Post by: w3526602 on July 22, 2020, 07:29:27 AM
I'm guessing that most of you now know that "Yesterday's Plans" have been abandoned, by mutual agreement. I think we are still friends.
So I'm now looking for something similar, preferably an S2, with an S3 being at the bottom of the list, and mixed feelings about an S1.
Basically, I want a rolling shell (Why pay for the filler when the holes are free? Sorry, wrong marque!) I've already done two new chassis S1 rebuilds, plus one on an old S3 chassis, plus an S2 109" on a new chassis. In wont mention the Austin Champ into which I dropped a BMC 2.2 diesel engine. Fabricating an S1 (sort of lookalike) bulkhead is neither difficult nor dramatically expensive. S2 and S3 are much more complicated.
I have just this moment thought about an S2 rolling chassis, another of my lookalike S1 bulkheads, but S2 or S3 front wings set in 2", bonnet and... doh ... radiator panel would be too wide, unless I narrowed it, which I think would be look wrong. ....Narrow the front wings? Is it possible to drill out the spot welds, and move the inner wings out a couple of inches, and trim? Doh! ... back to the drawing board. A couple of ideas are sneaking into the back of my mind. More anon.
In the meantime, I want your
602
Post by: w3526602 on July 24, 2020, 08:26:49 PM
Judging by recent mails, there seem to be two hymn sheets on the go ... VED EXEMPTION and MOT EXEMPTION.
I am not scared of MOTs, other than rust ... so my plan is to make sure there isn't any rust. I think I've already mention my Triumph Herald that failed an MOT due to a finger sized hole in the boot floor. "Separate body!" I squawked. "Wrong!" said the malevolent tester, "Some body has welded the boot floor the the rear outrigger!" :thud
Plan A (1) Is that I fit a different smaller engine. In words of one syllable .. which wallet will that hit .. MOT .. VED.
We have previously discussed the engines liability to "breath testing" being dependent on the age of the engine.
Plan A (2) IF I can inveigle a way, of long tail shaft on the gearbox past the various chassis cross members, I WILL go automatic, and sacrifice a couple of points.
Plan A (3). I would like to fit an S3 steering column ... choice of steering wheels, and more modern switches and steering lock. I would also want to fit heavy duty track rod and drag links ... surely safety features?
Plan A (4) I intend to fit either 13" or 14" wheels ... arguably a safety feature ... stability and braking. Are there any problems with that.
Plan A (5) The points system is ambiguous on axles. Does BOTH mean NIL points if you only use one original axle. Or do both axle earn you two points? Can I assume that nobody will complain if I disembowel the front axle?
Plan A (6) I'd like drop the suspension, to lose some more height. I wrote to somebody who advertises (they make) parabolic springs, asking if they can supply them with less canber. "No answer"! was the stern reply. I understand the the "off roaders" used to use Ford Transit springs. Better articulation. But can I prove it?
Plan B. All of the above, except I'd retain the Landy engine and gearbox ... which will benefit nobody.
602
Post by: Phil2014 on July 24, 2020, 09:33:07 PM
Post by: Wittsend on July 24, 2020, 09:56:45 PM
BUT ... if you start to radically modify the vehicle (see the DVLA website) you could hit problems.
It all depends on what is done - it could lose its tax exemption and have to go on a Q-plate or it could lose it's MoT exemption (if that were a problem).
What advantage would a Series 3 steering column give over a Series 2 other than a steering column lock ???
What advantage would heavy duty steering links give ???
The standard parts are perfectly suitable for normal road use.
By all means fit a front axle from a 4x2 model - but what advantage does that give ???
If you don't go off-road, just never engage 4x4.
These things are just over complicating your project, the aim of which is to make a low rider that sits lower to the road for easier passenger ingress.
Start messing around with the spring height or under mounting the axles and you are heading into modified vehicle territory.
And when all this is done - a detailed list of the modifications will have to be given to your insurers.
