on early II's and II a's.
>
>My May 1972 has small wheel nuts, did any 2a's have big nuts?

Later ones , I forget the date but am a little surprise one so young
has smaller nuts. I think it was the late 60's. A google should reveal
the answer as it's been discussed in this group quite a few times.

Thing is once the government work out that the likes of rung landies
are costing them road excise then they will just scrap it rather than
spend more chasing up the tax dodgers. Well thats my cycical outlook
anyway.

And no I've yet to actually knock someone off for having a rung
landie, but it winds me up a treat when I and others have to pay
through the nose to see others taking the preverbial pee, especially
as the system restricts how far I can modify Percy before risking loss
of the tax exemption.

Lee D
--
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiam.
Winston Churchill

www.lrproject.com
'76 101 Camper
'64 88" IIa V8 Auto
'97 Disco ES Auto LPG'd
'01 Laguna
 
so mark was, like...
>
> smaller wheel nuts on early II's and II a's.
>
> My May 1972 has small wheel nuts, did any 2a's have big nuts?

My 1971 2a has larger nuts, identical to the 90's.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)


 
In news:[email protected],
mark <[email protected]> typed:
| In message <[email protected]>, Lee_D
| <[email protected]> writes
|| I recall one of the two has webbing on the gearbox cross member and
|| the other doesn't. Should sort the ringers from the rebodied ones.
|
| Ah but a replacement chassis can be identical for 2a's and series 3's
| :)
||
|| Other things to look for..
||
|| rear lights location, steering wheel, dashboard (big give away), door
|| hinges,
|
| A series 3 body doesn't make it a ringer.
|
|| smaller wheel nuts on early II's and II a's.
|
| My May 1972 has small wheel nuts, did any 2a's have big nuts?
|
|
| --
| Mark Roberts

Series 2A went to 27 mm a/f wheel nuts in 1969, when the headlights went
outside the radiator panel

Karen


--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast


 
In message <[email protected]>, Karen Gallagher
<[email protected]> writes
>Series 2A went to 27 mm a/f wheel nuts in 1969, when the headlights went
>outside the radiator panel
Heh

There's no end to it :) Mine is a 2a safari (soon to have a series 3
hardtop body, bulkhead, breakfast etc) and it has axles with small nuts
from god knows when. It also should have a salisbury back axle I think
which I am nicking off the series 3 so that it is original again :)
Maybe someone put even older axles on it at some time :)

--
Mark Roberts
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<Snip>
> Seen one for sale today: Series III, on an A-suffix number, "tax exempt".
> Hmmm. A-suffix numbers are 1963, series III not built until 1971. Yeah,
> right.
>
> Most likely it's a ringer - possibly, it's a series III body on a 1963
> chassis, which I imagine is possible - if you had a decent chassis and a
> rotten SIII it would be an option.

Hi Austin
The first thing I think when I see an A-suffix, is. It's almost certainly
not going to be a 1963 vehicle. 'Cos
The first national suffix was 1964-B
The 1963 was a trial run, only done in one or two areas.
A-suffix, vehicles were as rare as hens teeth until :-

DVLA started breaking there own rules by using up the unallocated A's for
anyone, anywhere, re-registering any age vehicles.
This was before the age related scheme came in.
I believe DVLA will swap these A-suffix for an age related number now. Free
of charge! They must have realized they'd made a cock up.:)

John






 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joseph80
Land Rover Series II - 88 - 1960
Replies
7
Views
1K
V8bob
V
B
Land Rover Series III Lightweight
Replies
2
Views
402
Rangieman123
Rangieman123
L
My landy series 3 and engine swap question
Replies
3
Views
989
tottot
tottot
WDV
Brake pivot shaft lubrication - 1971 Land Rover Series III
Replies
3
Views
613
steve2286w
steve2286w
J
Selling 1999 Land Rover Defender 90 TD5 Anniversary Edition(?)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
kevstar
kevstar
Back
Top