richyb66

2.3 found in Granadas and Cortinas, all carburettor 2.8 found in Granadas in carb and injection form and in Capris in injection form only. Early cars are 4 speed, later ones (post '83ish) were 5 speed Type 9. The 4 speed box is much stronger and will take hefty abuse unlike the 5 speed which can be problematic if pushed. The cologne engine is a good, torquey, free revving engine, it's just a pity it's a little on the heavy side. Also it's not especially cheap to tune.

2.8 and 2.3 cologne V6 have siamese exhaust ports so the exhause manifolds are smaller than the Essex (and 2.9 Cologne V6) which have 3 exhaust ports. I'm pretty sure you can swap the manifolds from side to side so you could potentially use a stubby cast manifold and have the outlet pointing forward and then curve the downpipe down and rearwards to clear the steering column - which I think is what TVR did. Neglected Cologne engines have a habit of spinning the cam bearings which cuts off the oil supply up to ther rockers leading to accelerated wear and noise so be wary of engines that you can't hear running. You can check the rockers if you pull a cover off, back off a tappet adjuster and slide the rocker arm sidewards against the spring - if it doesn't slide or feels loose, it's probably knackered.

My dates don't tally either. Date of first registered is as donor, date of manufacture is October 2011 (IVA pass). The only problem this has caused so far is that after intially taxing it for 6 months, my postal reminder asked for an MOT certificate so I couldn't tax it online. I ended up self-declaring that no MOT was due as described in my thread here: http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=32201&view=findpost&p=252544 As usual there seems to be no defined process and the actual V5 details will depend on which DVLA office processes the application (mine was Worcester).

Easier yes, but I wondered thether GBS have plans to adapt the design so that this 'work around' becomes unnecessary. VOSA are obviously aware that these 'work arounds' are being used and are trying to clamp down on them. My own view is that if steps are being taken to circumvent certain areas of the test, in the longer term it will be bad for both the kit suppliers and for kit builders because VOSA will just clamp down on it and make the testing more stringent (and more expensive knowing VOSA). We are very fortune in the UK to have a healthy kit car industry and it would be sad to end up like the rest of Europe where kits are effectively legislated off the roads. I think the kit suppliers should be committed to designing and supplying kits that are as compliant to the regulations as they can make them, as part of an ongoing process of developing and improving the product rather than having kits that are built in pre-IVA and post-IVA stages.

So presumably all the zeros shown on GBS's gallery that are road cars have had the screens fitted after IVA? Surely it would be better if they addressed the issues of the screen pillar rads and the glass marking and gave builders the option of passing IVA with a fully compliant, complete car that needs nothing else fitting to it to circumvent the regulations?

600kg? What engine are you running? Seriously though, I'd use shopping trolley castors - available for just £1 for a set of 4 apparently.

Never mind the tent - is that a Talbot Solara?

Sounds like a good day out and cracking weather. Is that a Nash Metropolitain in the second photo, I take it that wasn't running?

Who did the re-test, was it Mick?

I used a fine hacksaw blade with gaffer tape wrapped around one end. Use masking tape as a guide and take your time. It doesn't take as long as you think and won't damage the surface of the boonnet.

3.5mm minimum character height, capitals and numerals only.

If it's a more or less standard Pinto, put what I said in my earlier post. These are the figures that are quoted in the Haynes manual so if you need to verify the source of the information, you can do. For what it's worth 77kw is about 103bhp, either figure will do for the IVA form but I quoted kw because that's the units that that Haynes use and 5200 rpm is about right. Higher rpm figures would make a fail on exhaust noise far more likely.

I just put "2 SEAT SPORTS" which seemed to work OK. I can't attach a copy of my IVA form as it's too big - pm me an e-mail address if you want a copy mailing over.

Yes, I had mine engraved on a stainless steel plate with a 10mm hole each end which I puddle welded to the chassis. For good measure I then put 4 short seam welds around the edge of the plate. The stainless chassis can be difficult to get a good stamp on and with an engraved plate, you can use big characters (8 or 10mm hight) so it's nice and easy to read.

I used the following figures for my 2B at IVA last October, engine is standard 2 litre Pinto Max design road speed 100mph Max power and engine speed - 77kw @5200rpm Design weights - Axle 1 - 450Kg, Axle 2 - 600Kg, Gross - 1050Kg For the towable mass I put N/A as I don't plan on towing a trailer and think it might complicate the braking calculations and make the car less likely to pass.

That's Gaz's old trailer.

No, only the vision angles apply and for the other 2 lights (fog and reverse), only the fog has a specific requirement for the reflector to face squarely to the rear (which I failed on as it was about 5 degrees off vertical).

