MPH's Jaguar Special for sale?
Discussion
so I will believe what I was told.
Were all over this would be a more exact expression. The latest news is that they are confining themselves more to new builds, not the whole car industry. There isn't virtually one car out that would qualify since the date of registration would date to the latest major part. All reshelled cars for example, all cars with an engine change, new suspension and so on.
lowdrag said:
Were all over this would be a more exact expression. The latest news is that they are confining themselves more to new builds, not the whole car industry. There isn't virtually one car out that would qualify since the date of registration would date to the latest major part. All reshelled cars for example, all cars with an engine change, new suspension and so on.
The basis of your 'latest news' is wrong.....In any case this is a new build (1994) using the identity of a much older car which it now looks nothing like. It ticks nearly every box for them.
Indeed, it says Jaguar on the registration and the body wasn't made by Jaguar and neither was the chassis. So it needs to be re-registered and that will require IVA testing.
I'm not saying that it isn't a lovely car, and a magnificent achievement, just that it would not be legal to drive it on public roads.
I'm not saying that it isn't a lovely car, and a magnificent achievement, just that it would not be legal to drive it on public roads.
"Get an age-related registration number -
You can apply for an age-related number if you can prove you’ve used 2 original major parts along with:
a new monocoque bodyshell, chassis or frame from a specialist kit manufacturer
an altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame from the original vehicle
The registration number will be based on the age of the original vehicle.
Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get an age-related registration number."
The major parts are Jaguar, so its scores on the points scheme for the two major parts, coming under the "kit converted" category where a new monocoque/chassis can be used. As the major parts are Jaguar, thats probably why it gets to keep the make on the logbook.
Given that people are still building Ronarts, C-types and the like and having no problem I don't think this is a big an issue as you two are making of it. They are also made form newer cars and look like much older ones - as do a hell of a lot of kits/recreartions/replicas.
As it is, we don't know what work was done behind the scenes or what was required of the builder by DVLA/VOSA, as despite the nice written up rules on their websites you can still get different answers, on different days, about the same car from the same person - if you manage to get through on the phone.
If (and its a big if..) its illegal, then it will be found. In the meantime, give it a break with the fake outraged Daily Mail style comments, eh? It ruins the thread.
You can apply for an age-related number if you can prove you’ve used 2 original major parts along with:
a new monocoque bodyshell, chassis or frame from a specialist kit manufacturer
an altered chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame from the original vehicle
The registration number will be based on the age of the original vehicle.
Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get an age-related registration number."
The major parts are Jaguar, so its scores on the points scheme for the two major parts, coming under the "kit converted" category where a new monocoque/chassis can be used. As the major parts are Jaguar, thats probably why it gets to keep the make on the logbook.
Given that people are still building Ronarts, C-types and the like and having no problem I don't think this is a big an issue as you two are making of it. They are also made form newer cars and look like much older ones - as do a hell of a lot of kits/recreartions/replicas.
As it is, we don't know what work was done behind the scenes or what was required of the builder by DVLA/VOSA, as despite the nice written up rules on their websites you can still get different answers, on different days, about the same car from the same person - if you manage to get through on the phone.
If (and its a big if..) its illegal, then it will be found. In the meantime, give it a break with the fake outraged Daily Mail style comments, eh? It ruins the thread.
It's easy to create a very nice car of the sort featured in this thread if enough money is put into it. What's not so easy is to make it road legal, and the car in this thread isn't.
It's obviously never taken a either an SVA test or an IVA test. If it had (and passed, which the car in the pictures could not) then it wouldn't be registered as any kind of Jaguar, let alone a Mk IX.
So as a track special, or a museum piece, it's a very attractive car.
It's obviously never taken a either an SVA test or an IVA test. If it had (and passed, which the car in the pictures could not) then it wouldn't be registered as any kind of Jaguar, let alone a Mk IX.
So as a track special, or a museum piece, it's a very attractive car.
This is how the scheme worked for years, lots and lots of cars on the road have taken this route in the past, and back when MPH's special was built by CMC. It might remain to be seen whether the DVLA do crack down on cars like this one, which is basically a kit with a gorgeous body on it. It seems that mostly what the DVLA were trying to crackdown on were cars built totally out of new parts claiming to be original 1920/30 cars. I presume that various parts of the MPH actually come from the Mk9 on the paperwork.
When Lowdrag's C-Type was built he commented that it was becoming more difficult to do things like this.
When Lowdrag's C-Type was built he commented that it was becoming more difficult to do things like this.
Isn't road legal? As in 'never mind that you've been using it for years, we've changed the rules?' not road legal, or never legal to begin with?
It's 20 years since I built my last kit car - at the time it retained enough MGBGT to remain registered as such, but it's not turned a wheel in a few years: is that no longer the case?
