33 replies to this topic

[pdaykin]

Unfortnately that's not legal, at least not if you are in the UK.

No VIN number was stamped into a 1960's Mk1 bodyshell so why or how is anyone going to prove he used panels or otherwise? and why should anyone care if it is done with careful attention to detail, to restore and save such a rare car from oblivion. An awful lot of Mk1 Mini Cooper & S out there have been lovingly rebuilt or restored over the last 40 odd years around an ex-'one old lady owner Mk1 850 Auto shell' for instance, whether due to accident damage in competition or the ravages of rust............including the BMC Competition Dept. for most of the Ex-works Minis who regularly swapped shells, Chassis plates and Austin/Morris identities from one rally to another! Perhaps we should encourage the owners of such Minis to hand them all over to Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson so they can be crushed along with all the other Classic Minis that have disappeared into their scrappage scheme and just retain the few that can somehow prove they still have their original shell?

There are differences between the 'shells.

Most notable are the brackets for the hydro pipes, location of seat belt mounts and sun visors. The front bulkhead area also changed a little with holes/captive nuts being varied between the years.

[Cooperman]

The basic changes from Mk 1 to Mk 2 were the larger rear light apertures, the larger rear screen aperture, the wiper drive holes in the scuttle panel, the hydro pipe brackets, the sun visor bracket holes.
To use a Mk 2 shell for a Mk 1 resto the main things are to fit a new rear panel with the smaller rear screen aperture and oval rear light holes. the rest you can normally not bother about.
As was said above, a Mk 1 Cooper from 1962 will have a different shape to the ends of he lower part of the front panel, although most early Coopers will have had a new front panel by now with the revised shape to improve brake cooling.
As it's impossible to buy a new Mk 1 shell to restore one it is very often necessary to use a later shell such as the Mk 2, but the give-away is the larger rear window of the Mk 2 and, of course, the rear lights.

[Ethel]

Whether or not anyone will notice or care won't stop it being illegal so Dan's right to point it out. It would be too embarrassing to proudly recall how you restored your Cooper with a secondhand shell only to unwittingly drop yourself in the poo with the dvla. It would also be dishonest to sell the car on to someone who thought they were buying something different.

[ChrisL]

I need to use the donor shell for the main parts to repair the Cooper, the other option is to scrap it!!

[Ethel]

It's your choice, we're just trying to help you make an informed one, not berate you.
It wasn't always illegal to repair a car with a secondhand shell so such a car could be legally on UK roads.

[Pitcrew6464]

i think ChrisL is saying he has a 62 shell that requires 10%of the panels off of the 67 shell in order to get the 62 shell back on the road, if so thats totally legal as they are just repair panels.

[tadleysimon]

you crack on mate, people break the law every day, its not like your committing murder or rape is it. its probaly a god shout to keep quiet about the swap however

[mab01uk]

you crack on mate, people break the law every day, its not like your committing murder or rape is it. its probaly a god shout to keep quiet about the swap however

Exactly the point......................using another bodyshell of the same type to restore a classic car is hardly in the same league as our 'law making' politicians fiddling taxpayers money for their 'expenses'.

A few months ago Practical Classics magazine featured a very rare MG or Wolesely 1100 with a shell beyond economic repair but rebuilt using a better Morris 1100 shell, carefully grafting in the different front panels and trim, etc. Not worth a fortune at the end of the day but should the owner be prosecuted and the car scrapped just because our politicians neither know or care about classic cars or our motoring heritage, as proved by their scrappage scheme which so easily could have been drafted to differentiate between a polluting old banger and a historic classic.

[midridge2]

arnt the quater glass apertures diffrent sizes on a mk1/mk2 ?

[mk3 Cooper S]

If you are planning to "ring" the 62 Cooper into a 67 shell I would not post it up on the forum

Another thing missed is the Cooper will have boot board mountings on the boot floor and rear seat back

[Dan]

I know this is a bit of a hijack and so I won't post about this again, but it's precisely because our politicians do understand the classic car market that we are allowed to restore cars at all. The law is structured in a way that encourages genuine enthusiasts and vehicle restorers to maintain their classics while limiting the options for people in the market for a fast buck or for criminals. It's perfectly legal, and encouraged through the historic tax class, to restore a vehicle. The intent of the law, and the generally accepted meaning of the word restoration incidentally, is to retain as much of the original material as possible and put in the hard work of making repairs to even the most seriously damaged vehicle. Simply swapping the body would be the easy option, calls into question exactly which car of the two has been restored, destroys one vehicle in order to save another and in my opinion results in a less worthwhile vehicle. In the past it was legal to do this which is why rally teams of the past were able to do it within the law but now it is not. In the past it was also accepted that important artworks and historic buildings could be restored by entirely re-painting or re-building them and so loosing all historical context and patina. This is a more enlightened time.

In this case it is of course perfectly legal to use repair panels from the '67 body to repair the '62. I apologise for the mis-understanding, it appeared to me that you were trying to find out how to make the '67 look like the '62 in order to re-shell. Before you go to the trouble of chopping the parts out though, have you looked into the price of new panels for the '62? I believe most parts will be available from M-Machine in the correct spec and while they are non-genuine, as pattern parts go M-Machine are the best out there. Pricey maybe, but hand made to match your car and brand new steel.

[mk3 Cooper S]

Unfortnately that's not legal, at least not if you are in the UK.

No VIN number was stamped into a 1960's Mk1 bodyshell so why or how is anyone going to prove he used panels or otherwise? and why should anyone care if it is done with careful attention to detail, to restore and save such a rare car from oblivion. An awful lot of Mk1 Mini Cooper & S out there have been lovingly rebuilt or restored over the last 40 odd years around an ex-'one old lady owner Mk1 850 Auto shell' for instance, whether due to accident damage in competition or the ravages of rust............including the BMC Competition Dept. for most of the Ex-works Minis who regularly swapped shells, Chassis plates and Austin/Morris identities from one rally to another! Perhaps we should encourage the owners of such Minis to hand them all over to Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson so they can be crushed along with all the other Classic Minis that have disappeared into their scrappage scheme and just retain the few that can somehow prove they still have their original shell?

The BMC department generally used "new shells" when the cars got wrecked which is not against the law.

Just because lots of people have reshelled coopers into granies specials does not make it legal.
Morally the issue comes when you sell it on as you are not selling a "one owner Cooper" you are selling a Bitza. Therfore the values ar dramatically different.

[Meepo]

It’s good to see the admin guy’s are keeping members informed of the law. However, I personally believe this is a crazy law. If a car has already lost it’s identity for whatever reason, and is then used to restore another vehicle of the same type, then I see nothing wrong with this. It’s got to be better to restore a Mk1 Mini with a Mk1 shell as opposed to using a new Mk 4 shell which is perfectly legal.

[rimmer1993]

Wouldn't it be better to get new panels rather than cut up another mk1? Either way any Mk1 is worth alot this year so maybe try and sell the 67 on for a profit and buy the panels with the profit?

[mk3 Cooper S]

It’s good to see the admin guy’s are keeping members informed of the law. However, I personally believe this is a crazy law. If a car has already lost it’s identity for whatever reason, and is then used to restore another vehicle of the same type, then I see nothing wrong with this. It’s got to be better to restore a Mk1 Mini with a Mk1 shell as opposed to using a new Mk 4 shell which is perfectly legal.

I totally agree but it is a law designed to stop vehicle theft somehow? The stolen shell taking on the identity of another car. Admitidly not really suitable for the classic car scene.
You can do it legally but it then adopts a Q plate which would sort of spoil a Mk1 Cooper.