TooTallMike

I drove mine... and it cruises along at 65 to 70 mph no problem.

Not as an HGV it doesn't. 56 max.

- MG

Actually 'dual purpose vehicle' was to have been removed as a class this year. No idea if it has happened. (This is what all the Land Rover owners with incorrect weights in their V5s have been getting in a tizz about as they will be class 7 MoT instead of class 4 if over 3,000kg.)

- MG

The engine and the gear box are in good condition .

:-)

what is the number "g " of your truck ?

Bonjour,

Ward LaFrance = G116

5-6 ton Autocar U8144 van truck = G511

4-5 ton Autocar U7144T = G510

4-5 ton Federal 94x43 = G513

Cdlt - Mike

I've been a joint owner of several project vehicles in the past and I would not recommend it. It's a sure-fire way to test friendships to the limit. Priorities will always be different and inevitably one person will feel they are putting more time or money into it than others.

That said, three of us share ownership of our modern flatbed transporter, we track the expenditure and I believe the other two are happy with the way it's working out.

- MG

Hi Tony,

I did one two weeks ago in five minutes on my own.

I'd rebuilt the master cyl, replaced a brake line and opened up all the wheel cylinders so it was a more-or-less dry system. Used my preferred method of a simple pipe and non-return valve dropped into a pot. It makes it a one-man job although you can't always see the bubbles clearing in the pipe so it's better if you have a friend who can help.

Don't forget there could be a bleed point on the hydrovac/servo/booster depending on what has been installed. This should be bled before any of the wheels.

Regards - MG

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/American-military-Hercules-RXC-engine-Diamond-T-/370449066784?pt=UK_Cars_Parts_Vehicles_Other_Vehicle_Parts_Accessories_ET&hash=item56407c2b20#ht_500wt_919

which DT is this from?

Thanks Mike - That's the right base engine. I believe that to be the DT 969 version. The Autocar version has an updraft carb among other differences.

Sadly that one is already missing some of the parts I need so it's no good for me. Also I'd say it's about 5 times the price it should be considering his description!

Helpfully that photo confirms that the exhaust manifolds are the same so I'll add that to my 'wants' list as mine is badly damaged.

Cheers though - MG

Thanks guys.

The re-con one on Milweb is for a 980/1 so I believe it to be a bigger engine.

I'll try the other suggestions and let you know.

- MG

Interesting to note the speed limits for Locomotives towing multiple trailers.

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?21312-MAXIMUM-NUMBER-OF-TRAILERS-a-brief-guide

- MG

I may be stupid but I've no idea which dealer(s) to go to for Diamond T 969 Hercules engine parts. Specifically I need parts for the Hercules RXC fitted to the Autocar, but the engines are almost identical and most components are interchangeable.

I'm after a crankcase breather/filter unit, thermostat and some other odds and sods which have corroded beyond use.

Any suggestions appreciated.

- MG

Having trouble sleeping Jack! :yawn:

 

Not much use without then printing off the list of amendments as I linked to in my previous post. Something like 102 amendments to print off and insert into the relevant pages. That'll above double the size of the original document. :rotfl:

 

It'll also make reading and deciphering it's references to "except as noted in paragraphs 2 and 9 below" even more of a challenge. Good Luck!

Nonetheless this is what we have to do.

Many of us have been through these regulations numerous times when restoring old, unusual or foreign vehicles or preparing them for inspection or test. For example: when I restored the MUTT I had to research seat belt law, lighting law, braking etc.; When converting my late Series 1 Land Rover, Ward LaFrance and other vehicles' indicators to whites & reds I reserached lighting law. This is a necessary part of the hobby for those of us who want to drive unusual vehicles because you need to be able to defend what you are doing as being within the law. Unfortunately whether or not you agree with the law is not relevant - you must still comply with it. Please feel free to campaign to have it changed but in the interim we have what we have.

Someone earlier in the thread bemoaned the fact that all this discussion of rules and regs is preventing us from having fun. Well, the type of fun we have chosen as our hobby comes with responsibility. Hobbies such as gardening or stamp collecting do not have specific legal frameworks within which people must operate. Vehicle collectors do: the risk of transgressing these laws carries sanctions varying from fines, to points on your license, to revocation of license, to prison sentences. Given this context it seems wise to be fully informed so that you are doing everything you can to be correct.