Post by: Phil2014 on July 24, 2020, 10:02:34 PM
Quote
And when all this is done - a detailed list of the modifications will have to be given to your insurers.This is what would worry me, if you hand over a modification list to your insurer that looks like J.K.Rowling has written it, I would be fairly sure you will be presented with a nice premium to match ???
Post by: w3526602 on July 25, 2020, 05:08:43 AM
Hi,
Apology time! I thought I knew the rules, but we all know what Thought did. *
Today, (it's not yet 5AM) I found out what Wittsend was on about ...
... as of 20th of May 2018, the MOT Exemption rules became more draconion, and YES, changing the engine becomes MOT-able. How did I miss that? Not a problem, but inconvenient ... no chance to do a trial run before presenting my project for an MOT. But I think I can live with that. I believe everything I intend doing will make the truck safer ... stability and braking, hopefully more economical (of no great importance with our annual mileage) or maybe not with an auto gearbox). However, it should fit through my garage door. (70" clearance)
Does road testing count as Preparing for an MOT
How is this affecting our members who have converted to modern diesels?
I took a quick shufti through Google, and as far as I can see, I will still be VED exempt ... unless Alan knows different?
602
PS. * What did Mister Thought do? He thought he had ... but he hadn't!
PPS. A neighbour is paying £600pa for VED on his RAV
Post by: Genem on July 25, 2020, 10:27:25 AM
The short answer is that Landrover engines of the period, other conversions "of a type" that were done at the time and engines developed from the engines of the time are "OK". 3 years on and no-one in officialdom has challeneged that interpretation.
The question is how wild are you planning to get. Do I recall mention of fitting a Cortina engine or was that just the smaller wheels ?
Eye on the prize: A vehicle that is low enough to allow your wife easier access. Any other mods that don't have a direct bearing on that outcome are just making life difficult.
Post by: Paul4978 on July 25, 2020, 10:41:15 AM
Don't know if they have achieved historic status.
Or is the prime objective LR based?
Post by: Paul4978 on July 25, 2020, 10:47:39 AM
Just seen some prices
Post by: Simon K. on July 25, 2020, 12:06:28 PM
Standard rods are plenty strong enough, but will help by absorbing the force of a collision and bending where the offending vehicle hits the front corner.
Simon.
Post by: agg221 on July 25, 2020, 12:29:14 PM
The short answer is that Landrover engines of the period, other conversions "of a type" that were done at the time and engines developed from the engines of the time are "OK". 3 years on and no-one in officialdom has challeneged that interpretation.
Eye on the prize: A vehicle that is low enough to allow your wife easier access. Any other mods that don't have a direct bearing on that outcome are just making life difficult.
^^^This is the critical point.
The magic word in the interpretation is 'type'. I am not an expert here, but it appears that the interpretation of the rules as written allows for replacements to be made using an equivalent available at a point in time. The Land Rover family of engines, through to the TDI, is essentially the current equivalent at any given point in time, ie if your engine blew up at a particular point, the then current model engine would be a reasonable replacement, which then makes that an acceptable change in the future. Also, because of the ease of conversion at certain, early, points in time, the Essex for example met a need and became an accepted option during the working life of vehicles, making it still acceptable.
Fitting a 1.3 Marina engine was never a historic conversion choice, so it is not an accepted type and if you do this now you instantly lose the MOT exempt status.
The bigger issue is with the chassis. There is quite a lot to be learned on this point from discussion around 1500 MG Midgets. As the gearing is generally rather low, there is a tendency to either fit a 5-speed K type Ford box, or an overdrive as originally fitted to the Spitfire which had the same engine. In either case, some adaptation is required to get it to fit in the gearbox tunnel, including cutting a drop-down section to the cross-brace (the Midget is mostly a monocoque with a couple of chassis-esque crossbraces). The general consensus is that technically, if you do this, you have modified the chassis, meaning you lose both the MOT exemption part and the historic status. There are a lot of vehicles floating about where this was done and the odds of being caught are small, but that doesn't mean you are the right side of things if it does get picked up. I doubt you would even pass a single vehicle inspection, at which point the vehicle cannot be made road legal without taking it back to original.
