Lotus Elan and Lotus Elan Plus 2 Forums

Might be interesting if the pop.up didn't cover half the screen!!!

• Chassis (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a
  substantial change) or Monocoque bodyshell including any sub-frames
  (replacements of the same pattern as the original are not considered a substantial
  change);

Does a Spyder chassis on a Plus 2 constitute a substantial change, or is it the "same pattern"?

Don't ask!
Probably not the sort of thing anyone new to an Elan would notice!

its the same pattern as all the connections/mounts/brakets/offsets/overall dims etc are in the same place.....
its just got some 'aero' holes in it!!!!
lol

Of course we all know that the chassis is merely a subframe, so we never declare a new chassis.
I wouldn't like to second guess DVLA on change from stressed skin to space frame so I wouldn't raise the issue.
Going for tax free is obviously what you want and I see no harm in getting a cheap MoT for peace of mind.
I'm sure my regular guy will offer a discount on a car that will only take him 10 minutes to check.

I thought tax exemption (well, "zero rated" would be a better way of putting it, you still need to tax the car, it's just free of charge) was automatic ( > 40 years old as of Jan 1st in the year of applying for tax).

MOT exemption is a matter of convenience for me.

MarkDa wrote:Might be interesting if the pop.up didn't cover half the screen!!!

What popup?

Gone now-couldn't shift it this morning though

Zero VED is based on uear of construction however some 'bitsa' cars have achieved an historic plate and there's going discussions about their 'age'
Bugattis are a case in point-lots of money at risk there.

I always thought the Spyder replacement was legal because suspension pickup points were in same place. It just happens to have additional pickup points too..

A quick read says to me no different. And im fairly sure no one would question a sierra dif, ford hub conversion. Mainly because i wouldnt tell them.

Also it looks like engine replaced with a similar style, 4 pot, zetec, is perfectly within rules ( great for turbo charging too)

Looks like ill be keeping both of mine now.

I'm not sure it's a matter of 'legality' after all you can do almost anything you like with a car and the test is safety as judged by MoT.
I'm all for not pointing things out that are not obvious, however as far as I know zetec engines were introduced in 1991 so there's a few years to go before one will meet the 30 year rule and as it's not a twin cam an owner would have a job saying he thought it was original.
It's a stretch to say that it's the same basic engine or alternative original engine. Also they don't even come in within 10 years of end of Elan production.
Arguably the new engine should have been declared on V5 when installed so a trail may exist.
All to their own of course but we don't want to abuse the self certification do we?