V8 INTO A CORTINA FUTURE DVLA / MOT PROBLEMS

[aeropilot]

Todd Bonzalez said:

aeropilot said:

What gearbox and axle...?

Any bodyshell mods...?

Tremec 6060, Viper, yes.

But as we all know on PH. Real world experience means nothing.

What actually matters is comparing modifications to toys to drink driving or whatever. I'm out.

Ok, so if you and your 30 mates didn't BIVA your cars, then just because you are currently getting away with it, doesn't mean you will continue getting away with it, and in the current tightening up of the DVLA/DoT rules, encouraging others to chance their arm in the same way isn't overly helpful...
But, of course as the expert on this you know this already.....

[InitialDave]

I'm not going to sling st around, I am genuinely interested in what you modified, whether it breached the "8 points including unmodified chassis/shell" rule as I understand it, and if so, by what mechanism it's ok to do so but not go through an IVA.

I would have thought that a new engine and gearbox would be ok, but changing the back axle setup (because presumably this includes having to change suspension and/or modify the shell) is what would put you in the naughty corner.

[aeropilot]

InitialDave said:

I'm not going to sling st around, I am genuinely interested in what you modified, whether it breached the "8 points including unmodified chassis/shell" rule as I understand it, and if so, by what mechanism it's ok to do so but not go through an IVA.

I would have thought that a new engine and gearbox would be ok, but changing the back axle setup (because presumably this includes having to change suspension and/or modify the shell) is what would put you in the naughty corner.

The other issue our BMW friend is ignoring in this comparison is the fact that E46 owners are not within the MOTless historic VED 40 exemption rules, which, is where things become more of an issue, as you will have to make that declaration, and open up or not that can of worms for the future.

However, being a much newer design, even if they go the correct BIVA route, it would be a relatively easy route to BIVA anyway, compared with putting a Mk3 Cortina through it, or worse still, a 1960's or earlier design through BIVA, especially with respect to compliance with windscreen glass.

[shakotan]

aeropilot said:

InitialDave said:

I'm not going to sling st around, I am genuinely interested in what you modified, whether it breached the "8 points including unmodified chassis/shell" rule as I understand it, and if so, by what mechanism it's ok to do so but not go through an IVA.

I would have thought that a new engine and gearbox would be ok, but changing the back axle setup (because presumably this includes having to change suspension and/or modify the shell) is what would put you in the naughty corner.

The other issue our BMW friend is ignoring in this comparison is the fact that E46 owners are not within the MOTless historic VED 40 exemption rules, which, is where things become more of an issue, as you will have to make that declaration, and open up or not that can of worms for the future.

However, being a much newer design, even if they go the correct BIVA route, it would be a relatively easy route to BIVA anyway, compared with putting a Mk3 Cortina through it, or worse still, a 1960's or earlier design through BIVA, especially with respect to compliance with windscreen glass.

The glass issue really isn't that difficult.

I know of an airbagged Mk2 Transit that recently passed an IVA and he was able to get all the glass made to EC43-R. It's merely a cost inconvenience rather than a supply issue.

Plus ever since Andy can got this through an IVA successfully, no-one has any excuse.

Edited by shakotan on Monday 19th February 12:35

[aeropilot]

shakotan said:

aeropilot said:

InitialDave said:

I'm not going to sling st around, I am genuinely interested in what you modified, whether it breached the "8 points including unmodified chassis/shell" rule as I understand it, and if so, by what mechanism it's ok to do so but not go through an IVA.

I would have thought that a new engine and gearbox would be ok, but changing the back axle setup (because presumably this includes having to change suspension and/or modify the shell) is what would put you in the naughty corner.

The other issue our BMW friend is ignoring in this comparison is the fact that E46 owners are not within the MOTless historic VED 40 exemption rules, which, is where things become more of an issue, as you will have to make that declaration, and open up or not that can of worms for the future.

However, being a much newer design, even if they go the correct BIVA route, it would be a relatively easy route to BIVA anyway, compared with putting a Mk3 Cortina through it, or worse still, a 1960's or earlier design through BIVA, especially with respect to compliance with windscreen glass.

The glass issue really isn't that difficult.

I know of an airbagged Mk2 Transit that recently passed an IVA and he was able to get all the glass made to EC43-R. It's merely a cost inconvenience rather than a supply issue.

Plus ever since Andy can got this through an IVA successfully, no-one has any excuse.

I didn't say the glass issue was that difficult, I was pointing out that it was a lot easier for a Mk3 Cortina that say an older car from the 50's or early 60's.

Andy admits himself he was lucky though with the BIVA compliant screen on RV.....

