series project..

[Phillis]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LAND-ROVER-SERIES-2A-3-PROJECT-TAX-EXEMPT-/150555829413?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item230dd3a4a5

do yo think this would go back together easy enough or would you stay away?

[FridgeFreezer]

A lot of work to do, problem with unfinished projects is you never know how good the last guy was - I spy a few britpart boxes in the pile

That said, if it's good & complete, and you *want* a rebuilt Series, it looks good. Cheaper than buying all the bits separately.

[Snagger]

As FF said, the worry is always whether previous work has been done properly with decent parts. The Britpart boxes suggest otherwise, and the seller is being fraudulent claiming the 1969 SIIA registration - the chassis is probably SIII (SIII hand brake won't fit a 1969 chassis), as are all the mechanicals (admitted in the ad). Even if the chassis is genuinely SIIA, the VIN points system still wouldn't be satisfied. It's a "bitsa", and requires a VIC and SVA test as well as a Q plate. It could still be a good deal if the work has been done well, though, so could be worth a visit for a closer look.

[missingsid]

The chassis has had a lot of work but is it sound in the old bits?

The V5 is for a Diesel but it has a petrol engine and is made of bits.

Presumably if the DVLA wanted to check it during registration they would look at the major components for serial numbers? Or not bother?

Not sure about the handbrake as my S1 has been updated with the same mechanism or very similar, but it might S2 on mine?

Looks nice but could be a polished t*rd?

Marc.

[moore101]

the chassis is probably SIII (SIII hand brake won't fit a 1969 chassis)

No? I always thought all series handbrakes were the same?

We just did a nut and bolt swap of a 1973 series 3 hand brake onto a 1951 series 1 80" with no problems with alignment or operation so i dont know why it wouldnt fit a 1969 chassis?

Looks a reasonably tidy project but while at that point in the build the chassis really needs to be looked at in the flesh to check its up to your standard and not just the last guys as its going to be a fair amount of rework if its not. And as people have said, there is a fair amount of britpart boxes which could be a quality issue depending on what parts they actually are.

[rusty_wingnut]

No? I always thought all series handbrakes were the same?

We just did a nut and bolt swap of a 1973 series 3 hand brake onto a 1951 series 1 80" with no problems with alignment or operation so i dont know why it wouldnt fit a 1969 chassis?

Indeed, I think the OP should explain, as we're clearly missing something

[Snagger]

Indeed, I think the OP should explain, as we're clearly missing something

I have never worked on one, but I have seen close ups of someone else's SIIA rebuild, and the straight type hand brake lever has a different, much more substantial chassis mounting than the SIII bent lever. That individual went into detail about the transfer of the bracket from his old damaged chassis to the new replacement chassis because the manufacturer had incorrectly fitted the later sort and the early lever was incompatible. Maybe he had an unusual vehicle, but he had stated i was a standard 2.24 petrol SIIA 109.

Anyway, my point was that even if the chassis is genuine, the total score towards the required VIN system is 5 out of a minimum requirement of 8, and the SIIA VIN and registration would be illegal, not only because it'd be a ringer, but also because it would constitute tax evasion to register it as a pre 1973 "historic vehicle".

[FridgeFreezer]

IMHO If you nailed it back together and stuck it on the road, would it be any worse/less original than any other Series that's on the road? After 30+ years they're all like trigger's broom. It's all Series, if the VIN matches and everything's where it should be then it would take a VOSA inspector with a fine tooth comb, laser-guided anorak, and heart of ice to pull you up on it. It's not like one of the hundreds of tax exempt "hybrids" (eg rung 90's or chopped RR's) you get on eBlag, of which the only tax-exempt bit is the VIN plate.

I'd be more concerned what's under the paint - if it's a load of tat with a shiny paint job then you're no better off than pulling one out of a hedge and starting from scratch.