For a Series Land Rover, it appears to be accepted that a replacement chassis is acceptable from a range of options. These include alternative NOS designs which would have been an option, and correspondingly the use of a modern replica of any of these, or a modern, simplified generic chassis which does not necessarily have all the original detailing. What it appears you cannot do is cut bits off of this chassis. Technically, this includes retro-fitting a detachable gearbox crossmember (although the fact that a chassis with such a feature was a practical option at a point in time means you can use a new chassis which has one fitted) or cutting off the old engine mounts. What it appears you can do is add additional engine mounts or other additional features - welding additional bits on appears to be acceptable in general. What you also cannot do is design a new, custom chassis which is not of original type, although where precisely the line would be drawn on that is debatable - for example, adding drain holes for galvanising or to inject waxoyl into the chassis and allow water to drain out appears to fall one side, whereas moving outriggers around or specifying different engine mounts appears to fall the other side.
British law works on precedent - the way the rules would be tested is that the enforcing body would interpret one way, the person who has done something to a different interpretation would fail to comply, there would be a court case and the judge would listen to the evidence and make a ruling which would then stand for future reference. It is likely that nobody has tested the finer points of some of what constitutes 'original' for a chassis yet. Personally, I would not want to be the one to test it as I have better things to do, would not want to wait as long as it would take to get through the court case (could take years with the current backlog generated by COVID) and would not want to spend that much money just to find out. However, each to their own.
Alec
Post by: Wittsend on July 25, 2020, 12:48:19 PM
The chances of a road-side inspection are very slim.
:-\
However, the police and VOSA would instantly notice a "low rider" Land Rover bodied "something" and pull it over.
If the DVLA and HMG Customs get a whiff of tax evasion they'll be on the case like a ton of bricks. They don't like people evading road tax and the result is often the destruction of the vehicle in question.
Of course, you have to weigh up the chances of being caught.
You might be a totally innocent party in a road accident incident and it would only take one inquisitive cop or vehicle inspector to have a nose around the wreckage.
The odd bracket here or there - they miss, but something looking out of the ordinary is likely to attract attention.
If this were my situation, I'd be looking for another solution, a different vehicle.
This is my best advice.
I think we're back to: "Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it."
Post by: agg221 on July 25, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
.... to say nothing of the stress of a court case (these things can take ages to progress and even longer if you appeal) and the financial loss, even if you won your case.
The chances of a road-side inspection are very slim.
:-\
However, the police and VOSA would instantly notice a "low rider" Land Rover bodied "something" and pull it over.
If the DVLA and HMG Customs get a whiff of tax evasion they'll be on the case like a ton of bricks. They don't like people evading road tax and the result is often the destruction of the vehicle in question.
Of course, you have to weigh up the chances of being caught.
You might be a totally innocent party in a road accident incident and it would only take one inquisitive cop or vehicle inspector to have a nose around the wreckage.
The odd bracket here or there - they miss, but something looking out of the ordinary is likely to attract attention.
If this were my situation, I'd be looking for another solution, a different vehicle.
This is my best advice.
I think we're back to: "Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it."
I think as per Gene's comment, if you focus on priorities, a lowered vehicle is what really matters. All you need for this is to change the springs and wheels so if you stick with parabolics of a lower camber, you have the whole thing done on an otherwise standard vehicle.
I thought this was an interesting starting point:
auction: #324239435286The various things 'wrong' with it notwithstanding, it has many of the features from the wishlist (with the proviso that it turns out to be OK when inspected). It is already on a galvanised chassis; it is already automatic; it already has a roll bar in place which, if on inspection it proves suitable, would allow easy access seatbelts to be fitted. The vehicle has already been substantially changed so it isn't going to upset any purists to do more to it.
I see no advantage to heavy duty steering rods for on-road use and also no advantage to removing the front diff, but if you really wanted to you could disconnect the prop shaft. I am not really sure of the advantage of the S3 column. However, fitting an aftermarket power steering kit should be possible. Fitting small wheels and low camber springs should be straightforward. You would be on the road immediately without too many question marks.
