New MOT legislation and more...

[gridgway]

For goodness sale stop it Graham. Anyone would think you want to put your car through the iva test

I would love to take it for a 'pre-biva' test before I have to get it tested. Preparation is everything.

[gridgway]

And I was going to buy a 1700 crossflow caterham and rebuild the motor with Wilcox Engines BDR kit - yum!
http://www.wilcoxengines.co.uk/bda_parts.htm

Might have to wait and see how things pan out!
Graham

[911hillclimber]

I just know it's coming my way, so want to avoid as much pain as possible!

I thought all those years ago the lhd/rhd conversion was a bit easy and it was all done in 9 working days, no big deal.
However, people now think it is substantially modified.

I understand the panels from Porsche are NLA?

[KS]

And I was going to buy a 1700 crossflow caterham and rebuild the motor with Wilcox Engines BDR kit - yum!
http://www.wilcoxengines.co.uk/bda_parts.htm

Might have to wait and see how things pan out!
Graham

But the Caterham wouldn't have fallen in the historic category anyway.

[gridgway]

Good point, the bdr was mid80s! Got carried away. Plan back on!

[BILLY BEAN]

Just been looking through the Porsche manual for "Sports Purpose Vehicles" for the period 1970 to 1972. ( sad I know) Amongst the many options available in terms of Porsche sanctioned alterations from a stock vehicle are the widening of the rear wheel arches in steel to accommodate 9 x 15 Fuchs, GRP front bumper, 100 litre fuel tank, 'racing' exhaust manifold, polishing of ports, engine capacity enlargement, twin plugged heads, hotter camshafts, LSD, suspension mods etc etc. Quoted BHP for the 2.5 capacity being 270 @8000RPM. These sports enhancements could be ordered from Porsche competition department by individuals' post delivery of the vehicle if desired as well as being available on the car as delivered new. As I understand it the Sports Purpose enhancements led to the emergence of what is now termed an ST. Most ST s ( admittedly few in number) were factory built on the "S" model but some privateers like Kremer also built on the "T" model ( even fewer in number). I thought the above was interesting in the light of the issue of modification from "original".

[KS]

Interesting but sadly if your car was not built like that originally, then it doesn't count as far as DVLA's rules go. They've opened a can of worms which they probably never expected. All this generated by faceless individuals sat in an anonymous office somewhere...

If a car (even now) is picked up on having extreme mods and had its V5 revoked, meaning it had to go to IVA, then there are so many points on an early 911 (or worse still, 356) that would have to be changed: external door handles, for example, on pre-68 cars (protruding button is a common IVA fail), exhaust tips protruding beyond valance, stock door mirrors... The interior is a nightmare: mirror, steering wheel, switch gear... the list goes on. All the original glass would have to be changed, too, to new glass with the current E markings.

There's a closed Facebook group of which I'm a member monitoring all this based on real life experiences. An example: a guy has a beautifully built and engineered Ford Pop street rod. It's been on the road for some time, with all the correct details on the V5. No problem until he comes to move house, sends in his V5 to get the address changed and is then told 'sorry, we're keeping that - get the car IVA'd...'. There are other similar cases out there of cars that have been considered OK before but are now being told to go through IVA.

It's a horrible dystopian world that lies ahead of us, if not next year, then maybe the next, or...

In the meantime, get out and enjoy your car!

[gridgway]

Being ignorant of this stuff... I presume the laws/rules are there to say it should have gone through IVA and it's now those rules being applied?
Were those rules in place when the car was built or are they being applied retrospectively?
Graham

[KS]

IVA appears to be applied retrospectively in some cases. When the previous SVA was in place, some of the requirements were different. In the past, if people notified DVLA of a change of engine, for example, then the result was usually a letter saying thank you for letting us know and we've updated your details. That was the case for many years, cars would be taxed, MOT'd every year and everyone was happy. Now when people are taxing their cars, or updating details (address, etc) on the V5, they're getting told their V5 is being revoked. So, yes, in some cases it is a case of the original (SVA-eligible) rules being sidestepped but now the DVLA is starting to look through the back catalogue as a whole.

