|
|
Jan 28, 2009 19:49:20 GMT
|
I don't like that definition of amateur..... I've seen things built in garages by professional engineers who work outside the motor trade that are mind blowing. I've also seen some stuff done in garages that I wouldn't trust to the end of the road....
Ric
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 19:49:50 GMT by richw82
"You're about as likely to come across a fully functioning old Jag, as you are a taxicab that smells agreeable." - James May
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 21:50:47 GMT
|
Thanks for the infomation so far ;D its been a great help so far, but I'm slightly confused still (I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw ) So that means classics cars will have to have modern features rendering them undateable and a q plate? Also would using viva HB brakes (HA drums up front) (HB disc up front) on my car would make me loose points? Thanks for keeping patient answering my questions ;D The big point you are missing is that once you reach the level requiring SVA you no longer own a Classic car in the eyes of DVLA and that is why you require an SVA Brakes are not part of the points system but if it required stub axle swap , and DVLA want to be pedantic, the new front axle stubs would lose points. If you go through SVA you DON'T have to come out with a Q . If the vehicle is supplied with two major components from a donor car ( usually engine and gearbox ) and the v5C from that vehicle is supplied it will substantiate the engine date for BIVA emission purposes and provide a year of manufacture for an age related plate ie if the car reg is H123 ABC you will receive a H plate not THAT age plate. Once you are issued an age related plate you can transfer a dateless plate to it ,this is not the case with a Q ,once a Q always a Q ( the Irish change of plate loophole is closed ). The smart way of dealing with this is to put the cars original number on retention before you modify it.Once issued with an age related you can transfer the original number back on,fully legal. I prefer Q plates ,I regard them as a mark of honour , it shows it is a modified car. This can also be important should any police officer care to look at the car the number plate will tell him the car has already been inspected. For those that don't like the ways the laws are or worded, unfortunately that is what they are , they are not going to change and it's what we have to work within. It is only down to those who fought the initial Type Approval proposals in 1974 that we have anything to moan about Nope I didn't fight ,I was a yougster that thought it would never happen,though I did sign the pettions raised by my own car club. Oh yeah, Government petitions (nowadays) , save your energy , they're there to placate you, nothing worse than a half hearted attempt with hardly any signatories. Credibilty and number is the ONLY way you will get listened to. If you want to count ....well you know where we are ,would be nice to have a reciprocal RetroRides link though
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 22:43:24 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 21:57:46 GMT
|
so if you fitted a pre '73 engine and box and (provided proof) to a post '73 car that had lost enough points to lose its ID then your car would get older and become tax free as well as requireing less things tested at MOT time?
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 22:01:39 GMT
|
PPC did a quality report on SVAing this month (Jan '09) Worth a read
|
|
Use the diesel for washing your kegs in. The diesel will lubricate the cotton fibres and make them last longer although your nads will honk of diesel. Also don't use red diesel for this for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 22:06:38 GMT
|
Nope ,sorry The cars date of first registration would apply ,that is the date it was registered after passing SVA . The engine would have to meet the emission spec relevant to that year. The fact that it had any earlier plate has no bearing ,put a personal plate on a '58 motor and it's still a '58 model. On a Q plate the engine would be tested to declared date of manufacture ( taken from VOSA computer link up ) b. Vehicles having a Q plate registration when presented for MOT are to be treated as being first used on 1 January 1971, or c. In any other case, the earlier of either . Its date of first registration, or . The date six months after It was manufactured. Taken from here www.motuk.co.uk/manual/how_to_use_page_one.htm
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2009 22:20:10 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 22:08:49 GMT
|
PPC did a quality report on SVAing this month (Jan '09) Worth a read I though the report was on DVLAs take on when you would require SVA rather than SVA itself ( VOSAs domain ) ,once again two different things.Sorry to be pedantic but it saves confusion and stuff passing into foklore. ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 22:25:52 GMT
|
I stand corrected dude.
|
|
Use the diesel for washing your kegs in. The diesel will lubricate the cotton fibres and make them last longer although your nads will honk of diesel. Also don't use red diesel for this for obvious reasons.
|
|
piperfish
Part of things
Dinky-di 100% meat and veggies
Posts: 386
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 23:30:46 GMT
|
Isnt the current SVA test being phased out only to be replaced by a more stringent test costin $540? BASTARDS....
|
|
Its my snake...I trained it...and I'm gonna eat it....
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009 23:52:14 GMT
|
Cheers for the engine age clear up, on the suspension front, if i fit the front and rear suspension from a different model Mercedes but that bolts straight on and is basically the same but with some extra strength and bigger brakes does that count as suspension of the same type or lose me points if i declare it?
