Humbug
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 10:03 AM |
|
|
Dodgy or what?
Just seen
this on ebay.
Described as "Audi TT kit car", Manufacturer "Audi", Model "SIERRA XR4X4"
a quick check of the reg on www.mycarcheck.com says it is a 1991 Ford Sierra Xr4x4 (5 Door Hatchback). The sellet admits it is registered as a
Sierra
Strange, cos it looks very like a Banham body...
I wonder if it has been SVAd? 
[Edited on 4/10/08 by Humbug]
|
|
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 10:25 AM |
|
|
Yeah i would say it's a Paul Banham jobby. I don't think that has been anywhere near an SVA station, if it had they would have registered
it correctly.
Or they didn't know how to register it.
[Edited on 4/10/08 by donut]
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 11:07 AM |
|
|
Except....
If it's a Paul Banham body most of them (AFAIR) used a standard chassis with the body chopped off it. As the chassis is the same it
doesn't need SVA. Then again, some of their later cars used a shortened chassis so maybe it does!!!
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
The under bonnet view shows quite a bit of non-Sierra chassis work. I'd be surprised of there was much Sierra shell left in it.
John
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
Except....
If it's a Paul Banham body most of them (AFAIR) used a standard chassis with the body chopped off it. As the chassis is the same it
doesn't need SVA. Then again, some of their later cars used a shortened chassis so maybe it does!!!
Except... the Banham used a Metro/Rover 100 as the base, not a Sierra Xr4x4!
Also, according to my understanding, even if they used a Metro as the base, it was not the "original unaltered chassis" if the roof has
been chopped off, so it should be SVAd
[Edited on 04.10.2008 by Humbug]
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 12:32 PM |
|
|
Yes, that's what I wondered as I wrote my post!!!
But there certainly were cars on the road working on the principle that the chassis was original (even if altered) therefore no SVA...
... then again doesn't make it right!!
(I must admit I didn't look at the under GRP shots, I've got a slightly sensitive stomach and expected nasties!!!)....
|
|
|
clairetoo
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
The under bonnet view shows quite a bit of non-Sierra chassis work. I'd be surprised of there was much Sierra shell left in it.
John
I'd be very surprised if there was any Sierra metalwork on it at all.................
Its cuz I is blond , innit
Claire xx
Will weld for food......
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
The add states XR4X4 running gear, doesn't mention the chassis, which looking at the pictures seems to be a tubular effort, (note- not
spaceframe). Cheers Ray
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
GregSL75
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
My Dad built a Banham XJSS quite a few years ago:
It has never been SVA'd although is registered as XJss on the V5. I've often wondered whether it should be because it started life as a
coupe XJS and had the roof chopped and then subsequent strengthening bars added to give it some rigidity back. But to my mind that's altering
the chassis as it's a monoquoque??
It was sold and built as not requiring one, but that is no guarantee obviously. I have a mate who fell foul of that with a Landranger Rangerover kit
and that was sold as not requiring SVA (only modified the ladder chassis by removing a couple of feet off the back overhang, not between the axles,
same as any bobtail) One was involved in an accident and then taken away and crushed, Landranger were taken to court and they have folded now.
2.0 XE on GSXR TBs and Megasquirt
|
|
|
gingerpaule
|
| posted on 4/10/08 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
Do the Z-Car Minis have a similar issue or are they typically SVAed too?
|
|
|
