Classic historic vehicle rebuild

Hi I have recently bought the remains of a 2 door RR. It is in a sad state, chassis is beyond repair as is most of the bodywork (all exterior panels missing, all interior anything missing, frames rotten and accident damaged). The engine and gearbox are long gone, so not a lot left really.
On the more positive side It has a V5 with an original looking correct VIN plate (I believe it is the original), The axles are in good condition and are correct if not original (who knows after 40 years), I know they're good because I've spent the last 2 weeks rebuilding cleaning and painting them. The steering box seems good to use although it will get the same treatment as the axles, column and steering wheel are missing. Suspension is all heavily corroded - much of it had to be cut off, so all needs replacing with new really, boge unit is missing but I see a few on ebay atm.

So have I got enough bits to rebuild it onto a new galv chassis and end up with a tax/mot exempt "vehicle of historic interest"?

Also could I use a 300tdi engine, R380 gbox and a discovery 1 body?

I have also owned a series 2A for over 25 years - it has been rebuilt on a galv chassis (before I bought it !) and I have fitted a 200tdi. I have read the rules as published on the .gov sites and the information published by the series 2 club and I'm confident that my 2A complies. I don't think that the S2 club advice applies to Range Rovers tho, but if it did I think what I'm intending would be compliant so can I get some other people'e thoughts please?

Quite apart from the massive cost of the parts that are missing, I can’t see how it will be tax and MOT exempt if it needs new chassis, engine & gearbox. If you are re-bodying it as a disco, why not just buy a disco?
The DVLA website says:
You do not need to get an MOT if:

• the vehicle was built or first registered more than 40 years ago
• no ‘substantial changes’ have been made to the vehicle in the last 30 years, for example replacing the chassis, body, axles or engine to change the way the vehicle works

If you’re not sure if there have been any substantial changes you can:

• read the full guidance on MOT exemptions for historic vehicles
• speak to a historic vehicle expert

But the best advice would probably be to ask DVLA.

Thanks for your comments Trio, you are quite correct in that there are substantial costs involved in what I want to do. That is why I am trying to provoke some debate on the subject – so I can better understand other people’s views before I spend a lot of cash. To answer your first question “why not just buy a disco?”. I suppose the most honest answer is, because I don’t just want a disco, I want something unique that I can take pride in owning and having built.

I have read the criteria published by the DVLA on their website and while I could contact them and ask for further clarification or advice, my experience of them on other matters is that they will simply “read aloud the words on the card” quoting the info already published, then probably recommend I seek “expert advice”

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs website ultimately links back to info published by the DVLA.

DVLA state that , if, after reading the published criteria on what constitutes a substantial change you are unsure then the FBHVC have a list of marque experts who may be consulted (for a cost I assume) to give a definitive opinion specific to a type of car.

No expert is listed for Range Rovers, the closest option is the Land Rover Series 2 Club who offer advice on Land Rovers from 1948 – 1971 (my RRC was first registered and built 1980). The S2 club publish their advice as a free resource available to anyone via their website. I have read this and see nothing in it which would make me consider my proposed build to fall within the criteria for substantial change. However by their own statement their advice is specific to series, leaf sprung Land Rovers - not coil sprung Range Rovers. I may contact them for help anyway.

Here is the DVLA published info (edited for relevance) and my interpretation of it below. Comments from people with a different interpretation to mine are very welcome.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf

The criteria for substantial change

“A vehicle will be considered substantially changed if the technical characteristics of

the main components have changed in the previous 30 years, unless the changes

fall into specific categories. These main components for vehicles are:

Chassis (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a

substantial change) or Monocoque bodyshell including any sub-frames

(replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial

change);

Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or

steering constitutes a substantial change;

Engine – alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative

original equipment engines are not considered a substantial change. If the number

of cylinders in an engine is different from the original, it is likely to be, but not

necessarily, the case that the current engine is not alternative original equipment.

The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into

these specific categories:

• changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when

original type parts are no longer reasonably available;

• changes of a type, that can be demonstrated to have been made when

vehicles of the type were in production or in general use (within ten years of

the end of production);


CHASSIS

Clearly a replacement chassis, “of the same pattern as the original” is not considered a substantial change.

