Seriously?

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Othen

That 1983 car is a 'run away!' motor in my opinion, unless one just wants welding practice :-)

I'd agree on the car with the engine change (for a later type engine). If it had been a like for like change I think that would have been fine. I wonder whether the owner informed DVLA of the change in engine number on the V5 at the time though (was it a change in engine size? I can't recall). If not I suspect the men from Swansea would not notice - unless something goes wrong of course.

There is no check when one registers a vehicle as historic - the onus is on the owner to tell the truth. In both cases (a bike and the RB) I just turned up at a local post office where the lady knows what to do with the V5 filled in (change in taxation class), a V112 in lieu of a MoT test certificate, the insurance (neither of the last two were required) - and that is all.

Like for like. A useful expression. Thanks.

The rule seems to be, "to change the way the vehicle works".

Change in engine number, an interesting point yes, but perhaps a separate issue?.

Stephen

.

[Thekilt]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

Like for like. A useful expression. Thanks.

The rule seems to be, "to change the way the vehicle works".

Change in engine number, an interesting point yes, but perhaps a separate issue?.

Stephen

.

If the engine change is different than the original (larger capacity, more horse power etc) it would be a change to how the vehicle works according to the original technical requirements as listed

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Thekilt

If the engine change is different than the original (larger capacity, more horse power etc) it would be a change to how the vehicle works according to the original technical requirements as listed

If memory serves, the listing said it was a 2.0 from a 940 so would be a B200. Assuming it was a n/asp engine in the 940 then being a low-friction engine with the original carb from the B21A, power would be similar to the B21A - not a material modification IMHO as the power may be less, it may be more but in either case, a few bhp, nothing major.

If it was a B200FT and has been fitted without the turbo and LH2.4-Jetronic injection system which appears to be the case then it would likely only put out about 90bhp on a good day because of the lower compression ratio.

If on the other hand they'd fitted a B230FT with the turbo and injection to give 165bhp then yes, that would be a material modification. As far as i can tell from the listing it's to keep it mobile while the original engine is repaired and refitted.

I suppose like a lot of DVLA paperwork there's a bit of latitude for interpretation, a reconditioned/secondhand engine is likely on many cars that are in the 40+ year old age group. As such a secondhand 1.3 X-Flow from a Capri or Cortina fitted into an Escort of a similar age that originally had a 1.3 X-Flow wouldn't be a modification, just a like-for-like replacement.

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Thekilt

If the engine change is different than the original (larger capacity, more horse power etc) it would be a change to how the vehicle works according to the original technical requirements as listed

According to the original "technical requirements" ... what does that mean?

I doubt whether "how the vehicle works" can be defined in those words.

Stephen

.

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

....- not a material modification .....

An interesting variation thank you Dave.

I doubt if "to change the way the vehicle works" has ever been defined.

So far.

Stephen

.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

If memory serves, the listing said it was a 2.0 from a 940 so would be a B200. Assuming it was a n/asp engine in the 940 then being a low-friction engine with the original carb from the B21A, power would be similar to the B21A - not a material modification IMHO as the power may be less, it may be more but in either case, a few bhp, nothing major.

If it was a B200FT and has been fitted without the turbo and LH2.4-Jetronic injection system which appears to be the case then it would likely only put out about 90bhp on a good day because of the lower compression ratio.

If on the other hand they'd fitted a B230FT with the turbo and injection to give 165bhp then yes, that would be a material modification. As far as i can tell from the listing it's to keep it mobile while the original engine is repaired and refitted.

I suppose like a lot of DVLA paperwork there's a bit of latitude for interpretation, a reconditioned/secondhand engine is likely on many cars that are in the 40+ year old age group. As such a secondhand 1.3 X-Flow from a Capri or Cortina fitted into an Escort of a similar age that originally had a 1.3 X-Flow wouldn't be a modification, just a like-for-like replacement.

On reflection Dave, I think you are right: as long as the engine change was to a similar 4 cylinder one, that would probably be okay (but DVLA should have been notified of the change in engine number, that probably didn’t happen). I think the regulation is to stop people fitting say, a V8 to an historic vehicle. The whole point of the historic registration scheme is to allow notable vehicles to stay on the road, not to legalise hot rods.

[Thekilt]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

According to the original "technical requirements" ... what does that mean?

I doubt whether "how the vehicle works" can be defined in those words.

Stephen

.