[TooMany2cvs]

aeropilot said:

I didn't say the glass issue was that difficult, I was pointing out that it was a lot easier for a Mk3 Cortina that say an older car from the 50's or early 60's.

Flat glass is easy.

Pilkington'll make any glass they have the moulds for - or against drawings.
http://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/automotive/clas...

[aeropilot]

TooMany2cvs said:

aeropilot said:

I didn't say the glass issue was that difficult, I was pointing out that it was a lot easier for a Mk3 Cortina that say an older car from the 50's or early 60's.

Flat glass is easy.

Pilkington'll make any glass they have the moulds for - or against drawings.
http://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/automotive/clas...

Yes, flat glass is easy. Not many flat glass screens after the mid 50's.

Yes, Pilkington have/do offer this service, but, will they continue to do so after the shutting down of the UK factory and the move to Finland?

[PAUL500]

So will Gordon Murrays escort be going through IVA and ending up on a q plate? or the hundreds of other cars being built around the country in a similar fashion all the time? I very much doubt it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlRyNsCpM8c

Edited by PAUL500 on Monday 19th February 21:29

[HedgeyGedgey]

When you put a c20let or c20xe in corsas or novas, to do it officially it has to go to a garage and have a qualified engineer write a letter to the DVLA saying its of a safe standard. You then get engine numbers, engine info so cc and emissions info, the reg of the car it came from which the DVLA need to be informed of. Other than that its as simple as informing insurance and jobs done. Its is a ballache in the long run and possibly a longer process than this IVA bks. Its the reason why most say "still registered as a 1.2" not because its dodgey but because its an absolute bh to do

[aeropilot]

PAUL500 said:

So will Gordon Murrays escort be going through IVA and ending up on a q plate? or the hundreds of other cars being built around the country in a similar fashion all the time? I very much doubt it!

If scoring less than 8-points they should be, and they all should have been since IVA was introduced.

Whether people will continue to take the risk in the light of the DVLA now clamping down on the past laxation of their own rules is another matter....some will continue to ignore, some I know currently in mid-build, are now looking at BIVA, although, they the new announcement about emissions for BIVA and old engines, has now put a further question mark over a few!
There's been enough warnings if more people start loosing V5c's, so people can't say they haven't been warned.

Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice as they say.

[PAUL500]

aeropilot said:

PAUL500 said:

So will Gordon Murrays escort be going through IVA and ending up on a q plate? or the hundreds of other cars being built around the country in a similar fashion all the time? I very much doubt it!

If scoring less than 8-points they should be, and they all should have been since IVA was introduced.

Whether people will continue to take the risk in the light of the DVLA now clamping down on the past laxation of their own rules is another matter....some will continue to ignore, some I know currently in mid-build, are now looking at BIVA, although, they the new announcement about emissions for BIVA and old engines, has now put a further question mark over a few!
There's been enough warnings if more people start loosing V5c's, so people can't say they haven't been warned.

Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice as they say.

I will be honest with you and say builds like that should be independently inspected and certified, in the case of just the rear suspension they were fabricating it was simply being made up as they went along, now often in such cases the builder takes the Brunel approach and massively over engineers the solution so that its quite obvious the component is not going to fail, but in the case of that escort those rear wishbones looked hardly beefy enough to hold a single seater on the road never mind a road car.

IVA is a good process to ensure the finished article is up to the job, its the whole loss of original ID and q plate scenario most think is the overkill element.

[TooMany2cvs]

PAUL500 said:

IVA is a good process to ensure the finished article is up to the job, its the whole loss of original ID and q plate scenario most think is the overkill element.

It's either the same car, or it isn't the same car. There has to be some kind of consistent, defined line. That line was drawn 20 years ago, and hasn't moved.

If it's been modified enough to need a substantial in-depth technical check before being allowed on the road again, it's because it's crossed that line from being the same car.
If it's not the same car, then the old ID is fairly obviously no longer applicable.
If it's not the same car, and you can't point at it and say "But this is the single date of manufacture" with absolute conviction, then a Q plate says "Manufacture date indeterminate".

Perhaps the question should be why a Q plate is seen as some kind of bad thing? It just says what it is - a car that's been built of various bits of various ages...

[PAUL500]

Rules are rules whether we like them or not, but that car is still a Mk1 escort, and its shell still has a significant part of the original one contained within it. It had just evolved engineering wise.

I see no sensible, practical reason why it should not retain its original ID and V5 alongside a detailed inspection report like an IVA for future owners.

The Q plate came about in order to be able to register a car built from allsorts of bits from a range of different manufacturers, basically the kitcars of old that looked nothing like the donor. The only reason the Murray car fails the 8 point test is because its had some chassis mods, and that's daft. Sure, make it have a detailed inspection but don't deny the car its lineage as a result.

