Thats is a really classic look
Just seen this
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2442029346&category=29750&rd=1
Just wondered if it was anyone on here, or anyone someone knows of, looks a very nice car, with a very cool paint job.
Wow
Thats is a really classic look
Hisoric plate too,so no tax
Bloody well hope I get more than a 1000 miles use out of mine before getting bored! 
quote:
Originally posted by bob
Hisoric plate too,so no tax
Illegal plate for a vehicle registered after 1974 I think. Got to be a ringer with that plate and engine combination and Sierra running gear. Unless
he SVAd it with Sierra engine for original number then put a Fireblade engine and 1964 plate on it.
yours, Pete.
[Edited on 13/11/03 by Peteff]
Cue.....direct line motor insurance quotations page where you type in the reg and it tells you the car!
On this on it said reg not recognised you have to manually choose the type of car and naturally Locost isnt listed.
other correctly registered kits have come up correctly using this method so Peteff may be correct, definately looks a bit dodgy.
Now don't think I've gone mental....
But do you think that in some of the photos of the car in question that the 'West' logos look, well, a little artificial?
You know those advertising logos they superimpose on football fields and grand prix circuit infields (they're not really painted on the grass -
they're images put there by the tv company) - they look like that.
In a couple of the photos the graphics looka little grainy / fuzzy.
Am I going mental, or does anyone else see what I mean.
Can't for the life of me think why that would be the case though?!
Adam.
they do look a little "too superficial" but i wouldnt have noticed had you not said anything!
Some of the sports graphix are real, seen am at twickenham murrayfield and millenium stadium.
The colour scheme is nice but why spoil it with some free advertising for a (german?) cigarette company?......Fake or otherwise....
Surely it won't be mistaken for a McLaren F1 car?
It also seems to be lacking a rear fog light - only way you could do that for SVA/MOT would be to be old enough to not need one which may indicate the reg is correct.
but all indy were post sva wern't they ?
Maybe then it is a ringer?
take one old dutton with v5 etc etc ....
says built 2002
so, maybe he built it as a sierra, sva'd it, then did the engine, dropped the fog (as you might cos they do look a bit crap) and stuck the old
style plate on to add class?!? I think the decals, though crap, are real. just the white shows more alaizing (?whats the word?) against the dark
background.
ps cosworths werent out on B prefix were they?? maybe he bought a scrap kit car and changed them over, its legal i think anyway, if you keep the
chassis number? maybe...
[Edited on 13/11/03 by JoelP]
It's not a B prefix, it's after the numbers(suffix) so it's a 63-64 reg, it would have to be based on a Mk1 Cortina at that age and
Cosworth were tuning Anglia engines back then. It's even pre-Escort. Sierras were 20 years away at least. It's only legal to change them
over if you use some of the old vehicle running gear and if it was reg'd in 2002 it should show up as Indy or whatever he's called it.
yours, Pete.
yours, Pete.
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
It's not a B prefix, it's after the numbers(suffix) so it's a 63-64 reg
As far as i was aware you can purchase any reg plate providing it's older than the car it's going on. I think it's only ileagal due to
the fact that the plate is chrome on black which you can't have on a car newer than 1973. I expect it was registered with a year plate then the
chap just bought another and put it on. It's what i'm going to do and as far as i'm aware totaly leagal.
As long as i don't go for a plate newer than the one i get given then i'm ok.
And even if it is a 'B' reg from 64 or whatever it doesn't make the car tax free as it was built and registered in 2002. If this was
allowed we would all be buying pre 73 plates and putting them on out 2 year old (or whatever) cars and paying no tax. Nice idea but a no no!
That's how i understand it..i may ne wrong!
Andy
[Edited on 16/11/03 by donut]