Differes from the specification of the original Car when sold. Technical specification of the engine (Capacity, stroke, power etc)

I do think they phrase "to change the way the vehicle works" is rather misleading. How can a Chassis swap "Change the way it works" unless you carry out full suspension overhaul with it.

I think their intention is to keep the vehicle "as it was originally meant to be" and if you start putting newer enginees in the vehicle, later chassis, body etc these are all major items of the vehicles age and therefore would fall into requiring an MOT.

For example, say the car is 45 years old, however you put a 20 year old engine in the car. The engine swap would then require an MOT for another 20 years until the engine passes historic age. I dont think the DVLA are that organised though to be able to track it, therefore they should have said "changes such as replacement engines of newer age, chassis, or body that have a material change to the original specificaiton of the car".

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Thekilt

Differes from the specification of the original Car when sold. Technical specification of the engine (Capacity, stroke, power etc)

I do think they phrase "to change the way the vehicle works" is rather misleading. How can a Chassis swap "Change the way it works" unless you carry out full suspension overhaul with it.

I think their intention is to keep the vehicle "as it was originally meant to be" and if you start putting newer enginees in the vehicle, later chassis, body etc these are all major items of the vehicles age and therefore would fall into requiring an MOT.

For example, say the car is 45 years old, however you put a 20 year old engine in the car. The engine swap would then require an MOT for another 20 years until the engine passes historic age. I dont think the DVLA are that organised though to be able to track it, therefore they should have said "changes such as replacement engines of newer age, chassis, or body that have a material change to the original specificaiton of the car".

I think you are right in that the DVLA doesn't have the ability (or will) to track changes, it relies on owners being candid. What should have happened with that car's engine swap is that the owner should have informed DVLA of the change in engine number and capacity, I would wager (if I were a betting man) that didn't happen - because if it had the likelihood is that DVLA would not have agreed the historic vehicle tax category.

In this case the engine swap doesn't really change the price of fish, but it still isn't quite right and would be a good reason not to pay £10,000 for the motor car (there would be others, such as: it is only worth half that much).

Alan

[Stephen Edwin]

So the meaning of "to change the way the vehicle works" remains not really known.

Alan is right that there doesn't appear to be any tracking of changes. If any alleged discrepancy "comes to notice" then "officialdom" will probably "appear" ....

Notify a change in engine number, an interesting point yes, but perhaps a separate issue?.

Now as for that £10,000 .......... who am I to say.

Stephen

.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Othen

... our old friend with the broken fuel gauge has re-appeared again, this time the 'absolutely final' reduction to £4,150 has been reduced to s starting price of £1,500 and a more reasonable buy-it-now ticket of £3,500:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/classic-c...sAAOSw5-lgUcjy

... I still think it s a £2,500 car... and that would be in line with the blue and silver cars we discussed above (I don't think this one is worth as much as either of those cars).

This car should at least get a few bids at £1,500, it will be interesting to see how close to the buy-it-now price it gets (my guess is £2,500).

It is disappointing that so many of these advertised cars keep re-appearing, which rather confirms my theory that many sellers think their cars are worth far more than they really are.

Bob walking time :-)

PS. This was my own guide to 240 prices, cut and pasted from this thread a few weeks ag, and modified a bit after that:

As a guide I'd say (from what I've seen things apparently sell for - not ridiculous asking prices):

a. Rough cars (anything with barn find in the title, cars needing welding to the sills or rear arches, MoT failures): make less than £1000.

b. Middling cars: 1981 and later cars with 100-200,000 miles, a bit of history (maybe the past decade, the stuff before that is just for interest), a long MoT and no obvious welding or repairs needed: make £1,500 to £3,000.

c. Very good cars: 1981 and later cars with less than 100,000 miles, full history, long MoT and in really good condition make £3,000 to £4,500.

d. Historic cars (1980 and older) will generally make 50-100% more than the above categories.

The above is just my observation of the market, it will not stop people hawking around rough cars for £3,000, mediocre cars for £6,000 or very good cars for silly money. I don't think they often achieve their asking prices and just spend months or years on the market until the owners give up.

eBay has just told me this one only received bids up to £1,750 - not even making its reserve. So much for the seller’s absolutely final reduction to £4,150! I’ve lost track of how many times this car has been advertised, I can’t help thinking that if the seller had asked a sensible price (between £2,000 and £2,500) it would have been done and dusted by now.

Perhaps it will reappear on Car and Classic next?