You're not wrong there - from memory the Insolvency Partner was charging £350/hr and even the admin clerks were charged at £65/hr!!!! No wonder they've been dragging it out for so long.

I'm still getting payments from the fallout of the MG Rover collapse (2005), the amounts are small compared to what I was owed and tbh, I can hardly be bothered to cash the cheques. The only people that do well out of it are the Receivers.

Basically agree with what Alan said, which means you're unlikely to get a definitive answer - just many different options which will work. You could also have a look at Colin Usher's website and the cooling section which shows a Coolman rad fitted to a 2B: http://www.colinusher.info/Robin%20Hood/cool.html Lots of good info here and hose part numbers.

Tax sorted at the Post Office with a V112, I just declared the car as made in 2011 in Section 3 of the form and they never batted an eye. In 5 minutes I was out of the place witha 12 months tax disc (and £220 lighter). I am expecting some correspondance from the DVLA because they didn't keep the V112, they just did a visual check but I can deal with any fall-out later. I also double checked with VOSA and they confirmed fthe irst MOT is due 3 years after IVA but also said that DVLA can sometimes request an MOT before that. More proof if ever it was needed that no-one seems to understand the correct procedure. V112 is attached. V112.pdf

Thanks for that. At least GBS's position is clearer now, they are happy with a condition that passes the IVA test and don't plan on making any changes. Also, it take it from your response that you have some connection with GBS?

OK, got my awning rail yesterday. I take it the rail does go around the top (outside) edge of the screen frame, not on the front face?

At least we all seem to agree that this is a good build up in forum knowledge, my concern lies with the distinction between something that passes IVA and something that is compliant with IVA standards and therefore a safer and more suitable condition in service. The standards seem pretty clear on the issue of belts that are changed in direction by slots in the seat - the seat becomes the effective anchorage and consideration should be given to the seat back strength. This shouldn't be open to interpretation, the wording is clear enough which is why I'm suprised that examiners aren't applying the standard correctly and asking for evidence of the seat strength. This was the point I was originally making and the advice I gave was based on this. If the only concern is whether the seat and belt configuration shown will pass IVA then the concensus seems to be that it will do which shows that the examiners are, on the whole, either ignoring this particular part of the standard or are applying their own interpretation to some fairly unambiguous wording. Going back to my original response, the suggestions I made there and bearing in mind the distinction between an IVA pass and IVA standard compliance, I'd be interested to hear GBSC's view on the Zero harness routing when used with their own seats, would they agree that although the condition does seem to pass IVA, it doesn't actually comply with the standard (assuming that there's no documented evidence to demonstrated the strength of the seat back). Additionally, if there is an opportunity to improve the harness installation to achieve a condition that is more in line with IVA standards, is this something that they would consider doing or do they intend to keep the current condition (an IVA Pass but possibly not compliant to the standard)? Finally, Hammy - good luck with the IVA. The best advice anyone gave me about IVA is that the things you worry the most about beforehand aren't the things that you generally fail on.

Is that "they don't" as in the examiner won't ask for documentation to support the seat strength? How can you be so sure, if I was examining a car with belts fitted as Hammy showed in his original post, I'd want to know that the seat frame isn't going to collapse. I have the same seats in my 2B and I moved my upper seat belt mounts so that the belts don't put any load into the seat when they're pulled tight because I think the seat frames aren't strong enough to take a lateral belt load without deformation. If GBS design the seats to withstand the belt loads then they should provided documentation to support this with every seat they supply or post the information here so people can be confident that the seats are ok. If the point of the original topic is just to pass IVA then we all know there will be different outcomes depending on who examines the car and I think it's misleading to suggest that seats and belts fitted to this condition will pass as they are (if that is what you're suggesting from you brief reply). Unless there is definitive documentation that can be produced at the IVA that can counter comments from the examiner that seat might not be strong enough to take the belt loads, then you have to consider that this a possible IVA fail point (depending on examiner). Personally I'd rather not leave this point to chance and risk a scrape though on IVA. This isn't some minor sharp edge on a wheelarch, this is a seatbelt we're talking about. I'd rather have a condition that passes IVA and is also going to be safe and functional in the event that something unfortunate happens. I still say that the seats aren't strong enough to support the seatbelt loads and I base the observation on my 20+ years automotive design experience (including seat belt mounting design, belt installations and witnessing seat belt pull tests and crash tests). If Hammy's belt installation can be proved to be a 100% pass ever time condition then I'm sure he'd be keen to take that information with him to his IVA. I'm quite happy for people to defend GBS's work in terms of it's IVA worthiness but for the benefit of current or potential owners it would be better if critical safety issues like this can be substantiated with documentary evidence.