It is not possible to carry out any change, substantial or otherwise to the monocoque bodyshell of a classic range rover – it doesn’t have one. Changes to, or complete non-standard replacement of a non-monocoque body, I believe are therefore irrelevant.


AXLES & RUNNING GEAR

Original axles will be used and no alterations to the type or method of suspension or steering are to be made.


ENGINE

Obviously fitting a 4 cylinder diesel in place of a V8 petrol would be considered a substantial change were it not for :-

“The following are considered acceptable (not substantial) changes if they fall into

these specific categories:

• changes of a type, that can be demonstrated to have been made when

vehicles of the type were in production or in general use (within ten years of

the end of production);”


No doubt you are aware that Land Rover did produce the Range Rover Classic with the 300Tdi engine as a standard factory build towards the end of production, I am also certain that many V8 classics had been converted to tdi within 10 years of the end of RRC production.

So as far as I see it, the build I’m considering fits the criteria as published but I’m deliberately asking for other people’s opinions because I’m well aware that I might be interpreting the rules in a way which just suits me.

Find out about the dvla points system they use to register.
Original chassis
Engine
Gearbox
Axles
Body work.

Now if you have a new chassis,yes this can be an exchange so may be fine.
Put in a tdi... nope these did not appear for a few more years
R380 gear box.. nope did not appear for a few more years.

Use the original axles this will be fine

so far you probally have 4 points which means you won’t keep the aged plate.
As for putting a newer body onto an old chassis may also invalid the classic reg

I take your point regarding answers from DVLA. It used to be the case that the local registration office had a local manager who had a lot of discretion (if not knowledge) and the answer varied according to which one you spoke to. But those days are gone.
The point where you lost me was when you introduced the question of using a Disco body.
I won't debate further why you'd want to do that and I take your point that it isn't a monocoque body so seems to skirt around the rules.
However I would expect both DVLA and sharp eyed coppers to suspect that something with a Disco body on a new chassis, with a Rangerover chassis number was an attempt to avoid tax on a disco by changing the chassis number. So any discretion that might be around is less likely to be applied in your favour.
You are of course right that the Classic Rangerover was available as a 300 TDI. I think this was only in the 4 ('5') door version but that returns to the point about bodies.
So you'd probably need to look at what other changes you are intending to register (colour?, number of doors? fuel we know about).
The generally recognised experts on Rangerovers are at the Gaydon Heritage Centre. Have you thought of asking them?

Trio - yes I remember the local registration office - long gone and that's a shame. I also would expect DVLA and any sharp eyed copper (especially one who knows Land rovers) to want to look closely at the finished vehicle which is why I'm inviting people to question my interpretation of the published "rules". I have no intention of needing to register a colour change, No of doors is not recorded on my V5 (obviously it is coded in the chassis No) and it had already at some time been given a tractor engine - 4203 I believe but it isn't there anymore. Thanks for the suggestion of Gaydon, I have visited a couple of times, it's not far from me, probably closed due to covid now but definitely worth asking.

Phil, thank you for your comments, I am aware of the points system regarding vehicle registrations, it is a similar set of rules to those regarding MOT exemption, there are subtle but significant differences. Some of this may be a problem for me and I do need to get some clarification. Here's what it says:-

source: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

Part Points
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5
Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1

I would be using a new Chassis of the original spec so I get the all important first 5 points. I will be using the original axles so that's 2 more. I do not have the original engine or transmission so those points are not available, which leaves me to use either the original steering and/or the original suspension, both of which I intend to use so total of 11 out of 8 required.
However you may have noticed that this set of rules is worded quite differently to those regarding MOT exemption. Those rules state that the suspension and steering system should be of the same type as the original. This set of rules re. registration simply states "original". I doubt that many vehicles over 40 years old still have their original springs, shocks, track rod ends, etc. so it can't mean that all those components have to be the original factory fitted parts but that's what it says, and this I may have a problem with so here I really do need expert advice.

Have you checked to see if a disco body will fit an early RRC chassis?

what you have to remember is you should not modify the chassis for this to fit.

