MPH's Jaguar Special for sale?

[RobinOakapple]

The problem is that there was an amnesty for incorrectly registered cars before SVA came in, but that was over a long time ago. If anyone tried to get the registration corrected now, it would have to pass IVA testing.

[Willhire89]

richw_82 said:

Registered in 1984, build date of 1990

The problem is this:

Vehicle make :JAGUAR
Date of first registration :01 June 1984
Year of manufacture :1961

One of those is true, one of those is hard to justify, and one is a real problem.

In reality it might be a 1990 Reynard but a 1961 Jaguar it is not and it sure as hell isn't a Mk1X

Edited by Willhire89 on Tuesday 8th September 17:16

[DonkeyApple]

a8hex said:

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.

I hope you are right. There is nothing dishonest about this car. It's clear to see what it is. Just like it is with recreations, replicas and kit cars. They aren't out to openly decieve. They are works of art and automotive history in their own right. Personally, I don't think it matters if they carry an older number plate as no one is really hiding what they are and the number plate serves to complete the visual appearance.

Now, look at new built Bentleys, Ferraris, Bugattis and many other historics that are outright claiming to be the original cars, well they are frauds. The people building them know they are and so do the people commissioning and buying them. They are recreations not the original. Sure, there is a dividing line between a fraud and a rather intensive restoration and that is where any entity like the DVLA ought to work to define with better clarity where that cut off is.

[singlecoil]

I agree, the car itself is not setting out to fool anybody, and I must say it's a lovely looking thing.

I remember a couple of years ago in the kit car section, IIRC, someone featured a scratch-built Aston Martin replica, similar sort of car to the one we are discussing, even had a Jaguar straight 6, that was registered as an Aston Martin V8!

I can't quite afford to spend £175K right at this very moment, so can't put myself in the mind of someone who could. But what I know of people who are in this part of the market is that they drive their cars very little, some are lucky to do 1,000 miles a year, many of them much less.

So the chances of getting caught while driving it on the roads are really very small indeed.

One thing about IVA testing, speaking as somebody who has put a car through it, is that although it seems tedious and an unnecessary expense it is actually a very desirable thing for any car that hasn't gone through normal type approval. One important test is the brake balance, where they ensure that there are no circumstances under which the rears would lock first. Normal brake testing machines such as at MOT stations can't do this.

[Willhire89]

Any car which is selected to be in the DVLA review process gets a letter to the V5 holder.

The last part of the letter explains that the DVLA will not accept any transfer of keeper until the matter is resolved.

[richw_82]

Willhire89 said:

The problem is this:

Vehicle make :JAGUAR
Date of first registration :01 June 1984
Year of manufacture :1961

One of those is true, one of those is hard to justify, and one is a real problem.

In reality it might be a 1990 Reynard but a 1961 Jaguar it is not and it sure as hell isn't a Mk1X

Its not a problem. Sure, it says "Vehicle Make: Jaguar." Its Jaguar as that is what the donor was when it was built - I know things are different now; but there are a lot of cars of that period (pre SVA) that are still registered similarly, and legally so. Saying that though, even today some Ronarts getting built and put through IVA are being registered as "Vehicle Make: Jaguar" "Model: Ronart W152" and I'm sure other Jaguar replicas are the same.

Its almost a certainty DVLA aren't going to be bothered; as not only does it seem to meet the exemption for IVA, with the date of first registration in 1984 its not pretending to be Historic. This seems to be the issue with a lot of replicas and kits with pre-1973 donors that are now getting awkward letters.

I don't get why people are trying to declare it illegal, when its plainly not.

[RobinOakapple]

richw_82 said:

Willhire89 said:

The problem is this:

Vehicle make :JAGUAR
Date of first registration :01 June 1984
Year of manufacture :1961

One of those is true, one of those is hard to justify, and one is a real problem.

In reality it might be a 1990 Reynard but a 1961 Jaguar it is not and it sure as hell isn't a Mk1X

Its not a problem. Sure, it says "Vehicle Make: Jaguar." Its Jaguar as that is what the donor was when it was built - I know things are different now; but there are a lot of cars of that period (pre SVA) that are still registered similarly, and legally so. Saying that though, even today some Ronarts getting built and put through IVA are being registered as "Vehicle Make: Jaguar" "Model: Ronart W152" and I'm sure other Jaguar replicas are the same.

Its almost a certainty DVLA aren't going to be bothered; as not only does it seem to meet the exemption for IVA, with the date of first registration in 1984 its not pretending to be Historic. This seems to be the issue with a lot of replicas and kits with pre-1973 donors that are now getting awkward letters.

I don't get why people are trying to declare it illegal, when its plainly not.

It plainly is illegal (to drive on public roads), for reasons that have already been explained.

But to go over it again, it's not a Mk9 Jaguar, so it is incorrectly registered. If it existed before the SVA came in, then there was an amnesty period of a year or so during which the owner could have had the registration corrected, but he didn't do that.

So you can repeat as often as you like that it is not illegal to drive on the road, but you were wrong the first time you said it and you will still be wrong on the thousandth.

[RobinOakapple]

The situation is worse, apparently, unless there are two similar cars and I am confusing them?

From the current seller's website-

"FROM CMC’S WEBSITE: PROJECT CAR – CMC SPECIAL We were approached in the summer of 2004 by a Jaguar enthusiast to build a car in the idiom of the golden age of sports racing cars of the 1950s/ early 1960s."

N.B. Summer of 2004

SVA testing started in 1998

Whoops

[richw_82]

RobinOakapple said:

It plainly is illegal (to drive on public roads), for reasons that have already been explained.

