Modern running gear into a classic car - DVLA implications?

[robatr0n]

Hi all,

I appreciate that this has probably been done to death but I'm hopefully looking for some answers in layman's terms.

I have a 1967 mk2 Cortina 1600GT that has sat in the garage since the early 80s without moving a wheel. I had always planned to clean it up and restore it but I've been having thoughts about putting modern running gear in it. I was thinking something along the lines of a Zetec engine, Type 9 gearbox, rack & pinion steering etc..

From my research, the DVLA offer a point based system for radically altered cars or rebuilt cars. Would uprating the suspension to the modern day equivalent contravene that particular checkbox? Or is it more a case of "Don't change the solid axle for independent rear suspension!" ?

In an ideal world I would love to be able to 'modernise' the running gear to make it a usable car that would have no issues keeping up with modern traffic but if it introduces a whole host of issues then I can just keep it original.

And no, this isn't a debate over whether I should or shouldn't keep it original. It's been in the family since the early 70s and will continue to do so.

Thanks in advance.
 

[Phil H]

Without getting the calculator out I think you can keep the identity with an unmodified bodyshell and the axles, whilst changing the steering, engine and transmission.

The trickiest one is not having to do body mods in order to incorporate the mods. As daft as it sounds, cutting a single bracket or mounting off theoretically could cause issues.

[robatr0n]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm almost 100% certain that the transmission tunnel would not need modifying to fit the gearbox. I know the engine slots straight in. I'll carry on with my research regardless.

Do you know how strict they are when it comes to suspension? I would hope that the modern day equivalent would be fine but I just don't know how anal they would be.

[Phil H]

Just went a typed a chuffing great reply that got lost..

I suspect due to the vague descriptions, there isn't a definitive answer - or it depends on how the question is phrased.

"Can I use Capri front struts on my Cortina and keep the 2 points?" - theoretically no.
"Can I use the same front suspension unit type from a different model by the same manufacturer and keep the 2 points?" - likely yes...

[robatr0n]

This is my, I presume many others, major gripe. It's incredibly unclear.

[kenb]

A long as you don't change the suspension type you will be fine, ie struts to wishbone or solid rear axle to independent type. I have a Corsair with zetec and type 9 I use original struts with coil overs and same rear axle. I didn't chop the bodywork though I do have a steering rack, but it went through normal MoT just fine.

[colnerov]

Jul 25, 2018 11:53:18 GMT robatr0n said:

This is my, I presume many others, major gripe. It's incredibly unclear.

Hi, It's helpful for us because it's open to interpretation and gives flexibility. If it was clear it could be like the Germans TUV historic which is 'No changes'.

Colin

[Phil H]

Jul 25, 2018 13:52:17 GMT kenb said:

A long as you don't change the suspension type you will be fine, ie struts to wishbone or solid rear axle to independent type. I have a Corsair with zetec and type 9 I use original struts with coil overs and same rear axle. I didn't chop the bodywork though I do have a steering rack, but it went through normal MoT just fine.

Don’t confuse passing an MoT with authority to retain a vehicles identity. Some do and class it as “it’s all OK mate” when it’s nothing to do with it.

[Implandy]

Think most of the questions are answered in this now quite old statement but still relevant


Chassis.

Q) What is classed as chassis? Is it purely the outer longitudinal rails or are the crossmembers between these also a part of the chassis?

A) Chassis should be taken to include crossmembers.

Q) We know that cutting or shortening a chassis is classed as modification but is this relative to the vehicle wheelbase i.e. the chassis must remain uncut between the 2 axles but anything forward of front or aft of rear suspension mounts can be removed?

A) Chassis includes the full original length of the longitudinal members including to the front of the front axle and to the rear of the rear axle.

Q) Is it acceptable to remove bodymounts, which contribute no strength to the chassis when changing a body to a different style /make?

A) Yes, providing they are additional to and are not an integral part of the chassis structure.

Q) Is it acceptable to strengthen a chassis by the addition of boxing plates a process that involves turning a 3-sided open chassis rail into a fully enclosed 'box' chassis?

