Maintenance of Pre-88 modificaitons

[guycarnegie]

I bought a GT6 in 2000 with a set of old Weber DOCE's fitted. Unfortunately, they were knackered, with worn butterfly shafts and a Heath Robinson linkage. Also, they had a TR6 manifold, so needed a bulge cut in the sloping bonnet of the GT6 to accommodate. Certainly looked (and performed) like they had been fitted to the car for a good part of its 33 year life (at the time).

I've since restored the car and replaced the Webers with a new set of DOCE40-131's, correct GT6 manifold and a decent linkage.

As far as this proposed 1988 rule is concerned for Vehicles of Historic Interest in the UK, am I good to assume that this brand spanking new setup is simply a maintenance measure on a pre-88 modification, and not a "new modification" in its own right?

Edited by guycarnegie on Wednesday 11th October 16:51

[aeropilot]

I would


But it would help if you had any old photos of it pre-88 (just in case)

[mk1coopers]

And here is a perfect example of why these new draft rules are such a can of worms, where does the burden of proof fall, you (think) the Modification was done pre 88 but you may have no evidence of this, you have then improved on it (by making it work with different carbs and manifold) which you know you fitted (after the car was restored) post '88 as you didn't own the car until 2000, so does the DVLA have to prove the car didn't have Webers pre '88 or do you have to prove it did, and if you can does changing them for a different type mean it's not the same modification ?!

What a mess, hopefully someone with some sense is looking at all the replies going in about this (as long as people are voicing concerns)

[guycarnegie]

I think I’ll base the maintenance vs modification decision based on the hypothetical situation where a car with Weber’s as OEM equipment needed a replacement carb as part of a service.
My guess is that the Alfa(?) dealer would use a carb in current production, and not try to source a used 30 year old carb.

So for me, switching the model of DCOE is a maintenance measure, and not a modification.

[aeropilot]

mk1coopers said:

so does the DVLA have to prove the car didn't have Webers pre '88 or do you have to prove it did, and if you can does changing them for a different type mean it's not the same modification ?!

You have to prove to DVLA it was pre-88.

I think changing for different type but same configuration which this would be, wouldn't count as different mod. Changing OEM carbs for DCOE's post 88 would likely fall under the silly 15% power to weight ratio mod...and thus car would need to be MOT'd.

But who knows, the whole thing is a mess, and what the outcome from the next round of feedback will be interesting...or not as the case may be!

[guycarnegie]

Unless, the car had DCOEs as standard (albeit an earlier DCOE model).- thinking of some older Alfa’s as an example.

That was my point really. Changing an earlier DCOE for a later DCOE isn’t really a “modification”.

I think the current proposal is that I just have to make a declaration about the age of any modifications (original strombergs to dcoe, for example), but that they are obliged to take my word for it.

I’ve no objection to still having to have an mot, just don’t want to lose the historic status.

[Riley Blue]

aeropilot said:

mk1coopers said:

so does the DVLA have to prove the car didn't have Webers pre '88 or do you have to prove it did, and if you can does changing them for a different type mean it's not the same modification ?!

You have to prove to DVLA it was pre-88.

Are you sure? I was under the impression you had to make a 'declaration', I haven't seen a requirement for evidence to prove it.

[mk1coopers]

aeropilot said:

You have to prove to DVLA it was pre-88.

I think changing for different type but same configuration which this would be, wouldn't count as different mod. Changing OEM carbs for DCOE's post 88 would likely fall under the silly 15% power to weight ratio mod...and thus car would need to be MOT'd.

But who knows, the whole thing is a mess, and what the outcome from the next round of feedback will be interesting...or not as the case may be!

Yes it's a mess, to many variables and an inclusion (the 15% PtW) in the draft criteria that was never mentioned in the consultation response documents, lets hope if enough of us respond this time (as people didn't do the first time) this criteria can be changed or dropped.

I'm lucky in that I've owned my cars long enough to have enough documentation to back up when modifications were done, the strange thing is that the car with the most modifications (including the body being chopped above and below the waistline) is the one I have the most documentation for, I didn't build it but it was in Cars and Car Conversions in 1973 (in it's current form) so I if I choose to not MOT it (which probably won't be the case) I have proof of the time of the change, not many people will be in this situation

[lowdrag]

The can of worms is getting much bigger now too. Rolls made chassis and coach builders added the body, so not "as it came out of the factory". An extreme interpretation I know, but there just the same. Moggies with Spridget discs? Any replica will wear a Q plate, including DB4s with chassis shortened 5 ins and converted to Zagatos, Bentleys changed to Le Mans replicas, my XKSS, and so on. But I really don't see how the DVLA can police all the mods and improvements in real life. My engine has been modified but the power has not gone up by more than 15%, all due to Jaguar being economical with the truth in the first place by declaring 265 bhp for an E-type engine when in fact it was considerably less. I squeak in by1bhp no less! But how will they police that? Send all cars to the rolling road? But the best comment this week was from the MD of a specialist garage. He came out with this cracker; "Perhaps the younger generation might begin to think that a Q plate will stand for quality, and become a thing to aspire to". Answers on a post card please.

[PAUL500]

For as long as a q plate is the lowest denomination/fall back option for the dvla then it will never have any form of cache, regardless of the car it is on, as its a catch all.

My suggestion on another thread was a defined prefix for modified classics which cannot retain their original number under the system. Say a Z plate for example, that way it would show to some degree that the car wearing it is somewhat special from the norm and could become accepted as suggested by that dealer.