Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

rallysportreplicas


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#61 pete

pete

    Super Mini Mad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 15 March 2006 - 08:57 PM


but someone said they didnt think that a mini would pass an sva due to the shape of the shell. Surely the requirements of the actual test havent changed just what constitutes what used to be the points system to maintain the orriginal identity of the vehicle, or have i got this completly wrong?


would need a collapsable steering coloumn too!
I've seen two minus V5s where the shell swap was declared to DVLA. On one it said Make : Mini Minus on it The other said Austin Mini. - the austin Mini one came with original letter to and from DVLA from back in the 80's / early 90's ish when the shells were swapped and the V5 had the minus shell number on it. Apart from that it was no different so who's gonna know? Especially if you keep your tags from your metal shell. If it ever came to anything, you could say that you bought the car like it and the DVLA were informed years ago. They would not be able to proove otherwise and you avoid the tricky SVA.

Not that I'm suggesting , that anyone should tell fibs or anything.


An MOT station can now refuse to test it if the log book does not have the correct vehicle description and insist it have an SVA test even if it has previously been mot'd and on the road.

#62 mini1976

mini1976

    Speeding Along Now

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:11 PM

Sorry if it seamed like i was taking issue, that wasnt what i was trying to do more just get a better understanding onf the general requirments. Like i find it very interesting that is sva'd then you dont have to have an mot for 3 years. I had never heard that before.

With my reference to the defender and you said its been in production a while, does that mean that if the mini had never gone out of production then it would still be legal to produce them, if you see what im trying to say, as it would have passed the tests before. Just ive read people saying that they couldnt be produced any more due to them not meeting current saftey standards but as they are an old car would that matter?

#63 Dan

Dan

    On Sabbatical

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,354 posts

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:37 PM

Cars don't need type testing more than once, but when they bring in new rules cars must comply with them. That seems to be a bit of a paradox and I don't fully understand it myself but there are different classes of regulations I think. They are always required to keep up with new emmisions regs and efficiency rules and drive by noise and driver safety but I don't think that crash survivability or padestrian safety are in the same class. I think that brand new designs have to meet tougher criteria than existing models or something like that.

Basically Mini went out of production because it was too expensive to produce and couldn't be sold in all markets as it was. When BMW bought Rover they were run by a guy called Burnt Pietschreider (I think, I may have got that name a bit wrong as it's not easy to remember!) who absolutely loved the Mini and wanted to keep it going (the rumor at the time was that BMW wanted Rover for two things, Mini and Hydragas suspension and funnily enough that's two of the few bits they still hold the rights to). That's where Rover suddenly got the money to keep the Mini in production in 1996 and do all the very expensive upgrades needed to the car (twinpoint spec). Then the BMW board got rid of Burnt (who went to Audi and the first day he was there cancelled the Audi A2 because he hated it for not being a good enough Mini but that's another story) and gave the go-ahead for production of the Mini replacement. The indications were that Burnt would have been willing to get the original Mini through another round of upgrades that were needed for 2001, but he was gone by then.

#64 Alburglar

Alburglar

    Das Pingu's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,331 posts
  • Location: Dover Kent
  • Local Club: Kentish Mini Club

Posted 16 March 2006 - 01:26 AM

[/quote]

An MOT station can now refuse to test it if the log book does not have the correct vehicle description and insist it have an SVA test even if it has previously been mot'd and on the road.
[/quote]

That's kind of the point though pete. The DVLA had been notified about the body swap years ago and it was allowed to keep it's original reg. I only new this because he still had the original letters from the DVLA. THe reason he kept them was because they had not altered the V5 like with the one I sold to Ade. So if you simply change the chassis number on the V5 who's ever gonna contest It? Especially as it's mini shaped!

#65 Jammy

Jammy

    Moved Into The Garage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,397 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:32 AM

Jammy is right...


Jeesy Chresy (as Mr. Izzard would say), thats the second or third time you've said that!! It couldn't be, that after spending sooo long on TMF, I'm actually...'




DUN DUN DERRRR.....

Learning?!? :dontgetit:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users