[TooMany2cvs]

PAUL500 said:

Rules are rules whether we like them or not, but that car is still a Mk1 escort, and its shell still has a significant part of the original one contained within it.

"has a significant part" is perfectly OK. Hell, you can replace the ENTIRE shell and be legit.

So long as it's to original spec.

It's when you start to modify the shell that the long-standing line gets crossed. So should there be a line (well, a thick book, more like) that says "these mods are OK, and these are not"? Or just say "unmodified shell"?

[aeropilot]

PAUL500 said:

Rules are rules whether we like them or not, but that car is still a Mk1 escort, and its shell still has a significant part of the original one contained within it. It had just evolved engineering wise.

I see no sensible, practical reason why it should not retain its original ID and V5 alongside a detailed inspection report like an IVA for future owners.

The Q plate came about in order to be able to register a car built from allsorts of bits from a range of different manufacturers, basically the kitcars of old that looked nothing like the donor. The only reason the Murray car fails the 8 point test is because its had some chassis mods, and that's daft. Sure, make it have a detailed inspection but don't deny the car its lineage as a result.

IVA doesn't always mean a Q-plate though, there are cars around on their original plates that have passed BIVA.
Don't know if any have retained plate that have gone through NIVA though...?

[shakotan]

aeropilot said:

IVA doesn't always mean a Q-plate though, there are cars around on their original plates that have passed BIVA.

Citation required on that one.

The IVA is only required if the vehicle doesn't qualify to keep it's original identity/VRM. If it can keep its VRM, it doens't need an IVA, if it needs an IVA, its already lost its VRM.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-ve...

[aeropilot]

shakotan said:

aeropilot said:

IVA doesn't always mean a Q-plate though, there are cars around on their original plates that have passed BIVA.

Citation required on that one.

The IVA is only required if the vehicle doesn't qualify to keep it's original identity/VRM. If it can keep its VRM, it doens't need an IVA, if it needs an IVA, its already lost its VRM.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-ve...

Hmmmm................OK.

Me thinks then that a person I know then with a much modified Ford Pop that runs around on its original registration, hasn't then passed BIVA as owner has intimated that it has........

[shakotan]

aeropilot said:

shakotan said:

aeropilot said:

IVA doesn't always mean a Q-plate though, there are cars around on their original plates that have passed BIVA.

Citation required on that one.

The IVA is only required if the vehicle doesn't qualify to keep it's original identity/VRM. If it can keep its VRM, it doens't need an IVA, if it needs an IVA, its already lost its VRM.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-ve...

Hmmmm................OK.

Me thinks then that a person I know then with a much modified Ford Pop that runs around on its original registration, hasn't then passed BIVA as owner has intimated that it has........

Much modified definitely wouldn't be able to retain an original VRM as it would class as a Radically Altered Vehicle, and thereby be treated as a new car undergoing Type Approval and issued with a Q-plate.

Rebuilt Vehicles - can keep the original VRM if abiding by the 8 point rule; otherwise IVA/Q-plate
Kit Built Vehicles - can have a current year reg if made from all new parts from a manufacturer, or have ONE used part that has been reconditioned to manufacturers' spec; otherwise IVA/Q-plate
Kit Converted Vehicles - can keep original VRM if the original unmodified chassis/monocoque is used together with two major components from the original vehicle, can get an Age-Related Reg if a brand new shell/chassis is used OR the original shell/chassis is modified as part of the Kit Conversion (which in itself must have Type Approval), plus two major components from the original vehicle; otherwise IVA/Q-plate
Radically Altered Vehicles - can keep original VRM if the original unmodified chassis/shell is used together with sufficient original parts to gain the 8-points required; otherwise IVA/Q-plate

[PAUL500]

There is still a very legitimate avenue via the kit of parts process to modify a chassis and still retain an age related plate. This is clearly the only method accepted by DVLA when chassis mods have been carried out.

Let take the Murray car for example, under Shakotans interpretation of the rules the company building it could finish the car, then IVA it as a sample vehicle for the type approval of the kit of parts it has fitted to the escort.

As they are a business, not an amateur builder, then that car and any other Mk1 escort they convert in a similar manner could retain an age related plate rather than a Q plate.

Also there is nothing preventing an amateur builder setting up a company purely to type approve a one off and doing the same that I can see.

[V8covin]

gareth_r said:

Edited by gareth_r on Saturday 17th February 15:23

Where has the July date of implementation come from ?
I read somewhere else it's likely to be 1/1/19