[moore101]

I have never worked on one, but I have seen close ups of someone else's SIIA rebuild, and the straight type hand brake lever has a different, much more substantial chassis mounting than the SIII bent lever. That individual went into detail about the transfer of the bracket from his old damaged chassis to the new replacement chassis because the manufacturer had incorrectly fitted the later sort and the early lever was incompatible. Maybe he had an unusual vehicle, but he had stated i was a standard 2.24 petrol SIIA 109.

Would be interesting to see pictures of the chassis differences.

Anyway, my point was that even if the chassis is genuine, the total score towards the required VIN system is 5 out of a minimum requirement of 8, and the SIIA VIN and registration would be illegal, not only because it'd be a ringer, but also because it would constitute tax evasion to register it as a pre 1973 "historic vehicle".

Axles, steering and suspension looked like standard series setup so, as well as the 5 points for the chassis, it'd have 2 for each of the above giving it a total of 11 points meaning its perfectly elligable for its original registration?

As mentioned, theres so many vehicles out there that are much worse (shortened rangie chassis vehicles) (in fact i think 99% of vehicles in the trialling scene are technically illegal and vosa/dvla must know about this, it'd just cause them so much hassle to try and sort each one out, especially when the could have "been built before all of that came in")

Im not saying ringings right but when its near enough like for like parts then i dont see the problem

[forkrentfitter]

As FF said, the worry is always whether previous work has been done properly with decent parts. The Britpart boxes suggest otherwise, and the seller is being fraudulent claiming the 1969 SIIA registration - the chassis is probably SIII (SIII hand brake won't fit a 1969 chassis), as are all the mechanicals (admitted in the ad). Even if the chassis is genuinely SIIA, the VIN points system still wouldn't be satisfied. It's a "bitsa", and requires a VIC and SVA test as well as a Q plate. It could still be a good deal if the work has been done well, though, so could be worth a visit for a closer look.

neeenaw neenaw neenaw sva police on the prowl

[simonr]

I think it looks quite a good starting point for a project if you view it from the point of view of he has done all the dismantling leaving you to do the restoration. Treat the chassis & running gear as if you'd just dismantled the truck - and it looks pretty good from that point of view.

I have a bit of a hankering after another S2 (which was my first Land Rover). Maybe it's a sign of getting old or that my memory of how agricultural it was is fading!

Si

[Snagger]

IMHO If you nailed it back together and stuck it on the road, would it be any worse/less original than any other Series that's on the road? After 30+ years they're all like trigger's broom. It's all Series, if the VIN matches and everything's where it should be then it would take a VOSA inspector with a fine tooth comb, laser-guided anorak, and heart of ice to pull you up on it. It's not like one of the hundreds of tax exempt "hybrids" (eg rung 90's or chopped RR's) you get on eBlag, of which the only tax-exempt bit is the VIN plate.

I'd be more concerned what's under the paint - if it's a load of tat with a shiny paint job then you're no better off than pulling one out of a hedge and starting from scratch.

I can't fault the logic there at all, but reason and law seldom coincide. As practical and reasonable an argument the rolling replacement prior to full rebuild is, the points system is there and is law, whatever we think of it. It's there to prevent ringing, and does catch out some innocent and honest vehicles, but no system is perfect. The rules probably do more good than harm. Anyway, I didn't want to get into a right or wrongs of the regs, I just wanted to make sure no would-be buyer gets caught with their trousers down... if the vendor has already declared the origins of all of the mechanicals as SIII and only the chassis as SII, then any registration as a SII is knowingly illegal. It'd be bad for a forum member to buy this innocently and then get done for ringing or tax evasion because another member who knew the rules didn't bother to point the issue out.

[Disco-Ron]

Surely, this is simply a case of a restoration, and not the building of a hybrid as such, fair enough, if you nail coild onto a series chassis and change engine box and bodywork, then i can see the reasoning behind it needing t be checked out, however, how many old cars such as mgb's for example get rebuilt onto new shells, with a recon engine, ie, not original number.... and then simply mot

d and put back on the road, how would the dvla know or even suspect that anything might be amiss......... i'm sure you could easily finish the rebuild mot and tax it, and away ya go,....... lets be honest, who;s to say that it didn;t have different axles and maybe engine prior to the start of the rebuild, nothing, all that work could have taken place 30 yrs ago.......