But to go over it again, it's not a Mk9 Jaguar, so it is incorrectly registered. If it existed before the SVA came in, then there was an amnesty period of a year or so during which the owner could have had the registration corrected, but he didn't do that.

So you can repeat as often as you like that it is not illegal to drive on the road, but you were wrong the first time you said it and you will still be wrong on the thousandth.

Whatever. Maybe in your warped little world, but not in the real one thankfully.

[RobinOakapple]

richw_82 said:

Whatever. Maybe in your warped little world, but not in the real one thankfully.

You are the one having the reality problems.

I know you would like what I said to be not true, but it is true.

And not only is the car not correctly registered, it has also evaded the SVA test. Presumably because it would have failed on a number of points.

I know about this stuff.

[richw_82]

RobinOakapple said:

The situation is worse, apparently, unless there are two similar cars and I am confusing them?

From the current seller's website-

"FROM CMC’S WEBSITE: PROJECT CAR – CMC SPECIAL We were approached in the summer of 2004 by a Jaguar enthusiast to build a car in the idiom of the golden age of sports racing cars of the 1950s/ early 1960s."

N.B. Summer of 2004

SVA testing started in 1998

Whoops

God forbid someone registering the project before getting the body built. Must be illegal. Don't drive it on the road, we'll all die.

[richw_82]

RobinOakapple said:

You are the one having the reality problems.

I know you would like what I said to be not true, but it is true.

And not only is the car not correctly registered, it has also evaded the SVA test. Presumably because it would have failed on a number of points.

I know about this stuff.

No, I'm quite happy with reality. The car is a magnificent example of engineering, and as its obviously followed the rules at the time it was built, it drives around on UK roads - legally it seems - and for well over a decade.

You're happy to quote little bits of legislation, but without any clue as to how they get interpreted. I think you don't know much at all. In fact, given how you're pushing the 'illegal' thing, you come across as a troll, and all round oxygen theif.

[RobinOakapple]

richw_82 said:

God forbid someone registering the project before getting the body built. Must be illegal. Don't drive it on the road, we'll all die.

In the USA you would be referred to as a ''scofflaw'. Good to see that you've now realised that the car is actually illegal and that the only response you can make is sarcasm.

[RobinOakapple]

richw_82 said:

No, I'm quite happy with reality. The car is a magnificent example of engineering, and as its obviously followed evaded the rules at the time it was built, it drives around on UK roads - (il)legally it seems - and for well over a decade.

EFA

[richw_82]

Thankfully I'm not in the US (where the car would be legal regardless). Play with quotes all you want... it changes nothing.
Like it or not, you don't get to decide what's illegal over here or over there. You get an opinion - thats all - same as me.

DVLA's opinion so far seems its legal.

[RobinOakapple]

richw_82 said:

Thankfully I'm not in the US (where the car would be legal regardless). Play with quotes all you want... it changes nothing.
Like it or not, you don't get to decide what's illegal over here or over there. You get an opinion - thats all - same as me.

DVLA's opinion so far seems its legal.

I can't think of any reason why the DVLA would think a MK9 Jaguar would be illegal, especially if it has tax, insurance and MOT.

[richw_82]

Precisely. Even more so when the bodywork section on the V5 says something along the lines of "two seater sports".

[RobinOakapple]

Whatever. Maybe in your warped little world, but not in the real one thankfully.

[lowdrag]

Dear oh dear, we are having the same argument over and over again, with some people, obviously not into classic cars but into the minutiae of the law trying to tell us all what to do. For God's sake, I am passionate about Jaguars; I built one that some people are now trying to say is illegal, as are, it would seem, many of the cars that Lord March invites to the Festival and Revival if you pursue this course. New engines, new bodies, and so on. There used to be an expression that now seems to have died a death; live and let live. I don't give a tinker's cuss for the obscurity of the law, I just want to drive my car. Lynx are a make that has become quite legendary over the years, and I have had several to date; one a long nose D-type built in 1977, one a D-type built in 1989, all using Jaguar components from an E-type. I, like many people, can't afford a real lightweight, low drag coupé, C-type or D-type, but I can dream and drive a replica. It isn't as if this will bring about the end of the world. Laws are made to be broken. I await the thread denouncing people for not having gone to church last Sunday, since I believe this law has never been repealed. And don't ever, if you value your life, put a stamp upside down on an envelope. That is treason. And if you want to really go for the ridiculous, it is illegal for a woman to be topless in Liverpool except as a clerk in a tropical fish store. More here to lighten the tone:-

http://mytunstall.co.uk/12/01/crazy-laws-which-hav...

Perhaps we could discuss these instead of persecuting passionate people following their chosen hobby. Me, I am off to York to seek out a Scotsman with a bow and arrow so I can legally kill him. Oh, and in 1961 you might like to know I was arrested when found to be in possession of a dead swan, carrying it home to roast. I had been out rough shooting and the swan flew into the pylon wires, breaking its neck, but the police accused me of shooting it. Until I bet them they couldn't find one lead shot in it that was, then they asked me to save a piece.

[singlecoil]

The thing is, people may well be passionate about classic cars but should they be allowed to sidestep the laws that were put in place to prevent death-traps being out on the road?

For instance, someone is passionate about Cobras, buys a kit and an old Jaguar, installs the parts and puts the car on the road using the Jaguar registration, should there be a test to make sure it meets basic safety requirements? Should passion trump laws? What about the guy installing a V10 BMW engine in a Capri? Should that be tested or is it ok to keep the Capri registration and just change the engine size on the V5?

Edited by singlecoil on Wednesday 9th September 13:36