The only down side is that the engine will be thirstier than you plan. That said, do you really do enough annual miles for that to matter? Petrol is around £4.30/gallon, assume a thirsty engine gives you 20miles to the gallon, that is 21.5p/mile. A 1300 Marina engine has a book fuel economy of 34mpg, so the annual saving would be £130 per thousand miles. You then need to offset the initial cost of purchase and fitting (the engine you are looking for is up on Ebay at the moment for £750; full recon would be around £1500 at best, custom adaptors etc. will be another £1000 or more). Your fuel vs. installation costs will offset at somewhere around the 30,000 mile mark - how long will that take to reach?
Alec
Post by: Wittsend on July 25, 2020, 02:30:20 PM
As a starting point ... from the ground up to the floor on my LWT is 22"
Then from the floor it's 14" to the seat.
The LWT is on standard rims with 6.50 tyres and standard springs.
There is 8" ground clearance under the diff(s).
10" SWB brake drum on back plate is 11.5" diameter, so you need a wheel with a dish/well of at least that so the wheel doesn't foul on the brake drum.
You need to take your own measurements, but I don't think you are going to save that many inches running (if you can) by running on Vauxhall Corsa wheels :shakeinghead
Have you thought about some sort of air suspension ???
Buses can "kneel down" at bus stops to allow the elderly etc. an easier step on board.
???
Post by: agg221 on July 25, 2020, 02:53:45 PM
The question is: "How low does it have to be to enable Barbara to clamber on board ?"
As a starting point ... from the ground up to the floor on my LWT is 22"
Then from the floor it's 14" to the seat.
The LWT is on standard rims with 6.50 tyres and standard springs.
There is 8" ground clearance under the diff(s).
Have you thought about some sort of air suspension ???
Buses can "kneel down" at bus stops to allow the elderly etc. an easier step on board.
???
Assuming you need 4" ground clearance (I would have thought more, but if you take it carefully over speed humps you could probably live with this) the most you can lower the ride height by on a fixed configuration is 4". Is that enough?
I suggested air suspension early on in this concept - very established in the custom car world and does not fundamentally change the suspension as you fit it in conjunction with the current springs so I think you should be able to keep the points. If you keep chassis, axles and suspension you will retain enough points but the V8 would also appear to be a legitimate engine and hence you could potentially keep (just) enough points even if the suspension does not apply. The first thing you would hit in standard configuration would be either the diff on the tub floor or the axle on the chassis rail. It should still be good for quite a few inches and would be within the abilities of hotrod builders to configure for you.
Alec
Post by: Genem on July 25, 2020, 07:01:57 PM
Cut the seatbox off at or about floor level, (Must be roughly equivalent to wheelchair seat height I'd guess ?) Plate across with appropriate boxing around the lifting mechanism poking through from below. Passenger trundles to side of vehicle, door wide open. Bum shuffle across onto a new (thinner ?) cushion at "floor" level, press a button/lever and air or hydraulics, chain-drive if you like to lift the seat, some pin mechanism to hold it at the required height. You could even stay "old school" and use a 1960s screw-jack clamped to the chassis rail, operated through the cill. Raise the cushion to normal height, bum-shuffle 90 degrees right in order to face front, seatbelt on. Job done, no changes required to engine, gearbox or chassis. Total damage ? 1 seatbox, maybe a hole in the cill.
Patent applied for...
:tiphat
Post by: Wittsend on July 25, 2020, 07:51:19 PM
It swung out when the door was opened. Aunty could shuffle across from her wheel chair and the seat swung back into the normal position. Uncle Lesley didn't have to pay a penny for the conversion (they collected the car and returned it a week later) and when he moved on, the car was converted back to standard seating. Sadly this was some years ago and both uncle and aunty have passed on so I can't give any specifics.
What Gene is suggesting (I guess) is something similar but with a jack or mini lift to raise the seat up into place.
There are loads of places that convert cars for disabled passengers and drivers. I bet they would have an acceptable solution.