[Retroanaconda]

I agree with Fridge re. the ID issue. It's all Series bits.

I would put a Series II body back on though, they look much cooler

[Snagger]

The rebuild VIN rules don't discriminate between hybrid or other vehicles - the point of the system is to prevent ringing, which includes the transfer of a vehicle's ID to another vehicle of the same spec, not just one with variant specification. The rules are clear: the chassis must be the original or a brand new and unused replacement (with documentary evidence) and of original specification, and you must score enough mechanical points (just another three on top of the chassis points) by using sufficient original mechanical assemblies from the vehicle. Those assemblies can be refurbished and rebuilt, but you can't just swap all the mechanicals from another vehicle and call it the same. Assuming the mechanicals all came from the same SIII, this project actually scores enough points to retain the SIII VIN if used on a new chassis, but it certainly can't legally use the SII VIN and can't use the SIII VIN unless the chassis is replaced or an approval is made by VOSA for re-use of an older used chassis, which is unlikely. It's a BITSA, and unless it is given special DVLA/VOSA treatment, needs an SVA and VIC and a Q plate. There is no legal way around that fact. Sorry, but buyers should be aware of what they're getting. What course a knowing buyer takes after purchase is their business, not mine, but I'm not content to let an unwitting buyer get duped into a fraudulent sale.

[Rich_P]

I think if you want a Series 2, you buy a Series 2. If you want a Series 3, you buy a Series 3. Genuine tax exempt Series 3 examples do exist, if in limited numbers.

What bugs me is the argument about all and any Series being the same - by that logic you could claim a 1983 Series 3 CSW 88 is a 1948 Series 1 80-inch just to get the tax exemption. A silly and unlikely example but I hope it proves my point.

And finally, the talk earlier about hand brakes and all that, the curved hand brake assembly fits between the S3 and 2A no problem. Issues arise if someone attempts to fit a curved hand brake assembly to the earlier straight lever hand brake setup, which were phased out sometime in the mid 60s.

[FridgeFreezer]

Snagger - no offence but you have been through all this recently on another thread (Series PAS?) where you admitted you've never actually managed to ASK someone at the DVLA or VOSA, or been to an inspection centre.

In short - FFS stop banging on about it from your high horse, it's boring and pointless

[rusty_wingnut]

Snagger - no offence but you have been through all this recently on another thread (Series PAS?) where you admitted you've never actually managed to ASK someone at the DVLA or VOSA, or been to an inspection centre.

In short - FFS stop banging on about it from your high horse, it's boring and pointless

Well said.

Surely going by the same set of rules as you describe Snagger, your very own 109 is in fact illegal? 200tdi engine, Range Rover axles and now potentially power steering. And a new replacement chassis that isn't quite the same as the original....

Now I am not looking for a slanging match but do worry that you shouldn't go throwing stones inside a greenhouse

Let's face it this thread started out as an innocent question and has been transformed into an SVA police show of power - not cool.

[Bowie69]

Actually, going by the points sytem, you have IIA repaired chassis, 5 points, suspension, 2 points, steering 2 points, total = 9 points = absolutely fine.

Steering is a bit of a grey area in this case as it is not specified, however, I see little difficulty bolting a IIA column in place to comply.

Arguably you could say the axles are the same, as to all intent and purposes they are, it's just the brakes that are different on the end.

It's not a BITSA, it's a perfectly legitimate vehicle, and from what can be seen, aside from the blue boxes, it could be a very nice truck when finished.

If I was looking for a Series project I would definitely consider it.

[Snagger]

Well said.

