MOT Exemption Consultation

[Storer]

TooMany2cvs said:

So it won't be an old vehicle, just something that uses some bits from a old vehicle. So why should it be registered as old, and treated as old?

It clearly isn't new, because it's using second-hand bits.
So what age is it? You can't really say. So a plate that says "We don't know what age this is" seems to be about right, don'cha think? And that's a Q.

The engine dates from before 1960 and its design was from the 1930's. The transmission is from the 1960's but designed and used in 1950's cars. Everything will be either new or refurbished to as new.
The engine is new/ unused and the transmission is rebuilt. The chassis will be rebuilt to as new. The body will look like it comes from the 1930-1950's but not be a copy of anything.
So why can't it have (it will) the date of its chassis? It is no different to an old Bentley, RR or whatever that is reconstructed from various parts.

We live in a very petty world where loads of jobsworths like to say 'no'.

What I am building is for fun, not just for me but for everyone that will see or hear it.

[TooMany2cvs]

Storer said:

It is no different to an old Bentley, RR or whatever that is reconstructed from various parts.

Great. So it'll fit into this...?
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/reconstruc...

[b2hbm]

I can see why you wouldn't want a Q reg. on a vehicle that looks period, I'd be the same.

Having said that, I think you've been really lucky to avoid one. The regs. in the above link do say that you can use genuine period parts from several vehicles, but the last line infers that they are all from the same make/model of vehicle. And it expects a marque specialist to confirm that whatever results does comply with the marque, hence it's aimed at restoration of a specific vehicle.

dvla said:

all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle
a true reflection of the marque

What you're doing is taking a chassis from here, an engine from there, transmission from somewhere else and making up a body yourself. That's not exactly the same as the days when Rolls Royce would send a rolling chassis to have coachbuilt bodywork fitted, even if everything is brand new. Sounds a great project though.

Your construction doesn't meet the 8 points that allow you to keep the original reg. from the chassis, unless of course the engine/drivetrain/suspension/chassis/etc are from the original donor and do meet the criteria but from what you've posted it sounds not ?

From my days with kit cars, what you're doing is the classic way to a Q reg. And yes, back in the day everyone tried to find ways to avoid one, usually by buying enough new parts and paying the car tax of the day to get a new reg. At that point you can go and change it for an age-related period plate for your Lotus 7 copy.

I'm not getting at you, I think you've been extremely fortunate in getting a favourable interpretation of the regs. And if I were you, I'd keep quiet about it !

Edited by b2hbm on Saturday 1st October 07:01

[aeropilot]

b2hbm said:

And if I were you, I'd keep quiet about it !

Wise words

[4rephill]

Slidingpillar said:

Simple really. You could use a ladder section chassis from virtually anything old, say a '32 Ford, box it in, use modern day mechanicals, and then call it a '32 Ford.

Boyd Coddington used to do this in the states, and yes, he got into trouble there too.

Sensibly applied, I don't think anyone reasonable has a problem with 8 point rule - when it is used as intended.

As I recall, Boyd Coddington's problems weren't only due to him making use of older chassis' to register cars as being older than they really were, but he was also buying 1920's/30's and 40's cars, and then replacing the original chassis with a brand new custom made chassis on which to fit a more modern engine, more modern suspension, and more modern running gear, along with replacing the majority of the bodywork. By the time he had finished with several of his cars, the only original parts would be some trim and maybe the lights, but then he'd attach the original VIN plate to it.

[aeropilot]

4rephill said:

Slidingpillar said:

Simple really. You could use a ladder section chassis from virtually anything old, say a '32 Ford, box it in, use modern day mechanicals, and then call it a '32 Ford.

Boyd Coddington used to do this in the states, and yes, he got into trouble there too.

Sensibly applied, I don't think anyone reasonable has a problem with 8 point rule - when it is used as intended.

As I recall, Boyd Coddington's problems weren't only due to him making use of older chassis' to register cars as being older than they really were, but he was also buying 1920's/30's and 40's cars, and then replacing the original chassis with a brand new custom made chassis on which to fit a more modern engine, more modern suspension, and more modern running gear, along with replacing the majority of the bodywork. By the time he had finished with several of his cars, the only original parts would be some trim and maybe the lights, but then he'd attach the original VIN plate to it.

Which is effectively what many, many other hot rod shops were/are doing. In some states it's not such a big deal, in others more so. It's why there are so many 'nasty' plastic bodied, '32-34 Ford-lookalikes around over there with IFS/IRS and draped in billet parts
As I said, the problem with Coddington was just that he was a complete tosser.

[Rich G]

I don't think it was so much that Coddington had trouble with the DMV in California. It was more the IRS were peeved by the new car tax that should have been paid on the the cars but was being avoided by the way that he was registering them.

[lowdrag]

We are going way off track here. Since time immemorial we have been buying a buff log book and creating a new car around it, retapping engine and gearbox numbers to suit. The only way that Lynx built cars was by using the cheapest E-type they could find. My XKSS is technically a LHD 2+2 FHC and the only way that virtually all if not all C, D and XKSS-type replicas exist as well as plenty of other marques as well. I'll be happy if they advance the MOT age since my car is 1961 by the way.

[Slidingpillar]

There is a huge difference going the Petersen/Lynx etc route which I don't think most of us have an issue with, and taking effectively a newish Discovery, slapping a Series 1 Landrover body on it, and calling it a 1958 Landrover.

It's altogether a difficult one, but I do think the issue should be of correct registration, and not have the potential validity of the registration called in question by two different government departments for different reasons using the same test with two different interpretations of the answers.