Your local Social Services should be able to put you on to someone ???
The other thing you need to think about is being able to exit the vehicle quickly in an emergency without any help from the driver or passer by. You insurers would certainly want to know.
Post by: w3526602 on August 07, 2020, 09:07:23 AM
Comments are starting to get constructive. :cheers
I have already written off "MOT Exemption" (engine change). I regard the biggest drawback to be the inability to road-test before presenting for the test. Gone are the days when I would regard brakes as an optional extra .. I never had a problem driving without them.
Heavy duty track-rods? How many hours have our readers spent trying to remove old TREs? Are new track-rods available? I will admit to "not investigating" ... saw the ad for HD rods on Ebay, sent my money (for The Aunt). It would be nice if track-rods were made out of hex-bar, or just had a nut welded on, so we can get a proper grip with the stitsons. :whistle
Little engine (1.3 was "tongue in cheek", but will be investigated), A Marina 1.8 is the current preference (Same engine as MGB, so good spares back-up)
Retaining an S2 engine would have it's advantages, though it would be a "screamer" on little wheels. 3.5 diff?. You all know my age. My knees are complaining too. Humping a Landy "lump" in and out, is no longer my idea of fun. But I'd only expect to do it once. I already have a parcel hiding behind the sofa ... containing a new 1-ton chain hoist. (Barbara no longer "goes" behind sofas). We currently have the builders in (double doors between the lounge and hall so Barbara doesn't need to do a "three pointer" (in her over-powered buggy), between lounge and bathroom. The builders next job is to remove the uPVC front door, move it out to the edge of the step, and drop it three inches, so Barbara doesn't have to struggle over the three inch high "threshold" to get out of the house. She has been a prisoner for about three weeks. Our builder has also suggested extending our bathroom out into the alley between the bungalow and garage. The bathroom (actually a shower room) is 5ft x 6ft with a "wheel-in shower". Unfortunately, there is "just not quite too much room enough" to get a wheel-chair past the WC. 10ft x 6ft, with a bath (and bath hoist on a gantry) would be luxury by comparison. The builder estimates £15,000 for a proper job ... pitched roof between bungalow and garage roof, somewhat less for a flat roof at gutter level. I just thought you'd like to know that. :cool
Fuel consumption is not an issue ... Barbara's car has now reached 3000 miles, in a smidgen over 3,000 miles, in about two years from new. Depreciation is the killer ... probably more than £1 per mile.
She still drives a manual, with no difficulty, but IF she ever gets her knees done, DVLA will insist on a manual gearbox ... I can't remember for how long. Two months?
Is the Ford V6 an acceptable alternative engine? I once had a diesel Transit that had been fitted with a V6. Great fun!
Whatever, my brain will remain on gimbals until I have a project in front of me.
602
Post by: Wittsend on August 07, 2020, 10:36:02 AM
There's absolutely no need for extra paraphernalia or heavy duty or custom made steering rods :shakeinghead
The standard rods are perfectly suitable for the job - and cheaper than the HD kit which is 3 times the cost of standard.
The ball joints are the same.
If you are buying new there's no problem.
If you are dealing with old and rusty steering rods, then the ball joints will succumb to heat and Plusgas and a large vice and stilsons.
Just make sure you get the right replacement ball joints re shoulder or no shoulder.
After Knee surgery:
Why should the DVLA be involved ???
The DVLA will insist on nothing. You just have to be fit to drive (again).
Quote
When can I drive again?
You can resume driving when you can bend your knee enough to get in and out of a car and control the car properly.
This is usually around 6 to 8 weeks after your surgery, but check with your physiotherapist or doctor whether it's safe for you to drive.
The physiotherapists will give a programme of exercises to strengthen and get the new knees flexing.
Depending on progress they will say, and you will know when you are fit to drive - not the DVLA.
It's no different to anyone breaking a leg, an ankle or recovering from Covid-19.