A) Yes, providing the original structure remains unchanged.

Monococque.

Q) What is the definition of a monococque ?

A) A design in which body and chassis are all one unit.

Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before.

A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity.

Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make?

A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure.

Q) Is it acceptable to fully weld sections that are spot-welded as part of the original construction methods, to increase the strength of the body?

A) Yes, providing the original structure is retained.

ACE felt that further clarification was needed from VOSA so we sent more questions.

The following responses are from the VOSA Press Office:-

The answers to our chassied vehicle rules queries seem mainly straightforward, However, we have further questions based on the answers supplied.

Q) As chassis strengthening is allowed, are we correct in assuming that additional crossmembers would also be allowed?

A) It is important that the original chassis structure is retained unmodified, and while it is acceptable to strengthen areas and include additional brackets or crossmembers, It would be limited to additions within the existing chassis frame structure. Additional chassis structures, i.e. extending the outward parameters of the original chassis structure would be considered a modification.

Q) It is the monococque rules that need the most clarification.
Your reply states that any cutting of the monococque" is considered to render the vehicle identity no longer original specification or of original identity ". This would suggest that any crash repairs necessitating cutting and removal of panels or chassis sections, or restoration work would call the vehicle's identity into question?

We presume that the point should really be that any cutting... other than in factory designed joining areas...would be the actual criteria?

A) In this respect it is necessary to differentiate between modification and repair. Any repair process that is in line with manufacturer's recommendations and that returns the structure to its original specification would not be considered to be a modification.

Q) Would the modification of wings to allow clearance for larger wheels fall foul of the regulations?

We presume not as the common fitment of sunroofs does not create issues as this is a non stressed item of the monococque, the same as wings?"

A) When considering a monocoque structure, it is necessary to consider what constitutes cosmetic panels that do not significantly add to the structural strength and which panels provide structural integrity. In general front wings modified in this way would not constitute a modification to the monocoque structure.

With reference to the further query, VOSA have advised that they would prefer the following statement:

What constitutes a monocoque is that of how an OEM manufacturer would view it. The chassis or `cage` assembly and all components that form it, less any cosmetic panels or infills that make no structural consideration to the monocoque or its component parts.
However, we must emphasis that this information is given for general guidance and each case will be judged on its merits.

Whilst none of this is definitive, and it contains the usual 'Judged on it's own merits' criteria, it does answer a lot of questions where the modifier has only been able to speculate in the past.

It means we are aware of what we can or cannot do and still retain the 5 points from the start of any modification process.

So, to summarise the above information:

Chassis

It is acceptable to box original chassis and also to add additional crossmembers but not to alter the existing chassis in any way to allow for their installation.

It is acceptable to remove NON STRUCTURAL body mounts and engine / gearbox mounts.

It is NOT acceptable to shorten, or lengthen the chassis, either in between standard suspension points or fore and aft of these.

Any additional items welded creating a longer overall chassis are classed as modifications. It would however be acceptable to bolt a reasonably sized additional subframe to existing mounting holes.

Any outriggers (as opposed to continuous chassis frame) fore or aft from the chassis would need clarification from VOSA as to their purpose before removal or alteration was accepted. This would be based on their purpose and whether they formed part of the vehicles original Type Approval.

Monococques

It is NOT acceptable for the bulkhead, or transmission tunnel area, to be modified.

The specification for a monococque will vary with each manufacturer and the decision on what are acceptable modifications will be based on those criteria for each vehicle.

It is acceptable for additional seam welding to be carried out.

Should there be any further questions relating the above information on specific vehicles ACE would be willing to assist in further clarification on an individual basis.

The above information relates to only 5 points (awarded for original unmodified chassis / monococque) of the 8 points system for retaining vehicle identity and we will be clarifying other sections in the future

[kenb]

Jul 25, 2018 14:50:19 GMT Phil H said:

Jul 25, 2018 13:52:17 GMT kenb said:

A long as you don't change the suspension type you will be fine, ie struts to wishbone or solid rear axle to independent type. I have a Corsair with zetec and type 9 I use original struts with coil overs and same rear axle. I didn't chop the bodywork though I do have a steering rack, but it went through normal MoT just fine.

