john fox

:red: the dangers of working only from personal experience, one forgets there are other types of Ferret out there as well with older fittings :blush:

there is not enough clearance to remove the seat while the rails are in place so I assume you mean after you have unbolted the entire seat and rails from the vehicle?

Matt I had mine machined years ago and yes it did put the exhaust out of alignment, but only in so much as it meant the 2 expansion pipes were at a slight angle. This was enough however to mean the pipes have never reseated as an air tight seal - but then we all know that these pipes leak like buxxer and anyway a significant contributor to the leak, is the amount of wear on the pipe flanges and/or inside the elbow castings themselves. So you might find yourself in the same camp as me ie. you have moved the blow from the manifold to the expansion pipes! There are many and varied suggestions for sealing those pipes, few appear to work other than using the correct bore of flexible exhaust pipe or reforming the pipe flanges by brazing on new metal and machining that also

VOSA do not have a category for MV in civilian ownership, as all MV still in service are exempt by virtue of being in service, so it is not necessary to have a category for them as civilian ownership was never considered, so as a compromise solution they class Ferret as a motor tractor, which is a form of HGV. It must go the "HGV route" becuase only a VOSA test station can legitimately test vehicles of such weight, a class 4 (<3000kg) or class 7 (weight between 3000 - 3500 kg) MOT certificate is invalid as the incorrect test has been performed since Ferret weighs >3500 and must have a HGV test or HGV test exemption. A Stalwart on the other hand has more of a problem since it clearly is a goods carrier so cannot be a Section 185 vehicle, ie a locomotive,

correct - as I have already said, a ferret is a Motor Tractor and must go HGV route , it is invalid to have a Class 4 test, nor, with the possible exception of a MK1, can you have a Class 7 test. Remember because civilian regulations are being applied to MV (as they have nothing else to use), then strictly speaking a weighbridge ticket is irrelevant, the "correct" weight is that shown in the manual, and is thus the battleweight as this is the nearest equivalent to the gross vehicle mass, since the vehicle is obviously not physically plated - so not whatever your weighbridge ticket says. Saladin & Saracen are locomotives so also HGV - under the same constraints. BTW the dual purpose category is currently being abolished - this affects such things as a Landrover 101 and as that vehicle was uprated during serivice from approx 3100kg to 3600kg and their physical plates amended to show this. The 101 club forum has a thread running on what this means to 101 owners as some vehicles retain the original 3100 plate whereas others are now 3600 plates and potentially face HGV testing

correct - and I have been doing it that way (for those years when i didn't get a test done) since 1998. :-D

