Daihatsu Hijet build

[Brainsparks30]

Before I go to deep, I would like to know if its viable to chop off the rusty sills and weld a box section in, rock slider style. MOT issues?

I'll add more to this as it progresses.

 

[Ruffian]

Provided it's continuous welded as per a repair patch, and no sharp edges it's fine.
Done a few older transits similar way.

 

[stuvy]

It’s a chav way of doing it as opposed to a proper job

 

[winchman]

Loads of Discoverys are done this way

 

[stuvy]

Granted discos are but that’s for strength off road not because you can’t make a proper panel to fit

 

[winchman]

Granted discos are but that’s for strength off road not because you can’t make a proper panel to fit

I think mine was done as it was quicker and cheaper? I farmed it out!

 

[130]

In the last few years VOSA have been saying "modifications" tonthe body call a vehicles identity into question

The world including body shops is largely ignoring this.

 

[130]

Let me expand on my no-warranty understanding of this;

Say you have a rusty hole in the sill
If you weld a nasty MOT garage style plate over the rust creating a rust trap that's OK
If you cut a section out of the sill and let a plate in flush but you can't tie that to one of the car manufacturers general repair procedures you just called the cars identity into question and it needs some sort of test, even if you then sprayed it and made it invisible.
If you cut out the rust and do rust prevention, Zinc primer and a lap joint so it has the appearance of the "nasty MOT garage style" repair without the rust trap implications that is also not allowed, even though it looks identical.

Expanding on this most pattern parts rust repair sections, such as rear arches could call a cars identity into question, unless cut from an expensive OE panel AND there is a manufacturers specific or general procedure that allows it.

Now anyone with a classic wanders around autojumbles and will see a wealth of left over / off cut panels where using a section gave a better, less expensive or less intrusive repair as this has been practice for decades, but, as I understand it under the words being used, the cars identity is brought into question.


I don't know how the debate has progressed in recent years as most appear to ignore it.

https://www.scimitarweb.co.uk/sgwrs/viewtopic.php?t=34255&start=30
https://ssvc.org.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=71567&start=90

 

[HopefullySoon]

I’ve been pondering the new rules for a bit , I want to preserve historic status ... but been contemplating if an engine swap on the MG for anything but a V8 would preserve its status .

I hoped to get out under the ‘environmental clause ‘ ... better fuel Efficiency and less harm to the environment (I was thinking about an MG TF 160 VVC engine ) , but as I read it that’s going to be out under the 15% power-weight ratio gain .

So it looks like I’m going to shove a V8 in to stay within the rules , burn more fuel , polute the environment more and all to keep historic status

Sheesh

 

[Morris]

Let me expand on my no-warranty understanding of this;

Say you have a rusty hole in the sill
If you weld a nasty MOT garage style plate over the rust creating a rust trap that's OK
If you cut a section out of the sill and let a plate in flush but you can't tie that to one of the car manufacturers general repair procedures you just called the cars identity into question and it needs some sort of test, even if you then sprayed it and made it invisible.
If you cut out the rust and do rust prevention, Zinc primer and a lap joint so it has the appearance of the "nasty MOT garage style" repair without the rust trap implications that is also not allowed, even though it looks identical.

Expanding on this most pattern parts rust repair sections, such as rear arches could call a cars identity into question, unless cut from an expensive OE panel AND there is a manufacturers specific or general procedure that allows it.

Now anyone with a classic wanders around autojumbles and will see a wealth of left over / off cut panels where using a section gave a better, less expensive or less intrusive repair as this has been practice for decades, but, as I understand it under the words being used, the cars identity is brought into question.


I don't know how the debate has progressed in recent years as most appear to ignore it.

https://www.scimitarweb.co.uk/sgwrs/viewtopic.php?t=34255&start=30
https://ssvc.org.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=71567&start=90

This is incorrect. Repairs are acceptable as long as they are to MOT standard. I can tell you for a fact that wheel arch repairs do not even appear on the radar as far as identity is concerned.
The first link you have posted is two years out of date. It is about proposed MOT changes not identity but all the information you need is in the very first post of the thread.
The second link is to a discussion about chassis notching VW chassis legs. Definitely a no-no and well documented, also very clear in the rules.

 

[Morris]

I’ve been pondering the new rules for a bit , I want to preserve historic status ... but been contemplating if an engine swap on the MG for anything but a V8 would preserve its status .

I hoped to get out under the ‘environmental clause ‘ ... better fuel Efficiency and less harm to the environment (I was thinking about an MG TF 160 VVC engine ) , but as I read it that’s going to be out under the 15% power-weight ratio gain .