- MG

I'd like to think that if you had filled in your V55/5 correctly having stated the actual, over 2.55M wide dimensions and the DVLA took your money and registered the vehicle, then they would be liable for the charge of causing and permitting in the event of you being prosecuted for illegal use.......:nut:

Absolutely agreed. Provided the correct information has been submitted there should be a case to answer.

- MG

Obviously driving a Challenger II would be out of the question, but a CVRT???

Why is it 'obvious' that a Challenger should not be registered? Most of the posts here seem to suggest there should be an exemption from C&U for overwidth hobby vehicles so why stop at permitting only the larger CVRTs?

People are straying from the two important points here:

1) Xtreme believes his vehicle is compliant with C&U. DVLA/VOSA have taken advice and disagree. The only way solution is to have it inspected by the relevant authorities. Their decision will be based on the freely available rules and regulations. If the owner disagrees with their findings he has the right to appeal.

2) DVLA have suggested that ex-military tracked vehicles should no longer be registered. This is the important point which must be addressed. As far as I know there is no legal standing for this point of view. Provided a vehicle can be registered within the existing legal framework they have no grounds for refusal. Please do not speculate about possible terrorist threats being the motivating factor - it is not for DVLA to decide Home Office policy. (Of course if this were found to have come from the Home Office that would be a different matter but there is no suggestion this is the case.) Remember once a civilian purchases an ex-military vehicle it becomes a civilian vehicle. Ok, so in the case of a CVRT it's a fairly big, heavy, civilian vehicle but nowhere on the logbook or any of the associated paperwork is it described as military or ex-military. There is no distinction in law between a civilian-owned CVRT and a road-going tracked dozer of similar dimensions.

- MG

...they have registered all manner of things in the past (including lots of 432's with linked braking and steering and more than 2.55M wide). I think this may become more of an issue with the number of 432s and other vehicles coming out. It may be that in the past there were too few vehicles being registered for them to worry about but...

More likely in the past people self-declared vehicles such as 432s as compliant for road use but DVLA/VOSA did not check whether this was actually valid. Now they are checking. It does not mean those vehicles were registered legally - the width rule has been in the regulations for a long time.

With regard to the MoD letter about C&U - the MoD's perspective is that their vehicles are not specifically designed to meet C&U. In other words MoD simply don't have to concern themselves with whether they are compliant or not. This does not mean that they cannot be modified to meet the regs and once they do it should be possible to register them as the criteria to be met are there in black and white.

- MG

mike, can you explain your last sentance a bit more ?

Hi Griff, it made sense last night:blush:! My point was to be that the thread was going off on a tangent regarding test exemption, but I do not believe this to be relevant to a discussion about the LEZ since it is not a criterion for exemption.

Members of HMVF are predominantly interested in vehicles as items of historical value to display at shows and enjoy driving in a non-commercial context. Therefore we must consider the types of vehicles which are exempted:

- Anything petrol is exempt.

- Anything diesel under 1.205 tonnes is exempt.

- Anything registered Historic (pre-1973) is exempt.

- Anything in the following list of exempt vehicle types is exempt.

Vehicles designed and built for mainly off-road use, but which may be used on the road for limited purposes, including:

- Agricultural and forestry tractors

- Mowing machines

- Agricultural and farm machinery and equipment

- Mobile cranes

- Road and building construction machinery Historic vehicles (built before 1 January 1973)

Military vehicles [when in crown use]

Almost anything diesel powered, over 1.205 tonnes, post-1963 and correctly registered is condemned.

RB44 sadly appears to meet all of these criteria.

On a tangent of my own: collectors of historic vehicles are unfortunately becoming caught up in these bits of legislation because of the lack of a rolling 25-year historic vehicle class. Currently a vehicle must be over 37 years old to qualify. It is probably safe to say that the vast majority of collector's vehicles are over 25 years old; in complement to this, the vast majority of 25 year old vehicles are owned by collectors and are thus not used on a daily basis (except by a few masochists) nor are they used commercially. I would suggest that there are a number of vehicle taxation-related problems and loopholes which could be addressed by reverting to a rolling 25-year Historic class, including that of the LEZ affecting collectors' vehicles.

- MG

Why, I can't find anything to say MOT exempt vehicles are exempt from the LEZ??