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
See the PPC article for DVLAs clarification on that. DVLAs official line is that they won't even accept that a service item like a Mac strut can be different from the exact original items fitted in the build ,not even on a like for like basis. Yes it IS ridiculous that they should base a vehicles identity on service items that are also non declarable in the 'Changes declaration' of the V5C. However the guy they spoke to was from the Press Office not someone who would actually deal with it. Don't blame PPC ,the moment the Press ask questions the DVLA press office step in and the you aren't actually speaking to those that administer the rules but their mouthpieces. It is always difficult to get a straight correct answer ( that will be the same from everyone you speak to ) from DVLA and while the rules are so open they escape on the excuse that they look at cars on a case by case basis. That is why we log every little victory /skirmish and how it was achieved for future reference. As mentioned before the procedure would be , if in doubt , Owners club on the V765 list for clarification .
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2009 0:30:44 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 10:06:27 GMT
|
See the PPC article for DVLAs clarification on that. DVLAs official line is that they won't even accept that a service item like a Mac strut can be different from the exact original items fitted in the build ,not even on a like for like basis. Yes it IS ridiculous that they should base a vehicles identity on service items that are also non declarable in the 'Changes declaration' of the V5C. However the guy they spoke to was from the Press Office not someone who would actually deal with it. Don't blame PPC ,the moment the Press ask questions the DVLA press office step in and the you aren't actually speaking to those that administer the rules but their mouthpieces. It is always difficult to get a straight correct answer ( that will be the same from everyone you speak to ) from DVLA and while the rules are so open they escape on the excuse that they look at cars on a case by case basis. That is why we log every little victory /skirmish and how it was achieved for future reference. As mentioned before the procedure would be , if in doubt , Owners club on the V765 list for clarification . So going on that, even replacement leaf springs (i.e. because the originals have sagged) can't claim points? OK the coilover scenario in the PPC article is harsh, but understandable. After all you can't argue that the coilovers were 'as designed by the manufacturer', but surely springs can be considered 'consumables' (just like clutches, brakes etc.)?
|
|
1953 Minor (Long term project) PT Cruiser
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 12:07:54 GMT
|
That's why we should be grateful that primarily they rely on Owners clubs for verifications who understand the reality of car ownership. Not ideal in many cases but better than dealing with someone who wouldn't know how to open your bonnet. Personally I would, and will where necc, argue the Mac strut case on the fact that it is two components in one, the strut is the axle and the spring is the suspension .However you have to be able to provide proof ,backed by credibility and the resistance not to crumble at the first ( of many ) " Oh no it isn't " letter In the replies to the now infamous DVLA Consultation document 2004 the ACPO wanted the Reconstructed Classic class removed or all components fitted to be genuine pre 73 only..that wasn't very well thought through either. Don't panic ,correctly applied pressure put a lid on that one as well . The one statement that always clarifies why rules like these are never correct to those who understand is ..." Definition of a camel is a horse designed by a Committee"
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2009 12:53:30 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 12:23:54 GMT
|
In the replies to the now infamous DVLA Consultation document 2004 the ACPO wanted the Reconstructed Classic class removed or all components fitted to be genuine pre 73 only..that wasn't very well thought through either. Don't panic ,correctly applied pressure put a lid on that one as well . I've read about that before - did ACPO give any reason why they even have an opinion on that particular issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 12:27:32 GMT
|
Simply because they were on the Consultation list and so were ASKED for their opinion on it. The Consulation was about the viability /credibility of the DVLAs inspection procedures and any concerns consultees may have had.
Most of the changes that came from it were aimed at those making money from working the system ie Number plate dealers and car thieves.
|
|
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2009 12:55:18 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 16:03:47 GMT
|
Really enjoying this thread - thank you aceadvice for taking the time to answer our questions! I am actually quite looking forward to the challenge of going through this process. I'm basically taking the floorpan (monocoque) of a modern (well '95) car complete with all running gear, brakes, suspension and subframes, and welding a 1977 body on it (with cage for rigidity). retrorides.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=readersrides&action=display&thread=52118Yeah yeah, so it's a long-term project! At first I thought I'd be able to get away with claiming the car was the newer one with simply a modified body (5 points), but it quite clearly says that if there is evidence that two cars have been welded together, then it automatically needs SVA and will get a Q. Fair enough, bring on the challenge! OK it'll cost £540, but I think it will be quite fun to do things right, and in the process hopefully give an insight to others on here that it can be done legally. Of course, the project may fail in a big way! I like the idea of a Q-plate gaining hero status! Now completely read the IVA draft manual (all 208 pages of it!), and the only problems I can see are to do with the interior fittings/dashboard and possibly a few 'exterior projections'. The manual reads much like a 'how to' guide. Now the questions - possibly not particularly important ones, but interesting none-the-less: - If it gets registered effectively as a new car, and it gets a new chassis number assigned by the DVLA, can I choose what it's called on the v5? e.g.
Make:FTW Model:MX323
- As the car is then of indeterminable age, and it's then MOT'd to 1971 standard, can I legally run black/silver plates?
