|
|
 Author |
 A few questions (currently 4,522 views) |
| admin |
| Posted on: September 11th, 2014, 09:54:59 |
  |
|
 Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,377
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| That's 7532. Owner has been a club member. Don't know current status. |
|
|
|
  |
Reply: 105 - 113 |
|
 |
| Alex_Rowbottom |
| Posted on: September 11th, 2014, 21:06:01 |
|
|
Minimum Member
Posts: 72
|
|
Right well I looked at another tonight and well it needed a lot of work it was good to say the least in my personal opinion. Where the front subframe mounts to the floor it seemed that the mounts had come through the floor or was starting to come through the floor. It had been repaired in multiple areas and was the best of repair jobs and the sill had cracked quiet badly on the drivers side, the best way to describe is that it seemed like it had been in a bump and been repaired badly, so I walked away so I'm still looking guys
Alex |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 106 - 113 |
|
|
| Stuart |
| Posted on: September 11th, 2014, 21:10:50 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Peak District
Posts: 284
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
“ |
Quoted from Alex_Rowbottom, posted September 11th, 2014, 21:06:01 at here |
” |
Right well I looked at another tonight and well it needed a lot of work it was good to say the least in my personal opinion. Where the front subframe mounts to the floor it seemed that the mounts had come through the floor or was starting to come through the floor. It had been repaired in multiple areas and was the best of repair jobs and the sill had cracked quiet badly on the drivers side, the best way to describe is that it seemed like it had been in a bump and been repaired badly, so I walked away so I'm still looking guys
Alex
|
|
do you mean wasn't twice, as in was not good. was not the best repair job. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 107 - 113 |
|
|
| Alex_Rowbottom |
| Posted on: September 11th, 2014, 21:13:15 |
|
|
Minimum Member
Posts: 72
|
|
| Yeah sorry wasn't a very good repair job |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 108 - 113 |
|
|
| Alex_Rowbottom |
| Posted on: September 15th, 2014, 23:40:36 |
|
|
Minimum Member
Posts: 72
|
|
Right another question guys
What are mini marcos' registered as on a logbook?
For example the make model and so on
Alex |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 109 - 113 |
|
|
| Simon Robinson |
| Posted on: September 16th, 2014, 10:57:13 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Northampton
Posts: 338
|
|
| Alex - it seems to vary depending on who filled in the original form. Mine is registered as make "Mini" and model "Marcos". |
D&H Mk IV 8313, KGV 215V (aka George) - 75,000 miles and counting since restoration in 2011. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 110 - 113 |
|
|
| admin |
| Posted on: September 17th, 2014, 07:30:59 |
|
|
Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,377
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| It's not just that. Quite a lot of them were built without telling the predecessors of the DVLA (council licensing departments), so they kept the original registration as Austin, Morris, BMC, Mini, etc. Where the conversion was declared they were registered either new or with the donor registration mark but as Marcos, Mini Marcos, Mini-Marcos, etc. The authorities use marque and make indiscriminately so although the forms all say "make" in practice D&H Mk.IVs tend to be registered as Mini Marcos and not D&H Fibreglass Techniques. However I did have a Jem registered as a Fellpoint. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 111 - 113 |
|
|
| Jeremy Harrison |
| Posted on: September 17th, 2014, 16:26:01 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 37
|
|
My Mini Jem V5C shows the Chassis number as RS.M2.1091 and the make is registered simply as a Jem.
|
Last modified September 17th, 2014, 18:11:22 by Jeremy Harrison |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 112 - 113 |
|
|
| mike brown |
| Posted on: October 3rd, 2014, 16:53:16 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Southampton
Posts: 419
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 113 - 113 |
|
|
|
Mini Marcos Forum > General Boards > Mini Marcos > A few questions
Logged