So it looks like I’m going to shove a V8 in to get by the rules , burn more fuel , polute the environment more and all to keep historic status

Sheesh

There is no 15% rule, it was never implemented.
Why the hell are people hung up on preserving the "historic status"? If you are going to put a different engine in it it clearly is not that important to you. Or is it just to avoid an MOT? Even with the engine swap it's still Historic with no cost tax.
Morris, owner of an Historic V8 powered Humber Hawk.

 

[HopefullySoon]

I want to preserve its status for a few reasons


Firstly if I ever sell it (which I don’t plan on ) it’s a feature being MOT exempt

Secondly more BHP is more BHP , one way or the other I’ll have some

Thirdly I have a problem handing cash over to the authority for no reason ... make of that what you want .

Fourthly it’s not to get round MOT .... I’m more than capable of presenting a car that won’t fail (I’ve been doing my own mech’s for over 20 years ... never had a car fail yet when I’ve presented one of mine , I do admit to shoving mates in first and fixing faults ) , it’s to do more with playing by the rules they set .

 

[130]

This is incorrect. Repairs are acceptable as long as they are to MOT standard. I can tell you for a fact that wheel arch repairs do not even appear on the radar as far as identity is concerned.
The first link you have posted is two years out of date. It is about proposed MOT changes not identity but all the information you need is in the very first post of the thread.
The second link is to a discussion about chassis notching VW chassis legs. Definitely a no-no and well documented, also very clear in the rules.

As we know passing an MOT is easy.

Now go and find recent reference that shows that cutting the monocoque using a procedure NOT referenced by the manufacturer doesn't call a vehicles identity into question.

 

[HopefullySoon]

As we know passing an MOT is easy.

Now go and find recent reference that shows that cutting the monocoque using a procedure NOT referenced by the manufacturer doesn't call a vehicles identity into question.

Most body shops that cut and butt or joggle and weld would fall foul then .

Show me an approved manf. Accident Repair system for a 30 yr old vehicle (if the manf still exsists ) ??? It’s a unicorn and Doesn’t exsists hence grey areas ....

 

[130]

Most body shops that cut and butt or joggle and weld would fall foul then .

Not for me to provide the answer, I believe VOSA don't try to provide one.
Best you can do in here is point out (quote VOSA on a link?) something has changed so my understanding is fundamentally flawed.

However, the onus is on "you" to prove it's a valid manufacturer repair principle so a knowledge gap isn't a get out clause.​

Show me an approved manf. Accident Repair system for a 30 yr old vehicle (if the manf still exsists ) ??? It’s a unicorn and Doesn’t exsists hence grey areas ....

As it happens I have the dealer repair manuals for post 1976 Cav / Manta B and probably post 1973 Kadett C, Some handy stuff is in there, but everything specifies OE. Now the Daimler V8 Saloon workshop manual dating from the 60s recommended sectioning the wings rather than removing due to the leaded wing joints.

If you look online and search BMW TIS you will find generic procedures in some manuals for some processes, everything OE, nothing on sectioning sills or aftermarket.

Lets face it dealers and manufacturers love selling their parts.

 

[Morris]

As we know passing an MOT is easy.

Now go and find recent reference that shows that cutting the monocoque using a procedure NOT referenced by the manufacturer doesn't call a vehicles identity into question.

I think we may be at slight cross purposes. I took your post to reference older cars as it's not a common site to see patched up modern-ish stuff about. I'm well aware of the issues with modern steels etc. While you may well be correct if the rules are interpreted to the letter I suspect that in real terms it would not be an issue unless the repair was so gash that it could not be ignored.

DVLA's actual stance on this was clarified some time back. "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. The phrase "in line with" is not the same as "exactly as told by the manufacturer". The other issue is "...each case will be judged on its merits." I am well aware of how modifications are handled but have no idea whether any repairs have ever been questioned with regard to identity.

 

[130]

"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.

Yup again, we're back to the sill analogy, only a new OE sill complete is in line with many manufacturers processes and many of those, especially for classics, are not available.

So as I said earlier, for the most part people and businesses are carrying on regardless.

Irony here is for example a certain classic group B car was based on a road going shell.
I could argue that if you fit an arch section you call the identity into question, yet because every group B car that had a wide arch kit had the arches badly cut out and multiple L shaped plates badly welded in, and that because that KIT was available as parts through a dealer network that the wide arch kit fitting and rough plating is an approved process but tidily using an arch section should get you an inspection.

That fliesin the face of the basic, if you can't see it is "modified" it's ok approach people seem to be using.