- Oh and that £540... I take it there is no retest fee if it fails on a few little bits?!
|
|
There is nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 17:34:52 GMT
|
Pleased to have helped remove a lot of the doubt and hearsay ;D Also pleased to see you've taken your time to do your research( ie welding cars together ) via the links put up, gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when people take the time and trouble to do some research ;D Answer to question then 1) Yes, you can name it how you wish (within respectabilty of course ,they already pick out the rude number plates ) 2)Legally no, you have to run reflectives due the date of first registration ( see my MOT Link of before re what regs apply ) 3) I don't know what the situation will be re the new fee. Currently you pay only a small sum for a retest something like £30 compared to a £180 initial fee . The good news is that you have 6 months to fix any faults before you need to apply for a fresh test with full fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 17:51:13 GMT
|
Having chatted with a few kit car owners, the system for them currently seems to be. Build the car with the minimum on it to pass MOT, and do it to SVA standard.
So if you don't need a screen, don't fit one. If you don't need a demister or wipers because you don't have a screen, don't fit them. Carry on with everything not legally required for road legality, then once you have the SVA cert in your hand, and are registered, bung everything else on. At no point is an SVA'd kit car re-SVAd once passed, no matter what is done to it.
Is this going to be different in IVA territory as far as is known?
That would mean for an existing vehicle, already registered, unless radically altered surely wouldn't need SVA. Then again I suppose we are down to the definition of radical.
Quite worrying this, because as has been said. Sensible fully upgraded brakes and suspension, steering to take larger engine =SVA Barley Mowers shove an ERF diesel lump into a fiat 500 = Safe original vehicle that requires no SVA. And the DVLA still think it is a Fiat 500.
My take on this is, to make sure all those 1.3's with 2.0's in are properly registered and so taxed, and an ever better way of getting old cars with "dirty" old engines into emissions based testing and "4x4 gas guzzler" tax bracket.
Can you just picture "I'm sorry sir, because you changed your rear axle to one with an LSD, you are now in Band G and we want £400 a year for your 1982 Ford Granada"?
|
|
|
|
rtlkyuubi
Posted a lot
Low and Slow
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 17:59:34 GMT
|
I know I sent this to the wrong person, but ill send it to the DVLA aswell:
Hello VOSA, I recently bought a classic car (a 1964 Vauxhall Viva HA to be exact.) And I planning on installing a bigger engine, a different gearbox, back axle, upgraded suspension and braking system. I have been reading about the SVA and what needs to have one and what does not. This has confused me greatly, Since the original bodywork, chassis and drive chain layout are staying does this mean I have kept enough 'points' to not need an SVA test? Is there a clear scale that I and other people can use to work out if their vehicle needs an SVA test? Also would a standard 1964 Vauxhall Viva's features (the bumpers, lights, roof channels etc) pass the SVA? This is what is concerning me the most, as when the price increases to £500, its going to be costly if it fails on an original feature of the vehicle which has not been taken into consideration when the car was first created. Unlike a kit car, that has been built from the ground up, that you can make the bumpers, lights, etc comply to the SVA, how will a car that has already been produced comply? I am hoping you can shed some very clear light on this subject. Yours Sincerely, Ryan Langford.
I wrote that before reading most of the infomation kindly put up by aceadvice and others.
This is the reply I got:
Thank you for your e-mail
Vehicles over 10 years old do not require an SVA test especially if they have already been registered here.
Have you spoken to the DVLA about the changes you are making to the vehicle as it is the DVLA who decide if a vehicle requires an SVA but as stated not if they are more than 10 years old.
Kind regards
Tina
VOSA Contact Centre Chief Information Officer Directorate Tel:- 0300 123 9000 or 0870 60 60 440
Either the person who answered my email didnt read all of it or doesnt know what the hell I'm on about. But Emails like these can mislead people. If it wasnt for this thread I would of believed the email and keep a copy of it in my car incase I got pulled by vosa!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 18:03:45 GMT
|
Bear in mind Q plates are not just for kit and modified cars. They are for imported older cars and stolen recovered vehicles too, so why would having a Q plate be a badge of honour? I met a bloke only yesterday with a Mk2 transit on a Q plate. It was stolen and recovered in 1995 and given the Q plate then. It's just a regular production Mk2 transit, but the Q plate put off quite a few buyers before he came along, they couldn't insure it.
|
|
|
|
rtlkyuubi
Posted a lot
Low and Slow
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Jan 29, 2009 19:21:35 GMT
|
Yea, how can a Q plate be a 'badge of honour?'
I don't see any advantages other than it means your car is legal? they take your original build date which means you pay tax, pay for the sva and pay more for insurance. Yet they don't give you the perks of the black and white plates.
They wonder why people don't want to do sva's. its not just people building death traps that don't want them.
[/mini rant over]
|
|
|
|
|