It's 20 years since I built my last kit car - at the time it retained enough MGBGT to remain registered as such, but it's not turned a wheel in a few years: is that no longer the case?
Can we not just assume that when it was built they ensured it had enough points to avoid SVA? My (very much more modest) build was done not long before the Jaguar was built and it was simple enough to keep it within the rules - surely engineers capable of making something so beautiful, with such obvious care and attention to detail would have done the same?
scovette said:
Can we not just assume that when it was built they ensured it had enough points to avoid SVA? My (very much more modest) build was done not long before the Jaguar was built and it was simple enough to keep it within the rules - surely engineers capable of making something so beautiful, with such obvious care and attention to detail would have done the same?
We can assume that but it isn't the case. It's IVA now anyway, and has been for a good many years, a much tougher test.It cannot retain the Jaguar's identity because neither the chassis or the body were made by Jaguar. Nor can it avoid an IVA test, which even heavily modified standard cars have to be submitted for.
Yes it's a lovely car, just not a road legal one. If a policeman sees it on the road, and thinks to check the registration number, and happens to know what a MK IX Jaguar looks like...
Same issue at MOT time too.
RobinOakapple said:
scovette said:
Can we not just assume that when it was built they ensured it had enough points to avoid SVA? My (very much more modest) build was done not long before the Jaguar was built and it was simple enough to keep it within the rules - surely engineers capable of making something so beautiful, with such obvious care and attention to detail would have done the same?
We can assume that but it isn't the case. It's IVA now anyway, and has been for a good many years, a much tougher test.It cannot retain the Jaguar's identity because neither the chassis or the body were made by Jaguar. Nor can it avoid an IVA test, which even heavily modified standard cars have to be submitted for.
Yes it's a lovely car, just not a road legal one. If a policeman sees it on the road, and thinks to check the registration number, and happens to know what a MK IX Jaguar looks like...
Well the C-Type replica (built in 2007)I'll be driving to the Revival this weekend is still registered as a 64 S-Type. It went through its MOT quite happily 2 months ago
Same issue at MOT time too.
Mikeeb said:
RobinOakapple said:
scovette said:
Can we not just assume that when it was built they ensured it had enough points to avoid SVA? My (very much more modest) build was done not long before the Jaguar was built and it was simple enough to keep it within the rules - surely engineers capable of making something so beautiful, with such obvious care and attention to detail would have done the same?
We can assume that but it isn't the case. It's IVA now anyway, and has been for a good many years, a much tougher test.It cannot retain the Jaguar's identity because neither the chassis or the body were made by Jaguar. Nor can it avoid an IVA test, which even heavily modified standard cars have to be submitted for.
Yes it's a lovely car, just not a road legal one. If a policeman sees it on the road, and thinks to check the registration number, and happens to know what a MK IX Jaguar looks like...
Same issue at MOT time too.
You really don't seem to get it do you? Just because IVA exists doesn't mean all existing replicas/specials that have been happily running about for years have to have one retrospectively. As at least one other poster on here has stated there are still plenty more cars like this that have no issues at MOT time or any other time. Seeing as the MPH is listed as a 1990 car it predates all the SVA/IVA, and even if it was still registered as the donor (as a lot were back then) there was an amnesty when SVA was introduced to be able to get your car's details changed.
You're making daft assumptions that its illegal, and that its going to get re-registered, based on not much more than a quick check of the free information you can get online - which doesn't tell you body type, build date, whether the plate is its original or age related, and what communication the builders had with the DVLA at the time.
Just because you repeatedly re-state your belief its illegal doesn't necessarily make it so. Get over it.
You're making daft assumptions that its illegal, and that its going to get re-registered, based on not much more than a quick check of the free information you can get online - which doesn't tell you body type, build date, whether the plate is its original or age related, and what communication the builders had with the DVLA at the time.
Just because you repeatedly re-state your belief its illegal doesn't necessarily make it so. Get over it.
"In all cases, IVA (whether Basic or Normal) is only required for passenger cars and light goods vehicles
less than 10 years old, which require first licensing and registration in the United Kingdom."
Source-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Registered in 1984, build date of 1990 (source .gov online vehicle check, and http://www.cheshireclassiccars.co.uk/previously-so...
So not only does it predate IVA (introduced 2007), SVA (introduced 1998), it is correctly registered for the time it was built, and is over 10 years old.
less than 10 years old, which require first licensing and registration in the United Kingdom."
Source-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Registered in 1984, build date of 1990 (source .gov online vehicle check, and http://www.cheshireclassiccars.co.uk/previously-so...
So not only does it predate IVA (introduced 2007), SVA (introduced 1998), it is correctly registered for the time it was built, and is over 10 years old.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff