[Oil Filter Conversion]

Can conferm it does, I've not done it myself, but know loads of people who have...

[Some People Need Educating!]

2.25 to V8 no hope of keeping the points.

Axles are more of a grey area, I would stick with SII ones to be on the safe side...

(Axles are numbered, and the number should be within a few hundred of the chassis no)

[Some People Need Educating!]

(estwdjhn @ Aug 24 2005, 08:43 AM)

Although I personally wouldn't do it, welding coils on is Ok.

I'm not 100% convinced it is. I read somewhere that the series chasis is made differently to the coil sprung (not talking about spring mounts etc but the box sections) and it wasn't designed to take the forces of coils. In short, welding cooily bits to series is not the way to do it but fit a shortened RR or 90 chasis. I'd be interested to hear whatthe after market chasis makers sya on this - do they use coil type chasis with series outriggers?

I agree, and serveral people have told me this. My comment above was merely about the legality of the issue, not its practicalilty.

As for the A/M chassis lot, they certainly don't mention the legal issues associated with fitting one of their chassis. I personally find this really irritating, there are a lot of ilegal vehicles out there, simply because of their negilegence.... Sadly however there is no way I know of to force them to play ball on the legal issues, and they themselfs are not doing anything against the law, merely morally wrong.

[What Are The Largest Wheels I Can Fit....]

How big do you want...?

[Engine Id]

That should make it a five bearing engine, a little smoother than a standard 2.25, and slightly stronger.

Also more desirable...

[Some People Need Educating!]

Although I personally wouldn't do it, welding coils on is Ok.

A Designa chassis is not to the original manufactures specifiaction, and as such it is not now legal to fit one without going though a SVA and 'Q' plate.

If the chassis came out of a RR or similar, then it is either a 'cut and shut' or a RR, in the eyes of DVLA.

Both of them do not qualify for keeping the original SII/SIII number.

At the end of the day, why not buy a V8 90, it would be less work. Or simply fit a good set of leaf springs...

IMHO standard leaf sprung vehicles often outperform the most fancy coil setups, and with half the fuss.

(And thats from a good deal of watching...). Belive it or not, one of the best machines I have ever seen ofroad was a 1965ish austin gypsy ambulance, totally unmodified. It traveled easily though a steeply sloping mudbath that left several tricked up 90s on agressive tyres well bogged(inc some TC fitted ones) and barely even spun its wheels.

Notice LRW best 4x4 this year is a Santra thats basically and uprated SIII...

(Yes I know that does put me out on a limb, but IMHO that is a fair assesment)

[Some People Need Educating!]

how do you think they would view a new replacement rear quarter chassis ?

To be honest, I think that there you have summed up the problem.

This is my 1958 SII.

as you can see, its in a bad way, and would normally be overdue for a re-chassis.

As it appears to be the oldest surivor, I'm not going down that road, but will repair whats left of that chassis.

By the time I have finished, it will probably only have 40% original metal, and 60% new sections I have welded in.

The question that springs to mind is what if I replaced all barring the chassis no area? where would I be then? what the difference between that and putting a patch an inch square on a chassis?

As stated on the DVLA website, if you use a 'second hand' chassis half for the patch, you are into a 'Q' plate zone.

But if its new metal, you can do what you like.

In other words, a designa chassis is OK, if you weld it to a small bit of the orignal, and call it a repair, but not if its a replacement, bzare as that ruling is...

I don't personally think a new chassis is any better than a decently repaired old one, its just that doing decent repairs tends to be so much work you might as well replace.

[Some People Need Educating!]

Ok, I take back some of what I said.

Its not a RangeRover chassis, (I only said "suspect it is" anyway),

I don't know what the state of play was 5 years ago, DVLA now clearly state that the chassis must be to the "Original manufactuers specification" and that means that Designas coilers are out, as they plainly are not. Its not even a certain that a 88" SIII replacement chassis is acceptable on a SII, as there are a number of differences, especially on the earlier ones (like this was, B plate is about 1964 IIRC)

(From DVLA website)

In these cases the vehicle components used from the original vehicle will be given a numerical value and, in order to retain the original registration mark the vehicle must score eight or more points.

If less than eight points are scored or a second-hand or modified chassis or altered monocoque bodyshell is used an ESVA/SVA/MSVA certificate will be required to register the vehicle and a 'Q' prefix registration number will be allocated.

The following values will be allocated to the major components used:

Points Chassis/body shell (body and chassis as one unit - monocoque)* (original or new) = 5

Suspension = 2

Axles = 2

Transmission = 2

Steering Assembly = 2

Engine = 1

*Direct replacement from the manufactures

NB. Where there is evidence that two vehicles have been welded together to form one (i.e. 'Cut and Shut') a 'Q' mark will be allocated. ESVA/SVA/MSVA will be required.

So to be honest I would say now we are on dodgy ground replacing with a mashland or richards standard chassis, I wouldn't like to be DVLA's test case... (All mine are still on their originals, plus a big stack of welded in patches, either fitted or overdue for fitting... )

JSG, Please note this is very much NOT a personal attack, nor do I wish you any personal ill-will. I didn't even know it was your vehicle, as opposed to one you merely had a picture of.

Your vehicle may well be perfectly legit because of when it was built, but there are an awfull lot of people out now building vehicles like this, and claiming fraudilent registrations. I am concerned that this means a lot of misinformation is floating around,

e.g. a lot of people claim their RR hybids to be SII because of the bodypannels being SII, which its not counted by DVLA for anything.

I think it was more like 10 years ago now the rules changed, but wouldn't like to have to bet on it...

While I may be new to this particular forum, I do happen to have spend a certain amount of time working on landrovers,

and while I don't claim to know much about some aspects of Series truck... (only thing I know about gearboxes for example, is where they fit in the chassis, and which levers to move when...) I think I am reasonably well up on registration issues, having read a little about them, including all I can find that DVLA have to say on the matter, and having got involved with some complex registration issues relating to some of my own vehicles. (E.g. I am currently working on getting back the registration of my 88" SII, which happens to be the oldest surving SII anyone knows about, being built on what I belive to have been about the third day of production.)

[Some People Need Educating!]

Yes, you are correct.

However, the identity stays with the chasis, and having enough points worth of bits.

I can see there, coil springs, RR axles, no idea about engine and box, and if its on coils, then its rather likly not to be the original chasis.

The body panels do not count for anything.

I suspect that the chassis is a cut down RR, in which case there are enough bits to claim its a RR to DVLA.

Point proven M'lord

[Some People Need Educating!]

Don't like to say this, but the vehicle shown above, while probably a neat enough job, is a ringer.

Its claiming tax exemption as a Series II, but is legally a Rangerover... don't do it.

Register it legally as a rangerover.... and pay the tax.

(or buy a propper landy on propper springs )

DVLA are getting quite hot at crushing these things now when they catch up with them...