More scary cr@p from DVLA

[911hillclimber]

Go up a few posts Clive and you will read about that.

[Sam]

Here you go…

Mild tangent:

Do you reckon I could get a 906, get a letter from DDK saying it’s all period correct, pass a basic IVA test and have a road registered 906?

Reads like I could.


Obviously a 906 is potentially unrealistic for my current financial position, but a Lotus 23b or something would be top fun to whizz down to Goodwood in.

[Lightweight_911]

Obviously a 906 is potentially unrealistic for my current financial position, but a Lotus 23b or something would be top fun to whizz down to Goodwood in.

I've thought/wondered about this for the past ~5 yrs or so & come close to 'pulling the trigger' on a couple of occasions - one (Lotus 23 replica) even had a 911 engine in it ...


.

[middlefour1]

Back in the early eighties I rebuilt our 1965 Beetle on a 1971 floor pan after an accident that cracked the front chassis head, where the front axle assembly mounts. When it was finished I had to get the car examined before I could get it taxed and an MOT. The fella I spoke with keep saying was it a buggy, no its a Beetle. He turned up at 7 o'clock one Saturday evening, I opened the garage door and he said, 'Oh its a Beetle' yes it is, 'well thats all right then' and off he went. Sounds like I wouldn't have a hope in hell of doing that now!!!

[rhd racer]

I think it would be ok Steve - it is not changing the chassis in look or dimension (unless the bug was a king pin one updated to later ball joints which might questionable)

I think a whole bunch of people (escort community for example) will be delighted that they can add forest arches and drill the boot floor for aluminium tanks and wheel racks as long as not with so many inches of a suspension mount.

Appreciate the contradictions, but it seems a more sensible place to land than we were in before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sam]

- one (Lotus 23 replica) even had a 911 engine in it ...

Now that would be quite the thing. I’ve seen them use G50 boxes, which would obviously fit the 25 year thing. Nice short stroke 3.2 with cams on PMOs and away you go.

For at least the first 5 minutes until the torque twists the skinny little chassis tubes.

[middlefour1]

I think it would be ok Steve - it is not changing the chassis in look or dimension (unless the bug was a king pin one updated to later ball joints which might questionable)
I think a whole bunch of people (escort community for example) will be delighted that they can add forest arches and drill the boot floor for aluminium tanks and wheel racks as long as not with so many inches of a suspension mount.
Appreciate the contradictions, but it seems a more sensible place to land than we were in before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was changed from king and link pins to ball joints!!

Whenever a 'barn find' Escort appears on Bangers I always think another rally or race car in the making.

[Lightweight_911]

.

"Nice short stroke 3.2 with cams on PMOs and away you go"


It was a '72 2.4T engine on Webers so probably ~ 130bhp ... which would give a similar power-to-weight ratio to the twin-cam Lotus engine.



.

[rhd racer]

I think it would be ok Steve - it is not changing the chassis in look or dimension (unless the bug was a king pin one updated to later ball joints which might questionable)
I think a whole bunch of people (escort community for example) will be delighted that they can add forest arches and drill the boot floor for aluminium tanks and wheel racks as long as not with so many inches of a suspension mount.
Appreciate the contradictions, but it seems a more sensible place to land than we were in before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was changed from king and link pins to ball joints!!

Whenever a 'barn find' Escort appears on Bangers I always think another rally or race car in the making.

Ha ha - in that case I think you would be in trouble!! However, my inquisitive mind suggests that if you maintained the registration of the later chassis and dropped the early body in it, then you wouldn’t need to do anything……


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[middlefour1]

I think it would be ok Steve - it is not changing the chassis in look or dimension (unless the bug was a king pin one updated to later ball joints which might questionable)
I think a whole bunch of people (escort community for example) will be delighted that they can add forest arches and drill the boot floor for aluminium tanks and wheel racks as long as not with so many inches of a suspension mount.
Appreciate the contradictions, but it seems a more sensible place to land than we were in before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was changed from king and link pins to ball joints!!

Whenever a 'barn find' Escort appears on Bangers I always think another rally or race car in the making.

Ha ha - in that case I think you would be in trouble!! However, my inquisitive mind suggests that if you maintained the registration of the later chassis and dropped the early body in it, then you wouldn’t need to do anything……
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The floor pan came from the old VW scrapyard at Napton, there were no registration details with it!!

[911hillclimber]

Never noticed the body twist in my 320 bhp Lola Sports racer (close to a 23B), but the thought of it on UK roads does not appeal.
The UK roads will do for it more than the engine.

Someone did road convert a Lola T492 with a strong Pinto engine and the Hewland box, now converted back to race spec.

As Wayne says, I feel too we are in a better place than 9 months ago.

[KS]

Where is that bit from Keith?

INF318_making_changes_to_a_vehicle
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

[Bruce M]

Not sure if this has been linked above but there are screenshots from it, so the whole doc is:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ehicle.pdf

[matteo68]

Lucky I got my ‘72 T donor car MOT’d and registered with DVLA with K suffix before we stripped it and started turning it into an 2.5 S-R then!

[Jonny Hart]

"Age related number based on the youngest component". So your '65 car could wear a '75 plate because it has a later gearbox for example. I guess the plate must then be 'non-transferable'

Normally, plate swap rules prevent you passing a vehicle off as newer than it is?