If you have an engine/gearbox for that year you will get them points.

as for arms/springs etc yes you can replace these like for like

I need to read up again

interpretation of original... original type IE it could be a replacement of the type available as to replace original no problem.
Why not fit the V8 3.5? Also it can be argued (I think) if replacement is not available or/but/and a better eco/safety is available they would accept. (3.9 EFI?)
Most of the stuff underneath you will get away with normal replacement stuff available.
However a disco body is really pushing your luck from what I can tell. So I would forget that. The body/monocoque is just that and chassis is separate, is the way I see it.

J

Hicap phill said:

Have you checked to see if a disco body will fit an early RRC chassis?

what you have to remember is you should not modify the chassis for this to fit.

If you have an engine/gearbox for that year you will get them points.

as for arms/springs etc yes you can replace these like for like

Click to expand...

1. good question - no I haven't. I have done a fair bit of reconstruction of disco 1 bodies - inner wings. cills, boot floors and more - a lot more. I know that the parts I have mentioned are common to both disco 1 and 4dr RRC. Both of these vehicles and the 2dr RRC have a 100" wheelbase. Door bottoms from the disco will fit the RRC, swage lines don't match but the things open and close into the holes, so I have always assumed that the vehicles are very similar under their outer skin. It has to be worth getting dirty with a tape measure before I stump up for a new chassis tho.
2. yes very clear
3. I don't
4 I really hope you're right about that, I'm searching for some official or recognised expert statement to confirm it.

Quick thought on the chassis
Why not ask a chassis builder if they are the same

only the A frame changed from a box to a tube on later models.

marjon said:

I need to read up again

interpretation of original... original type IE it could be a replacement of the type available as to replace original no problem.
Why not fit the V8 3.5? Also it can be argued (I think) if replacement is not available or/but/and a better eco/safety is available they would accept. (3.9 EFI?)
Most of the stuff underneath you will get away with normal replacement stuff available.
However a disco body is really pushing your luck from what I can tell. So I would forget that. The body/monocoque is just that and chassis is separate, is the way I see it.

J

Click to expand...

Please, please do read up again and when you do please quote sources, whether they support what I want to do or not.
I like your interpretation of original - it suits my purpose but I've yet to see any official confirmation of it.
The DVLA appear to think that a vehicle can only be fitted with one item from the following list and it suits me to agree with them:

Chassis,
Monocoque Bodyshell (which they further define as chassis and body combined in one unit with or without subframes),
Frame (motorcycle).

Original or brand new replacement of any of these is OK.

As far as I am aware the first Land Rover to have a monocoque body was the Freelander, the term simply doesn't apply to RRC or discovery 1 any more than does the term "frame".

andy46 said:

So have I got enough bits to rebuild it onto a new galv chassis and end up with a tax/mot exempt "vehicle of historic interest"?

Click to expand...

That statement indicates that DVLA will not probably agree to historic status...a built up vehicle on a new chassis from parts is of no historical value at all...

I wouldn't want a Disco body if I could have a RR Classic one or the TDi engine of any sort over the VM that was fitted at the time or maybe a 3.0 six pot of some sort. The P38 came with an R380 gearbox, both with 4.0L v8 and BMW diesel. In fact, for the expense I would get a semi-decent p38 and make it great. By the time you have finished it will probably be exempt.

Shippers said:

That statement indicates that DVLA will not probably agree to historic status

Click to expand...

I won't be asking them - not because I don't want clarification but because I don't believe they'll offer any. All I would expect is for them to point me at the guidance already published on their website, which on the face of it appears to allow such a build. If you have actually read their published info and genuinely interpret it differently to me please share.

Shippers said:

a built up vehicle on a new chassis from parts is of no historical value at all.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion and thanks for sharing it, I suspect it is a popular one. For what it's worth I think it is (one day will be) of historical interest that in 2021 an ordinary bloke can build (or recommission) such a vehicle in his garden shed and drive it on the road. I don't think this situation will last indefinitely, it won't be spoiled by people who make every effort to comply with the law but rather by those who ignore the rules and for example put a series 3 ID onto a defender - I've recently seen such a vehicle for sale in a salvage auction presumably selling on behalf of an insurance company who have paid out a claim on it. How can that happen? (ranting now because I spent time and money to look at it)

Grrrrrr said:

By the time you have finished it will probably be exempt.

