Board logo

Oh Dear, Whatever happened here!!!
myke pocock - 20/9/11 at 07:32 PM

I used to like these but WTF!!!

1989 GTM COX COUPE 1.4 RALLY RACE TRACK KIT CAR FULL MOT | eBay

AndyW - 20/9/11 at 07:35 PM

[img] Description
Description [/img]

sdh2903 - 20/9/11 at 07:39 PM

Alarm and immobilizer.

Why? who would steal that!!

iank - 20/9/11 at 07:40 PM

If you got it for the right money and sorted out the rear track "issue" then it could be made into quite a nice car again.

Xtreme Kermit - 20/9/11 at 07:40 PM

Oh dear oh dear oh deary me

rusty nuts - 20/9/11 at 07:41 PM

And I thought my GTM needs work!

DixieTheKid - 20/9/11 at 07:46 PM

WTF 'in hell was the bloke thinking?

This is the best bit and sums it up a treat!:

"The whole car was rattle caned in Satin black (personally I like the Rat effect but it wont be to everyone’s taste"

What a legend!

morcus - 20/9/11 at 07:48 PM

Wouldn't you need a IVA as it's running as an Austin still? I don't know much about these cars but it clearly isn't using an unmodified shell.

austin man - 20/9/11 at 07:52 PM

full exposed wheels and MOT'd ?

McLannahan - 20/9/11 at 07:57 PM

quote:
Originally posted by austin man
full exposed wheels and MOT'd ?


Stated in the ad that he removed the awful arches after the MOT.

r1bob - 20/9/11 at 08:00 PM

i defo would have left the crappy arches on for the sale's pitch .

owelly - 20/9/11 at 08:32 PM

I can't see the listing as I'm at work but by the comments on here I'm guessing its the car that was bought for, and run at, PPC magazines £999 Challenge a couple of days ago! It started the day with rear arches but they fouled the fat rear wheels so 'fell-off'.....

MikeRJ - 20/9/11 at 08:41 PM

Yes, it's the same one. It does look truly awful without the rear arches though and will need an IVA as it's not really an Austin Metro any more.

PPC £999 Challenge Pictures

Chippy - 20/9/11 at 09:43 PM

!989 Reg. So would be before SVA/IVA and would therefore be registered as the original donor car, which is perfectly legal. Cheers Ray

MikeRJ - 20/9/11 at 10:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Chippy
!989 Reg. So would be before SVA/IVA and would therefore be registered as the original donor car, which is perfectly legal. Cheers Ray


Sorry but that's not true at all and very misleading. 1989 is the registration of the Metro. Are you suggesting we can all dispense with IVA/SVA just by choosing a donor that was manufactured prior to the introduction of the SVA, and keeping the donors details on the V5?

Even worse, I've just noticed the ridiculous "stretched" tyres on the rear wheels. This poor little car has been molested

[Edited on 20/9/11 by MikeRJ]

hillbillyracer - 20/9/11 at 10:05 PM

Yeah that's the one, put in a respectable enough time on the handling course, but not that great as my mate Will was less than a tenth behind it in an Astra with suspension that was just what there was from to two donor cars we built from. 17.5 sec on the 1/4 mile wasn't anything to write home about, my mildly tuned 1275 Mini with full trim would match it no bother.
The arches were just about touching with no-one sitting in it & it was pretty rough & not so ready, but the bloke had a fun day out in it!

jollygreengiant - 20/9/11 at 10:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by austin man
full exposed wheels and MOT'd ?


Yes, thats what I thought, the two do not kinda go together, although I would have to consult 'The MOT' bible after so long of not testing.

Rod Ends - 20/9/11 at 10:36 PM

Look at the state of it when he bought it!

Chippy - 20/9/11 at 10:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by Chippy
!989 Reg. So would be before SVA/IVA and would therefore be registered as the original donor car, which is perfectly legal. Cheers Ray

Sorry but that's not true at all and very misleading. 1989 is the registration of the Metro. Are you suggesting we can all dispense with IVA/SVA just by choosing a donor that was manufactured prior to the introduction of the SVA, and keeping the donors details on the V5?
[Edited on 20/9/11 by MikeRJ]


Oh! yes its quite true, the vehicle WAS registered in 1989, in other words its a 1989 GTM Cox. I built a Dutton in 1984, and that was registered as a Ford Escort, as I said perfectly legal and above board. What now would not be legal due to the SVA/IVA regulations, but in those days was fair play. Cheers Ray
EDIT to add, the Dutton even used the original reg no's from the Escort.