For interest, this is the leaflet issued by VOSA at the time of change over from SVA to IVA.

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/r ... eaflet.pdf

[hot66]

Just want to point out ....


its good to have all this brought to our attention

in reality we're not 100% sure how its going to pan out

there is a fine line between information & unnecceasry scare mongering

[KS]

It is not scaremongering – it would appear that a large number of people here are not, or were not, aware of ANY changes at all in the MOT status of historic vehicles, and how it may affect them.

The unanswered question at this point is will the DVLA/VOSA/whoever regard cutting rear arches out of a 911 as a substantial change? At first glance – and after questioning of one of the people at the sharp end of earlier discussions –
yes. Will they or won't they, as stupid as the idea may seem? Everything is down in black and white regarding bulkheads and other structural areas on cars, but when it comes to specifics like this then there will come a point when there is what's effectively a test case.

I can (wishful thinking, maybe) see a point when the DVLA etc will realise what a can of worms they've opened and delay any decisions, but personally (the important word here) I don't think that will be the case.

One response is to relax and sit back to see what they decide...another is to monitor real world experiences with the system and see how it equates to our (Porsche-oriented) world.

Maybe it's best if we draw a line under it here, if that's what people would prefer.

[Bootsy]

It's difficult as nobody knows exactly what is going to happen.

I spent a afternoon sending my personal views to the email address published on this thread. If 1000's others do then maybe, just maybe there will be wiggle room.

Hopefully some of you have dropped them a line.

I wish I had responded to the original consultation but I'll admit I just wasn't aware or missed it mentioned in the mags, forums etc. somehow?

The numbers who did respond were pitiful considering how many vehicles this could effect.

[BILLY BEAN]

Keith,
I was in a rather clumsy and roundabout way suggesting that in the case of the official Sports Purpose document, I refered to, Porsche sanctioned wider steel arches to accommodate 9" wide wheels. By supplying these arches, which were obtainable after market from Porsche, wide rear arches as a fitment were not seen as detrimental to the structural integrity of the vehicle. The manufacturer has as far as this particular width of rear arch and for the period 1970 to 1972 set a precident.
I was totally unaware that the regulations were to change. I am sanguine about their impact at the moment. Thank you for raising the issue.

[911hillclimber]

This is a very real threat to many, certainly not just DDK Porsche.

The rules are clear, I know where I'm headed and I want to be prepared as much as I can. The implications are serious.

If you are sent to IVA then the 911 will fail. If you cannot get it to pass, then the car is UNREGISTERED.

The car is then worth the sum of it's parts, or you remove the mods made, in my case convert it back to lhd.
This topic should not imho have a line drawn under it on DDK.

If it is tedious or does not affect you then simply pass on it. I imagine the majority of DDK cars will not be affected, some will.
For those who will fall foul of this then getting information is key, esp as to how peoples experiences are as time goes on.

Your V5 is at risk and possibly your car will beuin-usable when this is 'official' (May 18?) and you apply for car tax and the questions are asked.

Thus, I have a year without worry as my tax is due in a weeks time, very different situation in Sept 2018.

I thank Keith for putting this on the table and hope he continues to provide info for our best interests.

[gridgway]

Definitely not, it's hugely enlightening. If people don't want to read/contribute, then they don't have to.
I'm very grateful to you Keith for bringing it to our attention.

Sadly I don't think any amount of replies on the early consultation would make the govt not do it.

I love the govt double-speak about 'gold plating'. They decided to go for 40 years, not 30 years as a measure of gold plating. Why not just leave the rule at 1960, then it would have been gold plated with an extra safe condom on top...super-safe!
Graham

Maybe it's best if we draw a line under it here, if that's what people would prefer.