Possible Ringer on Ebay?

JVY said:
Rubythursday said:
The ridiculous situation is brought about the government in the first place. A car 1 day newer than another attracts road tax. Essentially identical cars. In real terms you save 2 to 3 tanks of petrol a year buy having a tax free example, in those terms it doesn't seem worth the trouble to change a vehicle's identity.
Click to expand...
Tony, I agree that the current UK situation on classic tax exemption provides an incentive to ring cars. One of my arguments for introducing a fairer rolling exemption is that it would lessen this incentive. In the case of existing ringers, it might even encourage those concerned to restore vehicles to their true identity?
Click to expand...

I sadly met some new P6 owners last week with their 'J' reg car. Only problem is it's really a late 1975 2200 - the chassis number's still stamped under the rear decker and the correct index plate was still in the windows.

Through no fault of their own they now own a ringer. :(
 
Phil Robson said:
What about this one?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/rover-p6-3500 ... 3a7d9122fa

Apparently "Rover p6 3500 auto . Mongrel series 1 2000 base but modified to series 2 v8 spec ", or perhaps a pre-73 2000 plate on a later V8?
Click to expand...

Well if it is, it's a cut'n'shut. That engine bay is definitely a pukka V8 base unit, you can even see the slam panel at the bottom of the pic to allow the bonnet to fit. If it's a mongrel, the whole front end of V8 baseunit will have to have been grafted on at the bulkhead. So what chassis number will it have? The V8 or the original? It's on the inner wing!

Then there's the question of how you get an auto in it unless it was Auto shell. So what about the diff ratio, etc etc.

About the only non standard thing on that car will be the reg plate! No thanks.....!

Michael
 
DVLA says:

The vehicle details for OCF 331G are:

01 06 2013
Date of First Registration 21 04 1969
Year of Manufacture 1969
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 3500cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status SORN Not Due
Vehicle Colour BLACK
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available
 
The DVLA record shows the colour as black for OCF 331G. As I don't think this was a standard colour, I am wondering if previous owner/s has updtaed the V5 to show the colour as black (and perhaps the engine capacity from 2000cc to 3500cc?)? The changes could have happened at anytime since registration in 1969.

I did notice that the pictures show earlier type seperate handles/buttons on the doors. However, I don't know if/when these were introduced on S2 cars. So. could the doors be S1?

To be fair to the seller it is described as a "mongrel". Some of the most likeable dogs I ever came across were mongrels :) .
 
JVY said:
The DVLA record shows the colour as black for OCF 331G. As I don't think this was a standard colour, I am wondering if previous owner/s has updtaed the V5 to show the colour as black (and perhaps the engine capacity from 2000cc to 3500cc?)? The changes could have happened at anytime since registration in 1969.

I did notice that the pictures show earlier type seperate handles/buttons on the doors. However, I don't know if/when these were introduced on S2 cars. So. could the doors be S1?

To be fair to the seller it is described as a "mongrel". Some of the most likeable dogs I ever came across were mongrels :) .
Click to expand...
Nail on head!!
Its a series 2 V8 that has had its identity swapped with a series 1 2000. Its pretty simple ( or was) really. You get the log booked changed to show that the 2000 is now running a V8, no different to sombody sticking a V8 in a Cortina or something.
Im guessing that, on purchase of the 2000 "donor" the doors were found to be better and were swapped over, hence the earlier handles/buttons.
The seller is distancing himself from the fact that its a ringer by saying its a "mongrel" he is fully aware of what it actually is!!
It was a blatant free road tax scam, probably done a fair few years ago.
Then again, it could REALLY be a 2000 with a V8 shoved in... :wink:
 
people ringing cars in a dangerous manner like welding 2 cars together yes i agree they want shooting crap like that has and will kill people, people who do it to save a few quid and feel like there getting something back from a government that rip us of on a daily basis i say good luck to ya, changing the identity of a car etc etc and doing the change thourghly wont kill anybody, thats just my view.
 
Even though it might not kill anyone directly, it does invalidate the insurance somewhat, meaning that if anyone is seriously injured in an accident it goes very bad very fast. "the previous owner did it and I didn't know" doesn't wash..

It's annoying to be honest, because the tax on a V8P6 is equivalent to around 3 tanks of fuel - if you can't afford that then to be frank you can't afford to run the car. It makes everything so hard for people who modify within the rules, and causes the EU to go mad and have knee jerk reactions that have serious repercussions (well they would if they could ever organise themselves or make a decision :wink: ) to the classic car world.

It's rife in Land Rover circles as it's so easy to swap the ID. I will say that it has to be brought to the owner's attention very carefully, but if we can stop unsuspecting buyers from buying a car that is legally wrong, then we're saving them a huge amount of hassle in the long run. Some might fall (or are deliberately pushed) through the net, but all that happens is the people in power tighten the net and make it more difficult for the honest ones among us.

Just my 2p :)
 
I have found this discussion to be fascinating. I am happy that on this side of the pond no inspector would have a clue as to what belonged on my 2000TC. Since parts are not as plentiful here,this makes it possible for me to put it back together with what is available. We are taxed on a percentage of the original cost of the vehicle which decreases yearly until it reaches a fully depreciated bottom value..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top