Practically Classics Forum

In last months Land Rover Owner mag there was an article on the 2nd series 2 Landy and how it had been restored. It had new chassis, a non original engine, gearbox and axle, a replacement bulkhead and rear body, new wings and bonnet, etc. Excuse me how is this the 2nd series 2 produced? Thats the equivelent of me getting my girlfiend to wear Kiera Knightlys watch and then claim I'm going out with KK because the watch is original!

CM did the same thing with showing a restored Sierra 1600 that had a new bodyshell, 2.0L engine and running gear fitted uprated brakes and Ghia interior.

Surely both of these are replicas and how does the DVLA allow them to not have Q plates?

In the case of the Sierra, a new shell counts as a replacement part and in a unitary, that doesn't lose you any points so, although it's less useful for the readers than seeing a rotten one restored, the legitimacy of the process isn't in doubt there, especially as once the new shell has been stamped, the engine swap and other mods don't take from the points total enough to cause the loss of the car's "original" identity, even though there may be precious little left of that original.
As for the Land Rover however, the chassis counts for fewer points than the shell of a unitary so, while that again can be classed (legally) as a replacement part, the other new bits - although not fraudulent - do take away the benefit that would otherwise have been available to readers hoping to learn how to fix what they'd got rather than shelling out fortunes on new stuff. Anyone can throw money at a car, at least PC's rebuilds do the job the hard way and are, IMHO, all the better at that.

It is a bit Trigger's Broom though, I get what you mean.

Was there not an article in PC just a few months back about shell replacements that suggested that doing this would most likely lose the original registration (if DVLA got to know about it)?

You were reading LRO and not Land Rover International (sister mag' to PC)???!

Shame on you Matt!

Me too.

Ahem.....

LRO/LROi same thing!

It's like the woodmans trusty axe or it's modern cultural equivelant, trigger's broom

I bet they've been built up from nothing more than a V5 someone's flogged on ebay, DVLA won't even be aware. Cars like this are basically ringers and should be treated as such and these articles should be clear on this. Cars of this age predate VIN numbers- it's relatively easy to recreate something from a piece of paper which someone forgot to return to Swansea years ago when the original vehicle went to the scrapper. Ebay however will pull V5's from sale if you ask them to.

For example- a Vitesse commision plate is riveted to the bulkhead, there's no chassis number, all the chassis are unidentifiable. So...if i have a V5 and nothing more I could recreate a car, the specialists sell blank commision plates which can be stamped up to match the V5. Personally i think this is wrong but it's not illegal so there you go- instant historically important car if you happen to have the relevant V5.

Yeah I completely agree but it does make me wonder why do an article on these cars for comparison purposes. I've got 2 Herald 1200s, one a saloon and one a coupe, if they needed a new chassis or something that was a like for like straight swap I wouldnt have a problem. If I put in a Herald 13/60 or a Vitesse engine in then its not the same car and I would imagine in a test of small classics it would be an unfair comparison.

At least in the article about the 2nd production LR s2 they (Dunsfold) were very open about it and not trying to pass it off as original and have made it as good a "recreation" as they could with their immense skills. I just don't know if it required an article where they key point of writting it is that its chassis no2 when its not, its merely the registration number.

Thats the exact reason you see so many 'tax exempt' logbooks for sale these days. If I found a barn full of totally rotten classic cars that were tax exempt i'd make far more money scrapping them and selling the logbooks probably than the cars themselves!

This is an interesting one. Mr Rusty's dealt with the more serious legal issues. but I often read an ad and smile when a car is described as "original" when it's undergone a refurb to various areas. I suppose originality is a big issue for some, but personally I'm just glad to have cars that go, stop and look right.

I've always understood the term "original" to mean as it left the factory, ie not modified or altered. You can have a car that's been totally rebuilt and still be original.

How many times can something be "original", Pete? My interpretation would be "unaltered since its first manufacture" but as I say it's not a huge issue for me personally.