Click to expand...

That's a fair comment

andy46 said:

For what it's worth I think it is (one day will be) of historical interest that in 2021 an ordinary bloke can build (or recommission) such a vehicle in his garden shed and drive it on the road.

Click to expand...

Dont disagree with the sentiment but putting a Disco shell on a Range Rover chassis is not keeping historical status as the vin shows it as a RR and according to previous posts is a major bodywork change from original...

It is a major bodywork change - there's no denying it, but it isn't a change in any way at all to the "monocoque bodyshell" .

An enquiry has now been sent to FHBVC as per published DVLA advice - if they tell me no then it's no. I'll let you know how it goes but I don't expect a very quick answer

.

andy46 said:

It is a major bodywork change - there's no denying it, but it isn't a change in any way at all to the "monocoque bodyshell" .

Click to expand...

So you could stick a Toyota shell on a RR chassis and get historic status then...the "monocoque bodyshell" you keep quoting on a RR vin plate chassis should be a RR bodyshell not a Discovery....same as a RR body shell could be on a Discovery vin chassis... do you get my drift?...

Shippers said:

So you could stick a Toyota shell on a RR chassis and get historic status then...the "monocoque bodyshell" you keep quoting on a RR vin plate chassis should be a RR bodyshell not a Discovery....same as a RR body shell could be on a Discovery vin chassis...

Click to expand...

Yes yes yes, at last.

As I see it, as the "rules" are written, any body, bodywork or bodyshell etc. can be put on any independent chassis,and providing the chassis is not altered from standard spec, the identity of the resulting vehicle will be that of the chassis, provided that enough other major components such as axles, steering, suspension and engine are also used in a standard, unaltered form.
In your first example of putting a Toyota shell onto a RR chassis you might also, in theory, be able to register the resulting vehicle as a Toyota (if you use a Toyota with a monocoque) you would have to keep the Toyota axles, steering and suspension and engine without alteration. In practice I don't think that would be possible, and it would be much easier to keep the RR chassis, axles, steering and suspension systems all unaltered and keep the RR ID.
Creating a vehicle with both a seperate chassis AND a monocoque would open a whole new can of worms. How the rules would be applied to such a creation, I don't know and can't be bothered to think too deeply about it.
If you put a RR body on a disco chassis the end vehicle will be a Discovery - the identity of the vehicle remains with it's chassis, no matter what it looks like cosmetically.

I have not picked the term "monocoque bodyshell" out of the air, if you look at any of the sources I quoted earlier you will see that it is a term used by DVLA quite a lot when setting rules for registering, altering or building vehicles. They always use it as an alternative to a chassis because, just like some vehicles do not have a monocoque body, some vehicles do not have a separate chassis (eg. LR Freelander, Ford Escort, Mini, some Toyotas etc.),. Sometimes they also offer the alternative of a frame, when applying their rules to all vehicles including motorcycles, because these vehicles (motorcycles) do not have a chassis or monocoque body.
DVLA even define their use of the term "monocoque bodyshell" as being "the body and chassis as one unit". What they are referring to would be more accurately described as a vehicle with a body of unitary construction - the term monocoque is commonly misapplied this way but as they have defined their meaning it is clear what is meant.

Neither RRC or Discovery bodies contain any element of "chassis", nor are they stamped with a VIN No (that is stamped on the chassis) They are clearly not monocoque by the DVLA definition or by any other definiition. It is the chassis of such vehicles to which the DVLA have applied their rules. The rules could have been written differently, (engines, axles, steering and suspension components are not stamped with a VIN either but the rules have clearly been applied to cover these items) but like it or not, that is the way things are. (in my opinion obviously and I'm waiting for someone to show me how I have misunderstood it - hasn't happened yet but my mind is open).

Have you read glencoyne engineerings explanation of rebuilds and the law.?