myke pocock
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
Oh Dear, Whatever happened here!!!
I used to like these but WTF!!!
1989 GTM COX COUPE 1.4 RALLY RACE TRACK KIT CAR FULL MOT | eBay
|
|
|
|
|
AndyW
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
[img]
 
Description
[/img]
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
Alarm and immobilizer.
Why? who would steal that!!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 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.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Xtreme Kermit
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
Oh dear oh dear oh deary me 
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
And I thought my GTM needs work!
|
|
|
DixieTheKid
|
| posted on 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!
COS IT'S Worth IT
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 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.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
full exposed wheels and MOT'd ?
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
McLannahan
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 20/9/11 at 08:00 PM |
|
|
i defo would have left the crappy arches on for the sale's pitch .
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 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'.....
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
Rod Ends
|
 posted on 20/9/11 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
Look at the state of it when he bought it!
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 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]
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 21/9/11 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
its at £750 so far...... seriously....
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
heavy is good, heavy is reliable, and if it breaks, hit them with it
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
