Landrover on Range Rover logbook. Legal?

[SteveR1979]

Just wondered what the legality of this might be:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/landrover-defender-rang...

Is that really acceptable?

[Checkmate]

Landy body on a Range Rover chassis?

[SteveR1979]

Checkmate said:

Landy body on a Range Rover chassis?

Just had alarm bells ringing for me, which is why I asked.

[Essel]

Looks like a new galvanised defender chassis to me. Although it looks very nice, I cant see how it can still have enough range rover there to conform to dvla regs.

[Some Guy]

If the original chassis number matches the range rover log book, then its still a rangey. Seen this done before, makes a good hybrid vehicle.

[gazza285]

Some Guy said:

If the original chassis number matches the range rover log book, then its still a rangey. Seen this done before, makes a good hybrid vehicle.

To retain the title, the chassis must be original though, and that isn't an original chassis.

[Aluminati]

gazza285 said:

Some Guy said:

If the original chassis number matches the range rover log book, then its still a rangey. Seen this done before, makes a good hybrid vehicle.

To retain the title, the chassis must be original though, and that isn't an original chassis.

It’s a Defender body dropped on an early RR chassis, or did i misread the add ?

[Desiderata]

One of my mates built several of these hybrids in the past, absolutely brilliant combination but he stopped doing them a few years ago because of IVA regulations. This one might be legal, depending on when the work was done.

[SteveR1979]

Seller reckons the chassis is original, and "probably the engine, but its stamped TVR on the rocker cover".

Who knows!

[Turn7]

Aluminati said:

It’s a Defender body dropped on an early RR chassis, or did i misread the add ?

Thats what the ad intimates.
However, from memory, RR used a 100" chassis....most early Hybrids had to use cut and shut bodywork at the rear, as the SWB were 88-90" so too short and the LWB were 109-110"

The alternative as shorten the chassis to fit 90 panels.....

Also, 100" was considered the optimium chassis length for road ride and off road utility.

Something not quite right here.

I also dont think its a galv chassis but grey painted.

[gazza285]

Aluminati said:

gazza285 said:

Some Guy said:

If the original chassis number matches the range rover log book, then its still a rangey. Seen this done before, makes a good hybrid vehicle.

To retain the title, the chassis must be original though, and that isn't an original chassis.

It’s a Defender body dropped on an early RR chassis, or did i misread the add ?

The Defender body doesn’t fit on a RR chassis, that is the point, you have to shorten the chassis, which makes it no longer original in the eyes of the law.

[C Lee Farquar]

It's been parked up for a while too, have a look at the MOT history.

It could have been converted long enough ago to negate the need for an IVA, but can you prove it? It also has the wrong engine and gearbox, so I think the chances of it legitimately having enough points to retain it's free tax status are very slim.

The final risk you have is if you crash and kill someone, Google Nigel Gresham.

[InitialDave]

Probably a Range Rover chassis cut down a few inches (not ten - "90s" aren't a 90" wheelbase).

Echoing the above comments - in the old days, done properly, nothingh to worry about. If done under more recent regulations, kind of a ballache.

[Essel]

Looks like a defender rear cross member to me, also doesnt look like 100 inch. Mot history shows it as a blue defender 90 (you can see blue patches in the underbonnet shot).One of the early advisories also casts doubt on its age as well.

Looks nice, but eyes open before purchase!

[CAPP0]

Essel said:

Looks like a defender rear cross member to me, also doesnt look like 100 inch. Mot history shows it as a blue defender 90 (you can see blue patches in the underbonnet shot).One of the early advisories also casts doubt on its age as well.

Looks nice, but eyes open before purchase!

I don't think that's a 100" chassis either.

It's nicely done but I don't think there's much RRC in there. It smells a bit ringer-ish.

I have a Defender and I've had an RRC before. The under bonnet shot is 100% Defender. In fact mine has a 3.9i engine and apart from the placement of the coil, and the fact that I have built a fuel system which includes a swirl pot and an HP pump under the bonnet, it's the same as mine.

The bulkhead is Defender, not RRC.

Look at the brakes. The RRC has a pumped system (not sure of the correct term) and no servo. Both master cylinders are Defender.

The heater is Defender.

There were fewer manual RRCs and they all (?) had the LT95 box, but the placement of the hi/lo lever is different on those (I *think* that's an R380 box in there? I'm not well up on later manual Defenders).

The steering column is Defender.

If an RRC was truly ever involved, there's nothing left of it except perhaps the engine. Unfortunately in the absence of a chassis number integral to the chassis itself, you'll never be able to confirm. But the principal thing for me is that the RRC is 100" and the SWB Defender is 90". Where have they lost those 10" if that's not a Defender chassis?

[RobXjcoupe]

Best bet give dvla a call and phone up for an insurance quote. If all good it’s a cheap early Range Rover Classic lol

[SteveR1979]

MOT history says Range Rover

2007 MOT note:

"Clearly not a 1971 model tax exempt"