Franken-rod thing on late brake show

[Adambt]

Thought this was a very cool build on a tight budget, and looks like a lot of fun. But couldn't help wondering; would this thing actually be road legal with so little of the original car left? Genuine question as I don't know the ins and outs of such things!

[ajprice]

It would need Caterham type cycle arches over the tyres for a start.

[rattlecan]

Feb 15, 2021 16:04:21 GMT ajprice said:

It would need Caterham type cycle arches over the tyres for a start.

Not if you’re a rebel 😉

[Dez]

The only thing about this build that is sailing close to the wind in terms of legalities, is that strictly speaking Rover p3s are not separate chassis vehicles. The back half of them is semi-monocoque, in that the rear axle mounts to the body shell as the chassis stops halfway along the vehicle.(can can clearly see the new fabricated rear chassis rails in the video, and the chassis is only a half chassis) . It’s a very weird setup and given they were only made for two years you’d need a proper trainspotter to call you out on it. Oddly Rover went back to a full chassis for the p4 two years later.

Overall I think it’s not too badly built,, and it isn’t trying to claim to be anything it’s not or deceive, so If it was down to me be happy to let it keep its rover p3 identity tbh.

[Darkspeed]

For me - where its not quite right legally is that it looks like it’s on the road as MOT exempt, and appears from online info that it’s never seen any sort of test or inspection since being completed.

[mk2cossie]

Feb 15, 2021 19:05:27 GMT Darkspeed said:

For me - where its not quite right legally is that it looks like it’s on the road as MOT exempt, and appears from online info that it’s never seen any sort of test or inspection since being completed.

but thats because it has "surely" been built retaining the points of the original car and has just had a body and engine swap

The owner says it is original chassis, axles and stering in the video. So it should score enough points to be what it claims to

And it can also legally have a hydraulic handbrake for its age and MOT testing

(i know someone has mentioned about the chassis above)

[Adambt]

Thanks for the replies everyone, it's good to see it's still possible to create something very unique and custom "within the rules"!

[grizz]

Loved it the day he unearthed it.

Thanks for posting up

[brc76]

Purely based on the above, I'll give it a watch.

[bstardchild]

Enjoyed that - fanks for sharing

[Darkspeed]

Feb 15, 2021 20:07:59 GMT mk2cossie said:

Feb 15, 2021 19:05:27 GMT Darkspeed said:

For me - where its not quite right legally is that it looks like it’s on the road as MOT exempt, and appears from online info that it’s never seen any sort of test or inspection since being completed.

but thats because it has "surely" been built retaining the points of the original car and has just had a body and engine swap

The owner says it is original chassis, axles and stering in the video. So it should score enough points to be what it claims to

And it can also legally have a hydraulic handbrake for its age and MOT testing

(i know someone has mentioned about the chassis above)

I made no reference to registration legality or points - Simply pointing out that it fails to meet the the requirements for MOT exemption.

[mk2cossie]

Feb 16, 2021 21:10:35 GMT Darkspeed said:

Feb 15, 2021 20:07:59 GMT mk2cossie said:

but thats because it has "surely" been built retaining the points of the original car and has just had a body and engine swap

The owner says it is original chassis, axles and stering in the video. So it should score enough points to be what it claims to

And it can also legally have a hydraulic handbrake for its age and MOT testing

(i know someone has mentioned about the chassis above)

I made no reference to registration legality or points - Simply pointing out that it fails to meet the the requirements for MOT exemption.

My apologies
Surely the main structure of it being as it should, and an engine change to something more modern/economical means it still remains MOT exempt in the owners eyes?

I have seen many vehicles posted on here, YouTube, and Instagram which should NOT be mot test exempt. Let alone tax exempt

But thats the choices the owners make I guess.
Certainly won't be claimed MOT exemption on any vehicle I own, think it is an absurd ideology

[Paul H]

Feb 15, 2021 17:07:28 GMT Dez said:

The only thing about this build that is sailing close to the wind in terms of legalities, is that strictly speaking Rover p3s are not separate chassis vehicles. The back half of them is semi-monocoque, in that the rear axle mounts to the body shell as the chassis stops halfway along the vehicle.(can can clearly see the new fabricated rear chassis rails in the video, and the chassis is only a half chassis) . It’s a very weird setup and given they were only made for two years you’d need a proper trainspotter to call you out on it. Oddly Rover went back to a full chassis for the p4 two years later.

That's interesting - I'd always assumed that the P3 was little more than a basic update of the P2, with the main change being IFS. Just googled to see what it all looks like, and as you say, a strange set-up, especially as the body part doesn't look to have much in the way of additional structure over the back axle but also with what looks like a subframe attached to the rear spring hangers, which then bolts to the body.