Thank you NOS. My comments below apply only to wheeled armoured (>3.5t) vehicles. My posting in #77 was based on my own interpretation of the current rules, I am expecting to be corrected. As we have previously discussed on the MOT thread itself, VOSA have never committed themselves in writing to a consistent definitive position. I asked them years ago about MOT exemption specifically in the context of my Mk1/2 Ferret, given it is of 1965 manufacture, and could not therefore claim the pre 60 age related exemption, but was, in every respect, identical to a pre 60 model. Would they advise on whether I must MOT it because I fell foul of an arbitrary 1960 cut off date or was there recognition that the same model of vehicle, of identical construction to a pre 60 one, was also exempt? Before Mr R Underwoord responded, I was asked to provide vehicle data and a photo and to confirm what it was – he asked if it was a Saladin or a Saracen! I confirmed it was a Ferret. The answer he gave has influenced me ever since: “we class ALL (my emphasis) such vehicles as your Ferret as Motor Tractors”. I took this to mean that a Ferret (of any age) is classed as a Motor Tractor and that “such vehicles” included (albeit under the loco class) Saladin, Saracen and so by implication, my Fox. So I conclude that VOSA, having no category for ex military AFV, has applied the nearest suitable one, referred to in the consultation document para 2.2 as vehicles which “are essentially heavy goods vehicles – but which have either no or very limited capacity to carry demountable goods”- ie Section 185 vehicles) I would now like to point to the (revised) V112G exemption form we all sign. Whilst not a legal expert, I think the wording of the claim form supports my interpretation. The V112g form allows a post 60 Ferret owner to claim option 4, but most pre 60 wheeled AFV, to my knowledge, claim option 3, citing para 30 on the schedule 2 list (“age exempt”). I think the latter is wrong because all wheeled AFV fall outside the scope of Schedule 2 (subject to correct registration so a revenue weight shown on the V5): is exempt from the provision of Section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 under the Goods Vehicle (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988. The vehicle falls into one of the following four categories:- • it is exempt under Regulation 44(1)(e) of the 1988 Regs because it is used on the public road by an Order made under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 * • it is used on certain off-shore islands or other specified areas which are exempted by Regulation 44(2)* of the 1988 Regs • it is a vehicle of a class listed in Schedule 2 (see over the page) which exempts it from the testing requirement, please state the number of the exemption claimed here. • it is outside the scope of Schedule 2, i.e. being a heavy/light locomotive or motor tractor within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but has an allocated revenue weight. Now the point I am making is that whilst VOSA may have given me an expedient answer in the manner I wanted at the time (ie yes here are grounds for you being exempt – you are a motor tractor) their letter effectively implied to me that all (wheeled) AFV are section 185 vehicles irrespective of age. Therefore, under the consultation process Annex D applies to any wheeled AFV as VOSA have (for lack of an alternative) categorised wheeled AFV as goods vehicles carrying fixed equipment and this is not a category recognised by the EC, hence the current problem. However, Annex D does itself recognise that there is ambiguity in that some Section 185 vehicles are included under the Schedule 2 exemption list, eg: it appears to use that argument to remove the display vehicle exemption whilst (I assume) leaving age exempt alone because the EC directive specifically allows for the existence of historic vehicles using the 1960 cutoff date - but we keep returning to the fact VOSA has never consistently confirmed classification of wheeled AFV. My thought may be wrong, but I think needs definitive confirmation – thus I would support the case for a specific category – also note that NOS’ contribution has not recognised that the historic definition has nothing to do with pre or post 73. The rules are the MOT rules re pre or post 60, not the taxation class rules relating to 73. So Fox is a 1970s vehicle yet, quoting consultation document para 4.2 bullet point 2, in no way can you describe a Fox, Ferret, Saladin, Saracen etc as “a (section 185) vehicle based on an HGV-style chassis and would therefore be regarded as a goods vehicle” so is there a case for (heavy) wheeled AFVs being exempt (see next point) and at the very least classified as a consistent specific category (ie. Section 185 vehicle irrespective of age). You won’t like this but I have to say that, in principle, I agree with the fundamental conclusions of bullet points 3 & 4 of para 4.7, that overall road safety is improved if all vehicles have to be tested (hence I have voluntarily had mine MOT’ed in the past and will do so again). Therefore, and also recognising the fact that all (post war?) British AFV were built in accordance with the basic C&U regulations applicable at the time of manufacture, is there a case for also saying that a wheeled AFV category of vehicles should be subject to a simplified road safety test which specifically acknowledges realistic emissions and brake performance expectations as if you failed on the rest of the MOT regs it would be an unconscionable position. In setting up an appropriate test regime it would recognise that a wheeled AFV is not part of the, as quoted in last para of Annex D, “vast majority of vehicles classified as locomotives which are in fact just ordinary goods vehicles”. I agree with the consultation document’s argument regarding the consequences of a crash involving a (normal) untested HGV – so perish the thought of an untested AFV crash - irrespective of how well you say you maintain yours, since I have met Ferret owners who show very little knowledge of their own vehicle mechanics, so how can they are safe?

:-D how is the rest of the vehicle configured and what period in its life are you portraying ? GPMG with DBG paint won't do, similarly 303 Bren is dodgy with Nato 2 tone camo. Are you Clansman or Larkspur and lastly, as Mike says, do you feel rich. Yes I am a rivet counter and pay for it :-D

third para of my post #77,

as per Mike's response, the examiner (an ex REME mech in my case) made me do the drive by several times as he considered I was not going fast enough - becuase he knew how much inertia a Ferret has once you come off the gas, he required me to do it at 20mph, and spotted I was not that fast initally - it seems a short yard from a standing start in a Ferret! examiner does of course have to sit in the drivers seat at some point to confirm operation of the instrument tell tales but the next time I had it done all they did was sit outside and look in while I turned them on positioning the tapley took care because it should be level and secure but he did not want it on the floor of the vehicle becuase that was too low and would give a poor reading, conversley putting it on the turret top was too high - its works by measuring angular motion so position in relation to vehicle CoG matters. Compromise was to secure it on the wing but this was quite a work of art first time, I took small ratchet straps with me second time.

my Fox (as per Lee's post) and a 1965 Ferret (as per griff's post - incidentally my 1959 Ferret is identical but, inconsistently, will continue to be exempt) as regards actual testing, then speaking from experience of having my Ferret (voluntarily) tested at a VOSA HGV test station: - you are expected to drive it, not the examiner, - securing the tapley meter to the vehicle takes planning, the examiner will not ride in the vehicle - emissions is based on age, so visual inspection only - they are not expected to dismantle to inspect, so, if the line's covering is OEM then they can't see it - lights etc were not an issue (they were amazed it had the hazard warning circiut)

Every member state has the right to impose local (country) regulations that are in addition to the (minimum) EC standards - provided that such regulations are not so onerous that they impede with free trade and would prevent a citizen from another member state competing with a UK national in the UK market. Therefore we can have annual testing and France can have biennial testing. Incidentally, the whole subject of a move to 2 year testing was the subject of a similar consultation exercise here in the Uk - in reality it was rejected on the grounds it would lead to a massive loss of jobs from all those garages and mechanics dependant on the annual testing market (ie repairing the failures)

is there an explanation as to why my recent posts have each line wrapped so that they only occupy half the page. I can't see anything about word wrapping in "my settings"? .