This was a suggested approach by TfL at one point during the consultation but it was easier (cheaper) to use DVLA's records. Many of the LEZ exempt categories are also test exempt so they have embraced the principle.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this as the only test exempted vehicles of real value to this hobby are those manufactured before 1960 and over 3.5 tonnes, so not an RB44?

- MG

Been talking to someone very much in the know. Who said that TFL draw all there data from DVLA and go by what is on there records.

Correct, but it's no secret. During the initial consultation process TfL effectively stated that it would cost too much money to have the LEZ system connected live to DVLA. Instead they would purchase or lease or whatever the records that were relevant for enforcement. If DVLA records are wrong you are declared non-compliant and it is DVLA you have to take it up with, not TfL. This has caused a recent rash of people with station wagon 90 and 110 Land Rovers applying to have their V5s corrected from 'light 4x4 utility' to 'estate' as they should be.

With regard to the registration checker, I believe the TfL responses should be interpreted as follows:

'Compliant' - vehicle is subject to the LEZ and meets the requirements.

'Non-compliant' - vehicle is subject to the LEZ but does not meet the requirements e.g. built before the cut-off date.

'Not subject to LEZ' - vehicle is in a taxation class where the LEZ would otherwise apply but it is of a category or class where the LEZ does not apply e.g. it is petrol-powered, under the weight etc.

'Exempt from LEZ' - vehicle is registered with DVLA in an exempt category e.g. Historic.

The LEZ is applied firstly by taxation class, then fuel type, then body type. The reason the Disco with windows will be ok but the Disco Commercial will not is that the first will have body type 'Estate' on its V5, the other will say 'Light 4x4 utility'. This second class has been determined to be a body type largely used by commercial operators and thus it will fall under the scope of the second phase of the LEZ.

We were very fortunate to receive the concession for Historic vehicles following lobbying by a few people representing our hobby in the FBHVC and HCVS so for what it's worth I'd suggest that rather than trying to find loopholes in the legislation, people would be better off buying a vehicle legitimately registered as Historic. Alternatively buy something with a petrol engine.

A further long-term practical approach would be to lobby the government for a return to the rolling 25 year Historic vehicle RFL exemption.

- MG

Just to be clear, this is not 'new' ruling on width. It's just that it's now being enforced more rigorously when people are trying to register previously un-registered vehicles. This is as a result of a certain recent case which raised DFT's attention to this existing piece of legislation on maximum vehicle widths under C&U.

- MG

Freed off all the stuck valves. A couple needed a hard tap on the top to free off and one had to be levered up with a tyre iron!

Now they are all free the engine rotates which is great news.

Photos of valve as Adrian describes.

Revised plan is to remove the engine and all loose parts so the chassis can be blasted. Then the engine can be rebuilt back into the painted chassis.

- MG

No drawback - the logical conclusion is that once you have re-registered your Ford Escort as a road roller, you can then use it to take the G licence...

- MG

Underside of engine shows no cause for concern but still no rotation.

This evening I made a valve spring compressor. It worked a treat in removing the first of the valves. It required a gentle tap to release from the seat so maybe the sum of all the stuck valves is the problem.

Took the top off the gearbox and was pleased to find it looking as good as new. This is impressive considering the truck is believed to have sat in the same position for over twenty-five years before I acquired it.

The engine is now almost fully stripped of ancillaries, It still won't rotate although I have successfully drained diesel through all of the bores. The next big job is to remove the sump and see what's going on in there.

- MG

For all your 4BT information requirements see www.4btswaps.com !

- MG

If it's an auto gearbox with a cable operated change the selector can go anywhere the cable will reach. On some manual boxes with remote-operation linkage the top of the box has a reversed gear layout as the linkages terminate in a class one lever with the gear knob on top. You could plonk a stick straight on top of the bit poking out of the 'box, but if you're worried about a driver's reaction in a panic situation this may not be the best approach...

- MG

I followed the earlier assumption that they had an SAE flywheel housing. If not, it must be smaller than SAE 1 (13" clutch) as any larger American engine of that period would presumably have been standardised on SAE 1/2/3. It's very likely to be some sort of standard design so would the 'box from a more modern pickup fit? eg. Chevy Blazer etc. You'd have to do some calcs on engine speed vs. output speed. Also beware of overloading the 'box although most have remote oil collers which would address this.

- MG