Knee (or hip) replacement is not a illness, it's a temporary condition that will get better and your medical advisers will say when you can safely go back to driving - no need for an automatic transmission - unless that's what you prefer.
People do fit auto boxes to Series Land Rovers - for just these reasons, to take pressure off the legs - for the loss of 1 DVLA point.
???
Post by: w3526602 on August 07, 2020, 12:30:52 PM
Why should DVLA be involved? Google says ...
When can I drive? If you had surgery on your right knee, you should not drive for at least 4 weeks. After 4 weeks you may return to driving as soon as you feel comfortable. If you had surgery on your left knee, you may return to driving as soon as you feel comfortable if you have an automatic transmission.
OK, I thought it was longer. I assume that somebody will notify DVLA ... who will promply disqualify you on medical grounds. You then appeal, and DVLA will (I think) immediately re-instate your licence, and urgently arrange a disabled driving test, I think at their expense, (by which time your period in "purdah" will have ended anyway).
In my day, if a member of the public "dobbed" on a disabled driver, or an un-taxed vehicle parked on the road, it WOULD be investigated. However, they would not act on anonymous reports.
Barbara had one professional lesson, before taking her driving test in South East London. Her licence restricted her licence to "A Motor Car, and a Motor Tricycle" ... with no Provisional entitlement. Fifty years later, it shows the same groups as my licence B+E. I think she can now ride a moped. She has never ridden a pedal cycle.
My understanding, according to an Appeal Court ruling, is that Medical Disquialification does NOT cancel your insurance. However, if the claim is big enough, the insurers may feel it's worth a fight ... make you prove that you were fit to drive. I believe she is fit to drive anything she can climb into ... she has driven my S1 LWB, a Ferrari, FAST round Silverstone, and done a three hour pony (15hh?) trek along the sand dunes of Swansea Bay. You've got to admire the girl.
My understanding (again) is that such a driving test is to prove your ability to drive safely, rather than "by the book".
OK ... if it's only a month, we can live with not going auto.
OK (2) ... that obviates the need to find an engine with auto gearbox, which brings a Series power train back onto the agenda, with the added bonus of coming with a hand-brake. We don't do enough miles to make fuel consumption an issue, although individual journeys may make us gulp (50 miles at £1 per mile ... no I haven't done the math),and we will still have Barbara's Mundane-mobile.
So ... little wheels, and droopy springs? I might as well keep the 4x4 bits too. If it goes wrong, I'll blame you.
Nothing is "writ in stone" until I have a project in my front garden. Is everybody happy now?
Many yonks ago (60 years?) I read something about the relationship between "gearing" and fuel consumption ... it's not directly proportional ... fitting 750 tyres on a SWB does not give you 15% more miles per gallon. Does anybody have any thoughts?
602
Post by: Wittsend on August 07, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
The hospital won't dob you in to the DVLA, they have more important things to do.
The doctors will advise how long you should stay off the road.
Should you go driving before then and have an accident when medically advised not to do so you will get done.
If you are fit to drive then what's the problem ???
Post by: agg221 on August 07, 2020, 12:55:52 PM
By the end of her stay in hospital her left knee would only bend to 120deg at best.
She then went back into hospital a couple of weeks later with a pulmonary embolism so in total she was in there for 8 months and could not drive.
The hospital advised her to inform DVLA, she chose not to since she couldn't drive anyway and at the end of it all she went and had knee surgery which means she could drive again if she wanted to. In practice she has chosen not to, but her insurance (complete with NCB) and licence were completely unaffected.
Common sense says you know when you can drive or not, and if you follow it then DVLA does not need to concern itself with such matters.
Alec
Post by: w3526602 on August 07, 2020, 02:52:29 PM
We reckoned that young men with diabetes were the worst offenders ... they seemed to think that life had dealt them a crook hand (which it probably had). Persuading
Whatever, if a quack tells me not to drive for a month ... then I won't.
I think it's Section 143 , or is it 148 (?) of the RTA which covers insurance. It authorises the insurers to reclaim their losses from the Policy Holder, under specified circumstances. I do not mess with insurance.
602