[Edited on 20-9-11 by Chippy]

MikeRJ - 21/9/11 at 06:55 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Chippy
Oh! yes its quite true, the vehicle WAS registered in 1989, in other words its a 1989 GTM Cox. I built a Dutton in 1984, and that was registered as a Ford Escort, as I said perfectly legal and above board. What now would not be legal due to the SVA/IVA regulations, but in those days was fair play. Cheers Ray
EDIT to add, the Dutton even used the original reg no's from the Escort.


The last Cox GTM was made in around 1980, it was updated to become the GTM Coupe in 1983. Both the Cox GTM and the GTM Coupe used a mini donor, not Metro.

Did the V5 for your Dutton also describe it as a Ford Escort? The truth is, it never was legal to build a kit car without updating the vehicle type on the V5, even before the SVA. The correct procedure involved sending the V5 to the DVLA to have the vehicle make and model changed.

If you present a car for MOT which registered as a completely different car there is a strong chance it will be refused, because it is incorrectly registered.

The link above to the car on eBay also rather proves the point - it was sold with no documents.

[Edited on 21/9/11 by MikeRJ]

40inches - 21/9/11 at 07:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by Chippy
Oh! yes its quite true, the vehicle WAS registered in 1989, in other words its a 1989 GTM Cox. I built a Dutton in 1984, and that was registered as a Ford Escort, as I said perfectly legal and above board. What now would not be legal due to the SVA/IVA regulations, but in those days was fair play. Cheers Ray
EDIT to add, the Dutton even used the original reg no's from the Escort.


The last Cox GTM was made in around 1980, it was updated to become the GTM Coupe in 1983. Both the Cox GTM and the GTM Coupe used a mini donor, not Metro.

Did the V5 for your Dutton also describe it as a Ford Escort? The truth is, it never was legal to build a kit car without updating the vehicle type on the V5, even before the SVA. The correct procedure involved sending the V5 to the DVLA to have the vehicle make and model changed.

If you present a car for MOT which registered as a completely different car there is a strong chance it will be refused, because it is incorrectly registered.

The link above to the car on eBay also rather proves the point - it was sold with no documents.

[Edited on 21/9/11 by MikeRJ]

Mike is correct. There was an amnesty when SVA came in, for about a year, for Kit Cars registered in the donor cars name
to have the V5 renewed.
The only way to get these cars MOT'd is to find a "friendly" MOT tester or one that knows zilch about Kit Cars.
Even with an MOT certificate the car is still illegal and the insurance not valid.

myke pocock - 21/9/11 at 09:16 AM

I would disagree with a previous statement. I completed my JC Midge in 1993. Prior to that I correctly filled the V5 out with change of colour, cc and seating plan (ie; from 4 to 2) The DVLA themselves added 'Sports' to Triumph Vitesse to call it a Triumph Vitesse Sports. It was much later that the rules changed and a vehicle had to be described on the V5 as EXACTLY what it was. Eventually I bit the bullet (worried about a possible IVA for some time) and went throgh the proceedure to have the V5 changed to JC Midge.

[Edited on 21/9/11 by myke pocock]

jossey - 21/9/11 at 12:42 PM

its at £750 so far...... seriously....

Liam - 21/9/11 at 03:19 PM

It's also still registered as 1275 cc. Definately not legal.

Looks wise could be pretty much saved with some sort of rear arches added.

tony-devon - 21/9/11 at 04:25 PM

besides the V5 issues, it doesnt need mudguards/arches for MOT

show me what section of the mot manual says that wheels must be covered, or that mudguards are required!!

however for C&U regs you do need them, so the MOT would be ok

hillbillyracer - 21/9/11 at 07:02 PM

Fugginell fellas!!!
Man buys ropey old kit car to enter the PPC mag challenge, gets it running & MOT'd, does the challenge & has fun. Then he chucks it back on ebay to get some cash back.
No it shouldn't pass an MOT without the rear arches but it did have them on for the test as has already been pointed out & they came off during the day's event. There'll be plenty cars sold with faults that wouldn't pass an MOT but they still have a valid ticket.
So mabye it isn't correctly registered, fair point but no-one will think at any point it's still 1275 Mini so any buyer should be aware of what it is & there'll be hundreds & mabye thousands of cars out there similar (some of which will belong to folk on here!). It's a very different thing morally to passing it off as a different vehicle altogether like ringing a stolen car
How many cars on here have been through SVA/IVA & have since been modded to the point where it's not really the same car any more & as such should be classified as radically altered but no-one says anything about that!

steve m - 21/9/11 at 08:15 PM

Im with u, on this one Hilly

you have echoed my sentiment totally

steve

cliftyhanger - 21/9/11 at 09:05 PM

Ditto.

I love the bit often posted where people say that the modifications start once the IVA is passed. So there is intent and knowledge that what they are doing is about to make their car fail the standards needed to pass the test. Then complain that somebody else has bent the rules.

Smacks of hypocrisy