Surely going by the same set of rules as you describe Snagger, your very own 109 is in fact illegal? 200tdi engine, Range Rover axles and now potentially power steering. And a new replacement chassis that isn't quite the same as the original....

Now I am not looking for a slanging match but do worry that you shouldn't go throwing stones inside a greenhouse

Let's face it this thread started out as an innocent question and has been transformed into an SVA police show of power - not cool.

I'm not fitting PAS - I said I'd have been very interested in it, but didn't think it's qualify. Otherwise, it has had the engine swapped, but retains the rebuilt steering and transmission. The rules do say that you score two points for retaining the original suspension even if you replace the springs, dampers and bushes as they're considered consumable parts, and while that is clearly intended to imply retaining struts, wishbones and other typical suspension parts, Series LRs don't have any suspension parts other than the springs, dampers and bushes (except maybe the shackles), so we bizarrely score points even if we do fit new suspension, as long as it's leaf sprung. So, I have lost the one engine point out of a maximum of 14 and will lose the two points for the axles. Last time I checked, 11 was greater than 8...

I think the rules are not especially clearly written on the VOSA site and are open to differing interpretation. I have previously agreed that my interpretation is more literal or restrictive than others. I will also admit that my interpretation of the ebay ad may be mistaken, and that not all of the mechanicals are SII, only the engine and a few others, with some original SII assemblies which would change things considerably. Anyway, I'm not here for an argument and my intentions were benevolent, even if some misinterpret them as otherwise, so I'll exit the thread.

[moore101]

So, I have lost the one engine point out of a maximum of 14 and will lose the two points for the axles. Last time I checked, 11 was greater than 8...

Right, just my last say on this matter having looked it up to help clarify it in my head so at least i know what is and isnt legal even if others dont.

Snagger: You reckon you have 11 points? Because you've lost 1 for engine, and 2 for it no longer having original axles yes? But you havent mentioned your non-original chassis which loses 5 points so you have 6 points meaning you'll need SVA and Q-plate etc.

Can a mod delete anything in this thread that is to do with SVA because i'm sure sooner or later people will realise that a huge percentage of landrovers on the road these days are in fact illegal in some way or other and i dont think we should be arguing about it so frequently on a public forum.

And finally, the talk earlier about hand brakes and all that, the curved hand brake assembly fits between the S3 and 2A no problem. Issues arise if someone attempts to fit a curved hand brake assembly to the earlier straight lever hand brake setup, which were phased out sometime in the mid 60s.

What problems arise?

[missingsid]

And finally, the talk earlier about hand brakes and all that, the curved hand brake assembly fits between the S3 and 2A no problem. Issues arise if someone attempts to fit a curved hand brake assembly to the earlier straight lever hand brake setup, which were phased out sometime in the mid 60s.

Maybe or not, my S1 has a later handbrake leaver and it works fine but I did not fit it so I have no idea of the mod details.

This is a minor part of the topic though, I agree about the validity of the vehicle.

In all fairness whether the seller intended to be open about it's status or not he has stated that the parts were acquired and from what type of vehicle the donor was. So maybe unintentionally he has alerted buyers of the risk if they understand it.

Marc.

[Rich_P]

The differences in the hand brake mounting can be seen on Richard's Chassis 2a Page. I think people normally make up a bracket to fit the later type to the old mounting.

[Snagger]

Snagger: You reckon you have 11 points? Because you've lost 1 for engine, and 2 for it no longer having original axles yes? But you havent mentioned your non-original chassis which loses 5 points so you have 6 points meaning you'll need SVA and Q-plate etc.

No - I used a brand new replacement 109, 4-cyl leaf sprung chassis from Marsland. That is specifically included in the points system.

[moore101]

No - I used a brand new replacement 109, 4-cyl leaf sprung chassis from Marsland. That is specifically included in the points system.

Ah i didnt realise yours was a 1 tonne. I thought it was a standard 109" with a diesel conversion. How come you've not run it on 9.00s as it should originally have?