rebuild 'contract'

I've spent some time trying to source a 'new' classic and decided that all those available are of too low a standard for what I'm after, so I'm commissioning someone to build me one from scratch. Been to see the chap and viewed a chassis/bulkhead that will eventually become my car and am very happy with the standard of it and have agreed a rough indication of price for completed vehicle. This is a guy I've known and dealt with for more than ten years on smaller works and who I have complete faith in, but 'quality' is a subjective term, so are there any pointers that have been successfully used in the past to cover this scenario? Its not going to be a cheap project (five figures) so I just want to be sure we're both singing from the same sheet, so to speak! Any advice much appreciated

Reply to
nully
Loading thread data ...

Apart from the fact that it will take twice as long and cost three times as much as estimated, more info needed for a sensible reply. What is the chassis/bulkhead from? Are we talking ash frame or all metal?

A couple of "new" classics have impressed me - the Suffolk SS100, an inch-perfect replica based on more modern Jaguar oily bits, and Le Riche, a delightful Austin Swallow replica built in Jersey. Two very different cars, but I'd be happy to own either. Or both.

Frankly, I'd be extremely wary of giving a build-from-scratch job to someone who hasn't done it before. Of course there are obvious indicators of quality such as material used, panel fit and so on, but if you are talking about an entirely new car, who is going to design the coachwork? Or are you copying something? Then there's minor matters such as suspension, steering and so on....

Don't wish to be a wet blanket, but if you really are starting with just a chassis and bulkhead, adding engine, gearbox, back axle, suspension, electrics, coachwork, interior trim and the many other bits you will find you need, to end up with something that looks good, goes well and handles properly I seriously doubt if it can be done for "five figures". Think six.

Geoff MacK

Reply to
Geoff Mackenzie

The message from "nully" contains these words:

You don't say what it is. Chassis/bulkhead might point to an early Land Rover but the price doesn't.

On the same sort of subject anyone know where I could get a Lotus Elan Sprint rebuilt for less that the price of a road going example. I am never going to find the inclination to complete it myself now and I wouldn't want to see it broken for spares.

Reply to
Roger

Sorry, shouldn't have been so elusive in previous post. I'm not talking about anything so exotic, just a vanilla Morris Traveller. The chassis/bulkhead has been rescued from a scrap car and rebuilt, and I'm happy with whats been done so far. I'm commissioning someone to build the car from there with new panels and timber frame.

Reply to
nully

As it is a monocoque construction, it has no chassis. I'd be very wary=20 of doing that from scratch especially as aftermarket panels are=20 notorious for s**te alignment which you can work around if you're=20 replacing like for like but you have no idea how far out it is when=20 you've not got the original to go from. Some of these panels are WAY=20 out.=20

There are some really nice cars out there but TBH I don't think that=20 people part with the best ones unless they really need the money.

But personally at the end of the day, its not a path I'd go down for a=20 Morris Minor. I reckon you'll end up with a car that cost you =A310,000+=20 and is as bent as a 13 bob note.

--=20 Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't=20 looking good either. - Scott Adams

Reply to
Conor

As it is a monocoque construction, it has no chassis.

Not true. All MM's have a common floorpan/chassis, inc convertibles and travellers. The main thing at this stage is whether the OP's floorpan/chassis is straight and has been rebuilt to the correct dimensions. If it were mine I'd be checking it very carefully. Any errors could make all the difference to the fit of the body panels. Mike.

Reply to
Mike G

Not quite all ... the vans have a "real" chassis at the back!

Ian

Reply to
Ian

You're right of course. I was thinking cars, travellers, and convertibles. Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris Minors were built as monocoque vehicles. Mike.

Reply to
Mike G

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" saying something like:

All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a figment of my fevered imagination then. They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel legs which are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded to the side and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other modern car which has a monocoque construction.

Reply to
Grimly Curmudgeon

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message news:g6nkb9$s03$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org...

Not quite. Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on it's bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque design. Of course a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but the body is not an integral part of it's design strength.

A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon. I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without having to add stiffening to the floorpan. Mike.

Reply to
Mike G

Some would reach the opposite conclusion about saloons, tourers, convertibles, and travellers.

Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" correctly.

Hmmm. So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts (only) on the convertibles serve? Or the stiffeners at the foor of the B-posts? Or the extra channels in the sills?

I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion than Mike G's.

Reply to
Kevin Poole

Especially not that many times...

Reply to
Dean Dark

I always thought the Traveller had "a chassis of sorts", but only in the same way as the van/pickup models. I'm aware of the strengthening on the convertibles though. Not that this means anything, plenty of body-on-frame cars need body strengthening or chassis mods when you take the roof off!

Richard

Reply to
Richard Kilpatrick

Of course. Every car has some sort of floor pan that could just about stand alone. US cars used to have a perimeter frame that perhaps made the actual floor pan stronger - but all the variations are simply shades of grey.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Not a spelling mistake. A typo. I do know the difference between 'its' and the abreviation of 'it is'.

They merely stop the body sides from flexing. They don't contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the chassis.

I'm not aware of any extra channels in the convertible

Accepted by whom? I don't think you'll find it's accepted within the MM Owners Club. Note the correct use of it's.:-) Mike.

Reply to
Mike G

Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...

Reply to
Dean Dark

I've got a keyboard where I have to hit the "T" harder than the others or it gets missed. That sort of omission is easy to spot with a spell checker. But a missing apostrophe wouldn't be flagged, so I am prepared to believe it is a typo.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Warren

I have some prime real estate in Florida that I'd like to sell to you.

Reply to
Dean Dark

OK, provided I can pay you in £18 notes :-)

Jim

Reply to
Jim Warren

TBH, thoughtlessness or carelessness as well. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you hadn't, I'd probably have continued making the same mistake. I'll make a mental note to use the apostrophe correctly in future. Mike.

Reply to
Mike G

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.