Don’t confuse passing an MoT with authority to retain a vehicles identity. Some do and class it as “it’s all OK mate” when it’s nothing to do with it.

I wasn't. I merely stated I had done the same mods and to a similar car as the op was proposing and I still have 8 points. Just pointing out I've gone for a normal mot and had no issues in as much the tester didn't have any issues over said mods.

[robatr0n]

Okay, thanks for all the replies. It really is much appreciated and has given me food for thought. From what you guys have posted, Implandy in-particular, I think that so long as I can fit the engine and gearbox without cutting or modifying the shell that I would have enough points elsewhere for the car to keep it's registration mark and not require a Q plate.

Slightly off topic but I assume that you're into Imps, Implandy? I used to have an aztec gold Imp with green interior that we had Malcolm Anderson rebuild the engine to a 930cc. Still have the engine sat on a work bench actually!

[Implandy]

yes Imps a Clan and Landies with smattering of Alfa Romeo's and a RCZ as a daily, 930 is a great road engine , if you ever need rid give me a shout .

[kevins]

The other woolly point is there is a cut off date (1986?) before which almost anything goes, I don't know how they prove when the mods were done.
I am working on 100e with a neigbour, he bought with a horrible box like bulkhead and larger trans tunnel partially welded in (it once had a pinto in it but never got to the road), no idea when it was done but certainly a long time ago, plan is to return it to something closer to original and fit a 1600 kent engine plus the usual escort based front end set up and keep the live axle on leafs, for legality we are just going to assume it was originally done before the cut off date.

[robatr0n]

Jul 26, 2018 19:56:52 GMT Implandy said:

yes Imps a Clan and Landies with smattering of Alfa Romeo's and a RCZ as a daily, 930 is a great road engine , if you ever need rid give me a shout .

A man after my own heart. My wife drives a GTV V6.

I'm almost certain that Malcolm Anderson rebuilt it to a 930 engine but will there be anything obvious to substantiate this? He rebuilt it about 15 years ago and it's been sat on the work bench ever since. I guess I could give him a ring but I doubt he'd even remember us!

[robatr0n]

Jul 27, 2018 9:47:31 GMT kevins said:

The other woolly point is there is a cut off date (1986?) before which almost anything goes, I don't know how they prove when the mods were done.
I am working on 100e with a neigbour, he bought with a horrible box like bulkhead and larger trans tunnel partially welded in (it once had a pinto in it but never got to the road), no idea when it was done but certainly a long time ago, plan is to return it to something closer to original and fit a 1600 kent engine plus the usual escort based front end set up and keep the live axle on leafs, for legality we are just going to assume it was originally done before the cut off date.

Interesting!

Thanks for your input.

[Implandy]

kevins , the owner has to prove it was done prior to the cutoff date, informing DVLA that the engine had changed is solid proof, does the V5 show a Pinto engine ? or something dated like a magazine article ,

[kenb]

Its 88 and thats for non MoT status not the vehicles identity. A zetec wasn't around until well after that so wont help the OP in this situation.

[kevins]

He has alreeady revised the reg doc to the 1600 and they didn't query any thing, we intend to "repair" it back to something very close to the later
Ones which had a kent engine originally anyway. He has some old photos with the pinto but no way of dating them.

Interestingly a few years ago I got involved with a vehicle being modified for a TV show, Vosa were also involved and as long as they didn't cut into the structural box members were fine with them cutting chunks of floor etc away.

Bottom line is there are thousands of vehicles out there which fail these guidelines, If you do a good safe job of it and don't go too radical most people seem to get away with it, of more importance is making sure it is all declared to the insurance and safe and MOT'd as these will get you in far hotter water. The worse that happens here is you are forced into IVA anyway.