in addition to antarmikes clarification regarding definitions of vehicle classes, I would like to add that anyone owning wheeled armour >3,500kg weight will be afffected by this, as the correct classificiation of such vehciles is as motor tractor, light or heavy locomotive. As has already been stated the document as it stands does not acknowledge the existence of such vehicles and so does not categorically address them. Yes, the document refers to HGV based motor tractors etc, so you could argue that, as these military AFVs are not HGV based, then they continue to be an MOT exemption, as the document alludes to the fact that the removal of exemption for those 3 classes will apply only to HGV based vehicles. However, would it not be much better to have this out once and for all, and to get an unambiguous statement included in the definition which accepts the existence of AFVs in private hands and defines whether they are, or are not, MOT exempt without reference to age. For example, there have been several posts on here regarding whether a 1965 Ferret is exempt. I, along with other owners, have an email from VOSA saying they regard "these" vehicles as Motor Tractors and therefore the exemption is in that class, but I would much rather that a definitive statement is made

you need the generic B60 engine manual rather than a Ferret manual

one of the Americans just did this - apparently a vehicle cannot be road registered if it does not have a windscreen and at least a hand operated wiper! (It's safety perspex) Personally I would prefer to see a clip to allow the hatch locks to engage and positively hoid it in place.

oops read the post from Ferretfixer. This is a VERY BAD idea due to exhaust gas leaks

there are any number of variations you can do. If you have the original screen then simply removing the rubber edge seal from that and fitting it to be bit of perspex cut to fit the hatch opening works well. A couple of bent strips of metal bolted to the screen and you can secure it in place using the drivers hatch turn locks as well. Obviously the better the quality of the perspex the safer you are in case of debris impacts. (Of course most glass suppliers could do the same for you in flat windscreen quality glass which would last longer and be more scratch resistant) I used to do this, especially on the motorway, because the reduction in wind chill is tremendous. However, as I drive on my own normally then I do prefer the head in the clouds so I can look out at junctions - side vision ports are OK but you still get blind spots on sweeping approaches to (fast) roundabouts etc

I too thought that the MOT requirements were related to age, certainly when I have had voluntary MOTs done on the Ferret then emissions etc was a visual check only, because that was what was relevant to its age. Or is that only Class 7 rules? I can't comment on LGV but reading the bit that affects me, my take on it seems to be that Ferret , Fox Saladin and the other 6 wheeler post 1960's will fall under the change to the rules regarding Motor Tractor, and Locomotive definitions. In that section it states the changes will apply to HGV derived chassis, so a chink there, as you can hardly describe these vehicles as HGV derived. So I think they need to be made aware of the existence of such vehicles. I will be using that in my response, although I have to say that I have always found it unsatisfactory that the same vehicle can be either a pre 1960 or a Motor Tractor as needs be when it comes to which MOT exemption you claim. Therefore if this consultation leads to VOSA acknowledging the existence of MV and producing a definitive ruling, then that would be good for everyone (as we have discussed on the MOT thread). Even if it does mean you have to pay an MOT - as witnessed in a minority of for sales ads from people who "know" it is exempt but cannot explain why :mad:

£260 from Withams auction for a J60 is £300+ cheaper than it would cost to buy a civi engine from a dealer, so its all down to cost and second hand engine values, an ex MV engine should :rolleyes: be a better bet than a clapped out civi one from a scrapper. That said, the answers here have decided him against the idea, pity coz I was gonna get the MV ancillaries from it gratis :-D

don't know about 07 but how frustratingly close! John and 00EC25

answer: a) you can't, if Bovy don'y have the cards they don't exist anymore :cry:; or b) what is the frist line on your card, DIS does not mean date in use, it might have spent years in a vehicle depot before issue, for example, some Landrover 101 have a DIS which pre dates the actual factory recorded production run and would suggest the mil reg was issued when the contract was placed and the number assigned to a unit in the production run with the DIS commencing then and the vehicle physically being issued at a later date

A friend has asked if the J60 engine would be useful as a spare for his civilian Mk2 Jag. Can someone kindly give a basic idea of what would be needed to use the J60 in a normal car instead of the civilian 4.2L engine. Obviously the carb and all other ancillaries are irrelevant. - Is the bore stroke different (he thinks a J60 is 4.5L)? - What is the J60 stud pattern - he thinks there are 2 versions of Jag engine with the later one having "long" cyl head studs that penetrate the water jacket to get to the block and obviously therefore have corrosion issues? - Does the detuning of the J60 for military purposes mean the pistions etc are all different so that the only really useable bits left from the J60 would be the head and the block itself?

this may help - 353 and 352 set up BTW - if you fit a 351 or 352 then you should also fit a DCCU charger for the radio battery rather than the hand charger. The location of the DCCU is variable - one manual has it attached to the right of radio on the side of the radio tray (as shown in Andy's picture), but at the cost of hampering access to vehicle battery box below, alternatively, another manual shows it instead of the No80 Grenade box (as pictured on mine), but no alternative location for the grenade box was specified

:coffee: